Talk:Christian left

message: The Christian Right is uniquely American? What about Opus Dei? Le Pen?
Or the various clerical fascist parties of 20th century Europe?
Jimmy Carter is no Republican, but I question him as a "leftist".  Also, I can make a strong case that William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor in the "Scopes Monkey Trial", who while Secretary of State served no wine at state functions (hence the era of "grape juice diplomacy") was so socially conservative that free silver and a government newspaper don't make him sufficiently "left" to trump the above.
Rlquall 21:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To add Opus Dei, Le Pen, and Fascists to the idea of a Christian Right is not sensible.  There is not comparison between the American fundamentalists and their ideas and those of any of these.  Though some on the political left might take glee in the conflation of racist facism with the USA right. Fremte 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Socialists often have a strong work ethic too. Also, socialist arguments focus on the immorality of capitalism, on the idea that a socialist system brings greater benefits to more people than a capitalist one, and on questions of private vs. public property. The principle that "people are entitled to certain things no matter what" comes only after those other, more important issues. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I've added a few points about the early Christian "left" (or more accurately since the term "left" did not yet exist, Christian anti-establishmentism or anti-materialism) but they need to be developed into proper paragraphs. Point is the "Christian left" didn't come out of nowhere in the 19th century, it draws on deep traditions within Christianity, traditions which date back to the time of Christ, and this should be mentioned in the article. AndyL 14:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is a good point.  I found this articles to be rather biased in that regard.  The artice states "...established churches were led by a reactionary clergy who saw progress as a threat to their status and power."  This assumes, wrongly, that the ideas of the left were all "progress."  It also assumes that the author could know what the motives of the clergy were.  So much for objectivity in scholarship. Danwaggoner (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Christian "left" 

message: The article currently repeats the Mikhail Gorbachev quote about Jesus as the "first socialist" no fewer than four times, including in the opening paragraph. Once is enough.  I don't think it needs to be in the top, since the idea is not expanded on, only repeated.  Also, Gorbachev is a leftist, but is he a Christian?  I'll leave the quote in the body, citing Gorbachev, but I'll remove the other three repetitions. Jonathunder 00:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
: Actually, when I started to do this, I realized the Gorbachev quote isn't the only thing repeated.  The article currently repeats sentences and even paragraphs, sometimes multiple times. What a mess. It needs plently of merciless pruning, but I don't have time right now.  It's on my to do list. Jonathunder 00:53, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
At some point, most of the article was duplicated so I removed that. 
Also, I had removed the category "Christian fundamentalism", but it is back - can someone explain this? 
--Erauch 18:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it anyway.  The same categorisation was added to 'modernist christianity' and I removed that one too. --Randolph 19:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gorbachev quote 

message: Why is this article called 'Christian Left'?  The more general category of 'Liberal Christianity' would be a better categorisation of this aspect of christianity.  I was redirected here on searching for Liberal Christianity.  Is anyone going to object if I start to incorporate this article into the larger category of liberal christianity? --Randolph 19:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, it would be best to leave this article as a counterpoint to the 'Christian Right', and I will do something on Liberal Christianity instead. --Randolph 19:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Christian left is a counterbalance to Christian right, however, there is also mainstream Christianity, evangelical Christianity and even Christian communism which has definite historical roots. What all of these variations have in common is politics. I am thinking of creating a Christian politics (index) article to group all of these isms together to serve as a balance to Islam and politics ... right and left ... not to mention all of these other polemical "faiths". In fact I will do it right now. MPLX/MH 03:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above from KMcA. See my user page. CyberAnth 09:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian left?

message: Why are only certain candidates selected as Christian leftists? Every single Democratic president since FDR were pretty much Christian leftists. Shouldn't there be more references to Christian left organizations? Like CDA etc.?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.234.55 (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for 'Notable Christian Leftists'-United States 

message: Can we try to add more historical, think: deceased, Christian left figures?  Dogru144 14:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical figures

message: I can find no evidence of Peter Garretts christianity. Alan Liefting 02:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See IV PG in Sydney Anglicans, also Report on Aust Chn politicians in "The Australian" generally known but documentation does seem scarce.  Paul foord 07:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia - Peter Garrett 

message: I added him. In a modern context, his persistent and faith inspired 50 year campaign against slavery surely make him a leftist Christian, though he lived at a time before these labels were appliable. Mindstar 7th December 2005
"in a modern context?", how exactly does opposing slavery make one a "leftist". Wilberforce is often cited by "Christian Right" folks like Chuck Colson and James Dobson, I think using him and for that matter John Wesley is a bit of a stretch, the left-right dichotomies of the USA and west Europe did not exist in their times and it's difficult to classify either man along those lines.
:Yes.  There is nothing about Wilberforce's views that can be considered "leftist."  There were many people, both liberal and conservative who opposed slavery, for various reasons.  It is comparable to both feminists and Christian conservatives opposing pornography and its objectification of women.  If a social conservative or evangelical Christian opposes pornography, it only means he agrees with the feminists in that regard, but he cannot be termed a liberal.  This was historically true of prohibition, as well.  Feminists and Christians often agreed on the issue for entirely different reasons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwaggoner (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: UK- William Wilberforce 

message: I think the section of the liberation theology should be given more prominence on this page as they are perhaps the most important exponents of the christian left today...2 lines is not enough —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burgas00 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 24 January 2006  (UTC)
:This section is particularly important with reference to recent South African history with people like Alan Boesak playing a prominent role. Roger 05:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberation Theology 

message: The way you discredit Wm. Jennings Bryan, you would also have to discredit Dorothy Day.  
129.171.49.127 20:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that we shouldn't fall into that trap.  I also agree that social justice is the defining characteristic of the Christian left. I did a little correcting to grammar and sentence structure.  Let me know if my additions were out of line.  Kimathi 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Jennings Bryan 

message: Can we give any conclusive evidence that Fred Rogers did, in fact, donate to John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign? And if he did, is that evidence enough to qualify him as a leftist? I'd like to think that Mister Rogers was a leftist, but with the lack of sourcing I can't be certain. Anyway, comment on this if you'd like.
Mister Mister 12:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that donating money to John Kerry's presidential campaign does not make one a leftist. The fact that Fred Rogers died almost two years before the election makes the claim particularly suspicious. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Rogers and John Kerry 

message: Although the list of notable Christian leftists is somewhat subjective, I find nothing to indicate that Jim Jones is a representative of the Christian Left. Most would debate whether he is even simply Christian. To Angr: Why did you remove the edit?
RelHistBuff 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been insistent on putting it back in because it seemed to me the sources do support the contention that early on his career at least, he was a Christian leftist. (By the time of the Jonestown incident he was indeed probably no longer Christian or leftist, though.) And it seemed to me people were removing him more from a feeling of "Ew, he was a lunatic cult leader, we don't want him on this page" than from sticking to the facts. When I get a chance, I'll re-read the sources. In the meantime, I don't want to get in a revert war over this. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no doubt that he supported socialism, which is an indication of being "leftist", but I think most socialists would disown him as a nut. His followers were under the delusion that they could escape to Russia, but there was no support from the Soviet government. As for whether he was Christian, that is also a subject of debate. There are many good examples of Christian leftists in the current list as it is. Why have such a debatable inclusion as Jim Jones?
RelHistBuff 11:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the sources support it, why not? It seems entirely in the spirit of NPOV to show that the Christian Right doesn't have an absolute monopoly on megalomaniacal lunatics. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "the Christian Right doesn't have an absolute monopoly on megalomaniacal lunatics."  Far from it.  Most of the megalomaniac nut-jobs of the last one hundred years have been Socialists, a fact that the left has considerable difficulty with. Danwaggoner (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I absolutely support NPOV. I have been amazed at the neutrality of Wikipedia articles covering very controversial topics. But it doesn't really make sense that we have to search for "lunatics" in order to be balanced with another article. Besides, the list is subjective and it has a fine range of examples. I am sure that some would say that Al Sharpton is already in the fringe category. But adding Jones would really lower the quality of this article to the point that it would look like it has been vandalised.
RelHistBuff 13:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the reason why those sources were added, precisely because he stands out as an unlikely Christian leftist. If the sources weren't there, it certainly would look like someone is having a little joke. But with the sources it's clear a case can be made that he was a Christian leftist, especially in his early days. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a case can be made that Jones was a Christian leftist at one time. But I will use an analogy. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk during a significant portion of his life. But no one would place him in a list of "Notable Roman Catholics". Had he remained a monk, he might have made it into a footnote in some Roman Catholic article somewhere. Similarly, had Jones remained within the theology of the Disciples of Christ while practicing Christian socialism in Indianapolis, LA, or San Francisco, he might have made into the footnote of this article. But like Luther, Jones completely changed into something else that defined him in history. I still claim that adding him would lower the encyclopaedic value of this article. RelHistBuff 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider him more a member of the Christian Nutcases. : ) CyberAnth 09:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Jones as a member of the Christian Left? 

message: I like to think the Unitarian Jihad represents the extreme Christian left.  I'm quite biased though. Mathiastck 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear from Unitarian Jihad that such an organization even exists. As for calling themselves the extreme Christian left, for one thing, it seems to be more a parody of extremism than actual extremism, and for another, many Unitarians don't consider themselves Christians anyway. (Many Christians don't consider Unitarians Christians either.) So if they're not genuinely extremist and possibly not genuinely Christian, I don't think there's much of a case to call them the extreme Christian left. Angr (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unitarian Jihad 

message: Although Huey P Long wasn't religious, he had a huge following of Christian Leftists.  Should this be mentioned?--64.75.187.202 09:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huey P Long 

message: This article fails to deal with just its topic, the Christian Left. It has become a spittoon full off Christian Leftists. The Christian Left is a movement just like the Christian Right is. Christian leftists are another matter. If the Christian right article were to follow suit with this article, it would need to include sections on Christian rightists such as the KKK, David Koresh, Paul Jennings Hill and the Army of God, South African Apartheid cleric Daniel François Malan, and the like, and have Christian fascism merged into it. For these reasons, I am going to place the POV tag into this article. CyberAnth
I would disagree that this article fails to deal with it's topic. How do you define a movement without noting and examining those who are a part of it? A movement is nothing more than an idea (therefore not a movement...yet) until you add people professing and living out that movement. There is than a major need to tie "leftists" to the article to give a clearer livable definition of the movement.--Action.steve 19:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is NOT about the Christian Left

message: The Christian Left is also uniquely American.  The Christian Left traces it's foundation to Deism.  Many of our founding fathers were deists, and many of our presidents have been Unitarian.  Mathiastck 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to disagree with you there.  Look at the number of countries at the bottom of this article with important Christian left thinkers.  Besides, many of the early Christians thought that Jesus's teachings were more about helping the needy than promoting the free market, so the Christian left predates the founding of America by about 1700 years.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Helping the needy was, and always has been, a part of the Christian's understanding of Jesus's teachings.  No one, neither right nor left, has any superior claim to it.  It is part of the Christian life. Danwaggoner (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Christian Left is Uniquely American 

message: Any group that supports abortion can not qualify as Christian left because it conflicts with social justice and nonviolence. The article specifically says in the introduction that the Christian left stresses the social justice ascept of Christianity, the pro-life issue is apart of the social justice aspect. So, according to the introduction, Pro-life organzations should be classified as Christian left and not pro-aboriton organizations. 75.3.28.188 21:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Anti-abortion campaigning is frequently associated with right-wing and conservative religious politics. Support for a right to abortion is an aspect of individualistic philosophy, which may not be socialist-left, but is definitely liberal-left. (The individualist might argue that "social justice" does not apply to embryos, which are not members of society.) As for non-violence, the political left includes revolutionaries as well as pacifists. Myopic Bookworm 12:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not necessary to oppose abortion in order to be a religious person, nor to be a Christian leftist. Not all Christians accept the Catholic argument that human life begins at conception. The pro-abortion argument is not based on right to privacy. Myopic Bookworm 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, old statements but... I would have to agree with the original comment to an extent. I will use myself as an example, but don't edit the article based on that - it's original research. I'm mostly indepentent in terms of polotical parties and what not, but I am part of the "religious left." I'm very much anti-abortion and pro-life to the fullest (including captial punishment and other forms of pro-life). So to say that it is a requirement of somesort, or to imply that it is, is kind of odd. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion 

message: There is not one source in this entire article. This article is completely orginal research. The fact is there is no such thing as the Christian left or the Christian right. These are prejudice terms. Wikipedia has invented the Christian left idea, and it is very inconsistent. It talks about anti-war activities as being left. These anti-war or anti-racism views that people had did not come from any left wing idealogy, they came from Christianity. These same people that opposed the Vietnam war or racism also oppose abortion, other social injustices, and other sinful lifestyles. The article though confuses political left issues with Christianity. Supporting abortion is not an aspect of the Christian left. People that are Christians can hold these views, but they do not base it off of Christianity. Opposing abortion would qualify as an aspect of the Christian left, though, according to Wikipedia. However, no such distinction as Christian left exists. This was completely made up by Wikipedia editors. 75.3.28.188 22:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Religious Left as a concept is definately out there.  Christian Left is not one that I've seen so much. JASpencer 13:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Sources 

message: These people who are called Christian left are not Christian leftists, they are simply Christians. Christianity can not be classified as either left or right wing. If there are any elements in either wing from Christianity, that does not mean Christiany uses them, that means that they stole those concepts from Christianity. 75.3.28.188 00:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Christianity is not left- or right-wing, but Christians very definitely are. Myopic Bookworm 12:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is a difference. Politics is not a religion (though some politicians would make it seem as such). If you are a cChristian and liberal, than you are a Christian Leftist, and if you are a conservative and Christian, the Christian Right. The religion isn't what is divided, it is the political spectrum. And no one said there are no Christian moderates/centrists. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity is broader than left and right 

message: If this is a "related" strand of thought, not actually a part of Christian leftism, then a link would be sufficent, and the Consistent Life Ethic does not need to be described in detail.  This is even more the case if, as seems clear, Christian leftists may in fact hold either pro-abortion or anti-abortion views. What is needed is a non-partisan description of the position of those principal groups and people who can fairly definitively be called both "Christian " and "leftist". (Part of the present section also fails to make grammatical sense at all.)Myopic Bookworm 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent Life Ethic 

message: There are several instances in this article where a reference is made to Liberal Christians and their beliefs.  However, this is something different than a Christian Leftist. The Christian Left refers to political liberalism, while Liberal Christianity refers to theological liberalism. Alangdon86 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Left vs. Liberal Christianity

message: I'm not sure if there's room or context to edit the article for it, but I figure it's at least worth mentioning here that though one could argue Woodsworth gathered his political ideology from his religious background, he actually had huge conflicts with the church because he found it interfered with his ability to help people. This could likely apply to quite a few people referenced on this article, I'd imagine. Input would be useful. --Jammoe 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JS Woodsworth 

message: Why is this page called "religious left" while the other one is called "christian right"? Shouldn't they both be religous left and right or both be christian left and right? JayKeaton 07:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly religions other than Christianity are concerned with political issues, so I think both should be under "religious left and right".  If the Christian political divide has enough information about it in addition to what would be in the main article, it would make sense to have those to for specifics on how the religious left and right relate to Christianity.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religous left 

message: I am concerned that this articles subject matter is vague, and not very well documented outside talk show hosts conviction of the religious left. I am also concerned that several living people are listed in this article while they may not consider themselves, nor anyone else for that matter, part of the religious left. While I have not read through every word of WP:BLP, I am sure this is a potential issue. Thoughts? mceder (u t c) 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns 

message: I've proposed moving this page to Christian right, because that's what this page is about. I'm not particularly prepared to contribute any additional information about other religions and "the left", but they're out there in great numbers and a wikipedia on the larger community of religious people with leftist views would be very helpful to them, us, you know...
(Seazzy 17:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  major contributions needed 

message: I didn't change anything, but I don't think Harry S Truman and LBJ were "leftists". Democrats, yes, and perhaps left of center in some ways at the time, but were in no way "leftists".
Neanderthalprimadonna 04:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry S Truman and LBJ 

message: This article is about Christian Left, so why not re-naming it into Christian Left? --Checco 13:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Left

message: Generally not a bad idea to have a list of christian leftists in this article,
but this list has gone too far. I'm not the one to say "Get him out of the list,
he's only left, but no Christian", definately not. Again, Im'm not saying
John Edwards or Hugo Chavez or Martin Sheen are no Christians, I have my doubts at least
with Chavez and I haven't heard anything religious from Sheen so far, 
but it's not my job to judge the faith of others. However with names like these
you can add almost every left politician or celebrity who's not an atheist to this list.
is that the purpose of this list? Greetings, Toksave 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable christian leftists - where does this lead to? 

message: I would hardly consider him a "leftist". Wow.
Neither would I. Is there some left wing position that Billy Graham has taken that I know nothing of? It is a big surprise to me. My understanding is that he is pretty conservative. If someone can't explain his leftist position then I suggest we remove it. Walter Max David 07:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy Graham?! WTF?! 

message: Not a major issue, but Hank Snow was Canadian, not American.
:This isn't an article on just American religious leftists. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hank Snow 

message: Or should we mark the dead?
Blackeagles 01:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  should we only list the living? 

message: The article is a weak attempt to take an polarized American analysis of religious and political viewpoints and apply it to other countries and to history.  There was no religious right or left until the fundamentalist rise of the 19th century, apparently made necessary by scientific advances that showed that biblical ideas about origins of life (for e.g.) were simply wrong.  Not until politicians decided to appeal to the group which saw the world as a battle between right and left, good and evil, was there such a movement at all.  The seeds of this are in the post-WW2 communist hysteria, reached a zenith with Ronald Reagan, and perhaps a second climax under George W. Bush.  
I would suggest a thorough rewrite of both the right and left articles, possibly putting them together.  The left did not exist (being much more diverse than the right) until the right said it did, so as to create a clear picture of the enemy so as to focus their efforts in opposing it. Fremte 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Right and Left Christians

message: What is "left" about AC? Yes, he's a Christian, but I've heard him make pro-Vietnam war statements and last I knew, he is campaigning for John McCain for President. Not exactly a "leftist"66.72.215.225 16:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alice Cooper? 

message: While he is a leftist and a christian his brand of socialism is clearly marxist. Roger 05:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nelson Mandela? 

message: The listing of notable persons should be deleted.  It adds nothing to the understanding of the article and is only a listing of favourites.   I say delete the whole thing!  If someone really thinks the list is important, putting it in a seperate article is the best solution.  Please indicate if you agree or disagree.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talk • contribs) 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article has few sources, several mentions in debates that this is an attempt to take an American concept in politics, Christian Right and apply it to the "other" side. But I am not sure how many people on the list identifies themselves as Christian/Religious left, or even if anyone would! It seems the criteria for this list is to be liberal and religious. In non-American parts of the world, being liberal is not being on the left side of politics. I suggest removing this entire list for many reasons, but mainly for the lack of references and some of these entries fall under WP:BLP. mceder (u t c) 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking more about it, I was bold and removed the section per WP:BLP and WP:OR. mceder (u t c) 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove list of notable people 

message: I don´t see the sense of having so many American celebrities in here, like Conan O´Brien and others. It looks pathetic and politically correct. I don´t even know if they are all Christians or if this has any influence on their lives. I think the celebrities list should be removed.Mistico (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American Celebrities

message: I am removing it again. Please lets come to a discussion and consensus here. I am removing based on WP:BLP and WP:OR. It has nothing to  do with red links! --mceder (u t c) 18:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list being added back in. 

message: International Society for Science and Religion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.22.214 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Left?

message: I reverted the internal link to "government subsidized programs".  The US government at times mya require affirmative action, but does not subsidize (pay for) it. Pustelnik (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Affirmative Action

message: Almost every politician in the U.S. is a Christian, so this section is a bit redundant. May I suggest that the list be cut down only to figures who have had a career in religion, such as Jimmy Carter and MLK? -- LightSpectra (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform of the "notable Christian lefists" section 

message: There needs to be more on the Jesus movement in the article. And Johnny Cash. BillyJack193 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The Jesus movement would be difficult to pin down to left or right politically.  Those adherents who eventually left off being hippies went their way into both conservative and liberal churches -- if they remained Christians at all.  For many, it was just a phase and their faith had no deep root. Danwaggoner (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus movement

message: I think that this article lists a lot of people who are socialists but only loosely Christian, like Barack Obama.  In the United States, it's very difficult to win in politics as an atheist, so this list could include more or less every liberal politician in the US.  I think that a person should only merit inclusion if they - beyond being Christian - support Christian social policies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoid62 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists too many people?   

message: I don't think that he is a Christian. In any of sources I found he appears that way. This deserves a source.81.193.189.254 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nelson Mandela

message: Why any spanish is included in the list? I propose Joaquin Ruiz-Gimenez (former leader of Democratic Left and ombsdurman while socialists were in government) and Jose Bono (nowadays low house of Parliament speaker and former defense minister and Castilla-La Mancha president).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.196.204 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain

message: Any discussion of Jesus being a Socialist is completely anachronistic.  You cannot put modern values to beliefs and practics of someone who lived one hundred years ago in your own country, much less someone from an entirely different culture from two thousand years ago.  It would be like saying that Epicurus was a Darwinian evolutionist because he believed in an eternal, uncreated earth, as Darwin did.  It's really poor scholarship.   Danwaggoner (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus the Socialist 

message: Shouldnt be listed as any in anyway a left or progressive heresy, they preached submission to god and the slavery of the men to the church as with hardline moslims and caLvinists. The denial of human rights and original sin make them in no manner left and barely christain at all  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.10.111 (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cathars? 

message: *Added Michael Moore to the list, but not sure which category he belongs in. I put him in promoters, but Civil Leaders may also apply.BillyJack193 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Moore 

message: Above, individuals have been questioned time and time again.  But that's working the wrong way around.  All the people listed need verification by reliable sources.  It goes without saying that a reference saying that an individual is Christian and another saying that he is left-wing is NOT enough (that would be original research), but they have to stipulate belonging to an identifiably Christian left movement or ideology.  Otherwise, the names, particularly those of living people, may be deleted as and when people object to their inclusion on a case-by-case basis. Bastin 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: It is about "How to Pray" and as the only Gospel citation in the whole article, it seems completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.  I suggest instead the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, particularly the final 3 verses:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A44-46&version=NLT
:So you would call the Christian Left "goats?" That statement of opinion would clearly put your "opinion" within the scope of the dogma of the so-called "Religious Right." This wiki is not used for such commentary. The reason Matthew 6: 5-6 is relevant is because it states that praying in your closet as opposed to in the public square is more in keeping with Jesus' teachings that man's approval of a person is worthless to God who sees what is in a man's heart. We, the Christian Left do not feel the need to publicize our faith. It is inherent in our actions. 12.36.232.80 (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Matthew 6:5-6 ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Christian left. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070521212158/http://www.whosoever.org:80/gayxian/articles.html to http://www.whosoever.org/gayxian/articles.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm surprised that this article makes no mention of the pope! While he may hold very orthodox views on some matters, his rejection of wealthy lifestyles, criticism of capitalism and concern for issues such as climate change and social justice would deserve a mention, being a rather groundbreaking pope in the historically right wing practices of the vatican.--86.44.63.159 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Francis? Anyone? 

message: Since when is anti-communist a left wing position now? Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nora Lam 

message: I find the following sentence of the article to fit perfectly with Christian ideology: 
"Some believe homosexual sex to be immoral but largely unimportant when compared with issues relating to social justice, or even matters of sexual morality involving heterosexual sex."  
The rest of the "Approach to issues such as homosexuality" paragraph after that sentence should be completely deleted as I strongly suspect the number of adherents to the notion that homosexuality is Biblically correct must surely be limited to a significantly small percentage of the existing base of leftist evangelical Christians.  Almost certainly a small enough percentage as to be utterly insignificant in the grand scheme.  At the very least the word "Some" should be replaced with "A small number of"
BMW-KTM (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Approach to issues such as homosexuality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Christian left. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212223001/http://www.tcpc.org/library/article.cfm?library_id=152 to http://www.tcpc.org/library/article.cfm?library_id=152
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.667209/k.5987/Equality_for_Gays_and_Lesbians.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224172958/http://www.pflagdetroit.org/BibleandHomosexuality.html to http://www.pflagdetroit.org/BibleandHomosexuality.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127035629/https://catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archives/c2004spring_reframingsocialjustice.asp to http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archives/c2004spring_reframingsocialjustice.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027004008/http://koinoniarevolution.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/prophets-of-a-modern-era-an-introduction-to-liberation-theology/ to http://koinoniarevolution.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/prophets-of-a-modern-era-an-introduction-to-liberation-theology/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207222220/http://www.leonardoboff.com/ to http://www.leonardoboff.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612101848/http://www.americansocialistvoter.com/ to http://www.americansocialistvoter.com/
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080919020516/http://www.crossleft.org/ to http://www.crossleft.org/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20080831212520/http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/pointsofunity.htm to http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/pointsofunity.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702113917/http://sp-usa.org/commissions/index.html to http://www.sp-usa.org/commissions/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206124025/http://www.tcpc.org/template/index.cfm to http://www.tcpc.org/template/index.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The group does not tolerate debate or discussuon (sic) of opposing views it says in the beginning of the article. Is there any neutral source that Christian Left differs from other views, i.e. Christian Right, in the way the article says? Otherwise it seems to me this statement should be removed 2.71.151.41 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The group does not tolerate debate or discussuon of opposing views.

message: Besides the sloppy writing, the issues are:
* Many sections of the article contain very few (if any) references. For example, the "Terminology" section consists of five paragraphs, and only the fifth paragraph cites any sources at all. Also, the "History" section--which contains four subsections--has been tagged for a lack of citations for more than six years and still does not cite to a single source. The "Approach to issues such as homosexuality" is quite light on references as well. It is hard to tell if there is original research going on here or if there's just been a lazy unwillingness to include attribution.
* The article is littered with weasel words. For example:
: "Various religions have cited social justice as a movement in line with their faith.
: "[Some] established churches were led by clergy who saw revolution as a threat to their status and power."
: "However, in the 19th century, some writers and activists developed a school of thought, Christian socialism, a branch of Christian thought that was infused with socialism."
: "Starting in the late 19th century and early 20th century,[citation needed] some began to take on the view that genuine Christianity had much in common with a Leftist perspective."
: "Opponents contend that [the Christian left] is actually more numerous [than the Christian right] but composed predominantly of persons less willing to voice political views in as forceful a manner as the Christian Right, possibly because of the aggressiveness of the Christian Right. Further, supporters contend that the Christian Left has had relatively little success securing widespread corporate, political, and major media patronage compared to the Right."
* Various persons listed in the section on the United States seem dubious. Some of them have been marked that way for a year or more with no effort at all to substantiate their inclusion. In several cases (Little Richard, George Foreman, Dwight Howard, Alonzo Mourning, and Pete Maravich, to name a few), a look at the individuals' respective Wikipedia pages doesn't show any political affiliation or involvement at all. In cases like that, shouldn't there be footnotes that explain why the person is listed? Or are we supposed to guess?
Given all the activity on the talk page, I am surprised that this article is in such a sorry state. What's going on here? SunCrow (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a hot mess 

message: Compared to the Christian right, there is no criticism section. Why? Zilch-nada (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no criticism section?