Kevin, please define Babylonian Capitalism please. Thanks.

Posted by: Blake | October 22, 2007 3:21 PM

I really appreciate the gracious tone of the debate between Dr. Land and Rev. Wallis. They set an excellent example of how to disagree while showing respect and not questioning the other's faith or integrity. And I'm SO glad that the progressive evangelical voice is now being heard alongside the conservative evangelical voice.

Posted by: Rachel | October 22, 2007 3:50 PM

Jim definitely seemed to make better, or more compelling, points. I don't know whether that's a result of the editing or not.

One question I have though is about the debate over charity vs. justice. Land makes the point that conservatives Christians give more to charitable causes than liberals. Wallis lauds them for this but says they need to go further and advocate for a society in which injustice (imperfectly defined as some people going without while others have far more than they need) is addressed by the state; that we need to use the government to correct the injustice of economic inequality.

I understand where he's coming from. But then when it comes to the topic of abortion, Land is outraged that our country allows such and such number of abortions each day. Wallis says he's concerned about that as well but is also concerned about the 30,000 childen who die of hunger each day (what's the universe here?). He makes a call for state intervention to save those 30k children, but there's no call to use the power of the state to end the injustice of abortion. Why? One would think that if Wallis is fine with using the state to correct economic injustice, he'd want to use the power of the state to correct another injustice, that of abortion.

It makes me think that Jim is only "concerned" about abortion, because he can use it to make a larger point to conservatives about helping the poor. I'd bet that Jim would pick up a lot of conservative converts to his cause if he would actively work to end legalized abortion. I think that's the main problem with him being embraced more fully.

And this is the first time I've heard the phrase "Babylonian Capitalist" as well. I wonder how that could be abbreviated and better thrown around as an epithet...Babcaps...BabyCaps... "You stupid conservative BabyCaps!"

Posted by: Eric | October 22, 2007 4:02 PM

False god #1= Capitalism= letting the market decide, profit as the highest value, Mammon, greed

False god #2= Socialism= trusting in the welfare state to provide daily bread for all

Now, even as we expose these idols, how is the God made known in Jesus, working through us today to provide daily bread for all of us?

Posted by: Duh-sciple | October 22, 2007 5:18 PM

Why does everything have to be mutually exclusive? Why do we have to choose between doing something about abortion and doing something about impoverished, starving children? Aren't these both important issues?

Why must we speak out against Christians who want to feed children or take better care of God's creation?

Why is the argument, "We should care about the environment BUT we should care more about humans?" Why the disclaimer? We must realize that our neglect and abuse of the environment will have a negative impact on human life.

Posted by: pe | October 22, 2007 6:28 PM

It's hard to not be critical about Wallis's and his progressive crowd being Christian since he and they parrot everything the godless left is trying to force on society. I doubt that the Apostles and the Lord had "in mind" feeding and caring for the poor, so that they could join Liberals and Progressives in unfettered sexual promiscuity, perversion and abortions. Yeah, I'm thinking that if we are going to be looking at Babylonian behaviors, The Left is everything that that pagan and godless civilization had to offer.

So to "test all things" in light of the entire counsel of God's word, Mr. Wallis is on the side that deviates from the way, the truth and the life. It is far past time for Mr. Wallis, if he is to be of benefit in his beloved position in cementing Democrats rule and authority uber alles, that he start by following the the path that Christ Jesus and the Apostles laid out for followers of The Way.

Hippies turned into Liberals who have morphed into Progressives. And ever since they twisted the concept of making love and not war into a inebriated lascivious and licentious death for hundreds of millions of innocent people born and unborn, I think Mr. Wallis and his "ites" should repent first, and then after the long process of pulling almost fifty years of decadent logs from their eyes, Mr. Wallis can enter the dialogue with Christians in a much more Biblical fashion.

Posted by: Donny | October 22, 2007 6:52 PM

Donny,

Shut up. You are a fool. As a hippy liberal I care about the unborn but I also care about the people that made the terrible choice to abort their children. I have spent many hours counselling and healing people of that particular sin so I wish you would stop downplaying the great work people on the left are doing to heal and prevent the deaths of the unborn.

Why is it you can acknowledge the death of an unborn child but you can't own up to the brutal state and locally sponsored American genocide of the African and Sioux, Danae (Navajo) and countless other nations? Why are you so selective and believe the myth that our nation was founded on Christian principles?

How can you be so judgemental of my faith when my God delights in me and my hippy liberal views (well many of them.) My God loves the fact that I love the environment, that I as a hippy liberal black man make friends w/ the ostracized and the immigrant. I have friends that range from Armenian to Ethiopian and I have those friends because my liberal ideology promotes meeting people that are different from me.

My liberal ideology actually makes allowances for conservatives and I to work together as I will be doing w/ my mentor (a conservative fundamentalist) to teach people about their identity in Christ. So again stop making blanket statements about my faith and what I need to repent of and start first. You have been judgemental, condemning, selfish, racist (your xenophobic rants against Mexicans in particular,) fearful and also dismissive. Maybe if you started repenting of those things first we could talk till then I really wish you would be quiet.

Everyone else.
Hey folks,

I need your prayers more specifically my region (Southern CA) needs your prayers. Many parts of my city are burning as I type this and we need some more positivity, not to mention something to stop the wind. It's making things much worse than they really need to be. So if anything pray for rain or the wind to stop. Better yet keep praying against loss of life. From what little I understand there has been very little loss of life. But...

p

Posted by: payshun | October 22, 2007 7:16 PM

I wonder if the end of Matthew 25 is cloaked in conservative bibles. Jesus says there that anyone who sees someone hungry, thirsty, sick naked or a stranger and does not "serve" them is going to hell. Since this is the judgement of the "nations" a consistent biblical literalist (assuming there are any) would have to apply this to government policy.

Posted by: dg | October 22, 2007 7:51 PM

Wallis is an absolute snake on the abortion issue. You would never guess that he is pro-choice. He doesn't want equal treatment from the womb to the tomb at all.

Is there any evidence that God want the structures of this world to reflect the goodness and sovreignty of God, moreso than he prefers personal charity? I don't find that anywhere in scripture.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 22, 2007 8:48 PM

Thanks for your comment, ashpenaz. You explained it wonderfully. If we are really concerned about fighting abortion, we need to go the most effective route, and simply outlawing it is not going to do it. Check out Jimmy Carter's book, Our Endangered Values. He has a great chapter on abortion in which he explains how the abortion rate in South American countries is very high, despite the fact that abortion is illegal there. Compare that to some European countries in which the abortion rate is low despite it being legal. The deciding factor? Health care for women and their children.

Posted by: pe | October 22, 2007 9:24 PM

MIck,

I don't believe you are defending Donny. NOw that's funny.

You said:
Because you are against illegal immigration

Me:
Actually Donny believes the Mexicans are taking over and planning a race war. It's not that simple.

you:
birth control for minors

Me:
Prevention for minors that are sexually active.
under the age of consent

YOu:
believe in the Founding principles of this country of Freedom , mainly the government staying out of our lives as much as possible , you can not be as kind and loving as the guy who just wrote you off .

Me:
Too bad the founding fathers did not believe in them either. Read the Articles of Confederation and the notes taken during that time. Their less noble "attributes" are part of American history, actually they are the founding of it. But hey you can ignore that if you want to.
But please read this and get a clue.
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/kurt.mayer/Civilrights.htm

It doesn't go far enough but it can get the ball rolling.

Donny is a hypocrite and a xenophobe. Did you read his earlier comments on Mexicans? Maybe you should before you start implying how unloving I am.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 22, 2007 9:38 PM

What you (last several posters) and the fundamentalist church of my youth seem to be overlooking is that not all Christians are conservative. There are independent Christians and moderate ones and yes even liberal ones. And as brothers and sisters in Christ we are to love one another. Our spiritual alliance is to trump our political and patriotic beliefs, allegences and differences. In gentleness and kindness we are to nurture one another's understanding of God. Donny spews hatred, anger, and contempt - not exactly Christlike.

Donny said: " I doubt that the Apostles and the Lord had "in mind" feeding and caring for the poor, so that they could join Liberals and Progressives in unfettered sexual promiscuity, perversion and abortions."

Really? I thought we were to treat everyone as our neighbor. To love them as we love ourselves, regardless of how they treat us in return. With an unconditional kind of love. To forgive not once, not seven times, but seven times seventy. That God would forgive us in the same way that we have forgiven others. I don't remember the part of the story where during the feeding of the five thousand that Jesus tells the disciples to pass out the food only to those who repent first and give extra helpings to those who promise to become covenant level donors for the reconstruction of the Temple.

Funny how a rich, liberal member of the godless entertainment industry like Bono can remind of us something as important as GRACE. "It's the name of a girl. It's also a thought that could change the world." The free and unmerited favor of God. None of us deserves it - liberal or conservative. None of us can earn it. It seems pretty pious to believe that because God has given His grace to us that we have any kind of authority to lord it over others who are deemed less righteous than ourselves. "Hi, I'm a Christian and God loves me, but all of you totally suck. You godless, promiscuous hippie peace mongering freaks. Want to come to church with me on Sunday?" That's not a very good marketing plan for Christianity, now is it.......

No it seems those that have to yell the loudest are the least believable.

Grace is seen in the quiet example of those Amish families who forgave the stranger who murdered their children in their rural schoolhouse that day. Remember that news story? That's grace in action. They will know we are Christians by our love, not by our hate.

"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

Posted by: CKC | October 22, 2007 9:58 PM

What Jim Wallis does not tell you is that there are 146,000 abortions per day worldwide compared to 30,000 starvation deaths per day. Both issues are important.
Wallis' agenda is for the secular progressives under the guise of Christianity. He would never hold the same conference for conservative candidates that he did for Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama a few months back. Why not, he says he is pro-life but actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: Steve McConkey | October 22, 2007 11:12 PM

What Jim Wallis does not tell you is that there are 146,000 abortions per day worldwide compared to 30,000 starvation deaths per day. Both issues are important.

But many of those abortions are taking place in countries where abortion is already illegal.

Wallis' agenda is for the secular progressives under the guise of Christianity. He would never hold the same conference for conservative candidates that he did for Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama a few months back. Why not, he says he is pro-life but actions speak louder than words.

Not for lack of trying, however. I don't think the GOP has an incentive to do so.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 22, 2007 11:46 PM

"Then you're not reading all of your Bible Kevin. It's called the kingdom of God. Check out Brian McLaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus.""

I did. It was abysmal, and not because it challenged my worldview, but because it was poorly written, and McLaren's viewpoint poorly argued. It was largely wrong as well, which contributed to the latter point. Since you have apparently read portions of the Bible that I have not, can you please point me to the scriptures that favors the work governmental institutions over personal charity?

What you have is the prophets calling out kingdoms for abusing their people. Wallis is endeavoring to shoehorn his old Marxist views into these verses to pretend that the prophets were asking for social programs. They were doing nothing of the sort, and certainly were not suggesting that kingdoms ought to do the day-to-day work of God-fearing people.

"Give some reference of proof of Wallis being pro-choice, not just based on your opinion."

He believes that abortion ought to be legal. Read God's Politics. He describes an abortion ban as mean spirited, criminalizing the "choices of women backed into difficult and dangerous corners."

That you don't even believe me when I tell you he is pro-choice proves my original point.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 23, 2007 12:07 AM

Kevin,
There is nothing inconsistent with being pro-life and believing that abortion shouldn't be criminalised. You can in fact be both pro-life and pro-choice (as Wallis is). You believe that abortion is morally wrong (pro-life) and you believe that it shouldn't be criminalised (pro-choice). You of all people should be able to make that distinction. It's like believing that the poverty is wrong but that the government shouldn't take steps to fix it. Or believing that gambling (or pornography or promiscuity or drinking) is immoral but that the government shouldn't legislate against those either.

With regard to scriptural basis for governments acting in favour of the poor the prophets are a great place to start. However they both speak to the people's neglect of the poor, and specifically to the leader's neglect of the poor. This suggests that the leaders (i.e. the government) did have a responsibility to the poor.

But you really should consider the other contenders, Joseph, Nehemiah, Esther who each petitioned their rulers for assistance for their people. In both Joseph's and Nehemiah's case it was government funded support and in Joseph's case it included free food and land. So he specifically asked Pharoah to provide exactly the type of social program you're opposed to. (if only you were a liberal you could choose to overlook that, lol).

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 23, 2007 1:42 AM

"There is nothing inconsistent with being pro-life and believing that abortion shouldn't be criminalised."

a) I find this whole line of discussion banal. Yes, I get it. Consistent ethic of life, we're all pro-life because who is pro-death. Blah, blah, blah. You can support criminalization of abortion and be pro-choice, by your logic, but where does that get us? I'll simply avail myself of political shorthand.

b) I didn't say he wasn't pro-life. I said he was pro-choice.

Regarding the role of government, the pharaohs and other leaders possessed great wealth, much of it produced by the people of their nations. When the people asked government for help, they were simply asking for what was rightly theirs. If we pay tax dollars, there is no dispute as to whether the money should go to leaders or back to the people.

And yes, the Bible does allude to governmental systems, but those systems are would be extraordinarily difficult to translate into our governmental systems, and would be wholly inadequate even if we could do so.

But there is no call for governments to take an active role is redistributing wealth amongst the people, and there is certainly no scripture establishing said redistribution as a commandment higher than serving the poor ourselves. If you can find me the verse that does so, in your estimation, I'll be happy to take a look.

" It's like believing that the poverty is wrong but that the government shouldn't take steps to fix it"

I think government should take steps to eradicate poverty. I just disagree as to how this would be accomplished.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 23, 2007 3:01 AM

Kevin,
can you support criminalisation of abortion and be pro-choice? really? To be pro-choice simply means that you believe that the right to choose should not be legislated against, not that you agree with that choice. I'm pro-choice on abortion, on pornography, on drinking, on smoking, on adultery. I think they're all wrong, but I don't think they should be criminalised. So Wallis is pro-choice, it doesn't mean he supports or encourages abortions.

And I suggest you read Genesis 47 again before you make incorrect assertions about Pharaoh just helping people who'd contributed to his wealth. Joseph's family had in no way contributed to the wealth and yet were beneficiaries of it (they even received preferential employment). That sounds to me like a redistribution.

I do appreciate that you've clarified your position to one of 'no government redistribution' and not to one of 'no government responsibility.' (although from recollection that might have been Paul). And it's true that the prophets don't lay out a detailed plan of what exactly the rulers were meant to do for the poor, just that they didn't always do it.

I don't think anyone would argue with you that there is a higher Christian call to serve the poor ourselves (I think that might be in red letters even). But I don't recall anyone on these sites arguing against that, and many (conservative and liberal) have recounted some of their own and their churches acts of such service. In fact I believe it has only been conservative posters who have accused (probably falsely) liberals of wanting to abdicate responsibility to government. I'd like to suggest that the truer liberal christian position is to supplement personal acts of service and charity with government support, so that we can do whatever we can for the least of these (and part of what we can do is advocacy and voting in ways that will aid them).

By the way what is your plan for government taking steps to eradicate poverty?

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 23, 2007 6:55 AM

All the referencing of Old Testament scripture, and we seem to ignore the one salient reference available to us through the NEW Testament. Fact; the book of the Acts speaks of the efforts of the early church to "have all things in common." Result: miserable failure. The church had to immediately take steps to appoint deacons, within the church (not any governmental agency) to even feed the widows within the church. And the deacons did it with donated resources. No taxation, no forced giving. Voluntarism, from the very beginning, at least after the initial failure of an attempt at "quasi-socialism."

Posted by: joekc | October 23, 2007 8:36 AM

False comparison, Herman. Quite a false comparison.

What about all the Iraqi non-combatants that have been killed since our invasion began 4 1/2 years ago? Dead is dead, whether at Saddam Hussein's hand or by a stray bullet from an M16.

And maybe the so-called "liberals" (whoever they are) that you chastise here thought there were better ways to deal with Saddam Hussein than invading his country under the false pretexts that we did.

So whose logic was tortured?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | October 23, 2007 9:16 AM

Hey folks,
I need your prayers more specifically my region (Southern CA) needs your prayers. Many parts of my city are burning as I type this and we need some more positivity, not to mention something to stop the wind. It's making things much worse than they really need to be. So if anything pray for rain or the wind to stop. Better yet keep praying against loss of life. From what little I understand there has been very little loss of life. But...
p

P is right , there is need for prayer for these people , and my daughter and Grand daughter too please . Mick Sheldon

Praying for rain over Southern California.

Posted by: justintime | October 23, 2007 10:03 AM

My problem is, in all the debates, that I can't find a way to move from the words and actions of Jesus to the stands of the religious right.

I can't see a way from Jesus to support for the Iraq war.

I can't see a way from Jesus to lack of support for universal health care.

I can't see a way from Jesus to deporting or jailing undocumented immigrants.

I can't see a way from Jesus to ignoring global warming.

I can't see a way from Jesus to denying minimum wage.

I've been looking all over for a book which outlines the steps from Jesus to the policies of the Religious Right, but I haven't found any. The books I've found show how those policies are rooted in the Old Testament and letters of Paul, but I can't find any book which shows how those polices grow from the words and actions of Jesus. If you know of one, please tell me.

If you can show me how you personally start with the words and actions of Jesus and arrive at support for the War in Iraq, I would like to read it. I promise to do so with an open mind.

Posted by: ashpenaz | October 23, 2007 12:19 PM

Trent:
By the way what is your plan for government taking steps to eradicate poverty?
...
Kevin S.
The best way to eradicate poverty is through jobs and creating wealth. There is no economic assistance program that can eliminate poverty. Those who receive economic assistance are impoverished. As such, I can't say that I think government has that much of a role, and actually acts against its desired end.
...

IF the best way to eradicate poverty is through jobs and creating wealth, and SINCE only the wealthy can create jobs and wealth, it THEREFORE FOLLOWS that giving more money to the rich will allow them to lift the poor out of poverty by creating more jobs and more wealth.

Kevin recycles another example of conservative 'newspeak' where giving more money to the rich will lift the poor out of poverty.

War is peace and the truth is a lie.

Posted by: | October 23, 2007 12:33 PM

"it THEREFORE FOLLOWS that giving more money to the rich will allow them to lift the poor out of poverty by creating more jobs and more wealth."

That doesn't follow from what I said. I am opposed to corporate welfare.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 23, 2007 1:34 PM

Quickie multiple-choice survey:

What do you think is the main reason so many people in America today are turned off by Christianity and Christians?

a) The devil is whispering in their ears.

b) They have not met any Christians in their own lives who have radiated the love of Christ.

c) Far too many of the Christians in the public eye are divisive figures who do not radiate the love of Christ.

d) 87 percent of white evangelicals supported the re-election of GWB.

e) They don't want to give up their hedonistic ways.

f) They are under the impression that in order to be a Christian you must follow the religious agenda of the christian right.

Posted by: I and I | October 23, 2007 2:08 PM

I and I,
I can't decide between c d and f.
I'll have to guess 'd'.
What's the correct answer?

Posted by: justintime | October 23, 2007 2:34 PM

If we treated each other the way that God intended us to, we wouldn't have many of the difficulties we face in the world today. That is evangelism. Sharing the good news with others through our living example, every day.

THE most profound statement in this thread.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 23, 2007 2:56 PM

I'm glad someone pointed out that the early church model was such a failure that it had to be replaced with a more humanistic, hierarchical one.

Obviously Christianity could not have become a "power" religion adopted by secular Rome - and its successors, up to our own time - unless almost all of importance that Jesus taught us was explained away into nothingness by jesuitical theologies, of whatever stripe, protestant, catholic, orthodox.

And so we continue in our apostasy, just as all other religious believers, one with the rest of humanity in our sly rejection of Christ.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 23, 2007 3:05 PM

Kevin S.
The best way to eradicate poverty is through jobs and creating wealth. There is no economic assistance program that can eliminate poverty. Those who receive economic assistance are impoverished. As such, I can't say that I think government has that much of a role, and actually acts against its desired end.

I look back at the CCC and the WPA and I have difficulty following your logic Kevin. The government can create jobs and force other employeers to pay a living wage. Both of these will go a long way help relieving poverty. That is until the companies that complain about illegal immigrants pull up stakes and move south. If we have illegal immigrants at least the companies will stay in the US. Once we block the border, how many will close shop and remove all jobs and economic benefits from the US?

"If you can show me how you personally start with the words and actions of Jesus and arrive at support for the War in Iraq, I would like to read it. I promise to do so with an open mind.:If you can show me how you personally start with the words and actions of Jesus and arrive at support for the War in Iraq, I would like to read it. I promise to do so with an open mind."

Sure that's easy. Jesus said, "I have come to turn parents against their children, husbands against their wives", "go and do likewise". Now you have to fill in the gaps, but that's the closest I've come.

Posted by: Ken L | October 23, 2007 3:22 PM

I'm glad someone pointed out that the early church model was such a failure that it had to be replaced with a more humanistic, hierarchical one.

And that was a success ? Are you talking about the First century Church ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 23, 2007 3:45 PM

After all, if you've got yours, why change things?
Anything you can think of to make things any better will only make matters worse.
So, just make the most of life...

and don't forget to go to church on Sunday.

Posted by: justintime

Well said comrad ,

all glory to the state

Posted by: shirlyujest | October 23, 2007 3:48 PM

Justintime--no correct answer; it's just a survey. My answers would be similar to yours, though. Maybe throwing in b for good measure.

Posted by: I and I | October 23, 2007 4:14 PM

Me:
I wasn't just being the broken human that I am. For that I am sorry. God wants all people praying regardless of our political or theological leanings. Again I apologize. I have been up late working a lot helping w/ prepare meals for the relief agents. The company I work for has been really busy.

p

Posted by: payshun

God Bless you my friend .

When I first learned about Christ being alive , the thing I told to my future Pastor was I was not ready for this , learning along the way on my journey I have learned over and over again God meets us where we are in our life , but if we call out to him , he meets us . I guess coming from a less then forthright ill spent youth that lasted into my 30s I get a little passionate about the Grace of the Lord for we being humans .

Sorry I lost it myself and countered with a punch in other places to make up for my anger against you . There fore according to the scriptures I was just as guilty . and you were the bigger man to come forth first and apologize and help me see my own plank , politics does this to me at times , I enjoy the issues , but really can't handle the heat myself without lashing out at times . .

God bless you P ,

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 23, 2007 4:34 PM

What Jim Wallis does not tell you is that there are 146,000 abortions per day worldwide compared to 30,000 starvation deaths per day. Both issues are important.

But many of those abortions are taking place in countries where abortion is already illegal.

If you make a law where starvation is illegal , would it not matter to you if people continued to starve in those countries where starvation was illegal .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 23, 2007 4:41 PM

Eric,

I will be more emphatic now than I was before.

I don't fit neatly into any political party box anymore. I used to be a Republican. My views have shifted left of there. As my political and religious beliefs have evolved and become more consistent with each other, one thing has not changed. I believe abortion is murder. I believe an unborn child is a human life from the moment of conception. I believe they should have rights protected under the law. For as much as Wallis has helped coalesce my religious and political beliefs, I beleive he could (should) take a stronger line against abortion. I am sure that I am not alone in my view. I have my own sense of perhaps why he does not, and I choose not to judge him for that.

What has changed about my view of abortion is that I no longer elevate it to be the most important issue by which I judge a candidate. It is an important issue to me, but so are the other moral issues that Jim so often speaks of.

The inconsistency between the beliefs and actions of the most conservative of the religious right is at the heart of my politico-religious frustration. And Wallis sums it up in the first full paragraph on page 82 of God's Politics. What this book helped me realize was that my political and religious beliefs need to be consistent. And if I am any decent kind of person, I need to put my money where my mouth is. It's not enough to think and feel and beleive something. You have to live it.

Posted by: CKC | October 23, 2007 4:49 PM

I have a simple question: Is Jim Wallis and Sojourners for or against the legal protection of the unborn.

Posted by: Keith Pavlischek | October 23, 2007 5:12 PM

Does Jim Wallis think that such violence is good?

Check the Old Testament -- parts of it were bloody.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 23, 2007 5:32 PM

K:
The blog you mention also takes the prophets directive to help the oppressed and seems to presume this entails a social program. There is not reason to make this connection unless you want to.

Me:
You don't get off that easy. Those passages that you are dismissive of actually speak to governments using their resources for justice which means that God used those pagan, and Hebrew governments to help the poor or encouraged them to. It did not matter what society or culture God wanted the poor helped and he used governments to do it. That timelessness is not easily dismissed because you don't like the government doing anything like that. God wants governments doing justice. Now the question is will you accept that connection or ignore His heart on the subject?

p

Posted by: payshun | October 23, 2007 7:48 PM

Just go re-read the Ten Commandmants and Christ's Sermon on the Mount. Read the Beatitudes. Live your life with faith, humility, forgiveness, love and charity. Open your heart and pray for understanding and guidance. It begins with you, not the government. The government of this country has shown no compassion, love or an abiding faith in anything but special interests while playing false-faith with us. Jesus Christ has given us all the 'rules' we need to live our lives. So, instead of arguing about who is correct, the RR or the RL, put your trust in God. Those who choose to transgress will continue to do so, whether or not they profess to be Christians or athiests, unless or until they are willing to admit that we all far fall short of the glory of God. No law given by any government will ever surpass the law given to us by God. We are to respect and revere life... all life, and what is in the womb is life at conception.

Posted by: tryinghard | October 24, 2007 12:00 AM

"I don't have a lot of friends who think in terms of blind patriotism and judgment."

CKC says
I do and they aren't liberals

I do too , but I have so many liberal friends and those I know who have a blind faith in the belief that our government is out to get us , in fact conservative Christians are actually full of hate and want to take over the country , some folks regardless of facts think we brought down the world trade center , believe global warming will destroy us all in 10 years , some believe Bush is killing kids for Exxon . And these people complain about blind patriotism and judgement .

Not that you are in that category ,

Does Jim Wallis think that such violence is good?

Check the Old Testament -- parts of it were bloody.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin

Down Right Nasty , not to mention quite sexual. A little wine and the dad is keeping the family line with his dauhter . When i got saved I bought me a King James Bible with the thees and Thous and sat down and read it . I kept calling my friend who invited me to church . I could not believe it , well actually the problem was I was believing it . Makes Hollywood look pretty sober actually . Skip that last sentence , I forgot I am a conservative for a moment .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 24, 2007 2:47 AM

Kevin,
so don't rely solely on Joseph. Place Joseph side by side with Nehemiah and Esther for a biblical picture that it's ok to seek aid from governments for people who need it, and ok for those governments to redistribute some wealth in order to provide aid.

then look at any of the prophets for passages where rulers are judged for failing to care for the poor. Try Micah 3 for a start.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier,

"I don't think anyone would argue with you that there is a higher Christian call to serve the poor ourselves"

To which you replied, "Did you watch the clip?"

and I did and I saw Wallis commend the charity of the conservatives and then he argued that justice was also important and that justice is systemic. He never said it was more important, and I doubt you'll find him saying that anywhere (happy to be proved wrong though).

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 24, 2007 10:33 AM

Wallis is an absolute snake on the abortion issue.

What was that about bearing false witness against your neighbor?

You would never guess that he is pro-choice.

Of course not.

He doesn't want equal treatment from the womb to the tomb at all.

Proof?

Is there any evidence that God want the structures of this world to reflect the goodness and sovreignty of God, moreso than he prefers personal charity? I don't find that anywhere in scripture.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 22, 2007 8:48 PM

What part of "I desire mercy not sacrifice" do you not understand? Have you ever read the prophets?

Do you understand at all that there are Leftist who are pro-life? Communist, Humanist, Gay and even atheist? Welcome to life outside your little bubble.

I gotta question for you: Did you ever once protest the Clinton Chronicles? Or the whole Vince Foster thing for the sham that it was proven to be? Or did you cheer it on? I have a reason for sking this.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 24, 2007 1:13 PM

Both of the speakers had holes in their arguements. My understanding is that the Pharisees of Jesus' day were the ones who were self righteous, thought they knew the answers and thought they were holier(see also smarter) than the person next to them. Seems like times have not changed too much.

Posted by: Nickel | October 24, 2007 6:56 PM

I think they believe its a non issue . Maybe better stated , one they will get around to after they make sure conservative christians are put in their place and poverty is erradicated .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 25, 2007 4:13 AM

How long have you even been aware of Sojouners?

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 25, 2007 12:56 PM

I am just here to support Jim Wallis. The personal conflicts that I have always carried with our society have not been addressed in the public arena, until now. Folks like Richard Rohr, Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren are paving the way for a new generation of greater Christian maturity. Much Love.

Posted by: James B. | October 26, 2007 1:36 AM

Connie -- Brilliant post.

I would also add that older men need to teach younger men (hopefully fathers/sons) that a woman is more than just a piece of meat to be used at their pleasure. One of my favorite lines is that, when we call ourselves "brothers and sisters in Christ," you certainly wouldn't treat your blood sister like a slut or allow any other guy to do the same.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 26, 2007 3:46 PM

I listened to the entire debate and find plenty of good points made by both men. However, I also find that Jim Wallis is a sly and clever liar (reminds me of the Genesis account of the interaction in the Garden of Eden between the Eve and the Devil). Unfortunately, I cannot claim that Land has all the solutions either so will have to take him to task over on his blog.

Jim Wallis is a "one trick pony" that only knows the mantra of cure poverty. His answer to everything was, "What about the poor people?" This is in fact an issue about which Jesus taught however, Jim ignores the whole counsel of God or else he would know that the poor will always be with us. He would know that there are many other issues that concern God and that some of them are far more important than poverty. Some folks are poor because they have the incurable desease of laziness.

The problem with the liberal left "robin hood" solution is that socialism will not solve the probelm. It did not work in the fairy tale and it has failed every place in the world where it was tried. Nonetheless, if the liberal left truly believed what it claims, why have they not voluntarily taken a vow of poverty and turned over all their wealth to the poor, or to the government for redistribution?

Perhaps when they lead by example instead of trying to make everyone else pay for their foolishness, they might begin to earn some credibility.

Posted by: S. W. | October 28, 2007 3:17 AM