Wow! Those are the strongest words from Wallis I have seen in a while. True though, I was really suprised to see the endorsement myself. I really dont see the motive behind it. Robertson has had such strong words towards homosexuality and abortion and is now in a sense endorsing it. I dont get it myself. I feel that it was right of Wallis to bring up the Charles Taylor connection, that to often goes over looked. I feel its fitting what this blog is filed under: casting stones.

Posted by: Evan | November 8, 2007 5:30 PM

I, being a conservative ( compassionate) Republican was astonished by Robertsons endorsement to Giuliani. I can't figure it out to save me. Another thing I can't figure out is why the so called "Religious" right does not back up a more aunthentic candidate like Huckabee. Oh wait.....I guess it does make sense since Huckabee is not backed by a lot of capital. This is, to say the least, Hypocrisy at it's purist.

Posted by: Anon | November 8, 2007 6:25 PM

My question is about Rudy. What is he thinking? An endorsement from Pat is the kiss of death. Rudy is so out of touch with conservative Christians that he doesn't know that Robertson is no longer respected.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | November 8, 2007 7:36 PM

If there's anything you can expect from Pat Robertson, it's hypocrisy.

Posted by: justintime | November 8, 2007 8:20 PM

In Robertson's defense, it's very likely that Giuliani would appoint relatively conservative judges to the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. Since the appointment of judges is the most important thing a President can do on social issues like abortion or gay marriage, Robertson may be figuring that Giuliani would do no great harm on those issues, especially compared to anyone the Democrats are likely to nominate.

For the record, I would not hesitate to vote for Rudy Giuliani in the general election if he were the GOP nominee, and I would urge Christians of a conservative mind to do likewise.

That having been said, I find it hard to understand Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani right now, when there are better candidates for the GOP nomination out there on the moral issues and none of the serious GOP contenders is likely to be soft on Islamic radicalism.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 8, 2007 8:50 PM

The American Christo-fascistic crime syndicate:
Pat Robertson as Godfather
Rudi Giuliani as enforcer
Will Pat Robertson's dream come to pass here on Earth?

Are you kidding me?

Posted by: justintime | November 8, 2007 9:04 PM

Why can't I, a pro-life Christian, vote for Hillary Clinton because I agree with her on other policies if Pat Robertson can vote for Guiliani?

Please explain.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 8, 2007 9:26 PM

I wonder if Pat Robertson is unwittingly demonstrating his God is not Jesus. Rather, his seat at the children's table of power the Republicans have provided for right wing preachers is his prize.

Rudy Guliani has an endorsement. Pat Robertson has embarrassed himself and betrayed his principles.

Posted by: strut2k | November 8, 2007 10:06 PM

"his seat at the children's table of power the Republicans have provided for right wing preachers"

Now that was a brilliant phrase, strut2k! :-)

Posted by: Rachel | November 8, 2007 10:19 PM

Maybe the confusion as to Robertson's thinking more reflects the prejudices of the 'surprised by this' crowd than it reflects on Robertson. "How could Robertson do this. It is so inconsistent with the box we have him in. He must be crazy. Oh yes, that's it. He is consistent, because that's the box; that's who he is: crazy."

Mr. Wallis, do you, or do you not want Evangelicals to have a broader agenda than abortion policy??

I frankly am unconcerned with who Robertson backs for President; and I suspect you were also not anxiously awaiting to hear who he supported. It just feels like you couldn't bypass the opportunity to take a jab; rehearsing the list of comments/actions of Robertson repeated ad nauseum that justify discounting him. But who are you really taking a jab at? Is his life and ministry really best characterized by a list of foibles?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 8, 2007 11:55 PM

Contradictions are not uncommon on the RR -- they love embryos (anti-abortion), but care little for full-fledged human life (supporting capital punishment but fighting insurance for children). They claim to follow Christ( the Prince of Peace) but prefer waging war to seeking peaceful solutions. It seems they can always justify exceptions to God's rules for expediency.

Yes, we are supposed to love our neighbor, except when we think our neighbor might be a terrorist, in which case our notions of self-preservation trump God's clear commands to us.We are to be helpful to those in need except when we can find a reason to blame the needy for getting into trouble in the first place. We are supposed to leave judgment up to God, except when He seems to be ignoring what we consider clear infractions by some. It's not a big step to endorse or vote for someone we think can vanquish the really evil ones, the Democrats.
Of course, not all RRs are so contrary. Many actually do live by God's rules, but they have been out-shouted by the likes of Robertson who know how to bob and weave around and provide easy answers.
From what I have seen of Robertson, he is all about money. So whatever reasons he might express for this endorsement, it has to be about money.

Posted by: middleman | November 9, 2007 12:18 AM

Like the others here I was amazed to hear that Robertson was supporting Guiliani for President. For decades Robertson has denounced any politician who was pro-gay rights and pro-choice on abortion. But now he supports the pro-gay, pro-choice Guiliani. What gives? Maybe it is because Guiliani is the most warmongering of the Republican candidates. (After all, Robertson has always been a big time supported of every bit of bloodletting the US has engaged in.) Or maybe it is because Guiliani is for big tax cuts for millionaires. (No doubt a policy that pleases his greedy little heart.) Who knows?
I also knew that Donny would put his 2 cents worth in. (Does he not understand that nobody really cares what he thinks?) But I know he wants one of us to ask so here goes. So Donny what is it that the Left promotes that is so "antithetical" to the Gospel? Peace? Helping the poor? Justice for the oppressed? I'm just dying to know.
By the way Donny, how do you feel about your hero Pat Robertson endorsing that evil sinner Guiliani? Are you all curled up in the fetal position and sobbing? I'm just curious. :-)

Posted by: Richard | November 9, 2007 12:35 AM

Posted by Donny|November 9th,2007 12:01 AM

"The Left" that you support so dearly, promotes the kind of life and lifestyle that is antiethical to the Gospel and the witness of the Apostles."

Donny, I need you to explain something to me. The "Left" is pro-choice" which I consider myself to be. As well as a social liberal. And one, of the many reasons evangelical, right-wing Christianity turns me the other way is because of all of the arrogant "answers" they seem to have for everything. (only my opinion) I hold this view through experiences.

When I was younger coming out of a Planned Parenthood a little shaken and scared by myself....there were Christian protesters shouting things at me, holding signs and one even threw something at my car when I was driving off.

How ethical to the Gospel and witness of the Apostles is that?

Thanks, Amber

Posted by: | November 9, 2007 1:02 AM

Pat Robertson is a lunatic, and most conservative Christians say as much. This should officially end the incessant Dobson-Comma-Falwell comparisons that Waliis is so apt to use when demonizing Christian conservatives. Dobson has thrown every ounce of weight toward opposing Giuliani's nomination.

"When you're reduced to supporting someone you don't like to defeat someone you dislike even more, you have a real problem."

You have a problem, but not a personal problem. The electability issue is why even Dailykos liberals are going to throw their support behind Hillary. She represents a huge comprise for a wide variety of liberal causes, but she is very pro-choice (which remains the number one issue for Democrats) and electable because of her tough pro-war stances.

If I believe that Giuliani is the only opportunity to defeat Hillary in the election, then I will vote for him, and you will vote for Hillary. We each want our ideologies to win the day.

That said, I see no reason why Mike Huckabee or John McCain can't defeat Hillary, especially in the states that Hillary hopes to put to use in 2008. Most conservatives have not jumped ship, which is why Giuliani has stayed below 30% in the polls.

"I would still like to know why I'm an apostate for supporting Clinton but it's fully Christian to support Guiliani"

First, you are not apostate for supporting Clinton. The reason a (how the hell can I put this without bringing on the semantics brigade?) non-advocate-of-nationalized-legal-abortion can support Giuliani is that this issue currently rests in the courts. Giuliani has pledged to support those who, in the mold of Roberts and Alito, will maintain a conservative judicial overview.

A consistent conservative will note that a conservative judge will benefit society in a variety of areas (eminent domain, medicinal marijuana, etc...) and that consistent judges can be relied upon to judge and not legislate. I have heard the case (though I don't necessarily buy it) that Giuliani would be the best shepherd of said judges. This should explain the paradox.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 9, 2007 1:25 AM

Anyone who thinks Giuliani's for a smaller, less-intrusive government hasn't experienced his authoritarian, intrusive, expensive heavy-handed style of governance.

I predict that James Dobson will, when all's said and done, endorse Giuliani either overtly or covertly by plainly non-endorsing his opponent.

It is interesting that abortion and homosexuality fade away as issues, though, in favor of authoritarianism and jingoism. Perhaps that is the core value of nationalistic religious conservatism? In other times and places in history, conservative religious nationalism bought into the siren call of authoritarianism and often even totalitarianism in times when politicians played on fear and anxiety.

We are entering such a time, when the "strong man on the horse" who's not afraid to act, who offers security regardless of niceties, is very compelling to an insecure public.

We have a lot more to fear, than fear itself.

It would really be a shame for conservatism to succumb to fulfilling all the unfair caricatures! It's not conducive to bringing people to Christ, either, for evangelicals to identify themselves with such extremist political follies. This failure in Europe was the main cause of the loss of credibility that Christianity has undergone there as a consequence of Christianity's complicity in the terrible bloodletting there.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 9, 2007 2:11 AM

"I predict that James Dobson will, when all's said and done, endorse Giuliani either overtly or covertly by plainly non-endorsing his opponent."

This is ridiculous. Of course Dobson is not going to endorse Hillary Clinton, given that they agree on very few issues. Dobson's non-endorsement of Hillary will not be a covert anything. He has made it clear that he will not endorse Rudy.

"We are entering such a time, when the "strong man on the horse" who's not afraid to act, who offers security regardless of niceties, is very compelling to an insecure public."

We are? The war in Iraq is very unpopular, and the "strong man on the horse" type is less popular than he would have been five years ago. So how can you argue that we are entering a time when such a figure would be popular.

"This failure in Europe was the main cause of the loss of credibility that Christianity has undergone there as a consequence of Christianity's complicity in the terrible bloodletting there."

This isn't really true. At minimum, you are vastly over-simplifying a narrative that has complicated itself over the course of millenia, and insinuating a link to contemporary conservative that is, at minimum, tenuous.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 9, 2007 3:00 AM

Clinton is a believing Christin, an active United Methodist, making her closer doctrinally to Dobson and Robertson than Guiliani--and a member of Bush's church. Her Christianity is influenced by the social gospel of Wesley, which helped build America. Why wouldn't she be the better choice for Dobson or Robertson? What specific issue does she disagree with them on? I have yet to have anyone point out out to me one thing Clinton supports which a Christian, even a Fundamentalist, could not.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 9, 2007 8:09 AM

Maybe the confusion as to Robertson's thinking more reflects the prejudices of the 'surprised by this' crowd than it reflects on Robertson. "How could Robertson do this. It is so inconsistent with the box we have him in. He must be crazy. Oh yes, that's it. He is consistent, because that's the box; that's who he is: crazy."

Unfortunately, this would indeed fit into the "crazy" box that we "have him in." However, his endorsement of Giuliani is anything but consistent, given his statements about such things as judgment raining down on Walt Disney World because of its "Gay Days" and things like that. We know that Giuliani wouldn't care about that stuff.

That said, I see no reason why Mike Huckabee or John McCain can't defeat Hillary, especially in the states that Hillary hopes to put to use in 2008. Most conservatives have not jumped ship, which is why Giuliani has stayed below 30% in the polls.

You ignore something: Both Hillary and Bill are extremely popular, the latter more so, generally. (Of course, conservatives who hate them with a passion don't believe or understand that.) As things stand now, the idea of any conservative beating her simply reprsents a pipe dream.

"This failure in Europe was the main cause of the loss of credibility that Christianity has undergone there as a consequence of Christianity's complicity in the terrible bloodletting there."

This isn't really true. At minimum, you are vastly over-simplifying a narrative that has complicated itself over the course of millennia, and insinuating a link to contemporary conservative that is, at minimum, tenuous.

Sorry, but when it comes to ideologically conservative Christians, the shoe fits. The Protestant Reformation pitted several sects against each other: Catholics, Calvinists, "Lutherans" and Anglicans were all jockeying for supremacy. Calvin (of the above, the one I know the best) even advocated the virtual elimination of the monarchy, which is why the Reformed were run out of virtually every country where they had a presence, and when he did control Geneva it became an oppressive place. Religious conservatives here wanted no less cultural control and believed -- wrongly -- that it could be done by legislation.

Ultimately, in both cases, they didn't really believe that simply living by the edicts of the Gospel was sufficient to transform lives and, eventually, societies. That is where the "religious right" and similar ideologies failed.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 9, 2007 9:32 AM

James Dobson on Rudy Giuliani:

"How could Giuliani say with a straight face that he 'hates abortion,' while also seeking public funding for it? How can he hate abortion and contribute to Planned Parenthood in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999? And how was he able for many years to defend the horrible procedure by which the brains are sucked from the heads of a viable, late-term, un-anesthetized babies? Those beliefs are philosophically and morally incompatible. What kind of man would even try to reconcile them?

"There are other moral concerns about Giuliani's candidacy that conservatives should find troubling. He has been married three times, and his second wife was forced to go to court to keep his mistress out of the mayoral mansion while the Giuliani family still lived there. Talk about tap dancing. Also during that time, the mayor used public funds to provide security services for his girlfriend. The second Mrs. Giuliani finally had enough of his philandering and, as the story goes, forced him to move out. He lived with friends for a while and then married his mistress. Unlike some other Republican presidential candidates, Giuliani appears not to have remorse for cheating on his wife.

"If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."
...

Anyone but a Democrat for President?
Hypocrites for Giuliani?

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 9:58 AM

The massive destruction of World War I and II in Europe (America was untouched domestically and not demoralized as Europe was) and the complicity of religion there in totalitarian horrors is the significant reason for the loss of faith there. However, it is probably a more realistic faithful church that remains. America's religion is thousands of miles wide but mostly an inch deep; it couldn't survive any real test or hardship either.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 9, 2007 10:40 AM

On what basis do you assume that Hillary Clinton is not as strong a Christian as Bush (another United Methodist who has been castigated by his church's leadership), Pat Robertson, or, well, you? I see her actions in line with the work of the Holy Spirit in her concern for the poor and marginalized. She does not, repeat, not support abortion--nobody does. She believes that a difficult choice like that needs to be left in the hands of the woman and her doctor and the government should be left out of it (which is actually a Republican philosophy).

Christians are divided about stem-cell research. So I don't see any specific policy where Hillary Clinton which would preclude a Christian voting for her in good conscience. In fact, her stands on universal health care, getting out of Iraq, maintaining Social Security. and improving education are much more in line with what I see the Old Testament prophets calling for from government. Those prophets also called for a fair wage and hospitality to foriegners (what we call "undocumented workers") which are much more on Clinton's radar than any of the Republicans.

I think Clinton is a strong pro-life candidate whose policies will reduce abortions and which will also answer the prophets' call the justice and compassion. If Pat Robertson sees the same thing in Guiliani, fine, but he has no basis to call Christians who support Clinton apostates. Nor does he or anyone else have any basis to say Clinton is less of a Christian than any other candidate, including Huckabee.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 9, 2007 10:51 AM

I'm speechless. What's next, Hillary getting the nod from Fox News?

Last time I checked, one of the present focal points of the Christian Coalition is getting the Marriage Ammendment passed. Power rules in the right. Love and compassion are ignored.

It just goes to prove that the conservative movement is indeed the puppet of the GOP, and will do ANYTHING, to get their puppeteers elected.

Posted by: nate lattimore | November 9, 2007 11:08 AM

Jim Wallis,

Right on! I was too flabbergasted to say anything. Thanks for helping me find my voice.

Posted by: MW Milne | November 9, 2007 11:16 AM

Pat Robertson may have most of his current fame as a television personality but his ancestry is more important in understanding his endorsement of
Giuliani. He is the son of a senator and his ancestry includes a president and a "Churchill". This suggests that he may have more than a passing fancy with the Anglo-American special relationship.

Giuliani was the first candidate to go visit Lady
Thatcher who has strong views about how the world
needs a special Anglo-American relationship.

Things like divorce and abortion seem parochial when measured against running the world. When Giuliani starts getting endorsements from Israel, Pastor Pat is really going to start salivating.

Posted by: Richard Gravois | November 9, 2007 11:22 AM

Amen - this election really is a crisis of conscience for the evangelical church in America. We can either stand up and make a statement that we are motivated by God and His word and not the politics of men, or we can sell our souls in the name of power.

We've had Republicans in power for the better part of 40 years, and we still haven't gained ground on abortion. Pray that the Lord will enable us to realize that being "pro-life" means being pro-all-of-life. If we really care about implementing Christ's teaching, we've got to care about everyone. The unborn child in America deserves protection, yes, but so do the living in other countries. We can't be inconsistent any more.

Posted by: Justin Lonas | November 9, 2007 11:25 AM

Joe Biden on Giuliani:

"Rudy Giuliani is the most under qualified man to seek the presidency since George W. Bush.
There's only three things in a Rudy Giuliani sentence - a noun, a verb and 9/11."

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 11:36 AM

I agree with Jim Wallis comments on Pat Robertson. Robinson had relinguished his credentials as a minister of Jesus Christ. He is a businessman and a conservative.

Posted by: Johnnie William Skinner | November 9, 2007 11:51 AM

I meant to say Robertson had relinguished his credentials.

Posted by: Johnnie William Skinner | November 9, 2007 11:54 AM

"She believes that a difficult choice like that needs to be left in the hands of the woman and her doctor and the government should be left out of it (which is actually a Republican philosophy)."

It isn't a Republican philosophy, nor is it a conservative philosophy. Conservatives typically believe that the governments primary role is to protect its citizenry from harm. Conservatives generally support tougher crime laws and more cops on the streets as well, even though those represent government solutions.

"On what basis do you assume that Hillary Clinton is not as strong a Christian as Bush (another United Methodist who has been castigated by his church's leadership), Pat Robertson, or, well, you?"

Personally, I have no idea what their faith lives are like. Neither Clinton nor Bush seem to be very orthodox to me. I look instead to where the candidates stand on the issues. Dobson's organization has been chided for sticking to a narrow range of issues. Hillary disagrees with his organization on literally all of those issues, and will actively advance an agenda that runs counter to their desired ends.

Huckabee (for example) agrees with Dobson's organization on these issues and would advance an agenda that is commensurate with that agreement. I suspect that Dobson is also for lower taxes, opposed to eminent domain, for home schooling, and agrees with Huckabee on a host of other issues as well, but those issue are not his chosen point of emphasis, right or wrong.

"Christians are divided about stem-cell research. So I don't see any specific policy where Hillary Clinton which would preclude a Christian voting for her in good conscience."

You may vote for her in good conscience. I don't think anyone (except maybe Donny) said that you cannot. You have the right to vote for whomever you please, and call yourself a Christian.

"In fact, her stands on universal health care, getting out of Iraq, maintaining Social Security. and improving education are much more in line with what I see the Old Testament prophets calling for from government. "

Okay. You see that. I don't, and conservatives generally don't either. If you believe from the get-go that Universal Health Care is the right solution, then you are probably going to read the prophets calls for fair treatment of the poor as a call to redistribute wealth to help pay for their medicines. But that is not a necessary reading of the text.

I see a call for government to stop stealing from the poor and to stop oppressing the poor. It is not a given (to say the least) that the prophets meant for government to take money from all classes and be responsible for the provision of a wide variety of services. If you believe that is the best way to run a government, you are much more likely to see the prophets calling for that.

"Those prophets also called for a fair wage and hospitality to foriegners (what we call "undocumented workers") which are much more on Clinton's radar than any of the Republicans."

Again, there is no necessary reason to suggest that the prophets were talking about undocumented workers when they discussed foreigners. The Bible does not forbid nations from establishing borders, and does not require them to house and employ anyone who wants to go there. As for wages, again, the Bible refers to paying an agreed wage, but makes no statement as to what that wage should be.

"Nor does he or anyone else have any basis to say Clinton is less of a Christian than any other candidate, including Huckabee."

Correct. And neither does Jim Wallis have the right to say that any who supports a Republican is any less of a Christian. I've said it before, but Wallis and Robertson are peas in a pod so far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 9, 2007 11:57 AM

I just went to Pat Robertson's website as I wished to contact him regarding his endorsement of Rudy. There are reams of issues and speeches, but no place that it says how to contact him - no address, e-mail, maybe I missed it....

Posted by: Harriet Ottaviano | November 9, 2007 12:01 PM

Maybe Pat is drinking too much of his power shake. Just a thought....

gaj
http://www.GAJohnson.org

Posted by: Greg Johnson | November 9, 2007 12:08 PM

Why is everyone so shocked by this? We refuse to see the truth because we don't want to accept that Christians have, do, and will continue to do such things...it doesn't fit our self concept. Scholars and authors have been arguing for decades that the Christian Right's agenda is about masking a rich, white, Protestant, male economic agenda with a "moral" one. This isn't a new revelation! Robertson is a multi-millionaire who masks empirial expansion by funding Christian religious expansion. Gold, diamonds, energy drinks, media sell outs to Murdoch...all sanctified because large amounts of the money support pro-US Christian ministries. This is hardly different than how Christianity was brought to the Americas from Europe in the first place. In 500 years we've progressed very little...the struggle remains the same.

We preserve our moral superiority by claiming, "That's not real Christianity." Yes it is! "Real" Christianity is whatever the professed disciples of Jesus have done in history, good or bad. It may not be "real Jesus" but its certainly "real Christianity." Saying it's not "real" Christianity is like saying that the church doesn't sin, just its members do. It's an effort to proclaim authentic discipleship but it's also an effort to preserve some shred of moral superiority for Christians, even amid the atrocities that have been done in the name of Christ. And it's no different than when our Democratic politicians argue against torture policies by saying, "America doesn't torture...it's not what we're about." Yes it is! The first step to repentance is honestly.

The real question is, "Where have we been that this is just now coming as a surprise?" Perhaps we're not standing with those whom Christ has called us to stand with and listening to the voices that speak from the margins rather than from the halls of power.

Posted by: Jeremy | November 9, 2007 12:17 PM

Skotty wrote:

What I would like commented on is how can the Religious Right support Romney? It is common knowledge the conservatives and fundys have long said that the Mormon church is a cult. Wonder what Richard Land's position is on that?

I can't speak for Richard Land, but otherwise, this is easy: As someone said earlier we're electing a President not a Pope, and Romney has shown no indications that he is going to impose Mormonism on anyone. On policy he has his shortcomings (as does the entire GOP field) but taken as a whole his stances are fairly conservative and has record as Governor of Massachusetts indicates he has the intelligence and experience to get the job done.

I won't pretend that his Mormonism isn't a strike against him -- I'd have a hard time supporting Romney in the primaries on acount of that -- but in the general election I'd say the same thing for Romney that I would for Giuliani, I would not hesitate to vote for him and I would urge Christians with a conservative worldview to do likewise.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2007 12:22 PM

Thank you, Jim Wallis. As a religious and political liberal, I don't expect anyone to pay attention when I say they are both hypocrites, but they will listen when you do. Their avowed allegiance is to the continued suppression of democracy and the rise of corporate wealth.

Posted by: Carolyn | November 9, 2007 12:24 PM

Why is everyone so shocked by this? We refuse to see the truth because we don't want to accept that Christians have, do, and will continue to do such things...it doesn't fit our self concept. Scholars and authors have been arguing for decades that the Christian Right's agenda is about masking a rich, white, Protestant, male economic agenda with a Christian social agenda. This isn't a new revelation! Robertson is a multi-millionaire who masks empirial expansion by funding Christian religious expansion. Gold, diamonds, energy drinks, media sell outs to Murdoch...all sanctified because large amounts of the money support pro-US Christian ministries. This is hardly different than how Christianity was brought to the Americas from Europe in the first place. In 500 years we've progressed very little...the struggle remains the same.

The social issues were just the moral cloak to hide a very immoral economic agenda...the social issues were superfluous. Hence the non-support for Huckabee. What frightens me is that Christians are more upset that he abandoned his stance on criminalizing abortion and same sex relationships than they are by his efforts to destroy "the least of these" through war, US economic expansion, and the destruction of our government's domestic anti-poverty programs.

Further, we preserve our moral superiority by claiming, "That's not real Christianity." Yes it is! "Real" Christianity is whatever the professed disciples of Jesus have done in history, good or bad. It may not be "real Jesus" but its certainly "real Christianity." Saying it's not "real" Christianity is like saying that the church doesn't sin, just its members do. Surely it's an effort to proclaim authentic discipleship but it's also an effort to preserve some shred of moral superiority for Christians, even amid the atrocities that have been done in the name of Christ. And it's no different than when our Democratic politicians argue against torture policies by saying, "America doesn't torture...it's not what we're about." Yes it is! The first step to repentance is honestly.

The real question is, "Where have we been that this is just now coming as a surprise to us?" Perhaps we're not standing with those whom Christ has called us to stand with and listening to the voices that speak from the margins rather than from the halls of power.

Posted by: Jeremy | November 9, 2007 12:25 PM

It was never about Jesus and always about conservatism. We just witnessed which tenet of his beliefs trumped the other.
Political frauds have been committed in the name of the homeless Palestinian Jew Christ Jesus for years and Robertson's dalliance with Lucifer's subtle erosion of godly morals is nothing new.
Worse, as the general election nears, Giulani will dump Robertson for the center electorate and Pat will be left holding his pride and dusty bible. How can you argue political pragmaticsm in the face of abortion?
John MacArthur is correct, there is no biblical command to believers to become engrossed in the muck of politics.
We are the alternative to politics not part of it.

Posted by: lawrence ganns | November 9, 2007 12:32 PM

Ed,
Probably because Democratic candidates realize Robertson has already called himself out with his own mindless babbling.
Those who follow Robertson would never vote for a Democrat anyway.
So why should they bother with this fool?

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 12:34 PM

I am a liberal Protestant Christian - so discard or read on, as you wish.
Christianity is a large tent for latitude of belief, thank God - but Robertson, in my opinion, is not inside the tent, and not to be listened to in any way, shape, or form.
Why he captures press time absolutely infuriates me. Robertson is a divisive, nationalistic, jingoistic, glad-handling, panderer - who in no way evinces the spirit or character of Jesus - at least in his public announcements over the years.
He publicly drags us all to shame by claiming Christian faith, and the media eats it up. He does not speak for the way of God in Jesus - but that is, again, in my opinion. A person who follows the way of God in Jesus would never, ever, say something along the lines of Robertson's comments for endorsing Guiliani - that Guiliani has the best chance of "defending the country against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists."
Say what?

I saw two bumper stickers on a car the other day. On the left was "WWJD?" On the right was, "Jesus would slap the snot out of you."
If only it were true on this side of the veil...
Robertson (and his ilk) will spend eternity matching socks in the laundry room in the after-life as payment for all of the heartache and diviseness they have spread. Until then, we have to put up with the caricature of the message of Jesus that is relentlessly promoted by these shysters.

Posted by: Jon | November 9, 2007 12:40 PM

Jim Wallis has expressed what I believe as well. I have the same problem with my conservative friends here in Idaho. The Robertson endorsement, although only one facet of the Christian Right, is an interesting signal that verifies that the CR will not endorse a democrat under any circumstances. Robertson should hav endorsed Governor Huckabee, but he obviously doesn't think Huckabee can win. Considering the comments Robertson has made in the past though, why should anyone take him seriously?

Posted by: Bill J | November 9, 2007 12:44 PM

Yes - this is hypocrisy of the highest order. However, it is ironic that Richard Land is being praised for being "consistenly" anti-choice and anti-gay, as if being consistent is all that matters. I know that hypocrisy is horrible, and Pat Robertson certainly deserves criticism and even condemnation. But let's not let the likes of Land off the hook either - being wrong is still wrong, whether you are consistent about it or not. It is wrong for Christians or anyone else to mindlessly advocate criminalizing abortion in all circumstances and to espouse a primitive anti-gay "philosophy".

This is a classic false dilemma - if Robertson is wrong because he is being hypocritical then Land must be right for being consistent. Nope, they are both wrong.

Posted by: Dallas Bob | November 9, 2007 12:47 PM

I live in Wichita, Kansas, and on the local newspaper blog someone was stating that Pat Robertson was explaining his endorsement of Rudy Guliani the day after. This person was blogging that Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy because Pat thinks that Rudy Guliani represents one of the four horsemen of the end times and Pat wants the end times to come as soon as possible. This blogger went on to say that Robertson feels that George W. Bush was the person that brought us to this point but is not the person that will carry out the prophecies in Revelations.

Has anyone heard of this or is this blogger just blowing smoke? Since blogging is not being checked factually, I was just wondering if this is true or not?

Posted by: Sue | November 9, 2007 12:52 PM

Religion, again, is the deceiver of all who want to believe in God. You "revealed" religions are the root cause of the World's problems, basically asserting that "My God is better than your God" and destroying cultures and civilizations for control and greed.

How ironic that your King James Version of your Bible WARNS, "...and they shall be deceived by Him and received the mark of the Beast."

Revealed religion is the "beast" that has "marked" the masses. God(metaphoric name humans attach to) DOES exist but on a level we cannot fathom.

He/She/It loves all creation and that means criminals, gays, atheists, etc...LOVE is the key word and answer to the mystery of "God" yet humans cannot see through this simplicity. If there is to be any judgement, our Creator is the sole Judge. Not YOU or I.

There is a God! All religions and Atheists are wrong or misguided. However, God understands and still LOVES ALL His/Her's/It's creation despite their morality or fate.

If you remove revealed religion from the equation, then we humans on Planet Earth can truly be standing in the Light of Love that is the true, loving God. Our own human nature blinds us from Him.

Robertson is an Anti Christ as are there are others in this world, including our own President.

Man has destroyed this "Eden" and the Evil that has enveloped our Planet is gaining strength each day. We are the pawns in the ancient battle between good and evil, but in the end, evil will succumb.

Just be open-minded about life and it's relation to our Creator and ALL people will live in love, peace, and harmony with the Earth.

It is so easy to fall into the charisma of evil. Robertson should be the WARNING WAKE UP CALL!

Always "Ask the Answer!"

Posted by: Bill | November 9, 2007 12:53 PM

Typically, I'm completely on board with what Mr. Wallis has to say, but I'm just not a big fan of commentary that makes personal attacks on someone else. If we, as Christians, have something to say about issues that is challenging and insightful, I'm all for it, but when it turns into commentary written for the sole purpose of belittling another human being, I think we've gone too far. To me, this entry felt more like a personal attack than it did a constructive reflection on politics or faith. If our discussion becomes nothing more than attacking those on our "hitlist", our message will lose credibility very quickly.

Posted by: Ryan | November 9, 2007 12:58 PM

There is not much breadth or depth of thought in this post. Why doesn't Mr. Wallis thoughtfully address the pragmatic reasons why Robertson might endorse Hillary? Is Mr. Wallis' way of thinking so devoid of nuance that it cannot articulate the difference between "changing one's principles" and choosing the lesser of two evils? It seems to me that, though I'm no fan of Robertson, he was demonstrating the latter, not the former. Posts like this show me that the leader of Sojourners is no trade-up from the Religious Right--it's only another one-dimensional, uber-rhetorical attempt to stir the political pot. And it stinks.

Posted by: Bryan | November 9, 2007 1:04 PM

I have not of late been a fan of Robertson.
I am also a conservative. But on this one, it seems like Robertson is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in the eyes of Wallis. If he doesn't endorse Rudy, he's myopic, narrow, and equates conservatism with Republicanism, etc.. If he sees the world and politics in a more complex way, he's compromising.
His announcement surprised me also. I also would endorse Rudy at this time. I am not voting for a deacon to my church, I am voting for the next president of our country. And the idea of Queen Hillary as our leader is truly troubling to me. Perhaps that is why Robertson is for Rudy, he sees Rudy as the one most able to defeat Hillary.

Posted by: Andy | November 9, 2007 1:09 PM

I have to confess that I have voted for what I considered the lesser of two evils for most of the 39 years I have been registered. While I hold the opposite position to that of Robertson on most issues, I cannot criticize his compromise of his values without doing the same for my own.

Posted by: RA | November 9, 2007 1:21 PM

Lets look at Ron Paul and the Constitution Party.

Posted by: Tammy | November 9, 2007 1:30 PM

"Posts like this show me that Sojourners is no trade-up from the Religious Right--it's only another one-dimensional, uber-rhetorical attempt to stir the political pot. And it stinks."

AMEN! Makes one wonder what other choices I must make. I once saw this new kind of religious movement as more pure in it's motives; I am beginning to see it as just more playground pushing and shoving for attention.

Posted by: Gary | November 9, 2007 1:35 PM

The very idea of religious leaders endorsing politicians or political parties offends me. It is blasphemy to pretend that God favors our pathetic little political contrivances. These people do not speak for God.

What we have here are the new Pharisees and Sadducees, who want to use God for political and economic gain. Jesus called them hypocrites, vipers, and white-washed tombs. They had Him killed for speaking truth to power.

Posted by: David | November 9, 2007 1:42 PM

In the UK Robertson is regarded even by extreme fundamentalists and evangelicals as an embarassment to the gospel and to us is a sad representative US tele-evangelism mixed with unbiblical health,wealth and prosperity teachings. Apart from illegal activities in Liberia and shady business dealings in the US, I understand that for many years Robertson was an opponent of civil rights in the States (as was his senator father), along with Jerry Falwell fsupported the evil apartheid regime in South Africa and is fanatically pro-Israeli even when the State of Israel commits terrible crimes and abuses against innocent civilians in and outside of its own borders. It has never ceased to amaze me how some of the more reputable figures in the US Evangelical scene have allowed their witness to be tainted by appearing on his TV programmes.

Jim Wallis's article was excellent. I don't understand why some commentators criticize it for being too personal. People in public life, especially those who mix politics with religion, need to have their motives and actions examined and the Church of God needs to start with its own members and organisations.

I fail to see either how the article can be construed as pro-democrat or anti-republican. There seems an element of paranoia in some of the comments!! Most of us know that on both sides of the pond there are good decent Christians of all political persuasions and that God doesn't actually rubberstamp any political party or system. However, if as Bible believing Christians, we take the Bible as literally as St Francis or Gandhi did then it will affect our personal behaviour and actions in everyday life and may even influence the way we vote.

Posted by: Annie (UK) | November 9, 2007 1:51 PM

What are you saying Jim? That because conservatives stand for the family and actually have standards they should be condemmed for supporting Rudy Guliani. I know liberals have no standards so it is easy for them to overlook things such as abortion, homosexuality, and the sort but come on. You know that a president has no impact on abortion law in this country at all. The President does however have an impact on the judges that do and will impact abortion in the future. Rudy has said he will apoint people to the bench that will make laws based on what the constitution of the USA actully says and not make laws out of thin air. If he is the Repubulican nominee that is good enough for me.

Right now America is at a croosroads on which direction will we go. Will we side with evil or stand with God on the side of righteouness. Jim if you and your liberal followers want to continue to support candiates and ideas that are clearly at odds with God's word and teaching that is your call. For your sake and your followers I pray that you repent and choose the side of righteouness.

Rick I know that you live in your own little world but you may want to know that Hillary Clinton's unfavorable number is around 50%. Nobody has ever won the presidency with unfavorable numbers that high. You and your lib friends are totally misreading the country snd will be surprided by the election results in 2008. The majority of the American people are not liberal and want nothing to do with their very evil ideas. It is why Hilary can not be who she really is which is a communist socialist liberal.

Posted by: Doug | November 9, 2007 2:11 PM

Excellent article! We can "know them by their fruits". I wish others who are conservative could recognize what happened when Robertson made his endorsement.

Posted by: Robert | November 9, 2007 2:18 PM

Pat Robertson is not to be trusted at all for any reason. When the Bible talks about false teachers and false prophets, Robertson is one of those folks it has in mind. He is trying to do one of two things:

1. Support a Republican no matter what his beliefs who is at that point the only one who could beat Hillary. In other words any Republican is better than no Republican and any Republican is better than a woman or an African-American.

He knows they don't have much of a chance in this election and the Republicans might still possibly be able to swing the Senate and get another one of theirs nominated to the Supreme Court.

2. See his endorsement as a kiss of death (kind of like being endorsed by the KKK---(well in most places anyway) so that support will be increased for Romney without Robertson being seen as supporting a "heathen".

Satan is a very sneaky devil.

Posted by: Rhonda | November 9, 2007 2:24 PM

Can I be the 1st to point it out here?

Jim Wallis used the term "unborn" to designate a baby still in the womb.

That is not a term you will find commonly used by most in the pro-choice camp.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 9, 2007 2:49 PM

Doug,

Just like you were surprised by last year's congressional election, I honestly think it will be you that