[That replies get squeezed into narrow columns at a certain level is really annoying.]
Re: Andy
I totally don’t see the connection between Jim Wallis and liberal Protestantism. He’s politically liberal, sure. And maybe his theology doesn’t fall into the “conservative evangelical Protestant” category (I’m not sure), but what about it is liberal Protestantism?
Yea, I got it :) (Shane’s publishing house has little, if nothing, to do with the simple way beyond publicity, which wasn’t really the point in the first place)
Did any of you read Jesus for President (even if Zondervan published it)? The book contains much that would offend Rupert Murdoch! I led a discussion of it last fall in the Adult Education class I taught at my church. The book is hardly imperfect. However, I thought the book was a very useful tool for encouraging laypeople who aren’t likely to read Yoder, Hauerwas, William Cavanaugh or even N.T. Wright to examine their political theologies more closely and critically.
I totally have better and longer dreds than he does. That can only mean that I am more radical than he is. Sweet.
Yeah, well dreadlocks aside anyone who doesn’t publish with Zondervan is more radical than Shane Claiborne.
[Comment removed by author]
Well, at least Brazos isn’t owned by Rupert Murdoch. Yet.
Is Zondervan really owned by Murdoch?
Zondervan is own by Harper Collins which is owned by News Corp which owned by Mudoch.
So yes indeed.
That’s unsettling, but good to know. I’m not sure I own anything that is owned by Zondervan, except maybe a Bible somewhere.
[Comment removed by author]
Agreed, sadly.
Can you illuminate that comment for me? I’m rather out of the loop on Jim Wallis. I have a vague notion of who Sojourners is; I get their e-mails.
Really? This sounds kind of like Craig Carter to me.
Hey now, lets not say things we can’t take back.
Wallis is just way to invested in the American project to be of any real help to Christians.
[Comment removed by author]
[That replies get squeezed into narrow columns at a certain level is really annoying.]
Re: Andy
I totally don’t see the connection between Jim Wallis and liberal Protestantism. He’s politically liberal, sure. And maybe his theology doesn’t fall into the “conservative evangelical Protestant” category (I’m not sure), but what about it is liberal Protestantism?
Oh man. And I thought the Simple Way was pretty awesome before it burned down.
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to insult Shane or the (late?) Simple Way community. Just having a bit of fun.
Yea, I got it :) (Shane’s publishing house has little, if nothing, to do with the simple way beyond publicity, which wasn’t really the point in the first place)
I can testify: Dan’s dreds are totally better.
Hey, if the Ben Myers is testifying, y’all better listen up!
And Zondervan isnt?
Did any of you read Jesus for President (even if Zondervan published it)? The book contains much that would offend Rupert Murdoch! I led a discussion of it last fall in the Adult Education class I taught at my church. The book is hardly imperfect. However, I thought the book was a very useful tool for encouraging laypeople who aren’t likely to read Yoder, Hauerwas, William Cavanaugh or even N.T. Wright to examine their political theologies more closely and critically.
[Comment removed by author]
And how do his dreads compare to yours, Andy? ;-)