• Michael Metts

    I believe I read or heard that Brian McLaren has something to do with the Matthew 25 Network that has been promoting Barack’s campaign with their, what Dobson would agreeably call, “fruitcake theology”.

  • Moz

    I *do not* support Obama, but they make a point. Republicans have a hard time playing the family values card when their candidate is divorced, and under McCain’s alleged circumstances. If being faithful to one’s wife is a qualification for leading a church, perhaps it is also a qualification for leading a country. If this is the case, Obama does have the upper hand and as much as I may dissagree with McLaren, he is right to point this out.

  • Paul

    Michael (in post #1):

    I don’t see anything anywhere in that website that would indicate “fruitcake theology.”

    I mean, I would rather that if they were bound and determined to commit social justice that they just go out and do it with their donations, rather than spending money running advertisements about how a presidential candidate will do it for them.

    But if Dobson can have his PAC without criticism from Christians, then the evangelical left should certainly be able to have one as well, with just as little criticism.

    All of that said, it’s a pretty stupid commercial. McLaren should go back to sticking his foot in his mouth in books instead of on TV or the interwebz.

  • Matt Svoboda

    hahaha… That video was funny. Brian McLaren has very little respect and credibility in Evangelicalism… And he continues to show why. I think everyone knew where he stood already, but it is nice for him to finally come out and take a public stand for SOMETHING! Of course, it is not theology because we all know his theological stand is to take no stand at all, but it nice to finally see him stand somewhere. Even though it is with the most liberal person to ever run for president. But don’t ask Obama to hard of questions either.. They might be ‘above his pay grade.’

  • Darius

    That’s true, Matt. I thought the point of McLaren was that there is NO truth, everybody is somewhat right (but never wrong). It would seem to be against his teaching to actually firmly support a candidate or political position.

  • Paul

    “Even though it is with the most liberal person to ever run for president.”





    All of the above would be construed as very liberal, if we’re going to use the American definition of liberal which is, “anywhere to the left of Ronald Reagan.”

    Not to mention every socialist and communist party candidate that’s ever run.

    And, save for the social issues (most of which weren’t in play in the 50’s), one could make a case for saying that Eisenhower was more liberal than Obama is.

    Read a history book, man. You can probably get a cheap one used from Amazon or something.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    I like what I read from another commenter on another blog thread:

    “Really, I just don’t get it.

    He has said that he wouldn’t want his daughters to be burdened by an unwanted pregnancy. In other words, he would endorse the killing of his own grandchild to honor the selfishness of his daughter?!? If he cannot look out for the interest of his own grandchild why would I expect that he cares one wit about my family.

    It is absurd.”


    Response to Pro-Obama Ad by “Matthew 25 Network”

    P.S. Thanks Denny for your steadfast servant-leader Christian witness in standing firm on the issue of unborn life.

  • Paul

    Matt, in #10 said: “Even though it is with the most liberal person to ever run for president.”



    FDR? (especially in his time)


    Heck! One could even make a case for saying that Eisenhower, save for the social causes, was more liberal than Obama. Remember, under Eisenhower, the top tax bracket was at 90%.

    Seriously, Matt, buy a history book.

  • Matt Svoboda


    It is quite obvious that on some issues Obama is the most liberal candidate to run for president. It’s funny that most of the people you named had almost no chance of winning the election. Mondale? Dukakis? Nader? I’m sorry I was talking about people who had a legitimate shot at winning. It is not debated at all that Obama has the worst voting record on abortion than any other candidate to run for president! What a great family man… Mothers killing their babies.


  • Paul



    Dukakis actually DID lead in the polls at some point in ’88.

    Mondale was still a major party candidate. Of course, Jesus himself could have run against Reagan in ’84, and plenty of Christians would have voted for Reagan instead.

    Not to mention, remember in 84 and 88, gay marriage wasn’t an issue. Neither was late term abortion, anti-infanticide bills or single payer health care. So, we have no idea how they would have addressed those issues. It’s pretty easy to assume however, that possibly Mondale and definitely Dukakis would have been pro-all of the above.

    And strangely, let’s not forget that no less an expert on right wing politics than Barry Goldwater considered gay marriage bans and the banning of gays from the military to be blatant overstepping of government boundaries by the end of his life.

    But on similar issues, we could make a decent case for saying that Eisenhower, LBJ and FDR (all sitting presidents, if you remember) were ALL more liberal than Obama.

    So, Matt, buy a history book, and quit talking about conservatives and liberals until you actually know of what you speak.

  • Nathan

    So, what is the argument here?

    It would seem that this post along with the other political post concerning Obama and McCain are going in circles. Obama is clearly pro-choice in every area on abortion and McCain is not. Obama is pro-gay or at least unwilling to constrain it and McCain ia not.

    But, your discussions on liberal vs. conservative ideaologies seem to return to these themes in one way or another.

    However, to say that Eisenhower was more liberal than Obama is revisionist history at best. Obama stands in the shadow of LBJ, who enacted the largest government funded social infrastructure of the century. Obama desires similar methods. He makes no apology for saying government has the answers to any and all of life’s ills.

    McCain’s social boil is illegal immigration. He can hide the boil, but sooner of later he will have to choose the American public or the illegals. Even though he couches arguments that he will end illegal immigration, there is nothing in his record to suggest it is true. And, this has huge “liberal” ramifications on welfare, education, health-care, etc.

    However, even with that Obama is in a different category of liberal ideology than any of the people you have previously listed.

  • Matt Svoboda


    I like how you missed the point of my entire post #11 because you focused in on one line that I possibly overstated. On the issue of abortion he is the most liberal candidate, but not on all issues. Happy? Your arrogant, condescending attitude is astounding coming from a professing believer. I’ll buy a history book and you can read the Bible… Deal?


  • Paul


    condescending? Who’s the one that a couple of weeks ago said that he always uses the word “liberal” as an insult?

    speck/log, my friend.

    And Nathan, in another case of McCain flip flopping, when he was just representing Arizona (Phoenix is a pretty heavily gay populated city), he was against gay marriage bans, and was one of the few Republicans that voted against the federal amendment to ban gay marriage. Now that he’s trying to win the presidency, he’s suddenly for gay marriage bans. And his stance on illegal immigration is now a huge flip flop as well, since his policy statement states a pretty heavy duty attempt to try to stop it. And, strangely enough, it almost mirrors Obama’s stance on the issue.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: in the end, BOTH candidates are incredibly scary in my mind.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Nathan: “However, to say that Eisenhower was more liberal than Obama is revisionist history at best.”

    Quite right Nathan. BTW, “Revisionist history at best” is a rather poor “best.” I shudder to think of the worst case, or even something worse than revisionist history.

  • Nathan

    Paul: While both these men have shown a propensity for flip-flopping on issues there is a marked difference.

    Obama’s flopping has only occurred since securing the nomination and he began pandering to the middle to attempt to get their vote. A vote he couldn’t have cared less about while in the State legislature or the Senate.

    McCain has flopped throughout his career so there is not as much (in my opinion) erroneous aspects to it.

    Furthermore, regardless of what you think of McCain, who in the Democratic party can you name who champions any pro-life, pro-family, non-socialistic agenda that is a primary player.

    The Republicans have faults, sadly many, but the Democrats sit at the feet of the Europeans and the International community to the demise of our sovereignty.

    So, a vote for Obama and full Democratic control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency is far more scary than McCain against a Democratic House and Senate.

  • Liberty or death

    People, we have another option:

    Vote Libertarian

    Ok, now that you’re back up off the floor from laughing, give their site a serious look just google it and consider it an option. Maybe next election people will wake up enough to look at other options than the democraps and republisists.

  • CH

    Here’s a thought…outside of Ron Paul and Bob Barr all the current Presidential candidates (current meaning McCain, Obama, and those who have dropped out, or in Hilary’s case, kind of dropped out 🙂 ) have wanted to grow government. By that criteria aren’t they ALL liberal? Are we not in a situation where we are being told to pick between a big liberal and a small liberal?

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Joshua: “Because at this point in the game, everyone is.”

    Yes, it does seem so. But if I recall correctly, emergers and LibProts were harshly castigating conservative evangelicals for expressing a voice in the public square.

    And yet here they are, doing the very thing that they accuse conservative evangelicals of doing. This is leftwing Pharasaic hypocrisy.

  • Jeff Bailey

    Wow…..now that we’re no longer sitting on the edge of our seats waiting to see who McLaren endorses, I guess the election is over. The huge emerger-vote will definitely tip the balance over to Obama.

    ALL RIGHT….I’m taking down the name of anyone who I heard laughing!!

  • Paul

    I’m not leaving the edge of my seat until I find out who Benny Hinn is endorsing.

    And TUAD, it’s not that the lefties were upset that conservatives were part of the religious process, it’s the fact that they claimed that they were talking for all of us, and that those of us on the left weren’t really Christian at all.

    If the shoe was on the other foot, you’d be upset too.

  • Matt Svoboda

    Pual and John,

    You are so wrong. The liberals just say that as an excuse because they know of their own hypocrisy. They know that they used to say Christians shouldnt be voicing their opinions in the public square, but now that they are they came up with a dumb excuse to cover their hypocrisy. It is pathetic that you don’t see that. In a few decades, if not sooner, people are going to look at this left-wing, postmodern Christianity the same way they view the Arians and the Erasmus crew. You Christians liberals aren’t postmodern, you are premodern. Only people who don’t know history are ignorant enough to think they are some new breed of Christianity.(Red Letter) They are nothing different then those who played word games before. It is all the same crap.


  • Paul


    1) Learn how to spell. The name is Paul. Four letters. Not hard.

    2) remember that whole thing about you complaining about a condescending attitude earlier? Yeah, you might want to look in the mirror.

    3) Quit lumping me in with the “progressive Christianity” crowd. You ever see me defend them or quote them? That’s right, you haven’t.

    4) When were you a political liberal that you heard our conversations or when they date back to? None of the Christians in my church (a theologically conservative yet politically liberal bunch we mennonites are) EVER talked about how the right shouldn’t occupy a place in the public square. We just felt, as we feel now, that the right shouldn’t be the only voice speaking for Christianity.

    So, please, do me the favor of not telling me what I thought.


  • John


    I think we struck and nerve with you bro! First off, I’m not sure who “the liberals” are. Are “the liberals” those who deny the deity and resurrection of Christ? Because if they are then I agree. Are the “liberals” people who are not southern Baptists? Because if they are then I would disagree. Are the “liberals” those who don’t vote for Republicans down the line? Because if they are then I would qualify that statement. Are we speaking “liberal” politically or theologically? Because I like to think I’m more “liberal” politically but much less so theologically. I don’t think “liberals” (whoever they may be) have ever said we shouldn’t be involved in the public square. I do think certain breeds of Christianity (which you would probably consider liberal, whom I mostly agree with) such as Greg Boyd and Stanley Hauerwas have said that, but not the “liberals” (whoever they are) as a whole.

    I don’t consider what I believe or how I think any type of new breed of Christianity. Nor do I consider postmodernism or the emerging church movement a “new breed.” However, I do think it’s different than the norm, and much needed in my opinion. I have no problem if you want to go be a pastor at a nice little southern Baptist church and have a southern baptist ecclesiology and preach against open theism, paedobaptism, or higher criticism the rest of your life while sharing a pot luck dinner after your sermon which your service revolves around, because this is some people’s niche and it’s good. But many people are crying out for something different, something more nuanced practically and theologically, and you should embrace this and not act like we’re just a bunch of premodern “liberals” who will eventually be enlightened to the truth like you are or slowly diminish over time.

    I’m voting for Obama, but it’s not because I consider myself a “liberal”, it’s because I think he would make a better leader of our country. I’m sick and tired of the moral majority and right-wing party having a loud bark and no bite. I’m sick of promises being made and not coming to pass. I’m sick of hearing all kinds of talk about life and seeing more and more death. I’m sick of seeing a quarantine and demonization of a group of people whom Christ died for and whom he would be having dinner with and ministering to (the homosexuals). This isn’t because I strive to be “liberal,” it’s because I want something different because I don’t think the “conservative agenda” has worked very well (in my opinion, Darius).

    I know you disagree with me, which is fine, but just don’t act like you have true, historical Christianity and I don’t since I view things differently than you do. We’re both ultimately for the same goal, and I think we should find our common bond in Christ and move forward from there, not treat the other parties or spectrums of thought like they’re Satan and heretical.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    “Pual and John,

    You are so wrong. The liberals just say that as an excuse because they know of their own hypocrisy. They know that they used to say Christians shouldnt be voicing their opinions in the public square, but now that they are they came up with a dumb excuse to cover their hypocrisy. It is pathetic that you don’t see that.”

    Amen Matt.

  • jb

    Obama will CERTAINLY raise taxes
    McCain MIGHT raise taxes

    Obama will CERTAINLY help legalize homosexual marriages
    McCain MIGHT help legalize those marriages

    Obama MIGHT persecute Bush/Cheney and Rove after the fact
    McCain WON’T persecute Bush/Cheney

    Obama will CERTAINLY grow government
    McCain will PROBABLY grow government

    Obama will CERTAINLY increase the national debt
    McCain will CERTAINLY increase the national debt

    Obama will CERTAINLY work for no limits to abortion
    McCain will PROBABLY maintain current limitations.
    ( Neither will reverse Roe v Wade )

    Obama will CERTAINLY work to shut down conservative talk radio
    McCain PROBABLY won’t work to shut down conservative talk radio

    Obama will CERTAINLY allow “hate speech” to be used against Biblical Orthodoxy
    McCain MIGHT allow “hate speech” to be used against Biblical Orthodoxy

    Obama will CERTAINLY pursue amnesty and benefits for illegal immigrants
    McCain will PROBABLY pursue amnesty and benefits for illegal immigrants

    Obama will CERTAINLY make small business more difficult
    McCain will PROBABLY make small business more difficult

    Obama will CERTAINLY withdraw troops from Iraq
    McCain will CERTAINLY withdraw troops from Iraq

    Obama will CERTAINLY make us wish for a return of Bush/Cheney
    McCain will CERTAINLY make us wish for a return of Bush/Cheney – grin

    Obama will NOT be the new and different politician
    McCain will NOT be the new and different politician

    NEITHER of them will save the country from itself.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    “I miss spell a word and the real sharp guys, Paul and John, have nothing intelligent to say so they dwell on the misspelled word.”

    Matt, you’ve simply discovered that there are some disturbing similarities between those two.

  • Paul

    Matt in #41,

    now I know you’re not even reading posts. That was one part of four, and you focus on that?

    Here, I’ll spell it out for you nicely, and maybe for once, you can try to talk to a liberal (insult) nicely for once…

    1) Obama is not the most liberal candidate to have ever run for office, save for his stance on abortion.

    1a) somewhere between 50-70% of republicans are pro-choice, so either a pro-choice stance on abortion is a moderates stance, or your favorite party is the second most liberal party to ever run a candidate for president.

    2) Insofar as liberal christians go, you have to make a distinction: christians who are liberal in their theology, and christians who are liberal in their politics. If you want to mock McLaren and Claiborne, tell you what, I’ll join you in the mocking. However, if you’re going to tell me that the Bretheren and the Mennonites have liberal orthodoxy because they believe that the way to live out the great commission is to show people Christ’s love instead of showing them a Chick tract, then you are indeed sir very ignorant of how your fellow Christians in this country operate, and I might suggest a church history book on top of that desperately needed US History book.

    2a) I will restate again, since you obviously didn’t read it last time: When were you a political liberal that you heard our conversations or when they date back to? None of the Christians in my church (a theologically conservative yet politically liberal bunch we mennonites are) EVER talked about how the right shouldn’t occupy a place in the public square. We just felt, as we feel now, that the right shouldn’t be the only voice speaking for Christianity.

    So, please read before you type, and really, really, please think before you type. While it’s funny to watch you feed TUAD material, both of you would do better to actually read and think before you again prove yourselves to be the hypocrites that you claim others to be and think before you again prove yourselves to be the condescending elitists that you claim others to be.

    I’d much rather that we hug it out and remember that we’re all professing Christians here, but that won’t happen, because I’m just a lowly liberal (insult).

  • Paul


    funny post. Not entirely true, though.

    How could either candidate “bring down” conservative talk radio? As awful as Rush or Michael Savage are, they follow FCC rules. As someone who works in radio, let me ease your mind: you’ve got nothing to be afraid of.

    You obviously haven’t read Obama’s policy statements re: illegal immigration.

    Also, remember that it’s the true liberal’s stance that there shouldn’t possibly be allowed to be illegal immigration because it undermines unions and minimum wages. I wish someone would be truly liberal about immigration for once.

    Anyone that wants a return of Bush Cheney either works for Tony Perkins or an oil company. Which one is it for you jb?

  • John

    Good choice for Obama. This certainly will get him the votes he was lacking. As long as he doesn’t mess it up, he will be the next president of the US.

  • Matt Svoboda

    I actually do think Biden was a good choice for Obama. I actually don’t know anyone who would be better.

    That being said, they do have some obstacles to overcome. Less than a year ago Biden said that Obama was just not ready to be the president of the United States. McCain’s crew is already all over it. Also, Obama keeps yelling CHANGE and then picks a guy who is a 6 term Senator. How does Biden help his plea for change?


  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    John writes: “TUAD, meet your average immature 8 year old punk kid.”

    John, I didn’t know you were that young.


  • Todd Pruitt

    I’m wondering if these threads are helpful. Is this the way we would be speaking to each other face-to-face? Would we be ashamed if an unbeliever were to read this? I am all in favor of spirited debate. But good debate should sharpen brothers and sisters in Christ not lead to deeper divides and bitter words.

    Just thinking…

  • Paul


    you’re absolutely right.

    Both sides of these debates need to take a breather and realize who they’re talking to.

    There are very few people who comment on here who almost never level an ad hominem attack at someone AND realize that liberal Christians are still, guess what, Christians.

    I threw out the plea to hug it out/put an olive branch out there/whatever, and got mocked by TUAD for it.

    So, Todd, I don’t think you could be any more right.

    Of course, those on the theological left need to quit thinking that the theological right is living in the dark ages.

    Of course, those on the theological right need to quit thinking that the theological left are all going to hell in a stretched out Toyota Prius limousine.

    Those on the political right need to realize that those on the left, especially those who would be around enough righties to hear all of the arguments (like, you know, the ones that belong to evangelical churches) have thought through their positions and come to them thoughtfully and prayerfully. At least most of the time, anyway.

    Those on the political left need to realize that those on the right really don’t hate the poor or the minorities of American and the world. At least most of the time, anyway.

    In other words, it’s okay for Darius and I to disagree. And frankly, from what I’ve seen, about the only things that we’re going to agree on are the fact that God is sovereign and that conservative theology is good theology.

    However, it’s not okay for us to wail on each other for our disagreements.

    And, Matt, it’s absolutely NOT okay to use the word “liberal” as an insult. Ever. Sorry.

  • Paul

    Matt in #51,

    Personally, these are the candidates that would have had me actually thinking about a vote for Obama:

    Jim Webb
    Bob Casey, Jr.
    any pro-life democrat (yes they do exist, thank you very much)

    Biden, on the other hand, is simply an interesting choice. I’ll be looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

  • Tom

    Anybody consider the fact that neither of these candidates are worthy of our votes or are worth violating our consciences? Maybe the kingdom of God and the American Empire shouldn’t be so tied together that is someone disagree’s with our voting habits, they are not considered Christian anymore.
    Maybe certain Christians have a consistent ethic of human life that extends beyond abortion to the life of adults made in God’s image, though they may be our nations enemies.

    Let’s stop acting like either of these guys is without their serious theological or ethical flaws. For my part, I don’t think I’ll vote for either of them. But let us not demonize those who disagree with us – McClaren or otherwise.

    Just some thoughts…

  • Dan

    I agree with Paul.
    I believe that we need to move together as believers and not allow the left/right debate to divide us. And that will mean that we won’t always agree with one another. I don’t always agree with my wife, but I still respect her and love her. A good example of this is Richard Land and Brian McLaren’s discussion on bloggingheads.
    Check it out!

  • John

    Matt (in #38)

    I’m perplexed by your reference to Erasmus. I honestly have never heard Erasmus condemned and certainly don’t consider him in the same league with Arius. What gives bro? Can you help me out a little here?

  • Matt Svoboda

    I re-read it and I see what you mean. I was only meaning to put them together because of their word games. Not because of heresy or anything like that. Erasmus does not belong on the same page as the Arians except when it comes to playing word games, as Erasmus did in the battle of Bible translation against William Tyndale. Erasmus and Thomas Moore is who I was specifically calling out when I said ‘Erasmus and crew.’

    Sorry for not clearly explaining what I meant. Erasmus did do some good and does not deserve to be casted out with groups like the Arians. But his and Moore’s dishonesty and word games to try and prevent the Bible to be translated into common language should be exposed.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.