Jim Wallis: Biblical Perspectives on Idolatry, Poverty, Abortion

David is being quite naive when he suggests that Jim is committed to voting for at least one republican in the recent past. The entire point of Jim's writings is to encourage you to transcend the simple democrat/republican paradigm, refuse to define your worldview by such silly terms as "liberal" and "conservative" (as if there are only two options), and actually think for yourself.

It's most likely the case that such a transcendent political view makes each election difficult, since all the candidates espouse some views compatible with your own and some that are incompatible. You can't cast .6 votes for Candidate A and .4 for Candidate B, so you're stuck putting all your vote to one candidate, which doesn't fully reflect your thoughtfulness. As such, it can't be the case that voting for Candidate A indicates that you agree with every last point of their platform. Instead, voting for Candidate A can *only* indicate that you think that A's policies, on the whole, would better benefit the country (or serve God's purpose, or serve your pocketbook, or whatever your motivation) than the policies of Candidate B.

As such, it is naive to expect a centrist to have a certain "fair" split between the parties (like 50/50, 25/75, or anything else). Elections aren't about parties - they're about candidates (unless you're a blind partisan, which is morally and civicly irresponsible). It may be the case that for the past 30 years there have been a lot of tough choices, but each time the Republican candidate was a little more favorable than the Democrat. Thus, it could reasonably turn out that the sophisticated centrist votes Republican in every Presidential election for the past 30 years. The same argument supports a sophisticated centrist voting democrat in every election for the past 30 years. It's not inconsistent for them to do so.

There should be no affirmative action in voting. Just because the sophisticated centrist voted for a Republican for the last 30 years doesn't mean they should vote for a Democrat this time "just to be fair" or to "show their centrism". Each candidate in each election should be taken on their own merits, and not the previous voting history of the voter. It would be tragic to think, "Well, I think (Obama/McCain) would be great for this country, but I've voted for the (Democrats/Republicans) for a long time now... It's time to give the other team a chance!"

"The question is how can we actually prevent unwanted pregnancies, protect unborn lives..."
--How do you protect unborn lives without laws? Why have you opposed such laws?

"Do you really believe that trying to support a family of four on $20,000 a year (the official poverty measure) isn't really poverty? Thirty-seven million people living below the poverty line is not a small group."
--You know the real question. It's what percentage of this group of 37 million go hungry or are homeless, which is what "poverty" meant back in Biblical times. Your average person living under the poverty line in the US lives in a home, owns a car, and has many other material comforts (e.g., air conditioning, heat) that were non-existent in material times. There no doubt are genuinely poor people in the US, though it is a much smaller number than the 37 million you cite.

I think a genuine debate over what constitutes "poor" in the Biblical sense would be very good to have.

The reality is that the idolatries that rule in the U.S. include nationalism, materialism, racism - ideologies that compete with the rule of God and for the loyalties of people of faith.

Really? These are "the idolatries that rule in the U.S."? I assume by "nationalism," Wallis means "excessive patriotism, chauvinism" (definition 3 at dictionary.com). Well, I see people who are happy to be Americans. And I hear conservatives talk about American exceptionalism. But isn't the U.S. and exceptional country in world history? As Jonah Goldberg once said, Americans are not nationalistic, they are patriotic. They like ideas, like "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights." But they are not particularly attached to race or land.
As for materialism, it is the Left that is guilty of this. The Left wishes to teach ONLY the materialist idea that human life came about through accidents in nature rather than even allowing for the possibility that a non-material force perhaps guided evolution. It is the Left that believes that the root of crime, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and all sorts of other societal ills is poverty. This is a PURELY materialist explanation for bad behavior! And the materialist solution is to redistribute income. The non-materialist solution would be to change the deviants' values.
As for racism, it is the Left that has historically been the strongest in favor of applying different standards to different races. It is the Left that claims that blacks learn differently than whites, who learn differently than Hispanics who learn differently than Asians, etc. The KKK and other racist groups have been pushed so far out of the mainstream that you can hardly say that racism is an idolatry that rules in the U.S.
As Ann Coulter once said, you can always tell what liberals are up to by what they accuse you of.

Look, the Bible says a woman isn't supposed to leave a house if she is in her period. It says noone is supposed to leave their house if they have a runny nose. It says so many things that we ignore on a daily basis today, who in the world and why would anyone say that the Bible has anything to say on a literal basis today. In other words, who is the decider about which of thd rules in the Bible we are supposed to follow today and which we are free to change to suit modern circumstances? I have never heard a non-arbitrary rational argument on this point.

Really, the Bible is completely silent on the issue of abortion. Every Bible passage used to support the anti-abortion laws are s far stretch of interpretion using metaphor and imagery to support their arguemnt while they deny that the Bible uses metaphor and imagry in other cases against their positions.

If anything the OT (Exodus 21:22-23) is clear that when a pregnant woman is physically harmed, if the mother dies it is murder punishable by death but if the baby dies it is only a fine for the lost economic income. Thus the Bible is clear that a fetus is not the same as a born human being and does not warrant the same penalty as the mother's death.

The rightwing fundamentalists have twisted the Bible with pretzel logic to say the Bible considers the fetus to be equal to a fully born peson when there is no support for their position in the Bible itself. Nothing in the New Testament says a fetus may not be aborted.

Maplewood, my thoughts and sentiments exactly.

I am very tempted to "flame" David Klinghoffer as it is because of foolish people like him that Christians have a bad reputation.

GOD is neither democrat nor republican; in fact both parties are far from GOD and are in danger of losing His favour (if they even have it).
A biblical basis for lower taxes? Bull! He is trying to use the bible to benefit his rich constituents who wouldn't know what mercy is even if they were shown the dictionary definition!

The Republican party is one of the most scummy parties in the western hemisphere (the Liberals of Canada are close behind and the Conservatives too). The Republicans actually make Fidel Castro look good (no I am not in favour of Castro and his Marxism).

There is no biblical basis for this war in Iraq because it is based upon lies by the administration. The only good thing about the Republican party is the animal they chose as their symbol.

Nationalism is not excessive patriotism, but is the adoration of the nation above all else.

Um, I don't see a difference: "adoration of the nation above all else"="excessive patriotism." I don't see this as a huge problem. Sure, many Americans appreciate the opportunities that the US gives us, and they understand that the US is unique in that it offers more freedom to its citizens than any country in the world. But we are not nationalistic in the sense of "my country, right or wrong." Even while they appreciate the good the US has done, conservatives still see our flaws (i.e., Klinghoffer, Dinesh D'Souza).

It sacrifices lives, family and all else to the nation.

Which party wants to "sacrifice lives, family and all else to the nation"? Hillary Clinton once said (and I'm paraphrasing), "We have to get past the idea that there is a such thing as someone else's child." In some cases our government subsidizes abortions because one party is in the pocket of lobbyists from groups like Planned Parenthood. Wouldn't this constitute sacrificing lives and family? In general, it's the Democrats who, instead of having you take care of your poor, sick, or elderly relatives, want the government to take money from me to give to your poor, sick, or elderly relatives.

think you're confusing the philosophy of materialism with economic materialism. It is the latter that Wallis is citing. Materialism is the desire for wealth and the accumulation of property.

So, Wallis thinks that a "desire for wealth and the accumulation of property" is idolatry? The Bible does tell us to give 10% of our earnings to charity, but it never says that we should not be allowed to accumulate propertry. Wallis' view that wealth is bad contradicts the Bible, as Klinghoffer has shown. The Bible says that a 20% tax amounts to surfdom and, later on, a 10% tax amounts to slavery.

You also have no idea what the highest contributing factor to crime is: poverty. The man who doesn't have to worry about where his next meal will come from doesn't feel obligated to steal. You should look into social engineering if you want to talk about this issue without looking like a fool.

Correlation does not imply causation. There is a non-material explanation for both poverty and crime: sin. This does NOT mean that every poor person deserves to be poor. Some people get bad breaks in life, which is why the government should provide some sort of safety net to help unlucky people get back on their feet. People with strong families won't need the government's help anyway, which is why the Bible is so pro-family (see Levrite marriage). Also, children with fathers present are much less likely to become criminals. It is easy to stay out of poverty: don't get pregnant before you're married; get a job, any job!, and stick to it; and stay out of jail.

You're also poorly versed in racism. You must also be out of touch with society to think racism isn't a factor in this country. When over 20% of the country _admits_ that race is a factor in the upcoming election, it's hardly a non-issue now.

Just because race is a factor, does this mean racism is a huge problem in America??? Race IS a factor, for the good and for the bad. For example, if a black conservative ran against a white conservative, and they agreed on every issue, I would vote for the black conservative. If it had been Colin Powell versus John McCain for the Republican nomination, I would've voted for Colin Powell simply because he is black. In my estimation, a black conservative president would be better for our country than a white conservative president. So, race is a factor for me, but this doesn't mean I'm a racist.
Racism does exist, but the fact that race is a factor in the election does NOT prove that racism is mainstream.

I guess it is official: Jim Wallis supports Roe v. Wade and is opposed to the legal protection of the unborn.

I hope this clears things up.

I have been poor, lived with the poor, took care of foster children who were poor, and have close relatives that are still poor. Most are poor because of horrible decisions generally made to reduce short term discomfort at a horrible long term cost. A minority is poor due to some physical or mental deficiency but they are cared for by family. The problem with liberals is that they cannot accept that people suffer for their own discretions and that money without accountability exasperates the problems. The problem with conservatives and religious leaders is that they have not been successful in teaching the morality and sacrificial discipline necessary for people to improve spiritually and economically.

One of many examples: Foster daughter age 12 cannot read or write, steals daily, has tantrums, and breaks things. Age 17, can read and write, getting average grades in 10th grade, involved in church, no longer steals or breaks things but still has periodic tantrums. She decides with liberal Christian social worker that strict family discipline is not necessary so moved out with state subsidy and social system oversight. Daughter began stealing again, incarcerated many times in many jails and finally prison. During incarceration had no responsibility, watched TV and read comics. Between incarcerations she had three babies by three different fathers. Last father was put in jail for severe child abuse. She reconnected with foster parents as sort of an anchor. No more babies or jail and got a job, apt with Salvation Army, doing okay but got tired the Army’s discipline, standing and working. Foster parents agreed to pay for schooling. Social services decided she could qualify for SSI due to her background and they could keep her as a client. Now a job would doom her to lose her perpetual income with full health care. Social service is happy she is staying out of jail and not having babies. We believe they are selling her and many of her SSI client friends very short.

This is anecdotal but not an isolated situation. Many social servants are very helpful but the system depends on the clients as much as the clients on the system. The greatest help I have seen has been from individuals serving others sacrificially with the moral anchor and support of their church. The government can help but with accountability and incentive, not as a financial benefactor or service provider. The conflict of interest and resultant mutual dependency is often very destructive.

Nothing the Bible supports bloated welfare bureaucracies. These have been huge failures; one might say that government declared a war on poverty and poverty won. Indeed, much of the "welfare" budget goes to support the bureaucracy rather than the poor (i.e. they pimp off poverty), and even helps keeps the poor in poverty.

Private charities are also better and more in line with biblical teachings: fewer overheads, as well as direct contact with the people so they know whether they deserve a helping hand or kick in the pants. And they are likely to spring up when people have more to give because the government confiscates less.

It's also notable that many politicians of the Left such as the Clintons, Obama, Biden and Gore are notoriously stingy with their *own* money. "Compassion" for them = **generosity with other people's money**. Conversely, Prof. Arthur Brooks, although starting his research leaning left, found that conservatives are more generous with their own money and even with their blood donation, and published the results in his book "Who Really Cares?".

Foreign "aid" has merely served to prop up despots and enrich them while their people remain in poverty. That's why Kenyan economics expert, James Shikwati, pleads, Stop foreign "aid" (cited in paper with the URL at the top), while Thomas Sowell argues that it should be called "foreign *harm*".