Jim Wallis: The Bible is Neither Conservative or Liberal
Thursday June 12, 2008
Categories: How Would God Vote?
Thanks for your post, David. I'm looking forward to this discussion with you. You claim that the Bible has a conservative rather than liberal worldview. I would suggest that the Bible is neither "conservative" or "liberal" as we understand those...
Filed Under: Bible, Charity, Common Good, Conservative, God, Iraq War, Liberal, Poverty, Prophetic Politics, Religion and Politics, Taxes, Vote
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Blogalogue
There are always at least two sides to every belief. The Beliefnet Blogalogue pairs writers who differ on important questions about faith, and asks them to debate timely topics.
Subscribe
Jim,
Surely you know God is Republican and wears a flag pin? :)
Great post. I hope somehow the Bible can be rescued from the clutches of political ideologues that are far too prominent in many Evangelical churches.
Bruce
http://www.worldofbruce.net
Jim,
that 8.5 million unemployed number would actually be higher due to the fact that the chronically unemployed are kept out of the unemployment statistics. So, sure, there are 8.5 million people that are still looking for work, but what about the untold number of people that have given up the fight, or live in areas where there's no work to be had. (the unemployment numbers in Detroit are over 6%. I wonder what the number of people not working in Detroit actually is...)
As I've answered conservatives before on issues like this where they claim the private sector is the answer, I always ask, "so where's the private sector now?"
If the private sector wanted to be part of the solution, they would have been already.
I would like to make an additional point regarding David K's comments on Biblical taxes. Early Israel was an agarian society and the economy was based upon having land and producing your sustenance upon that land. Prophit or income was not the main feature. The tithe was a "tax" not on income but upon production. One was to offer 10% of what the produced not 10% of their excess. So if you had 100 acres of land that cost $10/acre to produce it would cost you $1,000. If you transfer that to a modern idea and then sell the produce for $20/acre you have $2,000 and a prophit of $1,000. A modern 10% tax on the prophit would be $100 but the tithe would cost you 10 acres of produce which is $200.
It should also be pointed out that the producer was to leave behind some of the harvest for the poor. This was not set up as an optional gift to charity but was a requirement for citizen of Israel - an additional tax, albeit one that serves the poor. There are additional requirements elsewhere to be generous and charitable when confronted withn those in need. The Levitcal system set up this provision to the poor as a matter of law but also called upon the people to be generous and charitable. God didn't trust the care of the needy only to the generosity of his people.
The "politics" of the Bible often depends on the reader and which passages they choice to take as absolute truth and which ones they ignore outright.
One of the things Klinghoffer misses when talking about people being free to spend their money is the fact that people quite often don't make very charitable choices with their money when they get a lot of it. In fact, we tend not to make very good or charitable choices in general when we're left to ourselves, which is why we have law--God's law especially.
"The 'politics' of the Bible often depends on the reader and which passages they choice to take as absolute truth and which ones they ignore outright."
Yes hootie1fan, it's true that what we get from the Bible depends to an extent on our a priori assumptions, our presuppositions and our agenda. However, let's not fall into the trap of letting that fact become a cop-out. What we see in the Bible depends much more on sound scholarship and exegesis, which includes taking textual and historical context into account. On that score, at least in their first exchange, Wallis kicked Klinghoffer's conservative hiney!
If we have anyone bending the Bible (mangling, mutilating, altering) to submit to thier political and secular-social goals, it is the Leftist. The Right keeps to the Bible even when it is uncomfortable to do so. That is where honesty and integrity is found.
The Right keeps to the Bible even when it is uncomfortable to do so. That is where honesty and integrity is found.
-----------------------------------------------
Including the part about divorce, remarraige after divorce, eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, doing for the least of God's people, etc.?
That the Bible is neither liberal or conservative may be true sometime. These labels have changed over the years. Classically liberal ideas are congruent with the concept of dignity of all men, and this idea has its roots in Judeo-Christian values transmitted through the Bible. Currently liberal means socialist. Socialist values seem more related the desire for a secular utopia.
I believe God tries to help all of us do what it right. Liberal, moderate, Conservative. Unfortunatly none of us get it right and so we need divine help.
I just wish that both extremes right or left understand that there are morally reprehensible things that are done in the name of the bible to get to a more moral end result.
Examples: Its ok to lie about your opponent. Its ok to misrepresent something. Its ok to have a war but not care about peace. Its ok to discriminate and hate people as long as they sin. Its ok to say you told the truth because someone took your quote out of context even if they played the whole video.
I think God shakes his head when ever humans say they tell the truth.
This is why I thank god for youtube.
I don't know how you can trust someone that frequently is caught changing his/her words every other day to be for or against issue you care about.
I agree with the commenter who said the title of this dialogue is ridiculous (and so is the title "God's Politics"). God doesn't have politics. We don't really know anything about God. It's all guesswork and projection.
There are some wonderful and terrible things in the Bible, the idea that the Bible contains the mind of God doesn't make sense to me. To me, the Bible offers the stories of two religious communities that yearn for God, as well as the stories of many people who were searching for God.
The Bible tells us what those individuals and communities thought, it doesn't tell us what God thinks.
I agree somewhat with Mr Wallis about the bible being traditional on family values and personal responsibilty, but how he derives gender equality from that is beyond me -is that part of traditional family values? Starting at the fall of man in Genesis gender equality is eliminated and in the New Testamant that concept is still not in effect as is shown by Paul who commands that women not even be heard in gatherings, not even so much as to ask a question. That does not sound like gender equality. I can't figure out where Mr. Wallis' assertion that the bible is "internationally minded rather than nationalist...either. Where does that assertion come from? Yes , blessed are the peacemakers - but watch out for the nation that needs to be judged - God has no problem with this including Israel itself which has endured past judgements through wars and is protected by God in other wars.
By the way - Mr. Wallis shows through his question on spending for Iraq that democracy is overrated - and nowhere in the bible are there democratic societies or any inkling that a democracy -if one ever comes to exist - is a good idea.
How I miss the three rabbis chatting!
What was the reason their column was discontinued, again?
And who is best qualified to debate the Torah? Someone who is not Jewish? BIG mistake.
He writes "looking first to peacemaking and conflict resolution when it come to foreign policy questions, instead of bowing to the habit of war."
I am not sure where he gets this from. The old testament is full of wars being used by God to settle differences, punish evil empires etc. I don't find much evidence of diplomacy being used to settle disputes. If you go to the New Testament, Jesus stayed away from politics almost entirely. He did say blessed are the peace keepers, but I think he was talking about personal issues not country to country issues,
In this post, Wallis perfectly displays the difference between religious liberals and religious conservatives. Liberals do not take Biblical commandments seriously, as conservatives do. Liberals read the Bible as interesting stories and/or history. Conservatives read the Bible as God's Word and a guide to life.
Jim Wallis claims, "the Bible does not prescribe specific policies on the issues facing us today." If this is true, then can the Bible prescribe ANY rules on how we should live today, apart from politics?
Wallis adds, "We cannot simply use historical texts from the Egyptian or Hebrew monarchies of 3,000 years ago as a policy prescription for the 21st century United States." Is this how the Christian Wallis views his own sacred texts? Are these texts just "historical texts," interesting to look at, but not useful in making prescriptions for our 21st century lives?
In Genesis 47, the Israelites are, indeed, desperate. Yes, living as serfs under Pharoah, that is, living with a 20 percent tax rate, is better for the Israelites than starvation. But, so what? The point is that the Bible equates a 20 percent tax rate with serfdom.
Wallis argues, "In 1 Samuel 8, the point of the story is not the 10% rate that the king will take, but that the king will give it to his 'eunuchs and courtiers' rather than benefiting the society." Actually, this is only part of the warning that God and Samuel give to Israel. God and Samuel also warn that a king will institute conscription, rather than having an all-volunteer military. Also, God, through the prophet Samuel, warns that a king will force more of the Israelites to do work for him (i.e., becoming government workers), probably in the name of "benefiting the society." This in contrast to allowing individuals to benefit from their labor. The Israelites are warned about giving too much power to a strong central government. So, God is really warning the Israelites of the dangers of big government!
Later, it seems King Solomon fell into the trap of big government and foreign alliances. King Solomon's public works projects forced the king to lay a "heavy yoke," i.e. high taxes and forced labor, on the Israelites. Rather than listening to the elders who had served his father, King Rehoboam listened to "the young men who had grown up with him." For Rehoboam and his friends youth and "change" meant more than the wisdom of the elders. "My little finger is thicker than my father's waist" (1 Kings 12:10, NIV).
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.