Good job Jim!

I agree, poverty is a core issue, but the issues of competence and corruption in government have been overlooked by both progressive and conservative evangelicals.

For example, there are quite a few corrupt and incompetent 'pro-life' politicians in Congress put into office by evangelicals voting their favorite social issues while ignoring due diligence on the core issues of competence and corruption in government.
Let's keep our eyes on the ball this time folks.

Posted by: justintime | April 3, 2008 10:23 AM

Gordon,

The first premise of evangelicals is that they have a great truth of Jesus and they want to share it with others. They are excited about a transforming faith.

I think of evangelicals as people who attend the church of their chosing, not necessarily the denomination of their parents. People who hold the Bible as a central authority over church tradition. People who believe in a personal salvation.

It is my impression, and maybe I am wrong, but that evangelicals take a more literal reading of the Bible and are less interested in scholarly investigation. I don't think Marcus Borg or Dom Crossan would be evangelicals.

But a Biblical literalist must work hard to eradicate poverty and promote peace. It is what Jesus said to do according to the Bible. A Biblical literalist must also promote a life free from the sins of excess like greed or lust, too.

So, I think there are liberal & conservative theologies and liberal & conservitive politics. While I happen to be liberal in both camps, it is obvious to me how one could mix and match. My understanding from reading God's Politics is that Wallis has a conservative theology that leads him to liberal political positions.

Love,
JimII
http://www.propheticprogress.blogspot.com/

Posted by: JimII | April 3, 2008 12:16 PM

Jim II: "I don't think Marcus Borg or Dom Crossan would be evangelicals."

kevin s: "Neither are they all that scholarly."

kevin, could you elaborate?

Posted by: carl copas | April 3, 2008 1:29 PM

As a leader in the area of "young evangelicals" as Mr. Wallace describes them, I couldn't agree more. The issues have expanded. Abortion and Gay Rights are only two arrows in a quiver full of global issues. Teenagers are much more concerned with reaching out to issues like poverty, sex trade, child warriors, AIDS, orphan care, and preventable disease. Though many teens are unable to vote, it gives me a clear picture into the future, and I believe Jim is hitting the nail on the head. Voters today will be more interested in a sort of broad morality, rather than reducing politics to the same old 2 system conservative litmus test used in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

Andy Braner
President Kanakuk Colorado

Posted by: Andy Braner | April 3, 2008 3:14 PM

Dear Jim Wallis,

John McCain is NOT talking about "a 100-year war"!
Could you be more out of touch? He's said that we
would have a military presence in Iraq for decades
to come, sure. It's akin to what we have in Japan,
in Germany, in a few nations in the world. IT IS
NOT WHAT YOU ARE MAKING IT OUT TO BE.

Do your research or else stick to the pulpit.
Good. Lord. If God is so truly not a Republican nor
a Democrat, you sure seem to claim differently, and
this interview was glaring proof of that.

Jon

Posted by: jonathan | April 3, 2008 3:57 PM

I would consult Alister McGrath on what evangelicalism is. Evangelicals align themselves with historic protestant Christianity and emphasize the authority of scripture, the work of the holy spirit, and the necessity of conversion through Christ, and the call to spread the gospel to all nations. That about sums it up. I don't believe Wallis, McLaren, Campolo and others mean the same thing by the term.

Posted by: jesse | April 3, 2008 4:23 PM

Jesse:
"That about sums it up."
I guess that rules out Wilberforce among others, huh?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 3, 2008 4:47 PM

It's akin to what we have in Japan,
in Germany, in a few nations in the world.

It's nevertheless quite legitimate to question whether we should be required--with our tax money--to maintain a long-term military presence in the Middle East. Although McCain didn't mean 100-year war, he still should be required to justify the need for such a long-term commitment.

D

Posted by: Don | April 3, 2008 5:41 PM

Okay, Wilberforce is not God.
Let's all get over him.
Just a man.

Posted by: jonathan | April 3, 2008 6:48 PM

"I guess that rules out Wilberforce among others, huh?"
--Why? Which of these principles did Wilberforce reject?

It's not about the Wilberforce's rejection, but about your omission of social justice activity in your definition of evangelical Christianity. Modern day evangelicalism has been marked by an overemphasis on the Great Commission almost to the eclusion of the Great Commandment. I see Wallis and friends restoring evangelicalism to it's historical/theological roots. Not only has the "monologue" ended but so has the rewriting of history/identity.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 3, 2008 10:00 PM

"It's not about the Wilberforce's rejection, but about your omission of social justice activity in your definition of evangelical Christianity."
--I would assume that taking care of the poor would be accounted for in emphasizing the authority of scripture, no? (aren't there a lot of scriptures related to poverty in the bible?) If you wanted to tack on "social justice" (a catch-all phrase meaning many things that is overused today, IMO), you might as well add a lot of other biblical commands, too, though taking care of those in need is hardly uniquely evangelical. In addition, saying that "evangelicals were involved with certain things in different times in history" is not the same as saying "being an evangelical means doing these things." There is a difference between the history of evangelicalism and the nature of it.

Posted by: jesse | April 4, 2008 7:33 AM

I don't believe Wallis, McLaren, Campolo and others mean the same thing by the term. jesse

It is true that Wallis, McLaren and Campolo may mean something else. While your defintion is a good one Jesse, Wallis, McLaren and Campolo would probably (without putting words in their mouths) add to the definition of Evangelical, doing work that would promote the common good such as struggling against poverty through public and private initiatives, working on peace issues, environmental issues and racial reconciliation issues.

While some might take issue with those add-ons (and they are free to reject them), nobody (including Wallis, McLaren and Campolo) has a monopoly on the meaning of the word evangelical. That said, if their "add-ons" cause a divide, that will just have to be a necessary and unfortunate consequence. Hopefully the those who hold different views and definition of what "evangelical" means will be able to work together where they have common ground and respectfully disagree in those areas where they do not.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 4, 2008 9:14 AM

I think I've written this before: Lutherans during the Reformation were the first to use the term "evangelical" to describe themselves. The reason is that Lutheran understanding of Scripture is centered on the Gospel--the "evangelium." The Gospel is the lens through which Lutherans view and interpret the Scriptures. The Lutheran churches in Germany today are still called "evangelische Kirchen," and the largest Lutheran denomination in the USA is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). (By the way, since the ELCA is normally considered a mainline denomination, don't try to tell me that mainline Christians cannot be evangelicals!)

But there's more to it than that. The modern evangelical movement owes its existence largely to the Pietist movement that began in Lutheran Germany during the seventeenth century. The Wesleys were strongly influenced by the Pietists, in particular the Moravian Brethren. The Wesleys were also committed to social activism, and many social reform movements can be traced to evangelicals: abolition of slavery, prison reform, treatment of the mentally ill to name a few. Evangelical-inspired social action was characteristic of the so-called Second Great Awakening here in the US during the early 1800s. The name Charles Finney comes to mind.

Those who want to limit contemporary evangelicalism to personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, the centrality of Christ for salvation, etc., and who don't want to include social action in their definition are an historical anomaly. To most evangelicals, personal conversion resulted in a life dedicated to social action. It wasn't something that was questioned.

James Martin is correct that nobody has a monopoly on what "evangelical" means.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | April 4, 2008 10:13 AM

Sounds to me like the use of the term "evangelical" by Sojo is a shibboleth.Posted by: Gordon

I guess you could say that if you want to belittle Sojo's sincerity.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 4, 2008 10:54 AM

Sojo can be sincere and still misuse a word.

Posted by: Gordon | April 4, 2008 12:05 PM

As far as I can see, they have no particular definition of the word. Posts on this thread have gone all over the place defining what an "evangelical" might be, but so far no one has been able to give me a definite idea of what Sojo means by the term. Certainly, cramming both the Christian right and left together under a single term makes no sense unless one can distill it down to what essential beliefs or practices constitute evangelicalism.

Posted by: Gordon | April 4, 2008 12:17 PM

Don - the problem is that Sojo wants to talk about what "evangelicals" are doing, how they want to serve the poor, end injustice, end global warming, etc., etc. But they don't seem to have a fixed definition of the term, and therefore are either hijacking the term to imply that some evangelicals who don't agree with them are in their camp, or excluding persons with a traditional evangelical outlook from consideration as evangelicals. If they were to define what they mean, I might agree or disagree with their use of the term, but as far as I can see it is just a shibboleth - a meaningless term used to distinguish between groups of people.

Posted by: Gordon | April 4, 2008 12:30 PM

Don,
I'd agree with you that social action is a part of evangelicalism or Christianity more broadly speaking. Though, of course, I'd disagree that being an evangelical warrants support for the kind of socialist-style government interventions Sojo supports--such interventions are themselves historical anomalies.

I wouldn't be the first person to point out that the current evangelical involvement in the prolife movement is in keeping with the kind of justice-seeking of the abolitionist evangelicals of the past. The fact that there is much talk of third world poverty, human trafficking and genocide in the evangelical church today is also encouraging.

When Wallis and Sojo discuss "evangelicals," they seek to align themselves with a group of people they desire to influence towards support of liberal/progressive political policies. My guess is they wish to say "we are evangelicals, we support these political policies, you and other evangelicals should, too." The concern is influence, even though they (at least McLaren and Wallis) have more in common theologically with mainline protestantism.

Posted by: jesse | April 4, 2008 12:35 PM

Thank you, Don for your fleshing out my original post. My original response was to Jesse's definition as "that's about it" and then speaking of "social justice" (excessively broad and overused) as an "add-on". One of the stumbling blocks of Western thought is division and definition. The Great Commandment as illustrated in the letters of John is actually one Love God/Love Others. Social justice is the natural out-birth of the supernatural re-birth.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 4, 2008 1:10 PM

Don,
First, do you believe that Wallis is not seeking to influence evangelicals and/or politics? If he said he were not an evangelical and did not choose to speak on their behalf, do you think he would have as much influence?

Second, I wouldn't get stuck on the "socialism" label (which is a broad term accounting for many govt-style interventions), as it was only intended to describe Wallis et al.'s advocacy of much more govt intervention in economic policies via redistribution of wealth, regulations, etc. Call it "left-leaning", "liberal", "progressive" or whatever else, if you wish.

As I said, care for the poor (an aspect of "social justice") is a basic Christian doctrine. The characteristics I laid out are those that make up evangelicalism, which taken together distinguish it from other strands of protestantism.

Posted by: jesse | April 4, 2008 2:14 PM