Here's the problem: Abortion is as big an issue of justice as any other, but it seems that according to Sojourners that its secondary--not something to be prophetic about but something to "dialouge" about. Does Sojourners propose to "dialouge" about death penalty, war, racism, and economic exploitation? No-- we march on the capital, spew polemics, and get arrested in the rotunda over food stamps and tax policy; but we want to "dialouge" about sticking a fork in a baby's brain!

Here's the thing: I'm an evangelical Christian with a significantly progressive outlook-- I'm environmentalist, anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-progressive tax-policy populist economics, anti-death penalty... I'm even for reparations! But Sojo just doesn't have the moral authority to lead evangelicals into social justice because they skirt the abortion issue.

Posted by: Matt K | May 29, 2008 11:12 AM

Abortion is a very difficult topic to discuss. But, I think it is frightening that some groups of people (governments) have the right to decide about life or death of an unborn human being...

http://www.thefaithdebate.com

Posted by: live_life | May 29, 2008 12:19 PM

"Jim and Sojourners simply don't fit those tired categories," Ryan RB

Sounds good to me. Can we make a modest start and do away with the description of this blog:

"The monologue of the Religious Right is over and a new conversation has begun!"

That simple statement, in my mind represents a critical issue. The new conversation is structured in response to the old conversation.

Which is the old conversation.

I agree it is often a good sign when you get rejected by 'both sides'; but it is a better sign when you don't spend time noticing this dynamic because the focus is on the love of Jesus and His Kingdom.

How about, "The name-calling focussed on criticizing the faults of your Christian Brother/Sister is over and a season of praying and living to the utmost for Jesus has begun?"

We have but a moment--give it to Jesus.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 29, 2008 12:38 PM

For what it's worth, I think between Matt K and Eric you have a pretty good description of where Sojo is on this issue, and the problems that flow out of that.

If I might make an observation, it is not always a good thing to be criticized by both sides in a debate. If one wants to be seen as an honest broker, one cannot have total agreement with either side but one must have respect and credibility on both sides. Right now I'm not sure whether or not Wallis and Sojo have that.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | May 29, 2008 1:10 PM

I'm pretty conservative and I can't believe abortion is still an issue for so many. When my daughter tells me kids are still giving speeches on it in schools I want to ask, "Why? Do they think they'll change anyone's views on it?" Hasn't that battle already been fought and won or lost -- depending on where you land on it?

I honestly roll my eyes everytime I see or hear the word -- because frankly -- no one offers anything new on the subject.

Posted by: Connie | May 29, 2008 1:43 PM

Just could not pass this one up...

'...positions and common ground rather than adhering to ideological litmus tests from either side...'

Common ground - I believe that I was one of the first people to use that phrase on this site.

Jim is 'pro-life'...I believe that he just might be. But if he were leading the charge on this issue - we would have lost it a long time ago.

There is so much more that could be accomplished for the Kingdom if Wallis and Sojo would look at those on the other side of the fence as 'co-baligerants' on an issue and not slice and dice the Kennedys - Fawells and Dobsons of the world.

Blessings - and I really am not back, just enjoy reading and could not pass this one up.

Posted by: Moderatelad | May 29, 2008 2:56 PM

Connie,
I understand your point about there being nothing new to say about abortion after all these years or so. That being said, particularly with young people, you never know whether or not they've even been exposed to another point of view outside of their home.

There was probably nothing new to say about slavery 150 years ago either. That doesn't mean debate about the injustice of it shouldn't occur.

Posted by: Eric | May 29, 2008 3:12 PM

"Does Sojourners propose to "dialouge" about death penalty, war, racism, and economic exploitation? No-- we march on the capital, spew polemics, and get arrested in the rotunda over food stamps and tax policy; but we want to "dialouge" about sticking a fork in a baby's brain!"
--This is a good point. Why does Sojo allow for no uncertainty, no compromise whatsoever when it comes to fixing social security or what the best tax structure or welfare policies should be, yet abortion is just one of those difficult issues where dialogue is needed?

I'm not the first person to make this point, but it strikes me as extremely arrogant and naive to expect Republicans and conservatives to move left in every possible way--economic and domestic policies, foreign/trade policies, immigration, etc.--yet they don't ask liberals or the Democratic party to budge an INCH in their support for unfettered access to abortion (imposed undemocratically, I should add). The standard Democratic position on abortion--which includes pro-Roe v. Wade litmus tests on judges, support for partial birth abortion and taxpayer funded abortions, and opposition to parental notification--is extreme by any standard. Yet Wallis and Sojo can't even bring themselves to criticize the Dems or any pro-choice politician in this way. There are no calls to moderate their positions. No calls for middle ground.

It just strikes me as highly partisan...

Posted by: jesse | May 29, 2008 5:05 PM

The Daily Kos people are citing a statement Wallis signed long ago explicitly calling for the legal protection of the unborn. His recent (and previous) statements, however, are explicitly against the "criminalization of abortion."

Wallis is clearly contradicting himself, mainly I believe for the reasons Eric cites above. Again, I don't understand why giving contradicting statements to try to please everyone could be considered "finding new -- and more nuanced -- positions and common ground," as Ryan says. This is just being intentionally vague or, at worst, deceptive.

Posted by: jesse | May 29, 2008 5:19 PM

"Why does Sojo allow for no uncertainty, no compromise whatsoever when it comes to fixing social security or what the best tax structure or welfare policies should be, yet abortion is just one of those difficult issues where dialogue is needed?"

Because fixing social security or tax structure is about us providing services when needed or about the government taking money. Abortion is about you wanting to make someone else's medical decisions for them.

Posted by: brenna | May 29, 2008 6:11 PM

"Wallis is clearly contradicting himself, mainly I believe for the reasons Eric cites above."

what part of the phrase "long ago" do you not understand? do you maintain every belief that you've ever held? are we not allowed to change positions? is life not about evolving, in the intellectual sense of the word?

Posted by: mingus | May 29, 2008 6:39 PM

"If this is the case that Wallis has evolved (and I don't think it is, since he made statements prior to the prolife one he signed indicating pro-choice sentiments) why doesn't he clarify? Why does he persist with the ambiguity by calling himself "prolife" on one hand while also holding that the unborn have no legal rights? Do you think it a touch misleading?"

perhaps the truth is that sojo is a big, complicated group of people who hold different viewpoints on whether putting women and doctors in jail will "solve" abortion and its root problems. as i and others have noted previously, perhaps he and others feel that the issue should not be laid out as an "are you pro-life or pro-choice" issue and that his pledged allegiance to one side or the other would do nothing but serve the very polarization that your demands to know which side he's on feed into.

and give the "wallis picks on the conservatives" business a rest. do a quick search of the archives and you'll find numerous words of praise for conservatives AND liberals as well as criticism of each. falling back on this tired argument is just lazy. ask yourself, as you criticize wallis, are YOU interested in a dialogue, or do you just like the arguments too much?

Posted by: mingus | May 29, 2008 7:13 PM

do a quick search of the archives and you'll find numerous words of praise for conservatives AND liberals as well as criticism of each.

Mingus:

In his book True Enough (well worth reading, by the way), Farhad Manjoo notes many interesting psychological phenomena. Among them is a known fact that partisans will complain furiously about what they see as bias against their position while totally ignoring facts presented that support their position. Those who are looking for every reason to attack Rev. Wallis and Sojourners for their "progressivism" will simply not recognize the many times he has praised individual conservatives and their actions. Those instances simply do not register with the critics.

It has a lot to do with perceived bias in media. All of us tend to believe that our own point of view on a given topic is objective. Manjoo calls that "naive realism." We therefore tend to perceive bias whenever our point of view is challenged. After all, if we are objective ourselves, how can someone who doesn't agree with us possibly be objective? They must be biased! This is one reason why we now have news outlets like DailyKos, Fox News, etc., that cater to peoples' ideological framework, whatever that is--these outlets are simply feeding on and supporting naive realism.

I think this is what you see operating here. I know it's frustrating when these same complaints get repeated ad nauseum and when you know there's no objective validity to them. But that's part of the reality we now face.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 29, 2008 9:30 PM

"Those who are looking for every reason to attack Rev. Wallis and Sojourners for their "progressivism" will simply not recognize the many times he has praised individual conservatives and their actions. Those instances simply do not register with the critics."
--Sorry, Don, but this is a straw man you're attacking. I will acknowledge that Wallis has praised Republicans at times--always for taking positions that are left-leaning, in fact. It is pretty meaningless to praise Republicans for acting like Democrats.

The evidence of partisanship I see is the ratio of Democrat/Republican criticisms he gives and the Democrat/Republican praises he gives. Do you think these are skewed at all? Do you remember anytime Wallis has praised a conservative Republican for taking a position that runs counter to the Democratic establishment position? Can you name one time? Also, can you name one recent episode where he has criticized Democrats for taking liberal positions on anything? Where he has criticized Obama or Hillary? Anything? Not even for taking a liberal position...anything?

When was the last time Sojo or Wallis criticized a Democrat for anything? I'm sure it's happened at some point, but you must admit it is exceedingly rare. You'd also admit that citing one or two criticisms still doesn't prove anything...just as citing one or two Fox News stories that are critical of Republicans would likely not convince you and others here that they are unbiased.

Posted by: jesse | May 29, 2008 11:56 PM

Can't one be evangelical and pro-choice? The operative word here is choice. God already gives each one of us the choice to do the right thing without enforcing it. The Gospel assures that God allows each woman to act from her heart, rather than from fear of the law.

A pregnant mother may choose life if supported by a Christian community that values children, not just babies. A woman won't be asked to risk her life or limb for the life of an unborn child. She won't be asked to later watch that child starve, to live in dire poverty without medical care, to lose her child to war or die from evironmental pollution.

Laws that dictate a woman's reproductive life assume women selfishly terminate their pregnancies due to perverse sinfulness, rather than out of despair. Why fear choice? Could it be because Christians in power in this country, have not taught the values that make life a viable choice? Could it be that Christians have been pro-life, yet neglected working for a liveable world?

Posted by: clarita | May 30, 2008 5:36 AM

Sorry, Don, but this is a straw man you're attacking.

Jesse, my comment wasn't a straw man at all, because I wasn't making an argument. I was responding to mingus' complaint that so often the Wallis attackers here do not notice the things Wallis writes in praise of conservatives. I was merely noting information from Manjoo's book that demonstrate how, when people think someone is attacking their position, evidence that person gives in support of their position is frequently ignored. Mingus accused the Wallis attackers of being lazy. But laziness has nothing to do with it. The supporting evidence simply doesn't register cognitively in the partisan's mind. Manjoo demonstrates how this phenomenon is well-documented in the psychological literature.

Manjoo also mentions that journalists are well aware of this phenomenon: "... audiences complain bitterly about bias in stories while seeming to miss facts that are sympathetic to their side" (p. 159).

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 30, 2008 9:16 AM

In the late 70's I held to a "I'm personally pro-life but support public pro-choice policy" position.

I shifted, not due to an experience, nor to a radical shift in thinking.

One day, my spirit was just grieved at the brokenness of humanity and all creation. I reflected on the Romans passage about "all creation yearning" for healing. I thought about the awful break in relations communicated in the account of Adam and Eve; their son committing the first murder; the broken heart of God in the story of a cataclysmic flood to wipe out almost all of humanity; and the terrifying drama of a loving God torn apart by human sin as the Son gives His life on the cross.

I thought of the most intimate, beautiful and mysterious of all human relationships--a man and woman in sacred union creating a new life that is absolutely dependent and connected to Mommmy; a new life spiritually intertwined into a web of relationships with parents and God.

I considered the brokenness of new life not created out of love, and facing a life of extreme brokenness. But this most intimate of all relations remains: Mommy and Baby. Inextricably linked. They are Two--and they are One.

And in spite of the circumstances leading to that moment, and in spite of the hurdles of life (sooner or later all of humanity experiences great trajedy and death)-- will the tearing of this new life from the mother heal any of the brokenness?

Our cultural attitudes, norms, beliefs and behaviors around abortion, I came to believe (in heart and in mind) are a profound stab towards the heart of our dignity and relationship with each other and God.

There is no pitting of mother against child.

Our (my wife and I) values around this led to adoption of a wonderful girl whose mother (in one of the most loving and self-sacrificial acts) chose our family to be family for the girl she birthed.

Our values led to the carrying out of a risky pregnancy and another wonderful girl who is now five. Mommy died a year ago as a result of disease triggered by the pregnancy. Our family has loved and sacrificed and experienced the profound blessing of life.

Clarita--I live everyday with a commitment to the dignity of every person and a fullness of shalom and justice for all humanity for which my Savior died.

This is a sharing of my journey.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 30, 2008 10:27 AM

Don,
I said it was a straw man you were attacking because I never wrote that Sojo never praises Republicans--when they do praise them, I said, it's for doing things that the Dems are also on board with. Any conservative or liberal publication would do the same thing for people in the other camp (look at the liberal establishment's fawning treatment of Scott McClellan right now). You're using a different definition of partisanship I would argue is overly simplistic: if Sojo praises Republicans once in awhile then they must be non-partisan.

"evidence of what Manjoo describes as naive realism--the idea that your views are objective; therefore, since Sojourners' views don't square with yours, they are being partisan."
--I could just as easily say that since Sojo's views square with yours, you think they're non-partisan.

I have a feeling we could go on all day about this, but I put forward a number of questions you ignored that I would like you to consider that get to the heart of the matter. Wallis and Sojo's treatment of Obama, in particular, looks very much like they're "in his pocket," which goes against one of Wallis's major talking points.

If Sojo agrees with everything the Democrats are doing, how are they going to influence them? What are they going to be good for other than to recruit Christians to vote for Democrats?

To go back to the original post...I gave a practical method for Sojo to show their non-partisanship--challenge the Democratic establishment once in awhile for their extreme support for abortion and abortion rights (including taxpayer funding of abortion, opposition to parental notification laws, etc). Why won't they do this?

Posted by: jesse | May 30, 2008 10:47 AM

I am old enough to remember what it was like before Roe vs. Wade. It was not better. I am prolife but I draw the line at making these foolish woman criminals, anything short of that I applaud.

Posted by: Oak | May 30, 2008 1:22 PM

I went and read the comments at the Daily Kos. I think Sojourners may be overstating the attacks on Jim Wallis as a right-winger. Yes, there were a few comments like that, but many leapt to his defense and a pointed out his true-blue left-wing bona fides. I think it is a significant overstatement to say that Jim Wallis is criticized equally by the left and the right. I look forward to the day when Sojourners and Jim Wallis advocate a Biblical, but "conservative-sounding" position and criticize leftist Democrats for opposing it.

Posted by: Fair coverage | May 30, 2008 1:50 PM

"We cannot state with certainty at what point a fetus has a soul. A nanosecond after sperm unites with egg? First trimester? There's no way of knowing, at least at this point in human history."
--First, it's difficult to say at what point a human *outside* the womb has a soul. Second, since there is some uncertainty, shouldn't we err on the side of life? Would you demolish a building you thought could be inhabited?

Even if I allowed for some degree of uncertainty (though I believe abortion takes a human life)...having an abortion would be like squirrel hunting at a playground. Even if you didn't kill any children, it would be a criminal offense of reckless endangerment. And if you did kill someone accidentally it would be manslaughter. Abortion is an evil either way--unless you can prove with 100% certainty that the unborn child is NOT a human being, which I don't think anyone claims to do.

I should add that science is very much in support of the prolife position on when human life begins (look in any biology textbook). It's only philosophy that some use to try to push it back later than conception...

Posted by: jesse | May 30, 2008 2:42 PM

Clarita,
The problem with your logic is that you would never apply it to any other situation in which a human life was at stake. Would you say that we shouldn't criminalize murder simply because some people do it out of desperation and that we should first work to alleviate the causes of murder before criminalizing it? Of course not. Now it's one thing if you don't think abortion is the ending of a human life. Your argument would make more sense then. But if you do believe it is, I'd ask you to reassess your logic.

I agree with you that we need more supportive Christian communities to help pregnant mothers go through the trials that pregnancy brings. Many Christians are deeply committed to this cause. But lack of this type of community doesn't excuse the selfish act of ending another human life because it might make the mother's more difficult.

Posted by: Eric | May 30, 2008 3:01 PM

Jesse: "btw, Nat Hentoff is a strong supporter of legal protections for the unborn--he's not just personally opposed."

Correct. That was poorly written on my part. Thank you, Jesse, for pointing that out.

On your other points, I don't particularly disagree with anyone of them.

Posted by: carl copas | May 30, 2008 5:52 PM

One problem with this. Daily Kos is a site populated by a bunch of ignorant 20 something radical liberal facist who, if they had their way, would march all Christians off to concentration camps. Anyone who thinks that getting a "shout out" from these fools is "great" has their head burried up someplace we don't discuss at Christian sites. It's probably OK to mention here though,.

Posted by: debarrio | May 30, 2008 9:21 PM

I always try to use WWJD as my litmus test. Did Jesus come out and say we have got to change these laws and make them more to our line of thinking? NO . Jesus taught us to seek the kingdom of God and to teach the word of God.

Posted by: ted | May 31, 2008 12:28 AM

"this is so absurd. who friggin' cares."

The folks at DailyKos, for starters. I care as well.

"why are you so dedicated to dissecting every single one of jim wallis' statements for evidence of his bias?"

I have not dissected everyone of Wallis's statements, or anything close to it.

"instead of participating in meaningful discussions,"

I participate in most of the discussions here. I think you are asking why I spend time defending my viewpoint here. I guess I don't entirely know the answer to that question. Why does it matter to you?

"your posts become tiresome diatribes that keep everyone else from engaging in meaningful discussions."

How so? If you have a sincere desire for a meaningful discussion, isn't it your responsibility to ensure that meaningful discussion takes place? I think, moreso, that you simply disagree with a lot of what I say, and are thusly frustrated.

"but i guess that's kind of the point, huh?"

Nope.

"yes, you're right. jim wallis, sojo, and all the rest of us here are engaged in a massive conspiracy against the evil conservatives"

I never said this.

"and we hope to silence your voices for good."

I think YOU do, else why would you have posted what you posted?

"there, you've won - now you can give it a rest and move on to something with some substance?"

Like, for example, what the people at DailyKos think about Jim Wallis?

Posted by: kevin s. | May 31, 2008 2:31 AM

I could just as easily say that since Sojo's views square with yours, you think they're non-partisan.

Jesse:
My point was that you are so quick to accuse Sojourners of partisanship, yet you seem unable to recognize your own partisanship. Your own language, as I said, gives that away.

D

Posted by: DOn | June 2, 2008 6:30 AM

" "You always have the poor with you and you may do them good whenever you want." (The woman using the expensive oil to annoint Him.)"

Actually, he addresses this almost every time he speaks. I haven't personally heard anyone cite this verse as a reason for not helping the poor, but I have no problem with Wallis' exegesis of the passage.

You have a good point about judgment.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 2, 2008 5:25 PM

"For example, Mr. Wallis and SoJo are for the government redistribution of individuals' money to end poverty..."

Ah, the libertarian language appears again. Christ said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's." He didn't say anything about "individuals' money." If you're a follower of Christ, it ain't your money anyway. Get over it.

Posted by: I and I | June 4, 2008 2:46 PM