A commentator I was reading recently said something along the lines of whenever he hears or reads Jim Wallis he gets the feeling like he's running for something - that he's carefully evasive about what he really thinks or what he real goal is. I sometimes get the same feeling. It's as if Wallis is worried that if he takes too strong a stand on something that he will turn off a portion of the people he's trying to work with or convince to join his cause. He uses words with which no one could argue. Who doesn't like faith, justice, renewals, etc? Who doesn't want to "do something" about Darfur?

On some issues, like Darfur, I don't think he has deeper answers because there are none. On other issues, I think he's worried, like a politician, that he might turn off constituencies he's trying to court. It's only occasionally when he lets the mask drop a little (as it did during the SCHIP debate) that you get a glimpse of what's underneath. I don't think it's as partisan as trying to get more Democrats elected to office, but I do think it's about seductively getting Christians to adopt his proposed solutions, which 90 percent of the time coincide with solutions proposed by progressive policymakers. He says it's just about getting Christians to broaden the issues about which they're concerned, but no matter how many times Christians tell him that they really do care about the poor evidenced by their work in their communities, he and his followers say "no you don't, unless you support specific federal policy solutions such as SCHIP (or something else). I can't help but feel there's more to the "intelligent moderate voice" than he lets on in forums like the Daily Show.

Great questions by Jon Stewart, by the way. He's totally underrated as an interviewer.

Posted by: Eric | January 23, 2008 12:59 PM

Eric,

It was Ramesh Ponnuru in National Review's Corner blog. And Ramesh is almost always worth considering.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 23, 2008 2:58 PM

I think that the Christian "intellegent moderate voice" doesn't totally buy it when Christians say they care about the poor as evidenced by their work in the communities because we all know that this work is often superficial, addressing only the symptoms of poverty rather than more root causes which may challenge Christians to address issues of justice rather than merely provide charity. The right-wing Christian perspective is rooted in individualism and is inadequate for a truly Christian understanding of either our fallenness as a society or the nature of our redemption.

Posted by: Al | January 23, 2008 3:07 PM

"However, the question of whether SCHIP was the best method is another issue completely. "
Posted by: Blake

Thank you Blake , the way SCHIP was editorialzed here shows the main problem . If youe were against SCHIP you were immoral because you were against the children . Even Wallis called Bush immoral when he wrote about it . The issue was more more complex as it turned out , and in fact Bush supported increasing the amount of Federal dollars , just not what the left promoted . And of course there were other issues . Wallis could have promoted his side by using the facts , instead he used what he writes about the failure of the religious right , the I am better then you techique , just what some on the right do at times .

Posted by: Mick | January 23, 2008 3:32 PM

Eric, "Great questions by Jon Stewart, by the way. He's totally underrated as an interviewer."

Very good point. I have a friend who argues that Jon Steward is the Walter Cronkite of our time, in that he enjoys a deep and wide level of trust that no politician can capture.

Does anyone know Stewart's faith or spiritual practice? indeed does he have one?

Posted by: carl copas | January 23, 2008 3:45 PM

Do Christians have a monopoly on morality or not?

While everyone claims to adhere to a morality, most of their definitions of morality are internally inconsistent. The most consistent systems of morality are diametrically opposed on the surface. One might be Ayn Rand's egoistic Objectivism, where altruism is rejected completely. The other is Christianity where altruism becomes possible through a change in human nature accomplished through the regenerating blood of Jesus Christ.

But Christianity, while available to all, is not accepted by all. So not everyone has the power or motivation to act consistently with altruism.

Also, Christians do not give up working competitively against one another in producing quality goods. So, eve they do not employ altruism in every decision.

The result is a complete spectrum of equally grey positions which, when judged against one another, have no reliable standard to measure against.

In the end I believe that Christians alone have the responsibility to act altruistically, and only by the direction of the Holy Spirit. What is really required in all of these human dealings is for God to enter in.

Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Listen to my radio show tonight on WKNC!!!!
We argue that people ought to recycle less.

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 23, 2008 3:50 PM

Do Christians have a monopoly on morality or not?

I would argue no , but I would say having a belief in God , with a Bible that offers certain structures will encourgage moral behavior .

Not really provable , but say swearing on a Bible to tell the truth , and you believe there is a God who knows if you are lying or not , will tend to make more people to tell the truth even when the consequences appear hurtfull to one self for soing so . The greater consequence of lying to
God is worse .

Posted by: Mick | January 23, 2008 4:01 PM

"Do Christians have a monopoly on morality or not?"

nope. there's too much psychological, behavioral, and evolutionary evidence to the contrary (if you're inclined to believe scientific evidence of course, which i am). not to mention historical and anecdotal evidence. anyone who doesn't know a "moral" atheist just isn't trying hard enough.

one can argue (and i would) that all morality is sent, if you will, by God, but i wouldn't expect that He would choose to apply morality only through people of faith. i think the evidence is to the contrary.

in any event, i find the opposite question to be far more important and instructive: do non-believers have a monopoly on immorality? i think most of us would answer "of course not".

Posted by: whaat | January 23, 2008 4:41 PM

In this conversation I am more and more struck by the fact that Jesus doesn't seem to come up. I understand the idea of the common good as a guide to public discourse and policy but we need to be more than just "people of faith" but clearly identified as Jesus Christ followers. Are we ready to come to terms with the fact that Jesus is The Way, the Truth and the Life and that to identify with Him is to acknowledge that? It seems that at this point we do the politically correct thing to do and merely become "people of faith" to stay in the conversation rather than clearly acknowledging Jesus and then figure out how interact in our culture as Jesus did, who didn't merely identify Himself as a "man of faith" but rather the Son of God, which ticked off everyone.

Posted by: Chris | January 23, 2008 4:48 PM

"He is the host , and I know in my heart I believe he is doing what he thinks is best for people in need , with his organization , but its a liberal perspective on God's politics . And he should knock off using motives of those who disagree with him as anti God ."

well, i think it's a "progressive" perspective, not a "liberal" one. i think there's a real distinction there, i'm sure others disagree.

for me, the religious political conservative right (for most of my life, the only vocal religious group that existed) has consistently been on the wrong side of history when it comes to applying the Gospel - civil rights, racial and gender equality, poverty, environment, human rights, torture...

we're not just talking about agreeing on the problem, disagreeing on the solution. the conservative christian perspective on civil rights was just plain wrong. not to say the liberals have always been on the right side of history - they haven't, and jim has often and loudly called them on it.

this is why i prefer the term "progressive", because i think it is truly that.

Posted by: whaat | January 23, 2008 5:08 PM

first sentence, third paragraph should read: "(for most of my life, the only vocal POLITICAL religious group that existed)"

sometimes i'm too quick to push go.

Posted by: whaat | January 23, 2008 5:11 PM

"Jim: at some point you will have to answer clearly about what you really think and believe about some critical issues."

why does it matter so much for you to know jim's personal viewpoints are down to the last period? perhaps the greater good is challenging people to formulate their own way of applying the Gospel to our political sphere, wherever you fall on the spectrum.

Posted by: whaat | January 23, 2008 5:15 PM

Mick - With all respect, to heal the earth (tikun olam)is one of the deepest instincts in Judaism. To the extent that Jon Stewart brings environmental and poverty issues to national TV and interviews Jim about his new book, he's practicing the core of Judaism regardless whether he keeps a kosher kitchen.

Posted by: jono

That could be , but my point is he does not take his faith seriously . Not meant as a slam , just an observation from watching him . He is funny , I like his show . He may indeed have the structure and values that are traditional from that faith group . I can identify with that , I was brough up with values associated to the Judeo Christian ethic , and sometimes at Christmas I would go to church too .

Posted by: Mick | January 23, 2008 5:49 PM

his passion for increased health care is evident, and that is not something that should be condemned.
Posted by: Jeremy

I agree with you , and I wish he promoted that more then trying to take down those who were against the way he wanted it done . You don't do that by calloing someone immoral who disagrees with you on a specfic bill taht actually does not solve the problem .

Actually , as a conservative , I am open to the ideas brought forward by the left on this . My concern is having a system that is better then the broken one we have . I don't see any republicans doing that , so year , points for Wallis for trying , take away some points for his debate tactics though .

I do like medical accounts and do not understand why all medical bills are tax deductible for those who even use the short form till the issue is solved . Excluding cosmetic surgery .

In our state big issue was making medical plans covering sex change operations .

The details always causes rancor I guess.

Posted by: Mick | January 23, 2008 6:13 PM

Over a number of these blogs I think I see a strong pattern.

Most posters feel comfortable with being extremists, regardless of which extreme, and contemptuous (can "real" Christians be contemptuous of anyone?) of people who seek common ground, understanding and compromise of non-doctrinally-ultimate issues. Really - most issues are debatable, without certainty of value, and should seek common ground. SCHIP is a political implementation issue balancing values, for Pete's sake, not a commandment of God.

Am I correct, and if so, why are bloggers like that?

Posted by: JWH | January 23, 2008 6:21 PM

As I was watching this interview, I heard Jon Stewart asking some VERY insightful questions, even "seeking the truth" questions and I just don't think Wallis gave him the whole truth. Jon asked if there wasn't a way to have right and wrong without faith. And Wallis, in my opinion, missed a great chance to share truth and instead he said that religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality. Why would he avoid such a GREAT question?

Why would he not share that Righteousness HIMSELF has The Monopoly. And isn't that who Wallis follows? I guess I'm confused.

Posted by: Catherine | January 23, 2008 7:15 PM

Eileen - I find your words incredibly profound and insightful. Thank you.

Posted by: JWH | January 23, 2008 8:39 PM

oops =) Okay, I'm blushing.

I meant not that God is the source of right and wrong but God is the source of morality. He, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the Compass by which we know right from wrong.

It is still a simple statement, don't you think?

Posted by: catherine | January 23, 2008 9:18 PM

Interesting to note that Wallis gets much clapping when he pronounces that the domination of the religious right is over, noticeably less clapping when he announces that Christians are taking a larger interest in things like the environment, Darfur, and culture.

Posted by Wolverine

That was an astute observation , I noticed the clapping , it is a liberal crowd . But your right , it was "not" a liberal religious crowd . They liked the hit on the right , but had no clue to what Jim wanted to promote as having relevance . Sell more books taking a swat at someone these days I guess.

Posted by: Mick | January 23, 2008 10:42 PM

This is "seeker sensitive" in its orientation, and the Willow Creek group has recently admitted that for 30yrs, they've been way off base.

Posted by: intuit | January 23, 2008 5:10 PM

Some documentation on a claim like that would sure be appropriate.

Posted by: I said it, I believe it, that oughta settle it | January 24, 2008 1:03 AM

Previous Posts:
"Interesting to note that Wallis gets much clapping when he pronounces that the domination of the religious right is over, noticeably less clapping when he announces that Christians are taking a larger interest in things like the environment, Darfur, and culture.

Posted by Wolverine

That was an astute observation , I noticed the clapping , it is a liberal crowd . But your right , it was "not" a liberal religious crowd . They liked the hit on the right , but had no clue to what Jim wanted to promote as having relevance . Sell more books taking a swat at someone these days I guess."

Exactly right, folks: THIS IS ABOUT BOOK SALES. Jim has gotten too comfortable in the spotlight; so much so that we will not jeapordize losing another appearance on:John Stewart, Colbert, O'reilly, Katie Couric,(insert your show here). If Jim can sell a book to the "spiritual but not religious" types that are enamored with Stewart and the like (the "religion-lite" people), then this makes him likeable and non-threatening. It's why Jim is a fan of Obama; they are cut from the same fabric--address everything, but don't be specific.

The fact that Jim is evasive is critically important; you don't want leaders of movements to be "unclear" about what it is they desire for good and noble causes.

Can you see Martin L. King "accomodating" in the ways that Jim does to promote SJ? Real newsmakers will draw the media to their causes--this is what the Montgomery boycotts and real movements do--they make so much noise or upset so many people that it becomes news to others.

Jim runs to the media or hangs with media elites to ingratiate himself to the culture, and as long as he continues to be a docile and vague "guest" at thier table, they will invite him to sup, again and again....

When the church begins to take itself and its mission seriously, there will be no need for SJ to act like a PAC for its own interests. The church will begin to focus its energy and resources toward the ills of society, and its members will not participate in media-driven hungers that are disguised as noble causes.

Posted by: intuit | January 24, 2008 10:46 AM

Dear Eileen

Request you dialogue here with the commenters and the original articles and not just use it as a site to promote WAWA.

Honest feedback: I don't have the interest to visit your site because of how you choose to use this site.

Posted by: yadddii | January 24, 2008 10:51 AM

Mick asked what is the difference between "liberal" and "progressive."

For some there is no difference. Some libs use "progressive" because "liberal" has fallen into such disrepute. You may recall in 1988 George Bush senior slamming Michael Dukakis for being a liberal; sometimes Bush would refer to liberalism as "the L word."

For me, I prefer "progressive" to "liberal" because "progressive" suggests to me something more radical than "liberal." Liberals, in this country, are not radicals; they seek to tinker with the system in order to save it. They don't challenge fundamental economic values such as the sanctity of private property or the free market, they just want to modify them. That's not surprising, given that many liberals have at the very least a comfortable lifestyle and thus have a stake in the present basic system continuing.

Whereas I think, though it will never matter in this country, there are fundamental things wrong with capitalism as it stands and it needs to be drastically overhauled. That reform or revolution or whatever term you prefer would involve both structural and institutional changes, as well as a fundamental alteration in mindset (materialism, hedonism, the selfish individualism that modern capitalism encourages, etc.)

Sorry Mick. Got carried away. Too much coffee this morning. :)

Posted by: carl copas | January 24, 2008 12:25 PM

I agree w/ Carl. I am a progressive. It's mainly because most liberals (in this country) are spineless.

I can understand Mick's point that progressives can use language to discourage discussion and I can understand why he feels the way he does. I disagree that I have the power to do that. I don't think I have the power to do any of what he says. I think I can criticize anything w/o making it personal. I think it's hard to have one's ideology challenged and many people can't handle it.

I think that's the bigger thing.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 24, 2008 2:20 PM

Why are we focusing our energy on changing the systems? they only work as well as the people who use them/make them. Let's change hearts first through Jesus Christ.

Martin Luther King Jr. would have taken task with that comment. The civil-rights movement, basically, pitted one set of Christians against another set of Christians, and certainly both couldn't be right. On top of that, a system that oppressed one faction of Christians had to be taken down, with some even giving their very lives to that effect, so committed was the other faction of Christians to that oppression. King's idea was that if the evil of such a system were exposed for all to see folks would be embarrassed and then it could change.

So, yes, by all means work to change hearts, but in doing so evil may need to be confronted, especially in other believers. (This is also why it can be dangerous for Christianity to be culturally dominant; often the thinking of the "world" seeps in and corrupts the meaning of the Gospel.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 24, 2008 3:52 PM

"I wish Stewart had the guts to make Wallis answer his question, "Who's right, Christians, Jews, or Muslims?" "

Funny thing is, that's a religious-right way of framing things: to establish first and foremost who is in the in-group and who is outside it. If Stewart or Chris Matthews did it it would be get a Christian to look foolish on national TV or to create controversy (as Matthews successfully did with his evolution question). It wouldn't be done to help foster dialogue or clarification.

Posted by: I and I | January 24, 2008 4:32 PM

Evangelism and social justice go hand in hand; when Christian social activists model Christian behavior (not always easy to do) it makes a much better impression on non-Christians than simply talking about the Bible and asking "if you were to die today..."

And that's nothing more than bad theology. Christianity has today been "sold," if you will, as little more than forgiveness of sins -- while that's the beginning there's of course so much more than that. You get the impression that you can have "all this and Jesus too," when in fact He calls us to "forsake all" to follow Him.

In fact, I think that we in the American church don't entirely get just how radical the Gospel is, that God calls us to an entirely different life than what we had. For that reason, I truly don't understand why we're worried about cultural control the way the "conservatives" are -- recognizing that we live in a fallen world and our efforts will go only so far, nevertheless we just need to do whatever God calls us to do and be satisfied with Him. Moreover, we as a Body need to look as though we're different from the rest of the world.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 24, 2008 5:08 PM

Welcome Catherine. It's always good to see a new face here.

Posted by: Eric | January 25, 2008 6:46 AM

So I and I,
What you're telling me is that proclaiming the Gospel on a television show makes a Christain look foolish. Well now I have a little better insight to the religious left. Hint: You're not Christians. Same goes for the loosers who censor my comments. Liberals are all the same. Lying, decieving, censoring Nazis. Censor that!!

Posted by: debarrio | January 26, 2008 1:56 PM

I don't think I react fast enough to meaningfully take part in these interesting debates. But for what it's worth will comment on a point of discussion: the exclusive ownership of morality by Christians.

While we may feel that Christ embodies, demonstrates (and will judge) morality in its fullness, we need to remember that:
(A) last time I checked Christians were but a mere echo of His greatness (doesn't mean we should stop trying to live by His example and guidance, but it should tone down such a claim); and
(B) the issue is how we live in society. Unless you plan to convert everyone by force (seems Constantine did not really provide a useful model), or you're going to establish a lost Pacific island as the Christian Theocracy of Boga, you will have - sigh - to deal with people who don't refer to Jesus as Christ, and don't relate to the bible the way you do. If you believe that such people (a.k.a. the larger segment of the human race) cannot enter a moral debate based on human dialogue [social, political, educational] based on moral values that can be argued cogently, then prospects are pretty bleak and you don't need to go vote. (Just move to Boga.)

I pretty much consider that Justice is Justice, Love is Love, and Right is Right. Christ may be the one guiding many of us explicitly into understanding what is indeed moral (and maybe guiding others who don't wear the label), but if I argue that children should be educated and protected, it is because it IS right, and I can make that case to fellow citizens. Maybe I needed Jesus to reveal to me something that obvious, but "the bible says" or "Jesus says" isn't the useful argument in a democratic society.
So, no - Christians don't have an exclusive on morality, though it all flows from a loving and righteous creator.

Posted by: Eric S | January 27, 2008 2:20 PM

"Wallis has appeared on secular TV numerous times in front of literally millions of people, yet he has never proclaimed the Gospel...the fools are the ones who listen to him."

Never talked about his Christian faith in front of secular audiences? You are simply wrong; I've seen him do so firsthand. Facts are stupid things, aren't they?

Posted by: I and I | January 28, 2008 1:00 PM