Jim Wallis is the founder of the online magazine Sojourners, which is a liberal Christian organization. He is a registered Democrat and a very vocal Christian activist.
I became interested in what he was about when a friend of mine sent me this interview with Mother Jones, and the PDF of the first chapter of Wallis' new book, "God's Politics: Why the Right gets it wrong, and the Left doesn't get it at all." I was told that a youth member of our church was told to read this book and how it's shaping his political views. Therefore, I'm interested.
After reading the interview, the chapter of his book, and another interview in Christianity Today, I would have to say that I generally agree with his basic philosophies regarding exercising our faith in the public arena and wanting our values to influence our government and culture.
I agree that Christianity is not owned by the Right wing of the Republican party, and that the Right has abused this claim during election time.
I agree that abortion and gay marriage are not the only moral issues of our time that Christianity speaks to.
I admire his mission to make Christian values a part of the Democratic party again, as a voice in the party, instead of the way it is marginalized currently.
We separate on many things as well though. I have a view of government that is basically libertarian, in that I think the federal government should stay out of many of societies arenas. This includes Wallis' pet issue, poverty.
It is part of the Christian life to be concerned about the poor and to help them, show them God's love. I disagree with those who equate Christian social aid with government programs. We should be giving from our heart, not forced to give via tax dollars.
Having said that, not all government programs are all bad, and there are other things that government can do to help the poor. But these include things that conservatives often push, like tax reform and a business environment that allows the economic growth to create jobs.
And remember, some people are poor because the choose to be.
I am skeptical about Wallis' views on what the Bible says about poverty as well. Jesus talked about poor people in the sense that they were blessed, and loving them was a way to share the love of Jesus Christ. I don't recall the Bible commanding us to create social programs to train them in marketable skills.
His writing is thoughtful and sometimes insightful in these areas. He has some justifiable concerns about how religion is crafted by politicians and made into a partisan issue.
But his statements in the interview left a bad taste in my mouth. He is not very thoughtful when questioned directly, and tends to spout out leftist talking points regarding the Bush administration. Really, I would expect a man of faith to be interested in truth. So I was a little disappointed in some of his views on the current administration. I'm not a Bush apologist, but I don't often toss blind allegations around either.
And it sounds like the left might not accept what he has to say anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"I am skeptical about Wallis' views on what the Bible says about poverty as well. Jesus talked about poor people in the sense that they were blessed, and loving them was a way to share the love of Jesus Christ. I don't recall the Bible commanding us to create social programs to train them in marketable skills."
Yeah, and Paul said everyone should stay in their current state and be content whether slave or free so why did we free all those useful cotton-pickers during the Civil War days?
Are you saying that because Jesus called the sufferers blessed that we should try to prolong others' sufferiing whenever possible?
Here's my impression re poverty:
One side says there should be no free ride, that you should keep what you earn, we only give to the 'deserving' poor. This seems more Republican-y. The word on the street is that most mainline Christians are Republican.
The other side says we need to share the wealth, that there should be a 'free' ride' (grace?) for everyone, that we should be willing to sacrifice our owned 'earned' luxuries to lift the level of others. This would be a more Democratic stance.
So how come the "democratic' view sounds so much more Biblical? If God is truly our source, then our resources are unlimited, why can't we try living that out?
Post a Comment