I enjoyed the discussion between these men. I've long been an admirer of Chuck Colson on many levels. His commitment to faith in Christ, his remarkable ability to articulate that worldview through various media, and his witnessing among 'the least of these,' particularly in prisons worldwide.

I think the discussion highlighted the differences in age and life experiences, but I don't think it characterized typical generational differences in viewpoint. Respectfully, I found some of Mr. Boyd's and Mr. Claiborne's views somewhat naive (particularly towards war), but I did enjoy listening to them.

It was a very interesting show; I hope there will be more of the same!

I am deeply indebted to you for putting together the show involving Chuck, Gary and Shane! It was a watershed moment for us. In Shane, I found a voice for many of the thoughts and feelings I'd been experiencing over the last few years but couldn't find anyone who elucidated them and validated him like he does. After doing some research on Shane, buying some of his books and learning about the communities he's involved with, it has provided me with spiritual renewal and fresh resources I can use to try to live the most Christ-like life I can. My wife feels much the same way, too. In your own way, through YOUR "radio ministry", you have effected our lives very deeply and very positively.

This was a very timely discussion and also one of the MOST refreshingly intelligent and thorough one (given the limited time). I LOVE this program for its intelligence and truthfulness and this particular discussion, because I'm so passionate about it, was the most powerful one.

The fact that the final closing thoughts were all in agreement speaks volumes about the genuineness of their passionate pursuit and mutual respect as believers who follow the same God and try to model their lives after the same Jesus. Their diversity and sometimes convergence in their views and means were a testament to not only the real diversity in political thought of Evangelicals but also the NEED to be, in order to make real impact on a very complex world (I'm glad I watched the video rather than just the audio podcast).

When it comes to practical theology, I believe we have to cover the whole spectrum from left to right as long as we are coming from and going toward the same place—the essentials of Christian faith.

Today I listened for the first time to this discussion, online, and it was excellent!

However, I was disappointed that no one sought clarification from Chuck Colson, when he said that abortion was one of his top concerns, and then later said he would not vote for someone who favored killing in any way. Well, then, almost ALL of candidates who are ANTI-abortion, are also PRO-death penalty, and also PRO-war. He would end up voting for NO ONE, then. But I wished someone had asked him if that is actually the case. I suspect he would end up voting for an anti-abortion candidate, and ignoring their pro-death penalty stance.

After listening to this interesting discussion I am afraid that as a gay man I take no comfort in any supposed growth evolving in the Evangelical Community. The acceptance offered me by any of the panelists is patronizing at best. It goes something like, "oh we love you, but you still have to change".

I really like listening to Shane Claiborne. He embodies just about everything I understand and believe about Christianity. He says "if that kid (the one who experiences same sex attraction) can't find a home in the church, who have we become?" What he does not say is how the church should relate to the kid — as an unrepentant sinner (and by nature defective in God's eyes) or as another patch on the cloak of life. He does not say to that kid, "God did not make a mistake, he made you just the way you are and that is fine." Any statement short of that is dehumanizing.

In the literal interpretation of Pastor Colson and his contemporaries, the next step is the ultimate in dehumanization: death to those who won't change. (Lev 20:13)

When I hear the phrase Evangelical Christian, I still react like the rabbit or deer to the sound of a twig snapping under the boot of the hunter.

For me the Evangelical movement is still just as dangerous, and just as deadly.

So a little honesty in advertising is in order. If I must change my sexual orientation to gain your acceptance, say so up front so that I may know you for who you are really are and what you really believe.

This show was excellent. It helped me to frame my feelings, allowing me to form a definitive statement of belief.

When a Christian (or anyone else) determines who or what to vote for based on their beliefs, they are participating in our democratic republic. I think the question before us is whether "The" Evangelical Church should seek to dominate the Republic to impose a set of beliefs.

I believe that Jesus on earth could have called down the legions of heaven and established a kingdom and imposed laws of behavior to reflect his teachings. But, he didn't.

Jesus' goal was not to "rule" in the traditional sense. Jesus and the early generations of his followers were effective in expanding the faith one convert at a time, in spite of laws and governmental opposition.

Eventually, followers of the Christ did reach positions where they could influence political power, abuse soon followed.

Jesus set the direction, we can do no better ourselves. Live individual lives consistent with our faith, spread the Gospel and don't seek to IMPOSE our beliefs on those who don't believe as we do.

We cannot practice love through legislation and mandate.

Before moving from Minnesota to Coloarado, I had heard Greg Boyd's position on politics and religion many times and tended to agree with his position. As I listened I was convinced that Chuck Colson's heart is in the right place but that his head is not following suit. I cannot understand how the politically conservative can be so oblivious to the damage done by "Christians" to the name and reputation of Christ.

Colson suggesting that he's never known a Christian to bash homosexuals just confirms how closed-minded the Christian Right is to this issue. There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of what it means to love one's enemies when it comes to those sins that are condsidered on the outside.

This program offered important conversation among these three generations who certainly bring distinct prospective and critique of the other. As one who has studied Mennonite active participation in the world, I found Chuck Colson's remark about Mennonites not "engaged in the moral issues of the day" quite the opposite of my experience. This misunderstanding and different hermeneutic is par for the Christendom kind of Christian, who align themselves too closely with the interests of nationalism while sacrificing the radical teachings of Jesus about the kingdom he came to inaugurate. Mennonites present Jesus, e.g., as a non-violent leader in the midst of an aggressive empire who refuse to defer to the existing political authority, while critically working out solutions as a faithful interpretation of Jesus' embodiment of the Kingdom of God while recognizing we live in a morally fragmented society. To be honest, I have learned more about politics and political issues both nationally and globally and how to respond through Mennonite influence and participation.

I am not a practicing Christian or member of any organized religion. I admire and have tried to internalize all of Jesus' profound teachings starting with "love one another". It does not matter to me whether he was god anymore than it matters to me that Mohammed or Buddha were gods (they never professed to be but some would have them be gods). These were all good men amongst many others (and women) who have promoted justice, peace and love for all humanity starting with those characters embodied in each individual.

What troubles me about religion influencing our politics is that in many ways our religious and political leaders have been corrupt and only interested in their specific agenda. How else can we understand rabid distaste among the evangelical community for abortion while within the same community we can see more than a marginal interest in both war (mass murder) and capital punishment (of course, to inflict righteous punishment on the evil among us). The abuse of wealth, these hypocritical positions, and the apparent ignoring of the problems of the poor and oppressed (expressly the community Jesus felt most compelled to help) are all reasons I choose not to affiliate with the organized religions.

I also am not a good believer — I wish to know not believe. What I know is what I said above — Jesus was a great man, one to whom we should listen. If our religion must find its way into our politics, as Charles Colson said, then I hope our politicians hear the words as Jesus meant them.

This was an excellent program. The role of Christians in regards to politics seems to me an especially American issue. Each of the generational representatives on the program wanted to actively engage social problems; the debate was over voting on those issues. The right to vote is central to American identity in a way that it never could have been for Christ or his contemporaries. Consequently, many Americans consider voting a moral rather than a strictly political decision, hence our emphasis on the character of our politicians. Thank you for airing this illuminating debate.

Thank you for your continually respectful approach to religion and, as an evangelical myself, to Christianity. Thank you for the efforts you make to find the most thoughtful, or at least the leading voices in Evangelicalism.

Personally I wish they would have disagreed a bit more. They like to hover around the politics but Colson seemed to be the only one who was really willing to come down to political points. And I think this is because all three fundamentally agree politically.

All 3 were quick to stand against abortion, but none seemed to point out abortion as a political issue. Shane actually did get to the abortion issue as a nonpolitical issue when he mentioned the girl on his street. Yet not getting to it as a political issue is huge. I honestly wonder if this absence is because each person on the stage is a representative and therefore political. Bush is against abortion both politically and morally. Clinton was not against abortion politically but on a moral level he was. The moral level of these two presidents makes little difference. Think, how many 16 year old girls did not have abortions because Bush won and how many decided to have them because Clinton won? Probably none, because 16 year old girls in a crisis do not make emotional decisions based on the president of the United States' position on the issue.

The reason all three missed this issue is because they all seem to agree on the notion that "power corrupts." Colson is especially direct about this having seen it first hand, yet he also seems to be the most obedient minded towards the government as a Christian. I found that interesting.

A recent sermon about the biblical story of Joseph struck me as God's way of saying once and for all — "See, Power Does Not Corrupt." Joseph faced colossal disappointments as well as mind blowing success and power, yet the account never mentions Joseph's sin. Which most agree is a very intentional omission. The reputations of Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Esau were never spared.

It is important for Christian leaders to understand the difference between power corrupting and what it is about power that makes it so easy for people in power to choose corruption.

What if power was not corrupt but merely sophisticated? If it only complicates and confuses us then we have a better chance of coming together on issues and on addressing them better, even if we have very different opinions. Because being a Christian means not being corrupt so you then have two mountains to climb, coming together and embracing corruption in the process.

One panel member would not say I like Bush because he is against abortion and another panel member say but I don't like Bush because he is against the war and against the poor. Nor would we say I want someone who against both bad things or for both good things for that matter. Because if power was complicated and not immoral, then we would say, to the degree Bush is power, is the same degree to which even his simplest of statements should not be trusted to be simple. Power complicates, it cannot be simple. Power is a compromise it can never truly be for something as the President. As a man yes, but not as a President.

We know what gossip is when two people are in the break room. When its on the campaign trail we are not sure.

When someone steals from your car we know this is stealing. When bad loans are sold off inappropriately to multiple parties we are not sure what has happened.

When a bullet goes through a Childs leg we know it's wrong, when the general explains we have the smallest percentage of crossfire in history, we get his point.

If evangelicals would not see politics and power as the root of evil itself, or as a guaranteed bad, maybe they could see it for what it really is; Anything but moral. It is all compromise, all complicated backroom negotiations.

To compromise with power is not a true compromise if we understand that power is essentially not morally legitimate. It is politically legitimate. Power is not a person. Barbie, Wendy's and Sam Ash are not people and therefore they are not moral. No matter what the teach us, feed us or what kind of music they make.

Colson should have said, "The word abortion could mean the taking of a perfectly innocent human life for the sake of convenience" or the word "could be a huge deceptive political ploy to fund a fascist war machine"

The real division in America (definitely not in the church as we have seen) over abortion could be solved by these three brilliant gentlemen by pointing out that real division in America is caused by a dishonest use of terms. The political issue of abortion in America is the opposite of the moral issue. The moral issue is the taking of life, the political issue is the giving of life. Giving power moral human life it does not deserve. When Bill Clinton says I am against abortion personally but not politically, he is saying, I understand politics, it is a shrewd business. Evangelicals actually do get this when they hear someone really get it wrong. I think Christa or someone brought up the good point of how absurd it is to think that if you vote against abortion you are guilty of murdering a child. We all know this. We all know voting against war violence does not make us murderers because the candidate might be pro abortion. Why do we know this without thinking? Why do I feel after this discussion that younger Evangelicals will eventually replace older evangelicals and not feeling like wow, evangelicals are going to heal this land?

I really enjoyed the April 20 show that featured a conversation between three generations of evangelicals. It was respectful, but the guest s did not shy away from disagreeing with one another. My only concern about the show was that people listening would assume that all Christians believe that abortion is always wrong.

Many people, including many religious people do not know that many religious denominations have pro-choice position statements, many of them adopted before 1973, when abortion was legalized. The public conversation about abortion is often framed as secular pro-choice vs. religious pro-life, and the reality is so much more complicated.

Thank you for the interesting and provocative programs. Today you had Chuck Colson in the mix. As a committed Christian, I have no doubt that he can be forgiven his transgressions as well as anyone else, but the man I heard today still sounds like the arrogant bully who said he would run over his grandmother for Richard Nixon. It was a new whine from an old skin.

It was of great value to hear three articulate and clear-thinking Christian leaders speak of their faith in such passionate and yet loving ways. All three were convincing in their own way and captured well the complexities of being a follower of Jesus Christ in our fallen and failing world. There are clear, guiding principles to the Christian faith and yet there remain variances in how best to "walk out" Christ's call to loving discipleship. These men (and the moderator led the discussions well) conveyed clearly the direction that they believe God is leading them (and us) in the fulfillment of bringing all people the Gospel — the good news that there is redemption and salvation in the name of Jesus Christ. Thanks for sharing this very thought-provoking event.

I caught the show part way through and had a question about a situation I had yesterday. My house was recently refurbished for free by a group of fundamentalist churches her in Rochester. I am extremely grateful and see that by their works they are doing as Jesus wants us to, but one girl was concerned that she failed because she did not convert a Muslim child during a two-hour vacation "Sunday" school program. I went in the rest room and there was a flyer on the inside of the bathroom door for a workshop designed to convert Muslims to Christianity. What's up with this? Why would this young teen think she failed as she did not convert the girl and why are they trying to convert someone who has a belief system. I thought all they did was try to bring in people who were "unchurched." I don't understand this. I am Lutheran and am active in my church — can I get an explanation of this?

One of the ideas that comes up constantly in conversations among Evangelicals is the need, the mission, to "share" their faith with the rest of the world. What you see as "sharing," many, including myself, see as "imposing." When you go into a country or a neighborhood with your message, you communicate your belief that what you have is the truth, and therefore every other belief system is much less than the truth; that what you have not only should be shared, but that you want to wipe out everything else. As a Jewish American, I find this approach to supposedly being open to dialog with other faiths as repulsive. The missionaries of varying Christian denominations have imposed their belief system on peoples all around the world, destroying the native cultures in the process. This is not a gift. This is destruction. Why can't you let others come to you if they so choose, without you going to them to make them like you whether they want it or not. Destroying the holy writings of other faiths is not a blessing. It's a curse.

I had the pleasure of a front row seat for your panel discussion at Calvin yesterday, and then today, listened to your interview of Boyd, Colson, and Claiborne. Thank you for the breadth of your interests and thus your invited guests from all faiths and perspectives, your careful preparation, and the respectful and inviting questions you ask. The responses you gleaned from your three Evangelicals illuminated the ways in which they agreed and differed, far more deftly perhaps than they realized. Thank you! I am looking forward to more!

I appear to detect a perhaps not so subtle apparent bias in your broadcast today. The clearest demonstration of this point perhaps is embodied in the comments on whether Christians should participate in politics. But as noted by the Pew Religious Landscape Survey over 70% of Americans are identified as Christian. As such by definition many Christians participate in politics.

What I sense you are referring to perhaps is rather whether what are thought of as Evangelical Christians or born-again Christians should participate in politics. This appears to match the context of your discussion today. Please note that Evangelical or born-again Christians are perhaps about 1/3 the population of Christians in America. So let's not let a minority arrogate the term Christian to refer to their particular formulation of Christianity. If we are referring to Evangelical or born-again Christians, let's refer to them as such and not misuse the general term Christian to refer to this minority of American Christians.

My daughter has been having difficulties meshing our family's liberal world view and the conservative world view of the majority of our Evangelical church family. We love our church and the people in it, but we don't agree with how to go about making the social change we all agree needs to happen.

My daughter is, in my opinion, a much more thoughtful and devout Christian than I am. She's been trying to find a way to figure out why the church is not in the lead in the environmental movement (or at least not calling it a hoax) etc. She sees me voting for folks I think will help stop the reasons for women thinking they must get abortions rather than for the person who says they will outlaw it (easy to say since they know it won't happen). However, since we are a small very close loving church family (about 200 people in a medium-sized Vermont town, drawing from a ten-town area) we can discuss our differences and agree to disagree. But mostly we don't talk about it. I can't wait to order the video and have a discussion about it. We loved this discussion!

I know I have written before in a very negative and critical vein of Ms. Tippett's program. If I am not mistaken, I probably vowed never to listen to the program again! But this morning's broadcast has made me a promise-breaker! Suffice it to say that I found the discussion between Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne profoundly moving, bringing me at several points to weeping.

You see, I think I am beginning to realize that as mightily as I have tried to deny and reject the form of Christianity (fundamentalist Evangelical Protestantism) in which I was nurtured as an young man, yet even now as an old man, and one who has been a blasphemer and "injurious to the cause of Christ," Christ may yet have me in the palm of his hand Thank you, Krista, for engaging these men in conversation. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

I have basically given up on religion. Religion always seems to break down to institutional dogma. How about a show about the actual teachings of Jesus as spoken by Jesus and not through the interpretation of a religious dogma. How did Jesus view institutions of religion compared to the spirit of God? How many religious Christians have really read The Sermon on the Mount (or understand the sermon)?

Maybe I am cynical, but it seems religion focuses on guilt and fear and then asks for your yearly tithe (a way to get back in God's grace). Jesus did not mention future revelations or the apocalypse, but it seems like religion spends more time discussing the end time than the lessons (teaching) of Jesus. It doesn't appear to me that Jesus would have agreed with much of the later part of the New Testament? Is Christianity about forcing people to believe or be doomed or is Christianity about their teacher. I just don't think Jesus would have much good to say about bunker busting bombs or justifying the destruction of people with different beliefs.

Your show is very open and informative. It is wonderful to listen to your podcasts. It is wonderful to hear more about faith and less about what I need to do to save my sinful soul. I often ask which is it, God's love or God's anger that I should understand to save my soul?

What I heard from all three of the Evangelical leaders in this conversation was not in any way specifically Christian. What I heard comes from something very specifically Jewish, the first part of the dictum of Hillel The Elder: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. [That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.]" See also Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:27-36. While it is Jesus speaking in both, he makes no reference to his own mission or purpose or God's purpose in sending him.