"... I believe (and many people I talk with agree) that politics could and should begin to really deal with the many crises we face. Whenever that happens, social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues...". May this become reality, Jim...and the charge to "change the wind" from the book and the book tour should have all of us who support the broad range of values in "God's Politics" wanting to coordinate our efforts to ask condidates and elected officials of both parties to get on with solutiuons... may it be so...

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 19, 2007 3:50 PM

Balancing, Kevin... balancing...

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 19, 2007 5:25 PM

Jim
The era of Reagan embraced the beginning stages of the globalization we have today. Starting in the 80s, obscene amounts of money recklessly poured into the economy, as I m sure you know. Please take us back to address those times because that's when our Nation lost its focus. That's when the Left abandoned its principles for shortsighted success and political inclusion. That's when money and cronyism began to dominate Washington including how to address the underlying social issues which now haunt us more than ever. Please revive all those democrats who continue along this archaic paradigm; the Reagan of center political game/dialogue. That political philosophy has always been a glass house, rebuilt time and time again, always pronouncing economic growth as the key ingredient for reform. Yet, so many of our leaders continue to robotically praise what s always promoted as an invincible can do spirit without articulating the ACTUAL necessary measures needed to build a mature and steadfast America. As you know, millions of bright Americans have been brainwashed in thinking society has been moving onward and upward over the last 25 years. I don t see anyone stepping out and being honest about this. I m afraid the Reagan era has been built up so much that to call it what it has proven to be would mean political suicide. In future crises, much like Hurricane Katrina, our leaders will remain comfortably divided and satisfied with passing the buck. They ve learned that the public is use to having new glass houses so long as a dutiful and patriotic stance is projected. Half of the battle is about keeping the boss happy, no matter what, right?

Posted by: Frank | February 19, 2007 6:15 PM

Kevin -- The "religious left" has no desire to shut everyone else out the way the right did and still would if it could. I will say this, however: I do believe that spiritual revival is imminent, but I think Jim got something right that the "right" missed. The likes of Falwell, Robertson and Dobson were praying for God's spirit to sweep people into the church and change culture so that they could avoid the real work of ministry. Even a casual look at Scripture should make clear that He doesn't work like that, and evangelicalism in general -- praise God! -- is beginning to get it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 19, 2007 6:44 PM

Jim, you've been saying that "the monologue of the Religious Right is over" for what, three/four years now? That's like Paul Revere saying "The British are coming!" in 1780! If the monologue of the Religious Right is indeed over, perhaps it shouldn't be your (only) major talking point. It's interesting that you point out how many "cheers" your statement draws. It's almost as though the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply to you, who touts your righteousness in public for everyone to see.

Posted by: HASH(0x1197768c) | February 19, 2007 7:57 PM

Jim, you've been saying that "the monologue of the Religious Right is over" for what, three/four years now? That's like Paul Revere saying "The British are coming!" in 1780! If the monologue of the Religious Right is indeed over, perhaps it shouldn't be your (only) major talking point. It's interesting that you point out how many "cheers" your statement draws. It's almost as though the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply to you, who touts your righteousness in public for everyone to see. You miss the point. Jim is saying, and has been for some time, that someday the "religious right" will no longer dominate evangelical Christianity the way it once did, at the exclusion of even those evangelicals that think differently and now, thank God, that day is coming true -- in the grand tradition of Biblical prophecy, he referred to things yet to come in the present tense. The cheers that he gets should be a warning that a whole lot of other people also are tired of the divisions that the power-hungry right has perpetrated. And -- get this -- it probably still won't talk to people like Wallis, which is why he keeps saying it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 19, 2007 8:21 PM

Oh and Jim is pointing out his own righteousness by claiming that the monologue is over. All he is saying is that there is more discussion between both sides. He never claimed that what he felt made him righteous. p

Posted by: Payshun | February 19, 2007 8:49 PM

Speaking of monologues and dialogues, whatever happened to Jim inviting conservatives to debate on this site? He did it once with Ralph Reed. Surely there are others who would happily accept his invitation.
I was somewhat amused to discover that when typing in in my google search yesterday, the first thing to pop up was his debate with Ralph Reed. Of course, it was Reed--not Wallis--who brought up the issue of illegitimacy. I didn't find any article where Wallis brought it up...

Posted by: jesse | February 19, 2007 9:01 PM

I just saw Jim Wallis was on Tucker Carlson. I'm suprised there was no announcement here about it.

Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | February 19, 2007 9:17 PM

Methinks Kevin S. didn't give a damn when the Religuos Right practically owned everything in terms of what the gen pub saw as a "Christian" take on the issues. In fact I'd wager to say he probably didn't notice there was a problem at all. You're hypocrisy shines like la light in the darkness.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | February 19, 2007 10:08 PM

I think a revival would question the country's budget priorities, which Jim Wallis and Sojourners have been steadfastly unwilling to do. What does it say about a country when it devotes the majority of its resources to the instruments of death? The Fiscal Year 2008 budget request includes $930 billion for discretionary spending (the money the President and Congress must decide and act to spend each year), roughly $481 billion of which will go to the Pentagon. The "National Defense" category of the federal budget for FY'08 accounts for over half of all discretionary spending (52 percent). [NOTE: These totals do NOT include funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the $141.7 billion requested for the "Global War on Terror" were included in both the request for the Department of Defense and the total for discretionary spending, the percentage of Pentagon spending of total discretionary spending would jump to over 58 percent.]

Posted by: Bill Samuel | February 19, 2007 10:14 PM

So far none of these policies has been substantively reversed. Don't worry -- sometimes death takes a while.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 19, 2007 10:33 PM

Bill, Thanks for the specifics. I knew that the budget was not showing the full costs of the war, but 58% of discretionary spending going for defense is pretty compelling evidence for the need for a focused campaign to address that. I wonder if Amnesty International or Act for Change or Protestants for the Common Good or Catholic Relief Services or other similar groups might have sponsored "take action" opportunities to make that point with members of congress. Jim also said: "...It's time to remember the spiritual revivals that helped lead to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the United States; the black church's leadership during the American civil rights movement; ... and, today, how the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal churches of the global South are mobilizing to address the injustices of globalization...". Jim has often pointed out that the war in Iraq is detracting from our energy and resources to make progress on social issues here in the US and abroad, and I think he has also addressed the broader issue of overall defense spending and its affect as well.

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 19, 2007 10:37 PM

"Methinks Kevin S. didn't give a damn when the Religuos Right practically owned everything in terms of what the gen pub saw as a "Christian" take on the issues." I picked up Wallis' book when it came out, looking to see what the other side of the coin had to offer. I became disinterested after chapter nine, when he compared Bush to the antichrist.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 19, 2007 10:44 PM

Joseph T, I think you left out a few transgressions of the Religious Right... I've heard they kick puppies, as well. Surely there are other things you can blame them for.

Posted by: jesse | February 19, 2007 11:07 PM

And I don't think I or anyone else here would want to see him debate Falwell. I thought the debate went really well between him and Reed, though. A lot of other intelligent, thoughtful conservatives would be willing to debate him, I'm sure.

Posted by: jesse | February 19, 2007 11:17 PM

"I think a revival would question the country's budget priorities, which Jim Wallis and Sojourners have been steadfastly unwilling to do." Hello Bill, Please see MLK's quote that's on today's Sojo Verse and Voice: "What does it say about a country when it devotes the majority of its resources to the instruments of death?" Sojourners has been writing about the cost to the most vulnerable due to war and militarism for years. Thanks, Carolyn

Posted by: Carolyn | February 19, 2007 11:58 PM

I agree that Chrisitanity is dialoguing about these issues (though I disagree that this dialogue has just begun). What I don't see is Wallis participating in the dialogue by engaging the substantive policies advocated by conservatives.
Because in many cases they either create the problems Jim is addressing or do nothing to ameliorate them. Furthermore, when the conservatives came up with their "solutions" they consulted with absolutely no one outside their sphere of interest or influence -- which is precisely why they don't work.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2007 12:26 AM

But I don't think even someone like Charles Colson would debate Jim -- he dissed him too (and that was also on this website). --So, when Colson addresses Wallis's arguments, it's "dissing", and when Wallis makes the outrageous claim that Colson doesn't believe people have a right-to-life after birth, what is it called?
One of them isn't willing to seriously consider the arguments of the other, but it ain't Colson.

Posted by: jesse | February 20, 2007 12:51 AM

Jesse, The objection I've heard from Jim is that some conservatives stress just the one aspect of it... making abortion illegal... without also supporting the single mother after her child is born... on the assumption that the single mother can pull herself and her child up by her own bootstraps... or poor families in other circumstances... that's the concept... as I've heard it and read about it... Jim calls for a variety of supports for single mothers and poor families... and some conservatives do also...

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 20, 2007 1:14 AM

Rick, You know Wallis's statement is outrageous because you don't even address it.
Wallis said Colson does not believe people outside the womb have the right to life. He believes people outside the womb should have no legal protection from being murdered.
Wallis doesn't really think this about Colson, but the fact that he made this ridiculous statement is evidence that he doesn't really want to address the arguments of people who believe the right-to-life should be our top concern. Of course, attempting to argue that Colson doesn't care about people outside the womb is pretty ridiculous based on any measure. Ever heard of Prison Fellowship? Not to play the comparison game, but since you asked for it...Colson has done more for the needy than Wallis, Sojo, or anybody on the Religious Left.

Posted by: jesse | February 20, 2007 1:25 AM

"Except that he does, by comparing Bush and Bush's America to the beast of Revelation 13. Granted, his butchering of the passage is so brutal, one could suggest that the comparison is perhaps accidental, but it seems an editor might point out the obvious here. kevin s." While children go to school hungry and come home to inadequate health care. The elderly are choosing between food and medicine. The mentally ill live on the street out of grocery carts. We're in the middle of the worst mistake in our history.
Our deficit is so great we may never recover. Our education system is ranked about 14th against developed countries. We have more people in prison than any developed country in the world, even Russia. This list could go on and on and on.... And you the king of the Republi-Nazi Apologist want to talk about whether Jim used a particular biblical passage properly. What the hell are your values?

Posted by: butch | February 20, 2007 2:28 AM

butch, ...sock it to me... geopolitics, I think you are right... and, would you have decided to set up an unmoderated blog... Dobsen, Falwell, and Robertson have not done that... are you stupid, Jim... I think Jim is dumb like a fox...

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 20, 2007 3:16 AM

There is a narrowness in your thought stream that doesn't allow Jim to "take his blows". He's entered a political boxing match and he is not ALWAYS correct in how he expresses himself. Well, it's not so simple as that. You see, many of Jim's basic beliefs mirror mine, and I know what it's like to be attacked by other evangelicals for having them. As I have said before here and on other threads, conservatives are trying to marginalize Jim (and not just him, BTW) for not toeing the conservative party line, just as they've always done. But as he noted, the tide is turning -- and the right just doesn't like it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2007 3:56 AM

butch, What your local political group is doing is what the religious/spiritual groups around the US ought to be doing... and are not doing... enough... In my view... ..."thirsty", "hungry", "naked"... To those who object to government spending for assistance to persons in extreme poverty abroad and homeless persons here in our country, I say, question the expenditures on "sanctuary space"... and just start diverting some of your charitable contributions from "sanctuary space" to real charity... Kevin? Others who think like Kevin? Sojourners?

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 20, 2007 4:53 AM

"Except that he does, by comparing Bush and Bush's America to the beast of Revelation 13. Granted, his butchering of the passage is so brutal, one could suggest that the comparison is perhaps accidental, but it seems an editor might point out the obvious here. kevin s." Wallis introduces the section on Antichrist with: "As we reflect on our response to the American empire and what it stands for, a reflection on the early church and empire is instructive."
This is not a comparison of Bush with the Antichrist, at least as most people understand "compare." Instead, it's a suggestion to draw from Scripture a Christian response to empire. Or are you denying the United States is an empire?

Posted by: Carl Copas | February 20, 2007 5:09 AM

The religious right needed to be exposed for the rent-seeking, special interest, manipulative, exclusive ideologues that they are. Their appeals to patriotism and nationalism in the name of God were misplaced. The license granted to Israeli Zionists to commit violence without just cause departs from the unique ethical mandate entrusted to followers of Christ. Violence is only justified for Christians in order to halt aggressors and protect innocents. Secular nations may do what they will, but it is the responsibility of the Church to work for social justice.
We can petition those who hold the sword to punish evildoers, but there is no mandated role for the state to go beyond this into the unique realm of the Church: charity. If there is good to be done it must be done voluntarily by willing agents. The Church is the proper institution for organizing, equipping, covering, confirming, and channeling such agents to those who are in need. We must recognize this and keep from falling into the same trap that our mainstream grandfathers did before the evangelical religious right did also.
The state is powerful, and if it could be managed in such a way as to do good it could be a powerful tool. But the entire basis for the state is force. Compulsion. No edict is obeyed out of volition, only by submission under threat of punishment. Good works done under such conditions are stripped of their virtue. The incentive structure for those who make decisions for the state disables them from making decisions for the good. They are only capable of deciding in favor of the efficient.
Appeals to the state to do the work specifically delegated to the church is the same as asking the king to do the priestly work of sacrifice. Saul lost his kingdom for such behavior. David recognized where the lines were drawn. Mainstream Christianity relinquished its proper role of managing welfare last century. The state took over. Whether the state has done a better job is irrelevant to those who recognize it as their unique responsibility. Evangelical Christianity attempted to impose morality upon the state based upon human values instead of godly virtues. Where it succeeded it even got the values wrong.
The message is: Work to restrict the state to its proper sphere: wielding the sword for the punishment of evildoers. But first, work to build the church, and to live out the gospel by imitating Him who called us.

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | February 20, 2007 6:56 AM

"Not all believe that the speaker of those words was God, but the idea of love of God and neighbor is shared by all..." If you don't believe that the speaker of those words was God, than who should you follow?

Posted by: kevin s. | February 20, 2007 7:25 AM

Nobody is discussing the actual blog/article written by Wallis here. Focus. Wake up! It's titled, "A Revival for Justice." There are basically the same people commenting and sidetracking off into various NARROW points. They do that because many of them can't accept what Wallis is saying as truth from the Almighty -- there has to be some sort of ideological label attached to it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2007 2:52 PM

Frank, and Rick, Would that this blog could become a place for sharing ideas instead of what it is... from the very beginning it has been a stage for those who oppose the broader values from "God's Politics" to attacke the values... and the rest of us aren't smart enough to figure out how to change that... with the process for posting messages here being what it is... Apparently Beliefnet is working on some "tools" for use on some of the various kinds of discussion groups that occur on their web site... it's not clear to me whether that will occur for the blogs... and the one other blog that has any significant level of participation is "con crunch"... and the banter there is about the same as it is here... A number of us just can't understand how it is possible for attackers to spend entire days on this blog... if Dobsen, Falwell, or Robertson offered the same opportunity that this blog affords to those who align with them, I doubt that any of us (who spend substantial parts of our days responding to the attacks which occur here on this blog) would bother to post messages on blogs by those three persons... So, I think what you observe is accurate... and I hope you and others who visit here from time to time will come up with an approach that will change this blog to something that is productive for those who spend lots of time here... Best wishes!!!

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 20, 2007 4:01 PM

Dear Mike Hayes, Thanks for the eloquent response. I agree. Especially, when you say, "A number of us...those three persons..." So, that obviously means there is already a good deal of focus with many who visit and contribute here. Jelousy, retribution, excessive one-ups-menship, etc. is rarely redeeming and should be ingested with a careful dose of moderation, for sure. Simply put, it's worth letting the attackers, attack - 'words can heal me but never break me' as silly as that may sound, it rings true. I think most people are intellectually adroit enough to shield off the unproductive banter. But it's also AS IMPORTANT, in my opinion, for there to be a sufficient degree of understanding about MAINTAINING the kind of focus and broad perspective that's required for the profound topics that this blog surrounds itself with. That would be my suggestion in how to apply a more productive approach on this particular blog.

Posted by: Frank | February 20, 2007 4:38 PM

Let's be realistic here, however. I personally would love to be able to soar above the ideological divide and just focus on God's truth. But prophetic ministry by its very nature is about recognizing specific wrong and calling out certain people and groups, thus causing controversy. On another thread I said -- and truly believe -- that the conservatives have some serious theological problems that they clearly do not intend to address and I was criticized for saying that. It is an injustice in itself to not extract past spiritual revivals mentioned above, which were born of the divine. Let's understand them better. Perhaps not enough of us are truly aware of our own personal justice. But here's the injustice for me: Many of the people who are complaining about the "religious left" are quick to adopt the results of such revivals as their own regardless of their ideological ancestors' opposition, primarily because they crave the authority that comes with them. For example, it irritates me to no end that conservatives pay homage to Martin Luther King Jr. when the "born-again Christians" of that day either ignored or hated him. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas called that kind "spiritual shoplifters" because they wanted to steal things, in this case authority, without paying the price. Colson even said in a BreakPoint commentary, I believe last year, that King would have opposed Roe v. Wade or supported John Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court when absolutely none of his writings or speeches at any time alluded to any sympathy for those positions on the political right.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2007 5:12 PM

It's just always so tempting to continue indulging in those kind of arguments, for instance. It's often very difficult to keep from getting dragged into an exhausting and counter-productive debate once you begin down that road. Frank | 02.20.07 - 12:53 pm | #
I'm serious when I ask where do you stand and fight?

Posted by: butch | February 20, 2007 5:55 PM

I don't know if SoJo has given up on any particular issue but everyone has to choose what they will work on in any particular time frame.

Posted by: butch | February 20, 2007 7:04 PM

Frank, Thank you for your advice.

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 20, 2007 8:28 PM

Kevin S: "I picked up Wallis' book when it came out, looking to see what the other side of the coin had to offer. I became disinterested after chapter nine, when he compared Bush to the antichrist." Yeah, the Antichrist could sue Jim for defamation of character for such a brazen insult!

Posted by: Truthteller | February 21, 2007 1:51 AM

mike says; "I admire your tenacity" Some if not most may disagree but I intend to meet the devil at the temple steps. I m here to accomplish something and those who seem to me to be here for other purposes will cause me to point out what I think they are here for with accurate terms. I simply call a spade a spade according to my judgment; if you don t agree call them hearts. I won t quote any scripture but I do submit my behavior to my Lord Jesus Christ, if I did quote any scripture it would be in red letters. There are big issues to be dealt with; I list a few of them again please add those you think are important. While children go to school hungry and come home to inadequate health care. The elderly are choosing between food and medicine. The mentally ill live on the street out of grocery carts. We're in the middle of the worst mistake in our history. Our deficit is so great we may never recover. Our education system is ranked about 14th against developed countries. We have more people in prison than any developed country in the world, even Russia. These I ve mentioned before let me add a new one. 3,000 people died in the twin towers and we have a war on terror. 6,000 children die each year because of drunk drivers, that s right I said children, I m not counting the adults, fathers, mothers, husbands and wives, etc. Where is the war on drunk drivers, am I missing something. If children would empty their piggy banks and hire Abramoff they could get something done, maybe they could have their own casino.

Posted by: butch | February 21, 2007 4:05 AM

it looked so easy our heritage beckoned the nation was, after all, christian and so they began their crusade marching toward theocracy and as they plodded the children wailed are we there yet? and god whispered you're going the wrong way

Posted by: tom cady | February 23, 2007 10:34 AM