It is definitely a good sign that political leaders on both the "left" and the "right" are finding it easier to speak about religious faith in the public square and how it informs their policy decisions.

As political leaders of all stripes feel freer to speak about their faith it will harder for secularists to shout them down with the command to "stop forcing your religious views on other people" as a shortcut around actually debating the substance of a policy issue. This has been a common tactic in the U.S. used by certain interests to silence opposition. Hopefully it'll disappear.

Posted by: Eric | August 7, 2008 10:58 AM

Rick - Is that really the only time it has ever happened? The reason I'm asking is because I've witnessed plenty of occasions when people of faith use logic and reason to argue their case, but then their opponents bring up what they think their real motive is, and that is to force some Biblical law on everyone. In reality, their opponents just want a short cut around having to actually engage in debate.

Christians need to be able to argue their cases to non-Christians for a particular policy not just based on Biblical principles but also in secular terms (if they hope to be successful, that is). But they also shouldn't be subject to complaints about "forcing their religion on other people".

Posted by: Eric | August 7, 2008 11:33 AM

Thanks for the article - Another Religious Swing Vote. Kevin Rudd is not a Catholic. He was brought up a Catholic, but is now a practising Anglican. He articulates his Christian faith, and particularly, the social justice dimensions of faith very clearly, and has already implemented changes in a number of policies that many Christians and others with a social justice conscience have been demanding, particularly in relation to Indigenous people, refugees and the homeless. There are many issues that remain to be addressed, particularly the hardest ones such as justice in Palestine-Israel.

Posted by: John P Brown | August 7, 2008 3:57 PM

Rick,
You seem to be making excuses for people who tell Christians to not let their faith guide their public policy views. Why? Just because some Christians take the attitude you describe above? (God's with me; now shut up.) That doesn't excuse every instance that I'm describing of people of faith getting shouted down simply because they hold deep religious values. If some people are so close-minded they can't distinguish between Christian A espousing "your" attitude and Christian B espousing "mine", that's their fault, not the fault of Christians in general.

There was a good cover story in Newsweek recently about Obama and his faith. A letter to the editor a couple weeks later expressed objections that the story was written in the first place because candidates for office shouldn't be letting their faith intrude on their decision making in the White House. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Do you agree that political leaders, such as Rudd, feeling freer to speak more openly about how their faith influences their decisions is a good thing or not?

Posted by: Erc | August 7, 2008 4:39 PM

I appreciated so much reading Jim Wallis' report on his trip to Australia and to hear about the changing political landscape and the shifting alignments. This gives me hope that the "old politics" and the marriage of evangelical Christianity with particular political parties and narrow moral issues is changing both in the US and in Australia. Keep similar reports coming to us. It gives me hope that a new politics is emerging, a politics of hope that prophetically expresses genuine concern for the critical issues of justice and peace and quality of life for the poor and disenfranchised and those who need a voice to speak for them!

Posted by: Steve Rettenmayer | August 7, 2008 5:15 PM

So, Mr. Wallis -since you are so happy with the swing vote in Australia towards the left. Would you have been so happy if the swing votes went towards the Right in Australia? I doubt it. This only leaves one conclusion, based on your story there: does this mean that the Justice Revival in Columbus, OHio (in which you were keynote speaker and pubbing your books like in Australia, and speaking practically straight from your new book), was PARTISAN afterall, and, that perhaps you used an innocent local congregation to perpetuate your political causes and bents and perhaps to effect swing votes in Ohio during a heated election year towards the left? Remember what was said from the stage: "As Columbus goes, so goes Ohio, as Ohio goes, so goes the nation." This was not an apolitical statement at all, and, set the tone that indeed, that that conference could not be non-partisan at all, no matter the rhetoric from the stage. No answer is needed because only you will know your real motives in your heart and that is between God and you.

Posted by: Betsy | August 7, 2008 7:06 PM

Betsy and everyone else of your ilk:

NOBODY ever said this was about being "non-partisan" or "apolitical!"

Go read Sponge Bob if you want apolitical, and something a bit more of your speed.

0.o

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 7, 2008 8:16 PM

Don, before I proceed: for the liberals reading this, to put their minds at ease - I have friends in all political camps and preferences and I worship alongside liberals and conservatives, I hang out with the least, the lost, the sick and the dying - and I have immigrants as friends including muslim friends and I do not hate liberals. I was once years ago a true "liberal."

Now, to Don: Yes - attended all three sessions, took notes, attended the workshop, ran into the "windchangers" group that met in the church building, and read all his books before the event - (we probably bought out the bookstore - LOL), bought their publications from the table, etc. Also, with a degree in pre-law with strong research analytical skills (in response to Kevin's "Sponge Bob comment" - I just laughed!) and having been in a local elected office with lobbying background, spent hours and days researching Wallis and Sojourners - and more - both from liberal, moderate, neutral, and conservative sources including NYT, Washinton Post, LA Times, and more...just because I could not believe what was being discovered: LIke Wallis' support of every communist-marxist regime and his strong anti-american stance...anyone can find this out for themselves.

And - for Kevin Wayne - you are forgiven - no harm done on your part...but the Justice Revival in Columbus, Ohio was repeatedly announced to the congregation and during, that it was non-partisan and apolitical. This simply was not true. Mr. Wallis is extremely political with a clear agenda against anything he thinks is conservative. He lobbies, he endorses Obama, he bashes Bush, He bashes the military, his organization did a "Vote Your Values Rally" in Columbus, OHio in Nov. 2006, etc...so..he cannot be separated from his underlying agenda for 30 years. Mr. Wallis is certainly entitled to his viewpoints. Nevertheless, the congregation was given a line. To someone not doing their homework on who was coming to speak, or, to a liberally-bent person, then they might not have known the difference. But those who did read his books, who understand change agents, political activist groups and activist speakers like Wallis with known ties to the Democratic Party, then it was evident that only one perspective was presented or could be presented. All Mr. Wallis did was use examples and chapters from his book, combined with a lot of hype. I knew this because I read his books beforehand! Couple this with a hot election year, makes it even more dubious. To be truly "non-partisan" either a counter balance to Wallis needed to have also spoken, or, a different route with presenting the topic could have been taken. The entire conference on the subject of social justice did not need an individual totally swayed toward the left and known as a religious left leader who has such a controversial history. Rather, other a-political, non-political speakers could have and should have been selected which would have imparted the heart of God for the least, the lost, and the forsaken and, accomplish the same goal: spurring people onto serving in areas of social justice. Then, the conference would have been truly non-partisan and soley Christ-centered.

So, back to Just wanted to challenge Mr. Wallis, which was my point, He could probably never back a "right" because he is so far left in his ideologies. That is all - and that is my opinion.

Just do your own homework like I and many others did. While dialogue can be good, I do have more important things to do with my time...and cannot devote to volleying back and forth.

Posted by: Betsy | August 7, 2008 11:46 PM

From my pre-Christian days, I remember thinking that when I got into a discussion with someone very religious, they were often telling me what to think, or how it SHOULD be, not how it could be. As was said above, explaining your views and opinions is quite different than telling someone that if things were more like your beliefs the world would be better off.

"Wallis' support of every communist-marxist regime and his strong anti-american stance..."

Just because you can see the injustice and questionable things America sometimes does in other countries does not make one "anti-American". America is a great place, but sometiimes our arrogance toward the rest of the world leads us to do questionable things there.

Posted by: paul w. | August 8, 2008 7:53 AM

Rick,
I completely understood your point and, in fact, acknowledged that there are Christians who today, and historically, take and have taken the attitude that "God is on my side, so I'm right". This is a bad thing when it comes to making public policy. I don't know how many times I can repeat this.

My point is that it is also a bad thing when secularists shout Christians down just for participating in the public square, even when they use logic and reason to back up their public policy proposals like Kevin Rudd has done. It would be a good thing if this "shouting down" was lessened or eliminated. Why is it so hard for you to admit this would be a good thing? Is it not or do you think Christians should be prohibited from letting their faith inform their public policy? You seem more interested in "pay back" to all Christians simply because some Christians that you don't care for take the attitude you describe.

Posted by: Eric | August 8, 2008 9:02 AM

Rick,
You're exactly right and Kevin Rudd seems to be a good example of this. If more people on the left and the right do this then it will harder for them to get shouted down. As Jim Wallis has pointed out, people on the left are becoming more accustomed to speaking openly about their faith and not yielding this ground to those on the right. This is good for both the "religious right" and the "religious left" in that they won't get shouted down as much because the secularists will fear alienating their allies.

Posted by: Eric | August 8, 2008 11:01 AM

TO: Jim Wallis, Sojourners, Evangelicals, Everyone

Ultimately we all must focus on POSITIVE and PEACEFUL PROGRAMS for PREVENTION of POPULATION PROLIFERATION in the World (Human Community) and on Earth (Natural Environment).

At the top of the list under "social justice" and "environmental stewardship" should be Family Planning and Women's Rights closely followed by universal Education and Health Care. Such programs could be appropriately coordinated by United Nations organizations.

Requires peaceful cooperation of all "communities"

Posted by: John Bergen | August 8, 2008 11:18 AM

I can't decide whether John is serious or just posing as a stereotypical leftist to make Sojourners look bad.

Posted by: Eric | August 8, 2008 12:47 PM

Kevin Rudd is Anglican, not Catholic. He wrote the Apology speech to the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal people himself and it was brilliant, both in its honesty about acknowledgement of racist sins against indigenous people, and in terms of its integration of theological and sociological reflection. It was also an official statement of repentance on behalf of all Australians, past and present - a significant rite of passage very much needed.

Enjoyed hearing you speak Jim at Hillsong Church in Waterloo the other week. Found it interesting that a Church which has normally been associated with preaching prosperity doctrine stuff in the past has now decided to engage, I think, seriously with Christian social justice issues and do something practically about those. Glad to see that. Glad to hear you as well. However, you left so quickly at the end of the meeting none of `ordinary' Christians there could get a chance to meet with you and get to know you more beyond the celebrity-speaker persona. It means a lot to Aussies to meet the real person behind the "important celebrity" fascade, when encountering particularly overseas `experts' speaking on major topics they care about. Next time you come here, could you arrange it so that normal, average, everyday Christians who are not the high-statused institutional Big Nobs can get to meet you properly? That would be great, and I think you'd make big inroads with us as an activist. Kev and his counterparts do attempt to do that, and it is not uncommon to meet pollies in the street for a chat, especially around election time.

Posted by: Andrew | August 9, 2008 2:08 AM

We should rejoice at every evidence that Christians are seeing that their faith has a lot of say about the political sides of our lives as well as all else. We have communal Christian responsibilities as well as individual ones. The idea that that government is best which governs least is an Enlightenment idea that should not hold us. The Bible has a lot to say about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, leffing up the fallen, comforting the weary, etc. Of course, the responsibility is first of all individual but it doesn't stop there. Government can be a very important agency for such albeit an imperect one (as we ourselves are); we can use others' tax monies for fighting poverty just as well as for fighting imprialistic wars.

Posted by: George,Jr. | August 10, 2008 12:06 PM

"The idea that that government is best which governs least is an Enlightenment idea that should not hold us."

Thanks George. Yeah I agree that Laissez-faire idealisms promote lawlessness and are fundamentally unchristian.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 11, 2008 1:17 PM

Kevon Rudd is an Anglican - not that it is really important other than it may make people question the accuracy of the rest of the article.

Posted by: kerry | August 11, 2008 5:27 PM

One of the major reasons Aussies voted in Kevin Rudd over John Howard was that the Liberals had become way too arrogant and dishonest for their own good.

Aussies simply don't like arrogant leaders. And that applies whether they are Labour or Liberal ones.

For instance, Paul Keating (Labour)lost to John Howard because of exhibiting the same type of arrogance that John Howard did to Kevin.

The same voter pattern occurred on a state level when Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett (Liberal) lost to the ALP.

It is likely to occur in NSW again shortly due to Labour Premier, Morris Iemma's government being way too arrogant and dishonest for NSW voters.

When politicians become far too self-important and arrogant, they generally stop listening to the people they serve.

"Out of touchness" follows.

Kevin Rudd does not display arrogance, while his Liberal Party adversaries currently do. And that runs in Rudd's favour. But if after time Labour becomes too big for its boots and stops listening to the Aussie public, then they will be in for a big fall too.

Posted by: Andrew | August 14, 2008 9:58 AM