Jim Wallis wrote:

For example, there are those you would call liberals who have a very strong ethic of personal responsibility and family, and those you would call conservatives who do not. And, of course, vice versa. Real life often defies easy stereotypes.

Nobody is saying that there aren't liberals who are decent people, or conservatives who are total jerks. What we are saying is that liberalism itself tends to downplay personal resposibility too much. In effect Wallis is personalizing a question about policy. I think Klinghoffer would be willing to stipulate that Jim Wallis is a good father. Now let's talk about welfare, or social security, or taxes.

I believe that a common good agenda, rooted in the moral center, could unite diverse people on the really big issues. It is possible to "find common ground by moving to higher ground" and actually make some progress on the most important questions of our time.

Okay, fine: where is this moral center, and how can we diferentiate between that and the left. Is there any practical policy difference we can draw? Klinghoffer is forthright about being a man of the right. I have been reading this blog for better than a year and have yet to see any actual policy prescription that differs significantly from those of Democratic party leadership. Did I miss something?

If you know anything at all about me and my books, you know that what you're attacking is neither what I say nor what I believe. If you want to debate someone who is pro-abortion and who is willing to defend what you call a "socialist-activist role for government", find someone else. It's not me.

Gotta love those one-word quotations. Here's the full sentence from Klinghoffer:

On abortion, your idea of being "anti-abortion," as you put it, would oppose "criminalizing an agonizing and desperate choice" - the standard position of pro-choice, a/k/a pro-abortion, advocates.

Jim, your protest against the word "pro-abortion" is duly noted, but you leave a lot of important questions unanswered. Is it or is it not your position that abortion should remain legal? If your position is that abortion -- however regrettable -- should be legal, how does your position differ from that of Bill Clinton's rhetorical formulation "safe, legal, and rare"? Did Bill Clinton's scruples ever translate themselves into policy that effectively reduced abortion?

But you say that we should have a "litmus test for whether a candidate really feels God should have a say in the ordering of our laws" ... There is a very large difference between grounding political ideas in spiritual values and thinking God should write our legislation, or that we can clearly know what God would write.

Actually, what Klinghoffer is saying that a candidate's approach to abortion is a useful indicator of a candidate's willingness to consider apiritual values. There is also a big difference between arguing that "God should have a say" and advocating theocracy.

We have to get beyond the caricature of people and groups and talk about real substance, real ideas, and real policy issues. Can you do that, David? I never did get a response to whether you think that your share of our more than 500 billion tax dollars (so far) have been well spent on the war in Iraq.

That's funny, because I checked and you never actually asked Klinghoffer about his personal opinion of the Iraq War, you asked him what he thought the results would be from a national plebiscite:

Let's ask the people if they'd rather have spent more than $500 billion over the last five years on jobs, education, healthcare and housing or on the war in Iraq. I'd be willing to accept the result, would you?

And as I mentioned earlier, we've actually had two elections since then and yet the war goes on.

Oh, that that bit about "Can you do that, David?". Absolutely precious.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 17, 2008 1:56 PM

Dear Wolverine,

We are called to both personal responsibility and social responsibility. The two must go together. Therefore, the liberal versus conservative paradigm should be chucked into the trash can.

In 1 Thessalonians Paul addressed some who were so excited about Jesus' return that they stopped working. Paul told them, "Get to work!"

In Matthew 25, the nations were judged by how they cared for the "least of these."

As to the subject of abortion, I'm thinking "out loud"...

Criminalizing suggests to me that we will put mothers, doctors, and nurses behind bars. I'm not comfortable with that. I'm trying to imagine what that would look like.

Yet the number of abortions in this country makes me sick to my stomach. In order to drastically reduce these mounting tragedies will require both personal and social responsibility:

*teach joyful, chaste sexuality
*teach the consequences of irresponsible sexuality (and STDs, not pregnancy is often the "worst" outcome)
*provide radical support for women in crisis pregnancies (= we could both sign up to raise a child, resulting from a crisis pregnancy- a personal and social act)

To summarize my thinking. Based on Klinghoffer's standards (and I'm guessing yours), Wallis and me are not pro-life. But by attacking voices such as ours, you lose people who deeply desire a solution.

Got to go. Peace, Duh-sciple

Posted by: Duh-sciple | June 17, 2008 3:33 PM

Debating against these platitudes must be truly exasperating. Can we get down to specifics please and step away from the talking points?

If the "old paradigms of liberal and conservative" don't fit anymore, then what is the new paradigm? What are the policies of the new paradigm? How are they different at all from the same Democratic policies you've supported all your life? In what way do they differ from a "socialist-activist role of government"? Again, please step away from platitudes and move to specific policies.

Klinghoffer also said your position on abortion is "pro-choice," which is what every politician who shares your views calls themselves. You could have gotten into the specifics of why you support legalized abortion, civil unions for gays, etc. These are issues that matter for a lot of Christians, and it would have been nice for you to address them. As it stands, it's hard to know with whom you're arguing.

Posted by: jesse | June 17, 2008 4:52 PM

"We don't get to win just because we are religious."

This is a beautiful line. Thank you Jim, for modeling a rare humility as you seek to express your thoughtful understanding of how to follow Jesus.

How tempting it is to believe that proof texting allows one to be "right" and the others as "wrong." How tempting it is to feed your own ego with the assurance that you cannot be wrong because what you are proposing is "Biblical." Defending slavery and every form of discriminatory sexism has been defended as "Biblical." And the list can go on. We must be careful of our tendency to rely on that which convinces us without our true understanding and that which will never convince others because they do not believe your position can be supported by its source alone. We must remember that the Bible is not God, it contains writings by the hands of men who felt inspired to write about God. This is a difference that must be accepted and better understood.

What too few understand is that following the way of Jesus, or, "the values of Jesus" as Jim said it above, is not necessarily the same as standing by all things called Christian in the world today. Jesus didn't write the Bible, it is important to remember. And if Jesus taught the way of love as that which all law is to rest upon and the principle that transcends any other understandings of what is important then why do people continue to insist upon putting other verses from the Bible above the message, the way, the teachings and example of Jesus? The Bible, as someone else aptly put it, is not part of the Trinity. Following the way of Jesus will call for much more humility and compassion than what the world has ever seen or heard from those so proud to call themselves Christian and Biblical.

People are what they are, not what they call themselves. Religious, biblical and Christian do not in themselves equal Truth. What version? What understanding? What method? What are you talking about? Jesus taught for the purpose of getting to the heart level, which is much deeper than the mental/intellectual level. He did this so people wouldn't be able to spend their days in arrogance and self-righteousness and believe they're on the right track because they're using the language of religion.

Posted by: Aaron | June 17, 2008 5:25 PM

Duh-sciple wrote:

We are called to both personal responsibility and social responsibility. The two must go together. Therefore, the liberal versus conservative paradigm should be chucked into the trash can.

Uh, no. Social responsibility does not automatically translate into government activism because society is larger than government. While social responsibility is a real enough thing, there remains plenty of room for debate over the role of government. So you may as well go back and fish your liberal versus conservative paradigm out of the trash because you're still going to need it.

Criminalizing suggests to me that we will put mothers, doctors, and nurses behind bars. I'm not comfortable with that. I'm trying to imagine what that would look like.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe "criminalizing" was originally Jim Wallis' word -- Klinghoffer was quoting Wallis.

But be that as it may, your typical abortion opponent is motivated by a belief that a fetus is essentially a complete human person with a soul. Now you may not buy into that view -- I have doubts myself about earlier-term abortions myself -- but it's not a ridiculous one, and if you accept that view even partially then inevitably one is led to the conclusion that at least some abortions (the case only gets stronger as the pregnancy proceeds) result in the unjustified taking of human life.

Now very few abortion opponents want to see women severely punished for seeking an abortion. Most of them are capable of sympathizing with women caught in what can be a very difficult situation. They tend to find the abortionist more culpable and if there are severe penalties they are reserved for the doctor who arranges or performs the procedure.

This is what is getting lost in the constant jockeying over terms: Do we call Jim Wallis pro-life or pro-choice? But we never get around to talking about what his position actually means in medical and moral terms.

Tell you what, why don't we just set aside all the emotionally loaded phrases aside for a while (we can always pull them out later) and give Jim Wallis' abortion position an entirely neutral name -- "George". So, the question is, does George really reflect the biological facts and ethical problems associated with abortion?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 17, 2008 6:26 PM

A bit earlier I wrote:

Nobody is saying that there aren't liberals who are decent people, or conservatives who are total jerks. What we are saying is that liberalism itself tends to downplay personal resposibility too much.

To which Rick responded:

Wolverine, there is reason for this.

So Rick, I take it that you are conceding that I am right about the left downplaying personal responsibility too much?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 17, 2008 6:34 PM

Wolverine wrote:

Uh, no. Social responsibility does not automatically translate into government activism because society is larger than government. While social responsibility is a real enough thing, there remains plenty of room for debate over the role of government. So you may as well go back and fish your liberal versus conservative paradigm out of the trash because you're still going to need it.

Duh-sciple responds:

Social responsibility includes government (local, state, federal), NPOs, religious institutions, and other groups. As a non-controversial example, I expect that roads are built by governments, funded through taxation. I don't see that as my personal responsibility or my congregations or the YMCA.

As an example of my personal responsibility, I am the father of three children. I fed, clothed, bathed, and took them to the doctor when they needed it. Further, I read to them at least an hour a day when they were little. Not only that, I have been married to their mother for 23+ years. I am responsible for how I have raised them.

Yet, I have counted on others to teach them math, physics, Shakespeare, and more, benefiting from the support of the wider community. I appreciate the police who patrol the streets, offering protection. I trust the FDA to make sure that the drugs I purchase from the pharmacy for a headache is safe. Thus, I count on the government to provide for the wider common good, including the good of me and my family.

Of course, there is waste and fraud in government. Not all teachers do a good job. My daughter had a teacher who sat at the computer during class, doing who knows what, instead of teaching. That's first hand experience. Every day in the media there are many other examples.

One point of controversy. I pray, "Give us this day our daily bread." There are hungry people in my community. We take food over to the food pantry every week. My congregation takes responsibility for serving the folks just trying to make it. There is a role for other non-profits to pay. And... I believe that as a nation there should be a safety net for the poor.

Once again. Personal + social. Not personal against social. Not liberal versus conservative. Hope that fleshes out how the "old paradigm" is still in the trash.

Thanks for listening, Duh-sciple

Posted by: Duh-sciple | June 17, 2008 7:36 PM

Dear Jesse,

If you believe that killing in war is permissible, on what moral grounds do you believe so?

If you believe there are such grounds, based on the idea that (supposedly) fewer lives are taken to prevent the unjust deaths (or property loss) of others, then why could not this same principle be applied to the abortion issue?

In other words, the John Brown abolitionist approach, which sought to kill slave-owners, which led to the Civil War, in order to supposedly have a bad means justified by the good end of human equality. Why would not that fallacious argument, if true, similarly not be morally applicable to abortion doctors? We do have a record of those who have tried to make such a case and act on it and they brought the term "pro-life" nothing but shame.

However, the 500,000 war dead did not guarantee equal human rights for the dark-skinned as promised - at all. That was only achieved through Christian non-violent resistance a hundred years later, led by Dr. King and others, who took no one's life, sought reconciliation and never sought to make the end justify the means.

A clear historical eye teaches us that when you try to use a bad means to use a good end, you never get beyond that bad means, and it becomes the end instead of the good.

If you understand that being "pro-life" means that you dot take the life of the evildoer in order to prevent him killing, then why does this principle not extend to war-0making as well?

In point of fact it does. To be logically consistent, you must be pro-life all across the board, as a seamless garment of the sacred value of all human life.

Until Christians compromised with Constantine and bowed down to gain that Holy Roman kingdom of the world, Christians would not participate in the killing demanded by government in wars, because this is precisely what the core of what Jesus had to tell us: Love your enemy, do good to those who spitefully treat you. Do not return evil for evil, but good for evil.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | June 17, 2008 8:03 PM

Francis Schaeffer and Everett Koop pricked the evangelical conscience during the seventies, with the book and then film, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?"

Before that, evangelicals were missing in action in opposition to abortion - it was seen as a peculiarly parochial Roman Catholic issue.

But neither Schaeffer nor Koop were hardline cultural poltical conservatives. Koop was vilified and abandoned by movement conservatives for his stances on AIDS and birth control as Reagan's Surgeon General. As for Schaeffer, who passed away in the early nineteen-eighties, he would have turned in his grave at the anti-intellectual know-nothingnes of what has came to pass as religious political conservatism. He was nothing if not eclectically and culturally liberal, if Biblically faithful, in comparison to the rigid sclerotic and corrupt "Republican Party at prayer."

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | June 17, 2008 10:57 PM

"In point of fact it does. To be logically consistent, you must be pro-life all across the board, as a seamless garment of the sacred value of all human life." Posted by: Sojourner Truth

Here, Here!!!

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 18, 2008 8:05 AM

"I am a bit disappointed in the discussion so far. It seems that instead of meeting each others points head on, you both seem to side step the questions try to make easy points."
--Rick Derringer

Let's face it: Klinghoffer is way out of his league. How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative is too trite for Jim to bother with. Sheeshhhhhh

Posted by: lloyd crump | June 18, 2008 4:47 PM

I agree with your comment, I do think he is off base. However it does seem that Jim has willingly entered into the debate. At this point I would like to see a discussion which is characterized by both parties fielding the questions they are asked, and addressing the points the other person is making. If it is "too trite" for Jim then he should have never responded to prompting for a discussion. I feel certain that Jim is right, I just want to see a good discussion.

Posted by: Anthony | June 18, 2008 5:34 PM

I would agree that Mr. Klinghoffer's post was shabby and unfair. I do not believe that Mr. Wallis would describe himself as a "socialist-activist" lobbyist. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that Mr. Wallis has not done a sufficient job (in any of his writings) when it comes to defining what his values actually are. Furthermore, there are holes in his political philosophy which are disturbing. I admit that I haven't read his new book, "The Great Awakening," but whenever I read a Sojourners article or column it always sounds something like this: "The political landscape is changing. Young evangelicals are no longer clinging to the old issues of abortion and gay marriage. They are making poverty-policy part of the the agenda; and a new movement is taking shape." That tells me absolutely nothing about what Mr. Wallis actually believes. The disturbing omissions that he leaves out of his writings are ideas like liberty. For example, he never seems disturbed by the fact that regulation anywhere is regulation everywhere. He simply doesn't address the idea; he thinks in terms of solutions, not trade-offs. Hence, I am left with the notion that liberty is a value about which he does not particularly care.

Another problem I have is that, while Mr. Wallis is a spokesman for the working-class, he (like Barack Obama) is not from the working class. I am one of those small town people who clings to religion and guns (although I have friends who are immigrants and I doubt that they're here legally) and I am always suspicious of someone who will publish in the same issue articles about new government programs to feed the poor and possibly ban handguns while they're at it. It's nice of the government, I'm sure, but I've already had parents, so I want someone who respects my Western (that is, American West) culture as well.

Finally, he writes that stereotypes do not necessarily check out in real life. That may be true, but stereotypes are stereotypes because they check out more often than not in real life. For example, Mr. Wallis could say the statistic of most evangelicals being conservative Republicans is a stereotype and say that Sojourners Magazine is living proof that the stereotype is not accurate. But that doesn't change the fact that nearly 70% of Republicans voted for George W. Bush and a significant majority will vote for John McCain. Just because stereotypes can be excepted does not necessarily mean that they aren't generally true.

Posted by: James Banks | June 19, 2008 1:57 AM

... but whenever I read a Sojourners article or column it always sounds something like this: "The political landscape is changing. Young evangelicals are no longer clinging to the old issues of abortion and gay marriage. They are making poverty-policy part of the the agenda; and a new movement is taking shape."

Which is that Christians who are more concerned with social justice -- always pushed to the margins by the religious right -- now have a microphone they are using.

For example, he never seems disturbed by the fact that regulation anywhere is regulation everywhere. He simply doesn't address the idea; he thinks in terms of solutions, not trade-offs. Hence, I am left with the notion that liberty is a value about which he does not particularly care.

Oh, he does; however, the people who make the most noise about "liberty" are concerned about it only for themselves and people like them. Martin Luther King Jr. said, in effect, that having the right to vote is meaningless if there is nothing or no one for which to vote. Furthermore, I would think that Christians concerned about liberty would work to see that everyone would have similar opportunities, even willingly curtailing their own "rights" for the good of others. That's called justice.

Didn't it occur to the Sojourners just to say that there is some good that the Religious Right did (e.g. establishing pregnancy assistance centers), but there is also the need for a ministry to address the needs of the poor? I don't think that many people in the Religious Right would disagree with that and it might facilitate a bipartisan ministry

By definition, the "religious right" believes in nothing bipartisan; its goal was always cultural authority and how it got there was irrelevant. If it were really interested in working with people from other backgrounds Wallis would have been invited to join it long ago. Furthermore, had it existed then the "religious right" would have opposed King and the civil-rights movement, and it demonized Nelson Mandela consistently.

Posted by: Rick | June 19, 2008 7:16 AM

Rick,

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but first I think that you need to define what you mean when you say "social justice," but I don't want to misrepresent your views on the subject; so I will tell you what I think when I hear social justice: equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcomes.

As for your point on liberty, perhaps you misunderstood me. I was not asserting that Christians should not curtail our liberty to insure the rights of others. If I believed this, I would help pay the rent of political refugees or raise money to buy books for low-income children; but what I object to is that too many Christians want to impose economic (in the place of social) morality on others. Or even worse, they want to have someone else curtail my liberties, rather than letting me do it myself.

As I said before, I do not put a high degree of stock in judging based on exception; generally I would say that you are right that The Religious Right would have opposed Dr. King if they had existed at that time; that being said, one of my former pastors (now all but retired) certainly fits within their Religious Right's categories of conservatism, but was almost fired from his job in Annapolis, MD for integrating his church years before Dr. King gave his "I have a dream" speech. (Incidentally, I don't mean to belittle Dr. King. I think that he was a great American and, of all the Nobel laureates, I would be hard-pressed to find one more worthy of that award.) I only mean to indicate that there is no fundamental divide between left and right. Other options are available.)

Finally, I want to leave a note on my conservatism. I am a hat-wearing supporter of labor unions, as my old man has been a career-long member of one. That being said, I have also been an independent entrepreneur, or small businessman, for most of my life and, during that time, while working with my hands, have had to live with the constant anxiety of the state introducing some form of regulation or licensing. That is the way that this works: when activists on the left or right charge government with the task of introducing some regulation, for either fairness or safety, the government goes to the big business, or the establishment entrepreneurs, and asks them to recommend a set of regulations to make their industry more safe. Those entrepreneurs, in turn, write regulations designed to keep small businessman (that would be I) out. My point is that you can't trust the government to get the system right when it is only composed of people. A proper understanding of human nature is necessary if you are to be an effective activist, but, as Mr. Wallis has said, he is trying to fight cynicism. Well, sorry, but I am a cynic.

That being said, I apologize if my earlier posts gave offense. I actually believe in bipartisanship, but none which is not conducted void of the proper understanding of humanity. Again, I have not been a loyal reader of Sojourners, but I do not think that this should necessarily exclude me from commenting--especially online. And I see no reason why we should not be civil when we do so.

Posted by: James Banks | June 20, 2008 2:37 AM

Rick,

Thanks for following up. Here's my response:

". . . many conservatives don't really believe in equal opportunity; they subscribe to a form of "social Darwinism" which the Scripture condemns in no uncertain terms."

Again, I need you to define your terms here. Which conservatives? What "social Darwinism"? It would also help if you defined what you meant when you said "equal opportunity." When I think of equal opportunity, I tend to think in terms of meritocracy. The man or woman who will work hardest at the job is the right person to get the job, whether s/he is a minority or not. Of course, I've never been whole-heartedly against affirmative action; for example, I support quotas for low-income students in college admissions and I support racial quotas for jobs like the policeforce, where having affirmative action has led to better police/populice relations. That being said, I think that quotas like these should be the exception rather than the rule.

For your next point ("I wouldn't then call him 'religious right' . . ."), it seems that you want to define "religious right" and "conservative" as anyone who is a racist totalitarian. (You may not want to, but your posts haven't indicated otherwise.) I consider myself a conservative liberal (in other words, one who seeks to conserve the values of older liberalism), but I do not consider myself to be a racist. Furthermore, John Richard Neuhaus is today viewed as a formidable voice in the religious right, but, nonetheless he marched with Dr. King. I realize that he considered himself to be a liberal back then, but I doubt that today he regrets his earlier work on the part of the Civil Rights Movement.

Finally, on your last comment, my beef actually is with the government which enables Big Business to pray upon independent workingmen like myself. I don't care if its the Democrats or Republicans, both are enablers of Big Business. Whatever regulations are introduced (with the exception of monopoly busting, perhaps) they almost always find their way home to prey on the men from the underground. Consider, for example, global warming policy. The earth may be warming because of human activity (I am not a astro-physicist or geologist) but, one thing is for sure: when the government attempts to curtail the warming, the bill will fall on the workingmen. We are the ones who get laid off, who have to pay higher prices, who get our hours cut. This is not to say that the government should avoid taking action on global warming; but they should know who pays for their regulations. It ain't the Big Businesses. So, in short, the further our quixotic government keeps from me, the less nervous I will have to be.

Posted by: James Banks | June 20, 2008 3:45 PM

Quick comment on "class warfare": America has been engaging in class warfare since the 1980's. We have utterly turned our backs on our own poor, condemning them, while deciding that poverty was a matter of morals, not of economic realities. They are our scapegoats. Meanwhile, we have poured billions of dollars of "tax relief" into the bank accounts of the rich, including those corporations that used the money to move our jobs to foreign nations. In defiance of all logic, we decided that poverty was merely a lifestyle choice, a matter of behavior issue than an economic issue. (I still don't know how anyone could think that people with sub-poverty level incomes actually lived in wealth, or that they enjoyed living/dying, in grossly substandard housing, too often foregoing such "luxuries" as heat and food. Then again, everyone claims to know of a welfare person who...)

I can understand government defunding welfare, since the poor have no power whatsoever. What I don't understand is that even so much of the religious community, as well as the progressive community, people who should know better, merely shrugs their shoulders in indifference.

Posted by: DHFabian | June 29, 2008 6:02 PM