I wrote this as an email to KUOW's Weekday while listening to Mr. Wallis on that program this morning:

If Wallis is serious that faith has no monopoly on moral values, this secular humanist would dearly appreciate him saying so – loudly and persistently – to his religious audiences instead of only in passing (on the air) to non-believers worried by religious self-righteousness. The age-old religious conceit that only “people of faith” have moral compasses is insulting to folks like me, and divisive to a body politic that includes those who need no fear of hell: those of us whose morals are grounded in empathy and compassion rather than in the unverifiable and often morally contradictory stories of ancient myth. Thanks, Nick

I’m encouraged by Mr. Wallis’s progressiveness, but wary nonetheless that this laudable religious humanism is dependent on 2000-year-old supernatural fantasias. I suspect we’ll all be better off when we realize we’ve no celestial overseer: there’s just us, conscious manifestations of a living planet. That’s the revelation (rather than biblical or koranic “revelation”) that ought spark us toward greater compassion, and away from the separate-from-nature fallacy that has us, in effect, building an ever-greater fire in our only house—without a chimney to vent away the fumes.

Posted by: Nick | February 1, 2008 1:28 PM

And the horrible truth is that secular ideologies that renounced any external morality made it easy for political fanatics to rationalize and unleash genocidal killing upon millions.

A particular religious movement inspired by Jesus' mandate to love one's enemies and to resist evil nonviolently is to be commended as a sorely needed practical antidote to the murderous destructive impulses in all human beings regardless of belief system.

Similarly, non-theistic approaches that have the same analysis and understanding of the centrality of non-violent resistance to evil, such as the Tibetan Buddhist analysis by the Dalai Lhama, are to commended and are starting points for shared dialog and action since they rest on a firm universal principles that are observableand discoverable without resort to special revelation.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 1, 2008 2:41 PM

Can someone clear something up for me? I am NOT understanding it, which is why I ask.

What is the point of sharing a "prayer" or prayers?

My prayers to God are personal to me and Him. They aren't prose, they aren't composed, they are blurted out in moments of stress, are long rambling talks while making trips alone, and sometimes they're tearful pleas for help or strength when I feel crushed by events.

I don't think sharing any of them with any of you would help you at all. I would feel as awkward reading a prayer to God as I would memorizing lines to augment my relationship to my wife. Geeze, if I talked to her in memorized paragraphs that were obviously not my words, I think she'd probably tell me to shut up and not come back until i was civil.

I'm not thinking that anyone is being rude to God, or disrespectful, even, so can someone explain to me the reason for doing this?

Posted by: mark | February 2, 2008 4:33 PM

Mr. Wallis, are you really attempting to pass yourself off as a Jonathn Edwards? Edwards didn't exactly grab onto the mix of humanism and religion as do you "Progressive" ideology of today. I've been urged by good Christian people, to trust you, but it is very difficult to do, seeing the mockers in your camp.

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/four.html

"One of those who attacked this growing rationality, and who was also one of the principle figures in the Great Awakening was Jonathan Edwards. Edwards has received a bad press for his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." In that sermon he used the image of a spider dangling by a web over a hot fire to describe the human predicament. His point was that at any moment, our hold on life could break and we'd be plunged into fires of eternal damnation. But if you read his sermons, you will find that he spoke quietly, reasonably, and logically."

But alas, like the Liberalism of today that attacks the Christian Evangelical community it was the licentious that took down this man:

"Despite the response to his preaching, Edwards did not remain popular forever. His downfall occurred when a group of young people got hold of an obstetrics book, and looked at the illustrations of the female anatomy. It was, I guess, the eighteenth century equivalent of looking at a Playboy. In any event, Edwards responded to his incident by preaching against it, and condemning those involved from the pulpit. As a result, he alienated the parents who drove him from his position. Exiled to Stockbridge to work with the Indians, he died there."

Man, does that sound so very modern day familiar.

But in any case, Jim Wallis did not invent "The Great Awakening." And obviously does not carry it the way the original Christians did.

Jim, who will you call to repentance? I'm thinking those that believe in all of the words of the New Testament will come, but not those that feel that they were both born with an excuse to sin, and/or do not believe in sin and accountability anyway. If YOU DO, that will leave you with only right-wingers to celebrate repentance and redemption with.

Donny

Posted by: Psalm 51, mee too. | February 3, 2008 8:55 AM

mark -- There's a woman in church whom I have a crush on (though she didn't know it at the time) -- about a year ago, inspired by a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Charles Stanley on Colossians, I sent her a prayer I had written on her behalf which was totally Biblically correct in its focus. After reading it she told me to "keep it up." Besides, was not the "Lord's Prayer" written down? Though many churches recite it, it gives the attitude one should have toward God.

It's (Lord's Prayer) a great example, and I know it's often recited publicly, but that came from Christ. I am not sure I understand why it's done though.

Again, I realize that people do this, I'm not disputing that... I just wonder... "Why?". That's the part that is pretty much mysterious to me.

Posted by: mark | February 3, 2008 5:50 PM

Ahh, back to the "conservative political ideology is a spiritual defect, you have to be a political liberal to be saved" nonsense again, are we?

No one here has said anything close to that. The truth, however, is that some of the "righties" on this blog HAVE SAID that those on whom they consider the "other side" are going to hell. What I said (and I stand by this) is that key components of conservative ideology does not square with Scripture, and trying to lecture us that it does will win you no friends here.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 3, 2008 9:53 PM

No one here has said anything close to that. The truth, however, is that some of the "righties" on this blog HAVE SAID that those on whom they consider the "other side" are going to hell. What I said (and I stand by this) is that key components of conservative ideology does not square with Scripture, and trying to lecture us that it does will win you no friends here.

I simply cannot agree that my spiritual and daily reliance on God is the equivalent of dependency on Governemnt, or any other human insitution. That defeats the whole concept of "total reliance upon God".

I find nothing in the Scriptures that says that we must live in a state of perpetual economic dependency upon the state or any other human fabrication.

Quite the contrary, wealth is a blessing from God, one which we are charged with stewardship, and personal obligations born of our personal faith.

Good stewardship demands that we use what we have wisely. Thus, my insistence that wasteful public spending is abhorrent not just to rational thinkign, but also to our Christian sensibilities.

I am still befuddled by your insistance that it is wrong to want people to be financially independent. You criticize me when I talk about financial self sufficiency, but the alternative would be to think that you want EVERYONE to be financially dependent on some insitution or another - And I don't think even you would agree that would be good.

Over and over I read that "independence" is wrong, when I talk about getting people out of poverty, and get cited verse after verse about my dependence upon God for strenth, conscience, and spiritual renewal.

While I would hope that all people I help who are mired in poverty find a relationship with a personal Savior, I can't insist that people remain in poverty unless they become "true Christians".

If financial independence is wrong, what's the point of getting people out of poverty?

Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 3:04 AM

I simply cannot agree that my spiritual and daily reliance on God is the equivalent of dependency on Governemnt, or any other human insitution. That defeats the whole concept of "total reliance upon God".

THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID -- and you know this.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 4, 2008 9:04 AM

... (that's pederasty 24/7)... Feeding the poor to harvest their unborn and ovaries is as evil as it gets Jim

I hope that, as has been indicated, moderation is soon going to be enforced on this forum so that lunatics like this one go elsewhere to spew their filth.

Posted by: splinterlog | February 4, 2008 4:49 PM

mark, you strike me as an intelligent, well-read man, but it appears that what you accept as "truth" is so at odds with sojourners that your reactions aren't reasonable. i would venture to say, that if you really think about your question, "What is the point of sharing a "prayer" or prayers?", you would reconsider it.

for isn't sharing a prayer the same principle as sharing scripture or thoughts? isn't it "fellowship".

sometimes, what another says, what another prays resonates within our hearts and minds, helps us to find words for thoughts and feelings we may be unable to express. when we cannot find the words, the holy spirit can use others to help us pray.

in this world and with this body and mind, i have not attained the perfection that God, through Christ calls me to. i am not so arrogant to think that my mind and heart contain complete knowledge and understanding of God's ways. i know that God uses others to teach me, to reach me.

i can't accept that, as a Christian, you don't believe that too.

dear mark, i think if you will re-read the prayer you will agree that it is something we all (left and right) can agree on, "father...let only your will be done in me". amen.

Posted by: seeker-finder | February 4, 2008 9:03 PM

I am kind of disappointed. I am a young college student, and I am losing my faith in the PEOPLE of Christianity. When I read all of your written words, I see why people are so turned off to my religion when I try to share the love of God with them. They don't believe that God is love after see so many of you attack each other and argue over petty things. We all have different opinions, that just comes from living in today's world. But it is up to God to judge and it is up to us to show his love to our neighbors and everyone we come in contact with.
And though you argue that we shouldn't share prayer as they are private and spontaneous, I believe that you can still appreciate them. I would not deny the importance of having passionate and one-on-one conversations with the Father, but sometimes reading other's prayers can and inspire and deeply cultivate our relationship with God.
When I read this prayer, I felt alive and fully owned by the loving Savior. Praying this prayer after my morning devotions and continuing to talk to God through out the day was special. God was truly with me through this entire day...
I mostly just pray my own prayers, quick and deep and passionate that they are. But every once in a while, it is important to let someone else's words lead you to a deeper level of awareness of who God is.

Posted by: Sasha | February 5, 2008 8:48 PM