GREAT ARTICLE!!! As a Christian who generally votes Democratic, many of my fellow Christians scoff at me for voting "for" abortion. I am glad to see that someone with religious influence finally understands that Christian values transcend ideals about abortion and include issues such as ending violence and the war, reducing poverty and improving the quality of life AFTER birth. Christians will have legitimate reasons to vote for either Obama of McCain this fall, and thank you for realizing that.

Posted by: T | September 1, 2008 11:12 AM

Absolutely! People of faith are cynically allowing themselves to be divided-- and then conquered-- through the constant use of a lexicon of discord and incivility.

We need to consider what how we really want to change the world, and how we can use the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. ESPECIALLY when it comes to politics. That's why I have started what I hope will be a conversation at "The Bible and Politics."

Posted by: Jeremiah speaks... | September 1, 2008 12:10 PM

I celebrate Jim's friendship with Richard Land and Tony Perkins! John 13:34

And... may we outdo one another in showing honor, even when we disagree. Romans 12:10

Treasured people, treasure other people,

Duh-sciple

Posted by: Duh-sciple | September 1, 2008 12:27 PM

I like Jim Wallis' principles for the most part, but find that for each principle he lists there is an equal and opposite principle that is also valid.

1 "We Christians should be in the pocket of no political party; but should evaluate both candidates and parties by our biblically based moral compass."

1a This does not preclude our working closely with a political party on issues we consider important, but Christians should always keep in mind that however long-running our political alliances may be, these are temporal. Our dedication to Christ is eternal. Our rhetoric should always reflect this.

2 "We don't vote on only one issue, but see biblical foundations for our concerns over many issues."

2a A Christian may find that one or two issues are particularly decisive. He or she should still respect the opinions of other Christians with different priorities.

3 "We advocate a consistent ethic of life from womb to tomb, and one that challenges the selective moralities of both the left and the right."

3a We also recognize that however controversial it might be in the context of abortion, the ideal of "Choice" and freedom to make individual decisions is a valid one, and that reasonable people can differ on the proper balance between protection and freedom on a wide range of issues.

4 "We will respect the integrity of our Christian brothers and sisters in their sincere efforts to apply Christian commitments to the important decisions of this election; knowing that people of faith and conscience will be voting both ways in this election year."

4a We will also respect the freedom to debate. We will recognize the distinction between questioning reasoning or political ideologies on one hand, and questioning a fellow Christian's intentions or commitment to Christ. We will be slow to both give and take offense.

5 We will not attack our fellow Christians as Democratic or Republican partisans, but rather will expect and respect the practice of putting our faith first in this election year; even if we reach different conclusions.

5a We will recognize that excessive partisanship is a danger, and guard against this in our own hearts. We will also bear in mind that one of the best services we can provide for our allies is an honest if discrete assessment of the weaknesses of their positions.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 1, 2008 1:12 PM

Unable to get the streaming on that discussion earlier today in MN; I hope that you or Mr Waldman will put up a link to the archive if one is available.

Politics is definitely 'emotional', but I very much fear that we rely far too much on 'personal narratives', and that's similar to putting a pair of blinkers on a horse. The horse will go where the driver tells it, but then unexpectedly find itself at the butcher's.

Civility does much to take the blinkers off, or at least allow a fuzzy view of the larger world.

Posted by: readerOfTeaLeaves | September 1, 2008 2:01 PM

It is odd to me that in your point #3, you make a judgment about the validity of the political viewpoints of both the "left" and the "right" (however you intend those to be defined). I would imagine that many left-leaning and right-leaning Christians do not believe that their morality is selective.

Is it possible to be a pro-choice Christian without having a "selective morality"?

Is it possible to e a non-pacifist Christian without having a "selective morality"?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is yes, then I'm not sure what you mean about the "left" and the "right" having selective moralities.

And, at the least, I am sure that many people on both sides of the political spectrum would answer one or the other of the above questions in the affirmative.

Is it necessary for me to view my political party as having a "selective morality" for me to be able to act with civility toward those who disagree with me? I certainly hope not.

Mark

Posted by: Mark Congdon | September 1, 2008 3:15 PM

I am beginning to pray over the word that asks if we are not being warned that detachment will be more and more required as we enter the last days, in fact if we are not fast approaching the period whether in this and in future elections, it is a distinct possibility that NEITHER major candidate deserves a vote from the conscientious Christian. For example, Obama is the most lenient candidate, based on his record, towards that "culture of death" called abortion, including, late-term and partial-birth abortion. That cautions my supporting him at all, to say the least!
McCain as well, concernedly I say, has the ideologists (usually opposed to Christian Reality as ideology is, in fact) known as Neoconservatives or Neocons, heading up his foreign policy team with their more than just aggressive views about changing other countries' governments because we don't like them and are prepared to force other nations and cultures to change. This is likely to cause, in McCain's phrase, "more wars, my friends, sorry to say!"
Well, that many of these wars may not be advisable is the most charitable way of putting it, but perhaps more accurate, we can more strictly criticize by terming such wars as an international "culture of death."
Thus both candidates are seriously compromised! And this meets the sober, penetrating view of our Lord Jesus Christ, who may be saying to us by all of this - get ready, my people, and do not run after either, but lift up your heads because your redemption draweth nigh!

Posted by: John Leslie | September 1, 2008 3:56 PM

I do believe it is very appropriate to examine Barack Obama's version of "Christianity."

I echo Pastor Jeff, especially his comment about your wanting to pick up stones, and I would add by way of reminder that Barack Obama's understanding of Christianity has no bearing on whether he's qualified to be President. We aren't electing a Theologian-in-Chief, and the Constitution forbids religious tests for public office.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 1, 2008 4:49 PM

While Wallis and Perkins may not be in the pockets of any particular political party, they are both in the pocket of the two-party system. Several times Wallis uses the word "both" when comparing or contrasting parties or candidates. He never makes any mention of a third party, and whether voting for one might be the "Christian thing to do," in this election. For shame.
May I recommend the following voting strategy:
1. Vote for every third party candidate on the ballot.
2. Vote against every incumbant, whatever the party.
3. Evenly divide the rest of your votes among the various parties.
4. Vote every bond referendum down.
Voting for gridlock, to me, is the Christian thing to do.
Nathanael Snow

Posted by: naturalaw | September 1, 2008 6:24 PM

Try as I might, I can't seem to be neutral in the debate over who is more "Christian" between the two major Party candidates.

Try as I might to get my fellow evangelical Christians to see that they have one issue candidate as president, they can only see the one issue. They remind me of the Pharisees who when they saw Jesus working miracles, they condemned him for "working on the Sabbath".

These are the same Christians that say "Works have to value" when I read scriptures to them about how we are called to care for one another.

Posted by: Paul, seeking.. | September 1, 2008 6:51 PM

Wow. Even a post about civility produces some significant incivility in response.

Imagine the revolution if, instead of investing energy in figuring out how to one-up one another while counting the stars in our crowns, we figure out what it is that sets us off about someone else's post, and figure out what it says to us about ourselves?

And folks who get most of their news from the Internet at selective sites, aren't wrestling for truth; they believe they've found it.

Please please, just for now, talk about the things and people you love, not the ones you hate. I love people who give me a chance to be faithful, and who want me to grant them the same.

And a bunch of other people, too.

Posted by: openeyes | September 1, 2008 8:17 PM

Eric -

Maybe it's because most Christians who vote Democratic have had conversations in which we explain our political views, only to be told: "OK, but I just don't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who supports abortion."

I've never been told "I just don't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who opposed the war," or "I just can't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who supports universal health care," or "I just can't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants." The trump card is always abortion.

Now, I could conclude that these people are cynically using the abortion issue to avoid genuine debate. But I honestly don't think so. I really believe they do find abortion to be the defining issue: the one that elicits the strongest gut level reaction.

In fact, I have invested considerable energy in trying to explain this to my friends on the left. If anything, those friends tend to *underestimate* how important abortion is to Christians who vote Republican.

Since this is a discussion on civility, let me repeat something I've said many times before: There is plenty of need for people on both sides to try to understand the amount of passion that the abortion issue arouses in their political opponents, and why.

Posted by: Another nonymous | September 1, 2008 8:41 PM

Another nonymous,
I appreciate the response. I think the main reason why you don't hear Christians who vote Republican ask those questions about immigration, universal health care, or the war is that they don't believe there is one Biblically correct policy in regards to these issues. In their minds, you can be a "good" Christian and oppose the war or support the war. Not so in regards to abortion. In their minds, there is only one Biblically correct response to abortion - use every tool at your disposal to stop it from taking place, including the force of law.

Now perhaps they just haven't heard a Christian who doesn't support making abortion illegal make their case - which gets to your point about listening to the opposing view. I think it's important to try to listen and understand the viewpoint of your opponent. Before visiting this website, the only viewpoint I had ever heard that opposed criminalizing abortion was the "keep your hands off my body" persepective of the feminists who think abortion is actually a positive for our society - that there's no downside to it at all. I've gained a perspective on why some Christians don't support criminlization, but still believe it is a horrible ill.

Posted by: Eric | September 1, 2008 10:09 PM

ando,
I didn't say there was a Biblical basis for supporting the Republican position on those issues. I'm not sure why you're asking me to come up with one.

It may seem to you that abortion is the litmus test. However, that's the kind of incorrect assumption I'm trying to dispell. Many, many Christians who vote Republican vote that way because of a whole host of issues, not just abortion.

Posted by: Eric | September 1, 2008 10:16 PM

It may seem to you that abortion is the litmus test. However, that's the kind of incorrect assumption I'm trying to dispell.

You will have a hard time doing so, in large part because evangelicals until the late 1970s were pretty apolitical. In fact, I think someone on this blog mentioned that even the Southern Baptist Convention didn't actively oppose abortion because it was perceived as a "Catholic" issue.

Once the abortion issue became pretty settled, however, the Republicans used the financial clout of evangelicals -- perhaps not so much them themselves but their organizations, which were flush with cash, to focus on capital gains, crime, vouchers etc. that also had appeal to secularists and libertarians. That's how they also came to be understood as "Christian" issues even though they're not even mentioned in the Scripture.

Posted by: Rick | September 1, 2008 10:28 PM

Not a bad post, and I find myself largely in agreement. I just have a question: what exactly does Wallis mean by incivility? Although we do get the occasional troll on this channel, mostly the argumentation in respectful, if a bit sharp at times. Perhaps the discussion of Obama's speech got acrimonious after I left the thread to do other things, but I thought it was rather subdued and issue-oriented.

Posted by: Gordon | September 1, 2008 10:46 PM

What's odd about the whole Palin thing is- On the one hand, I totally agree with those who say she makes the "experience" case against Obama a moot point. McCain had a slam-dunk case to be made that Obama was too green, but then picked someone who suddenly put the GOP on the defensive in supporting her. You never want to trade a sure thing for something that's relative. No matter how Republicans may successfully argue for her, they were better off not having to make the argument at all! What was wrong with Huckabee or Liz Dole? Either would have accomplished the same thing without losing out on the readiness issue.

At the same time, I actually would rather have her President than McCain OR Obama! As one who hasn't voted for the nominee of either major party since Dukakis, I could only wish for McCain to win, kick the bucket and her to become president and then an Independent.

That's based on her positions (she was a Ron Paul supporter) and record and who she seems to be as a person. I still cringe at the thought of someone who looks like Joanie from Happy Days being in the White House. Meaning I don't think she quite has the intestinal fortitude for the job, nor can she inspire much awe.

Obama looked like a kid to me until she popped up. And at least we can say he's been running a campaign for 2 years, which demands a LOT of a person. Palin's experience in Alaska can't be near as demanding!

But as it is, I'll still vote for Nader. He has a proven record of living by what he believes and that goes much farther with me

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 1, 2008 11:02 PM

One more point: Sorry but I've had too many Christians always wanting to camp on abortion & homosexuality as benchmark issues. I just recently moved out form roomating with a fan of Medvid, Prager and all the Right-wing talk show hosts, and those 2 issues are always what he brings up.

I still remember back in the 80's the propaganda I got from Last Days Ministries (Anyone remember the late musician Keith Green?) supporting Baptist Minister Joe Lutz who was running for the GOP nomination for the US Senate against Bob Packwood- and lost. They didn't even take time to find out that I wasn't a Republican and couldn't have voted for Lutz if I wanted to!

I wrote a nasty letter to them about it, and complained that a minister didn't have the experience to be in the Senate. I got back a reply that said (roughly) "so I would assume you voted for Packwood then, and for the killing of millions of unborn!" But I couldn't have voted for Packwood either!

And what all-important issue drove a ministry form Texas to stick it's nose in Oregon politics?

Ta-ta-ta-TA-ta-TAHHHH!

Abortion!

Of course, the true pro-lifers will be those who will provide full healthcare for everyone so pregnant women will be less likely to have an abortion.

I should post more anecdotes like the above. We could make it a serious: Stupid Pro-Lifers I have known. ;-)

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 1, 2008 11:16 PM

Rjohnson,
I'm aware that many Christians who became politically active in the 80s did so because of abortion. I also understand that it is extremely important to them.

But other issues are important as well. It's not like these Christian who vote Republican oppose the war in Iraq, want higher taxes, support amnesty for illegal immigrants, and are pining for nationalized health care but just can't bring themselves to pull the lever for the Democrats because of abortion. For the most part, they agree with the GOP on these other issues as well.

Are you actually admitting you campaigned for Pat Robertson? I wouldn't say that too loudly :)

Posted by: Eric | September 1, 2008 11:29 PM

Eric -

I'm sorry if your comment struck you as snide. I honestly didn't mean it that way. You answered my post quite civilly, and I thought I was responding in kind. Honestly.

I also wasn't aware that I was ignoring a substantive point. If your point was that many Christians believe the Biblical witness on abortion admits only one interpretation, then that is exactly the point that I thought my entire three paragraphs were addressing, while trying to underscore your own subsidiary point about having gained a more nuanced view of the abortion issue. YES!!!, I was saying. He gets it!! Making a snide comment or putting you down was the farthest thing from my mind.

Posted by: Another nonymous | September 1, 2008 11:51 PM

"Plenty of Scriptures take opposition to the current regime in Washington and what they are doing to our nation and to the world. "

Posted by Don two blogs ago

We aren't electing a Theologian-in-Chief, and the Constitution forbids religious tests for public office.

Peace,

Posted by: Don

was wondering if you could enlighten me on what the biblical basis is for supporting the Republicans' positions on these issues? It seems that for many Christians the litmus test IS abortion, and they build their case for voting Republican around that one issue, no matter how the Republican establishment's positions on other important issues.

Posted by: ando

I would think having freedom and the opportunity and becoming the best person God created you for could fit into either political party . Some people think Health Care , universal in nature , can actually cause worse health care for all .
School Choice and Charters appear to be the best way to help those who historically have gotten lousy education and then lessening their chance to opportunity . In school districts in my state teachers are getting laid off because of funding . We just increased spending 33 percent in the kast four years , Our liberal Governor has both Houses with 60 percent or better majority of democrats . Our Constitution stated ducation is the number one priority ? I don't get it .

Obama is against this , I have heard it explained from his view , it does not convince me , but school choice is another issue that I believe supports the belief of Bibical values and the persons God has chosen , the parents to be more responsible for the education of their children . It appears bigger government and regulation takes the responsibility away from what God has ordained it to be from my understanding of scripture .
Its pretty bad now with the system we have , health care for vets , education , No Child Left behind is said to be a bust , the government taking control insures nothing of the quality of it . Our Constitutional Rights were all written to protect us from government , not for the government to give them to us . The thinking that government gives us anything should be thought about in my opinion . In only gives us what we allow it to , if it becomes a government that takes rights in order to give us rights , well that from history has proven quite harmfull . Abortion appears more to be a far gone conclussionj in my own opinion , the amount of abortions we as a culture have is staggering . The mind set that promotes a world view that God is neutral on it , or does not consider it a slap in the Face of the Soverignity Of God from a Bibical understanding I must say baffles me . I just do not honestly understand it Not always , those who embrace abortion , appear to embrace some other values that are foreign to what Wallis and Perkins here seem to be saying to embrace . Why Wallis does not think its as important , well I hope one day he does .

In any case , I notice such sterotypical answers from the lefty's as of late here . Of the evils of the republican party. Just perhaps people who vote usually republican do so more then just for abortion , LOL actaully . In my state the vast majority voted to keep partial birth abortion . Abortion is not even an issue except when the democrats want to embarrass a candidate who is a devout catholic or pro life individual .

This GW makes better sense . P.S Good for you Mr. Wallis . Now if only you can convince your supporters we are on the same side .

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Posted by: Michael | September 2, 2008 2:10 AM

I'll certainly be voting for the Kingdom of Heaven; 'cause I'm voting for a fruit of the Spirit, Hope -not fear. I'm voting to take care of widows and orphans, not going out into the world and making them. I'm voting for a leader who'll follow Jesus instruction to talk to our enemies rather than making more of them.

I see taking the Lord's name in vain, as saying we're Christian and being something far from Jesus instructions. Peace, B

Posted by: Barbara | September 2, 2008 4:06 AM

I do not consider it incivility to report the facts. Obama supports virtual infanticide. That is not consistent with any "womb-to-tomb" life ethic. In that sense his "historic" speech was tarnished.

Posted by: Dan | September 2, 2008 7:53 AM

Sad thing when he died and left her with those young kids to raise, but as I understood she later married another fellow who was in the ministry.

She was engaged to him at the time but broke it off.

P.S Good for you Mr. Wallis. Now if only you can convince your supporters we are on the same side.

If you saw some of the comments on the other Christian blog I frequent, you'd think otherwise. Two of its biggest "Christian" targets: Rick Warren and Brian McLaren.

Obama supports virtual infanticide.

Not exactly. Concerning the "Born Alive Protection Act," the Illinois Legislature tried to sneak in a companion bill that was specifically designed to overturn Roe which he knew would not pass constitutional muster. I saw an excellent analysis of the issue in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago.

Posted by: Rick | September 2, 2008 8:45 AM

I have a quibble with Dan but in the end I have to come down pretty close to where he stands. I don't know if Obama intentionally supports infanticide, but at a minimum he has displayed a chilling lack of concern about it. One doesn't need to be a straight-down-the-line pro-lifer to see this as a huge problem.

Certainly it is possible to respect Roe v. Wade without having children born alive being left to die. But as a state Senator Obama was unwilling to make the effort to find the right legal language -- assuming the bill sitting right in front of him wasn't good enough, something that itself is open to all kinds of debate.

In terms of violating a consistent ethic of life, tolerating infanticide has to rank much higher than insufficient funding for prenatal care, and at least a notch or two over allowing the death penalty.

This is something that I think Sojo needs to talk about (see 5a above) without making excuses.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 2, 2008 8:57 AM

"That's a joke, because it was the liberals who had abortion banned in the first place -- conservatives in that day didn't really care."

That's interesting if it's true. Got a cite for that?

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 2, 2008 11:20 AM

My comment on abortion is that if you really want a lower abortion rate based on the best scientific evidence, outlawing abortion does nothing to lower the rate, rather it may inadvertently raise the rate, or at the very least make it unsafe and cause other health problems. My simple point repeated again is that outlawing abortion will not necessarily make abortion less common. The countries that have the lowest abortion rates in the WORLD, have easy access to abortion, but they also have easy access to contraception as well as good, free health care, social programs that allow families to make it financially. I have friends on both sides of the aisle on this issue and not a single one, even the most "pro-choice" of them believes that we shouldn't make abortion less common. The republicans use this issue as a wedge issue, but they have no plan for addressing the social problems that lead people to choose abortion.

Posted by: Stephen | September 2, 2008 11:50 AM

That's interesting if it's true. Got a cite for that?

That came from a book, "Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?" by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, both formerly with the Moral Majority. During one chapter they mention how abortion, which was per capita a bigger problem then than it is now, actually came to be banned at the turn of the last century. According to Dobson, who wrote that chapter, the laws had resulted from a cultural change which came from the reaction to the widespread sexual exploitation of women; even the New York Times opined about that. The churches got involved in what was known as the "White Cross" program concerning sexual ethics, with men being counseled to "keep their pants on." (Overall, this was in a day where evangelicalism definitely leaned toward the "progressive" camp.)

Posted by: Rick | September 2, 2008 12:03 PM

What I don't get is how the religious right is calling McCain/Palin the family values ticket. Clearly Obama and Biden believe in the value of family and parenting. Sarah Palin chooses not to abort a Down syndrome baby and the right goes ga-ga over her. I applaud her decision, but that doesn't have the slightest thing to do with being one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Palin was probably the strongest choice for McCain as an election-season running mate, but she is nowhere near to having the experience to be president. Remember that she would be VP to the oldest-ever president at the time of his election.

Posted by: Paul | September 2, 2008 12:51 PM

"Sarah palin and John McCain are up right straight people"

John McCain unceremoniously dumped his first wife when she wasn't pretty enough. Upright? No. Family values? No.

Posted by: Paul | September 2, 2008 12:56 PM

So, when a presidential candidate has a brother living in a shack in Nairobi while calling on other wealthy Americans to make sacrifices, is that also double talk? Or are only Republicans capable of such a thing?

The people Obama was referring to often use their wealth to exploit others and get it at the expense of everyone else. Besides, who knows what's going on within the specific dynamics of Obama's family in Africa? There may be something going on that we don't know about -- perhaps his half-brother has refused any help. Apples and oranges.

Posted by: Rick | September 2, 2008 1:58 PM

"Even worse. The first Ms. McCain was physically ill when she was being cheated on and left by her husband John."

M, I refuse to believe that Senator McCain would ever cheat on his wife. Republicans firmly believe in keeping all of the commandments and would never countenance adultery in their presidential candidate. Please apologize for your scandalous accusation.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 2, 2008 2:27 PM

It has nothing to do with doublespeak, and everything to do with the party affiliiation of the overwhelming majorty of journalists.,/i>

False dichotomy, Kevin; you know that.

Isn't it just possible, Kevin, that the real reason it hasn't been reported is because there's simply no story to report? Isn't it just possible?

Claiming a nonexistent, partisan media conspiracy won't help you make your case.

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 2:49 PM

This makes it sound as though I disagree with Rick's point about the "scandal" of Obama's brother. I agree that it likely is not a cut and dry issue.

Then why did you raise it?

Posted by: Rick | September 2, 2008 3:38 PM

Kevin, are you sure it's a "scandal". I have to hand it to you though, you are the first person I've seen quote himself and respond. ;)

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 2, 2008 3:47 PM

Instead he chose to bash McCain with blatant lies and comparisons to Bush.

Examples, please. Tell us specifically what blatant lies Obama told us about McCain last Thursday, and give evidence to demonstrate that they are lies.

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 3:52 PM

Jim, I can agree with you totally, realizing that it will not always be easy to follow your sound advice. Yet, as Christians, we should begin each day prayerfully striving to lead more perfect lives, as our Father in Heaven.

Posted by: Sam | September 2, 2008 4:10 PM

Everyone should see Anytown USA by Kristian Fraga. I saw this documentary recently and the characters running for mayor, along with their politics, form an eerie mirror of what is happening right now in the current political arena. It seems like just another story of a mayor’s race, and then completely morphs into exactly the same story of George Bush vs. faceless, personality-less Democrats, and a whole bunch of other people with better ideas and more passion, but seemingly very little power - aka progressives. Spooky good fun, and really useful as a primer on election season politics. I recommend this to anyone interested in identity politics, where what's important is who a candidate is and which actions they take, rather than which party they belong to.

Posted by: Cambria M | September 2, 2008 4:14 PM

My comments on your Civility points:

1. We Christians should be in the pocket of no political party, but should evaluate both candidates and parties by our biblically-based moral compass.
>>This is a straw-man argument. Who exactly is in the pocket of which party? This is Jim's way of saying that way too many Christians are Republicans. BWT, the Holy Spirit leads Christians to all truth, not some "Moral-Compass" Bunk.

2. We don't vote on only one issue, but see biblical foundations for our concerns over many issues.
>> As I said above: If someone is pro-abortion, then I question their world-view and their ultimate motivation for all of their actions. I want a candidate who makes private choices based on the belief that God will hold them accountable on the Day of Judgement. If there is no God, then all actions can be rationalized.

3. We advocate for a consistent ethic of life from womb to tomb, and one that challenges the selective moralities of both the left and the right.
>> Another Straw-Man argument. Liberals want the unwanted and unproductive dead via Abortion and Euthanasia. Conservatives value life above all know that as a consequence of the most heinous crimes you may loose your life via Execution (similar to killing a wild animal loose in the village).

4. We will respect the integrity of our Christian brothers and sisters in their sincere efforts to apply Christian commitments to the important decisions of this election, knowing that people of faith and conscience will be voting both ways in this election year.
>> I thought we were supposed to respect the integrity of everyone, not just "Christians." If so this is a moot point and does not really make sense. Maybe you should give me an example of what you are trying to accomplish with this "law".

5. We will not attack our fellow Christians as Democratic or Republican partisans, but rather will expect and respect the practice of putting our faith first in this election year, even if we reach different conclusions.
>> Sorry, but my "Moral Compass" will not allow me to stay quiet while you lead people off of this cliff. Read Matthew 23! I will grant this "civility" to non-christians but you I rebuke!

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 4:16 PM

I believe that you know who I was talking about.

Big guy, it appears that you missed the twinkle in my eye that Another nonymous is talking about. I was trying to make a joke about your misspelling of "previous." Sorry it didn't come off.

But regarding what I wrote to Peter S., Marxism has a pretty clear definition, and Rev. Wallis, whatever one thinks of his ideas and ideology, is far from being a Marxist. Neither are any of the so-called "liberals" who post here.

Don

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 4:19 PM

Peter, I read those comments myself off the Factcheck Web site after I responded to you. Let's take a look:

First and third examples: Both sides normally make outlandish and mathematically unsupportable claims involving spending, taxing, and budget balancing.

Second example: I wouldn't call that 'twisting', but it does change the meaning; nevertheless, McCain only recently called for more troops in Afghanistan.

Example four: McCain meant it as a joke, but he still said it. So it's not a lie for Obama to repeat it.

Example five: Obama did mention McCain's $5K tax credit for health care in his speech Saturday night in central Ohio. However, an individual, comprehensive health coverage might well cost far more than $5,000. And Obama isn't wrong to say that McCain would tax health care benefits.

Example six: According to factcheck, Obama got the 90% figure right. No lie there.

Example seven: Funny math isn't the provenance of the Democrats only. See my comments on Examples one and three.

I suggest you take a closer look at factcheck.org and note how many times Senator McCain exaggerated or stretched things his opponent has said in a very similar way.

I am not happy that the truth gets stretched and things get exaggerated in the heat of a political campaign, but the fact is that both sides do it, to an approximately equal extent. These stretchings of the truth are usually far from being the "blatant lies" you accuse Obama of. You could just as well accuse McCain of blatant lies as well.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 4:43 PM

Looks to me liek the whole thing about Obama's "Born Alive" is not as simple as some make it sound:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Basically I think the only reason for disagreeing with him is simply that you disagree on Abortion itself -which is legitimate- and the rest is just hype.

I do have to comment re factcheck.org and the comment about Obama voting with his party 97% vs. McCain voting with bush 90%. They really haven't proven anything. McCain is the one who's trying to pass himself off as a maverick and not bush's 3rd term- that's the issue most Democrats are trying to turn in their favor. Obama so far as I can tell has never claimed to be a "maverick" as far as Dem's go, so his having voted with his own party only underscores his point - that he will be chage from Bush.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 2, 2008 4:48 PM

Don:

Google: UK to U.S. Red Letter Christians: Admit You Are Marxists! I replied with specifics but the blog owner censored me.

The rise of the Christian neo-socialists has been quite surprising. These Marxists have been using the Sermon of the Mount and Beatitudes and “Jesus’ teaching” to smoke screen the resurgence of a Christian Socialist agenda. It’s amazing.

We see this clearly in socialist redistributionists like Barack Obama, Jim Wallis, Wendell Berry, Shane Claiborne, Tony Campolo, Ron Sider (although he’s moving more toward center), Brian McLaren, and many others I’d love to name.

At least in the U.K. leftist Christians are honest about being socialists.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 4:52 PM

DON: Re: Peter S., did you read factcheck.org's analysis of Obama's vote on the "born alive child" bill? You might want to take the time and read it.

I did. Gave me a headache. O is irrefutably pro-abortion so it does not really make a difference to me to what extensive lengths he will go to to make sure the baby is dead. The rest is "Above my Pay-grade".

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 5:00 PM

The dilemma for me is I get Tony Perkins of FRC emails almost every day and I see he uses dishonesty, gossip, and false innuendo to make Democrats look bad. He violates biblical principals consistently when he does this. I'm glad you're invited to his events but he is a strict partisan and uses religion for political gain in my opinion. I need to start a Tony Perkins does not speak for me website!

Posted by: Steve | September 2, 2008 5:09 PM

I forgot to point out to the poster named T that you're friends who critcize you for voting for Democrats and abortion need to be reminded there is an active Democrats for Life organization. Remind them that Republicans were in charge of making all laws about abortion from 1994 to 2007 and did not outlaw it. Remind them the U.S. Supreme Court is majority Republican appointments and they re-affirmed Roe vs Wade as valid law. Remind them President Bush is against abortion and did nothing. Before Clinton, Republicans were in charge 20 of the previous 24 years. They use it as a ruse.

Posted by: Steve | September 2, 2008 5:16 PM

Paul: re: Peter S, I am a Democrat who doesn't believe we can ban abortions without a proper support structure for young mothers. Apparently you think I hate life. I am a deeply committed Christian, a husband and a father. I find your blanket statements about liberals to be offensive. If you can't be civil, please take your arguement somewhere else.

Paul: I don't think YOU hate life... I just know that abortion is murder. If you start at the age of adult-hood (18) and work backward toward conception, at what point is that person not a life worthy of the protection of law? There is plenty of structure and overwhelming support for adoptive parents, but even if there were not it does not make abortion right.

If anyone out there has had an abortion, there is complete forgiveness in the blood of Jesus and I do not condemn you at all. Look at the witness of Paul after his conversion...and he had slaughtered Christians! Thank you Jesus for your forgiveness!!

I know my words may be stark on this pacifist blog, but Jesus did not mince words when it came to the teachings of the church. Please read Matthew 23

In love (truely).

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 5:25 PM

Don: That was a quote on Marxism from a recent article, not my words. www.christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5297

I guess you are only inclusive and tolerant when everyone agrees? I disagree your take on Mat. 23 Did Jesus have fingers pointing back at him?? Some times you have to standup for what you believe. I'll let God deal with me if I am too direct. BTW Thanks Don for the dialogue.

Is 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 5:40 PM

Peter S,

I'd love to see the day when every unwanted pregnancy turns into adoption by loving parents. I'd love to see the day when we're no longer so casual about sex, such that all pregnancies are the product of loving parents. I'd also love to see the day when a young mother can keep a child and work toward a good life because the system is set up to support her. But if we insist on the kind of policy making that cuts SCHIP off at the knees and refuses to support a higher minimum wage, then we're falling short of supporting her. We're telling her, "You're on your own."

Not exactly "family values" if you ask me.

Posted by: Paul | September 2, 2008 5:48 PM

By the way, I do not believe in "tolerance."

I formed this opinion several years ago and recently I read something that said more eloquently than I what my thoughts are on this: www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/why-do-you-believe-in-moral-absolutes

Quote:
The idea of no absolutes is often expressed today with the word tolerance. Tolerance, in today's usage, proposes that all ideas are morally equivalent—that truth is relative, that everything we have learned about morality in 4,000 years of recorded human experience is now negotiable.

If tolerance is a stand-alone virtue, then we must tolerate everything. Following that logic, then, we must be tolerant of, for example, slavery or a South American drug cartel, etc. Is whoever wields the most power the most moral? Of course not. But the relativist cannot avoid ending up with that view.

We submit that tolerance and love are not the same thing. Jesus calls us to a standard higher than mere tolerance. He calls us to compassion. While Jesus reached out to prostitutes, tax collectors, and the downtrodden, he did not preach "tolerance." He helped people see truth. Jesus loved the adulteress who was going to be stoned. He loves us even though we also deserve the eternal death penalty. Jesus saves us and tells us, as the adulteress, to "leave your life of sin" (John 8:11). And his message changes the lives of people he touches forever.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 5:55 PM

Paul,

When I read your comments I hear: When the government and other people do XY&Z, THEN we will be able to do the right thing. No, we are called to do the right thing NOW, and act in love and compassion, also to help others see the way.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 6:13 PM

Thanks Judith. Yes that was an unfair attack.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 6:28 PM

Don: Google: UK to U.S. Red Letter Christians ...

Sorry, but I didn't recognize that as a citation. I didn't know your comments about Wallis, Wendell Berry [what a laugh to lump him with the others, or to call them all 'redistributionists'!] et al, were taken from the source you directed me to.

You can sneer at me if you want; you only prove my point that you aren't here to dialogue, you're here to pass judgment.

If you wish to continue blogging here, you might want to take a look at Beliefnet's Rules of Conduct (http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp), and pay special attention to Rule #9 (Courtesy), because your comments about the host of this site (Rev. Wallis) could be considered violations of that rule.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 6:46 PM

"Then why did you raise it?"

My follow up was a way of saying that I should not have.

The Factcheck piece sustains the argument that Obama supported what his opponents say he supported, but (oddly) stipulates that prematurely born babies are not technically infants. Who cares? A living baby is protected by the constitution. Anyone who disagrees shouldn't be president.

"Here's a question...at what point do we expand the Right To Life, and include ALL life, even those of our perceived enemies. What about children killed durin our War On Terror in Iraq? "

I think we should make every effort to preserve the lives of children abroad. I also think this requires military efforts abroad, which will invariably result in collateral damage, which is political-speak for civilian deaths.

Doug and/or Jan, what is your proposed answer to this conundrum? To keep the slaughter of unborn babies legal? How does that help?

Posted by: kevin s. | September 2, 2008 7:00 PM

Gordon, what's your definition of 'collectivist,'? I don't see them as collectivist, either.

D

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 7:04 PM

Don,

I see them as collectivist because they want to end poverty by redistribution of wealth.

Posted by: Gordon | September 2, 2008 7:16 PM

To Carl C:

Sorry I missed your above post earlier. Re Marxism vs Socialism:

Wikipedia cites:
On Socialism: Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and Communism.

On Marxism: Any political practice or theory that is based on an interpretation of the works of Marx and Engels may be called Marxism.

So to answer your question: They have transitional differences however cut from the same cloth.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 7:24 PM

Peter S. -- Calling people who disagree with the your ideological agenda "Marxists," "socialists" and "collectivists" is an outright insult having nothing to do with the topic at hand and indeed skirts, if not violates, Beliefnet's rules.

Posted by: Rick | September 2, 2008 7:27 PM

Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and Communism.

So what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Posted by: Rick | September 2, 2008 7:29 PM

Welcome Atheist! We are all just sinners saved by grace, however debate and opposition is one of the things that is great about Christianity. We are not forced to hold all views pragmatically. There would be no freedom in that. I for one follow the Bible as truth and try to live by it. My convictions and interpertation sometimes lead me to disagree with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 7:31 PM

OK, I googled "UK to US Red Letter Christians: Admit You Are Marxists!" and was directed to a blog site called "Watcher's Lamp."

Gordon is right: all accusation but no evidence.

Those of us who have been on this forum for a while are familiar with the name "Watcher."

If you long-time bloggers here go to this blog, you might want to click on the "view my complete profile" link. The little scenario written under "about me" made me shudder a bit. I can't say for sure whether this is the same person as our old "Watcher," of course, but the characteristics and tone are all too familiar for comfort.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 7:44 PM

Thanks Don - whatever else I happen to be, I am no atheist.

Posted by: Gordon | September 2, 2008 7:51 PM

"You haven't walked in the shoes of either McCain or his wife."

Yes, Judith, you are right. I haven't walked in their shoes. We should give Sen. McCain the benefit of the doubt on this. Just like we should not assume we know the circumstances of every young woman who becomes pregnant.

I haven't walked in the shoes of anyone who has been divorced. Nor have I walked in the shoes of anyone who has suddenly been faced with a pregnancy they hadn't bargained for. (Mine children were both planned and lovingly welcomed.) Nor have I walked in the shoes of homosexual people who can't seem to catch a break from the Christian community.

So that brings me right back to my earlier point: McCain/Palin is no more the family values ticket than is Obama/Biden.

Posted by: Paul | September 2, 2008 8:02 PM

So Peter S.: Do you think that we should tolerate you or rebuke you?

Thanks for your praise of the Anabaptists, Don. I'm reminded of the "theologian" in Fiddler on the Roof" as well.
Funny thing about the Catholics in Central America that decided to focus on the Gospels, specifically the teachings of Jesus; they developed "Liberation Theology", and were soon after called Marxists.The primitive church, as described in Acts, looked quite communistic with the endorsement of the Holy Spirit demonstrated in the story of Annanias and Saphira.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 2, 2008 8:36 PM

I will again point out to the "church should do it" crowd, in this case Peter, that you have not fully counted the cost of such proposals. For starters, who do you think the apostles are in America that should have all capital laid at their feet?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 2, 2008 8:42 PM

Pastor Jeff: RE: "I will again point out to the "church should do it" crowd, in this case Peter, that you have not fully counted the cost of such proposals. For starters, who do you think the apostles are in America that should have all capital laid at their feet?"

If someone chooses to sell it all and give to the poor I applaud that, but it is not the role of government to force someone to do it. There are plenty of churches and non-profits that do excellent jobs of really helping people.

To suggest that government should be the cure to poverty, suffering etc, to me, negates man's free will and the power of The Cross in our lives. You can vote for those type of proposals, but I will not.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 9:00 PM

Hey conservatives, if we make abortion a crime like you want, can we also prosecute the man who got her pregnant in the first place and decided to run or at least he offered no help, advice support, money, or love for what would be his baby too?

Or do you just want to hold 1/2 of the pair responsible?

Posted by: Mr Curious | September 2, 2008 9:25 PM

Paul,

I agree, I don´t see why stories are trumping policies this week. What´s needed are strategies and clearly stated plans instead of empty variations on self-congratulatory statements like, "Whatever he says, he will do" and comments from "friends of eight years" (as opposed to "PR representatives"!) repeated at length, as much as those simple, "honest," slowly drawled, tried-and-true, dyed-in-the-wool narratives appeal to the two-generations-removed-hardworking-immigrant-midwestern-farmer in me... We´ve got four very interesting people running for office this time around. But that´s just drivel inasmuch as it doesn´t tie forthrightly into policy that´s not just implied and fuzzy-warm but instead stated in clear terms.

I think the problem is education: It´s strenuous to reach outside the nightly news bubble pumped into your home and your brain while you sit there relieved to be done with work at last. It takes quite a bit of work to research the issues for real, and with our bruised and battered economy, we have more problems than ever finding the time and energy.

In short, it seems to me that the talk this week during the RNC is focused on stories (most of them personal), not policy; the abortion issue is the only one I´ve heard mentioned, yet it hasn´t been discussed: Nobody is crunching those numbers, addressing statistically whether abortion actually is like marijuana and alcohol (the more readily and legally available, the less problematic on a group level - notice I´m not saying on an individual level) and the effect of poverty on the abortion rate (just saw an interesting article in the NYTimes on how Democratic terms of office have been better for the economy and for the poor than Republican ones)...I´m glad to see, however, that Catholic pro-life members of the Democratic party aren´t feeling like they have to stuff their beliefs about that plank in a closet any more.

Sigh. I am against abortion, but I am also greedy to vote ALL my values.

But all of this is not entirely on-post.

I think it´s beautiful that the candidates both seem to have mooted many of their bashing points against each other with their choice of running partner; now they´re even and we´re free to discuss pure intricacies of the actual issues...

Somehow I´m a bit too tired to clean all of these thoughts up into a coherent narrative, but there you go.

Posted by: solagratia | September 2, 2008 9:48 PM

Peter: Only if government is "other".

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 2, 2008 9:49 PM

Another non - I just saw your post from 4:11 PM. Sorry I didn't get around to reading it until this evening. Again, it's probably my fault for not reading more clearly and writing too quickly (often happens!).

I, too, have tried to encourage people here to write as if the other people here were sitting across the table from me. Sometimes it's hard though.

Posted by: Eric | September 2, 2008 9:55 PM

PS - Eric, I had really been hoping that you would respond to my posts, and that I hadn't driven you off. Good to have you back!

Posted by: Another nonymous | September 2, 2008 10:18 PM

Peter, do you really expect me to believe that your thirty-plus-year-old comments from Wallis that were lifted (out of their original contexts, no doubt) by a Religious Right Web site that is clearly and blatantly partisan proves your point?

Not a chance.

You gotta do better than that.

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 9:47 PM

***********************************

Your original comments expressed outrage at the very notion of Wallis being associated with Marxism. I have provided at least two sources and now they are too "old" to be relevant for discussion??? Where is Wallis recant or apology? If he has changed I offer all apologies to him. But his recent blogs and stealth support for DNC of late suggest to me that he has not. I have no problem with the freedom to believe in Communism, I do verbally disagree if it is promoted under the shroud of Christianity.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 3, 2008 12:22 AM

"So, when a presidential candidate has a brother living in a shack in Nairobi while calling on other wealthy Americans to make sacrifices, is that also double talk? Or are only Republicans capable of such a thing?

Posted by: kevin s. | September 2, 2008 1:49 PM"

Good morning America,

I am a Kenyan who has never been out of East Africa.

First of all, Kevin, as a Christian I must state that all you brothers in Christ in America may need to understand that God has blessed you so much so that you may serve Him.

If that means making sacrifices for people living in shacks, so be it.

Secondly, it is people like you who are, probably happily, possibly out of ignorance, spreading this non-information about Obama and his family.

Well,

Obama's namesake, his father,left the young boy when he was 1 year old and only saw his son once more, when the candidate was 10 years old.

Because of his own curiosity young Obama traveled to Kenya to seek his roots. He has since been there a few times and has not disowned his African relatives in any way, shape or form. He could easily have done so. A half brother from Kenya was best man at Obama's wedding, right?

Here in East Africa, by the way, it does not matter how rich you are, somehow, in your extended family, somewhere, there will be relatives living in shacks. After all 60 plus % of Nairobi, Kenya's capital, is shacks. We are really poor, you see, and could use some compassion from the people that God has given so much.

Jesus said the poor you will always have with you.
It seems, from reading about America's elections, including here, most people are agreed that Obama has plans to tackle poverty.

If your argument is that charity begins at home then Obama's home is America. If it is that he needs to do something about a half brother who was quoted in Nairobi newspapers as saying that some American newsmen are spreading lies about him and his family then you need to do some homework. If you did you would question how anyone can live on a dollar a month, for example.

According to the young man he is doing just fine!

SEE THIS, from our papers (sorry, I cannot provide a link):

"George had been living a quiet life, studying to become a car mechanic, until earlier this week when Vanity Fair magazine tracked him down to Huruma, which stands on the outskirts Nairobi.

He said he was furious at reports he had been abandoned by the Obama family and that he was filled with shame about living in a slum.

"It seems there are people who want to destroy me and my family," he said.

"They say I live on a dollar a month but this is all lies by people who don't want my brother to win."

As the Japanese say, "if you believe everything that you read then you had better not read".

But, I know, I know. Kevin, you don't believe everything - only what you choose to.

GOD BLESS THE PEOPLE LIVING IN SHACKS, AND ALL THE RICH CHRISTIANS TOO!

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | September 3, 2008 12:44 AM

another nonymous - thanks for highlighting your own struggle with war and how it is similar to a struggle with abortion. recently i´ve been reading a book by a guy who went to my school who was formerly a child soldier, and i can relate with your deep internal struggle as well. i´ve seen people lightly dismiss war - but that´s because they haven´t looked at, evaluated and *felt* its consequences. i remember the phrase "collateral damage" floating about society a while ago to describe the people who die in a conflict, and that term usage seems to properly describe many peoples´ outlooks - a yawn and easy acceptance upon hearing death figures in a land far away or the effects of torture or the corruption of the justice system, etc. etc. etc. it all always affects "someone else." the closest the effects of "collateral damage" have touched the american psyche of this generation, i would say, is 9/11. what to say to this callousness??

Posted by: solagratia | September 3, 2008 5:21 AM

Your original comments expressed outrage at the very notion of Wallis being associated with Marxism. I have provided at least two sources and now they are too "old" to be relevant for discussion??? ... I have no problem with the freedom to believe in Communism, I do verbally disagree if it is promoted under the shroud of Christianity.

Peter, the comments you posted don't demonstrate that Rev. Wallis is an ideological Marxist. I will try to demonstrate this in my following comments, though I don't really expect you will accept them. But I am going to try analyzing your "evidence" in order to move beyond the visceral toward the rational.

First, the comments are taken out of their original contexts. You know as well as I do that comments removed from their contexts can be manipulated to mean just about anything. (Lots of people do that with Scripture passages, as you know.) In order for me to know what Wallis was really saying in each of these instances, I would need a fuller context. As they stand, the comments are not reliable so far as demonstrating what Wallis' thinking was.

Second, I frankly don't trust the source you got these comments from. They are blatantly partisan (just look at their home page) and cannot be relied on to provide rational, objective analysis of anything Wallis (or anyone else for that matter) wrote or said.

Third, in your comments to Rick ("I don't want to see a single thing through [Marx's] hate-filled eyes!") you indicate the black-and-white way you are looking at the world. Well, as Another nonymous indicated earlier on this thread, the real world where people do their thinking and dreaming is full color, not black and white only. True, Marx said and wrote a lot of things that have led others to do horrific evil. But that doesn't mean everything he said and wrote is evil, or leads to evil. Marx, like you, me, and everyone else, was a mixture of good and evil. Marx, like the rest of us, was both made in God's image and tainted by the fall from grace. As Rick indicated, the truth of some of the things Marx wrote cannot be denied. Many others have seen and recognized the same thing. (See Rick's comment about MLK above [8:06 AM].)

Fourth, you refuse to recognize that some of Wallis' ideas come from Christian sources that are much older than Marx (such as the Anabaptists). Moreover, Marx didn't live in a vaccuum and so may have also borrowed and echoed some of this earlier thinking. Marx's thinking wasn't entirely original, and he did live in a Western culture that was still deeply influenced by biblical ideas. Some of these ideas certainly rubbed off on him.

Fifth, just becasue Wallis quoted from Marx, or borrowed ideas from him, or referred to him, doesn't mean he's an ideological Marxist. By analogy, if I quoted from Pope Benedict, or referred to him, or expressed admiration or approval of something he said or wrote, you would be very wrong in thinking that therefore I must be Roman Catholic. The same is true for Wallis and Marx.

Finally, these words of Wallis' are over thirty years old. You said you haven't heard him ever recant these words, but that's an argument from silence. He wouldn't have to publically recant something if he's changed his mind about it. And because they're taken out of context, they may not mean at all what traditionalvalues.org wants us to think they mean. The only way to know what he thinks today is to discuss it with him.

The bottom line is this, Peter: you haven't demonstrated that Rev. Wallis is an ideological Marxist or even that he's a socialist. Not even close. Your "evidence" is flawed and your reasoning is flawed. Therefore, in the absence of real evidence to demonstrate that he is a Marxist, I must conclude that your accusation is false.

PS: just because your personal attacks against Wallis were lifted from someone else doesn't absolve you from the concern that you may be in violation of Beliefnet guidelines. You are the one who pasted these personal attacks here.

Peace,

Posted by: Anonymous | September 3, 2008 8:41 AM

Peter: Jesus didn't wear rose colored glasses.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 3, 2008 8:46 AM

Gordon:

If you're still around and reading this thread, my understanding of collectivism is along the lines of what the Soviet Union did to agriculture during the Stalin era--you know, the "collective farms" and five-year economic plans and such.

Since I don't hear Rev. Wallis or the other Sojouners regulars advocating for these kinds of things--or anything remotely similar--I have trouble applying the term "collectivist" to their ideas.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 3, 2008 8:56 AM

"Our success in fighting poverty, health care issues, racial and gender imbalance should not be done while standing on the corpses of unborn babies."

Posted by: Keith | September 3, 2008 8:52 AM

Hi all,

Is the situation that bad?

Horrible!

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | September 3, 2008 10:06 AM

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

You ask if the situation is that bad.

About 3,500 babies PER DAY is aborted in the US.

That is about 145 per hour.

That means in the past two minutes it took me to read your post and compile this response, about 5 unborn babies have lost their life.

By the time, you have finished reading these 5 sentences, two or 3 more have lost their life.

Personally, I think the best attack on abortion is a combination of the Dems and Reps platforms.

All that can be done to remove the NEED for abortion, should be a main tactic and vital to the welfare of this country.

And at the same time, it should be a banned practice in this country and we should quickly be moved in that manner.

Posted by: Keith | September 3, 2008 1:07 PM

Keith wrote: "I WILL BE A ONE ISSUE VOTER as long as this country thinks it is acceptable to kill unborn babies."

If a fetus is an unborn baby, then logically you are an undead corpse.

Posted by: SecularAnimist | September 3, 2008 2:29 PM

I tried to read all of your comments. I agree with Sister Marie, and Bruce. I want to say here that I am glad there are people like Jim Wallis.

I know that the right wing evangelical Chistians do vote on abortion. I have heard them talking.
They think that is the main issue. Look what the last eight years have been like, because of this experienced administration, and their compassionate conservatism.

When I was young the chuch did not get mixed up in politics. They were mute. I do not think that we as Christians should be voting one specific issue. I know that the spoken word when I was young was the Republicans were for the rich, and the democrats supported unions, wages and equality, and FAMILY VALUES.

About SARAH PALIN, she has in place laws for the killing of wolves and bears from helicopters in Alaska. Would it be better to dart them and neuter them and spay the felmales to keep the population down. She gets a thumbs down on that one from me.

My daughters are so upset with Chistians they want to go back to the roots of there Hebrew ancestors. Instead of preaching about what and who to follow politically, follow Jesus. What would HE do and how would HE think.

What is wrong!!! THE CHURCHES ARE TEACHING HOW TO CONDEMN, CRITIZE, BE JUDGEMENTAL INSTEAD OF teaching how JESUS WOULD VIEW THINGS, and his LOVE.

THIS IS NOT THE CHRISTIANITY I WAS BROUGHT UP IN.
I HAVE LOVED JESUS ALL MY LIFE. IF YOU LOVE HIM TOO, PUT HIM IN YOUR HEART AND LET HIM GUIDE YOUR THOUGHTS. WHAT WOULD HE DO. I AM ASHAMED SO ASHAMED OF HOW YOU CHRISTIANS ACT.

Pray that you might get an understanding how Jesus might see you. Let him put His love in your heart

Posted by: Anonymous | September 4, 2008 12:53 PM

Here's my suggestion on how to promote civility in political or theological conversation - we end every argument we make with a confession of our human imperfection by saying, "But I might be wrong."

Posted by: Bruce Bjork | September 4, 2008 5:14 PM

Thank you Marlene for your comments. I am really struggling with evangelical Christianity. My faith is not wavering but I am troubled with Evangelicals. I am feeling more and more disaffected and distant from some of my Christian brethren. It has been building for years but I think this election season is showing me some deep-seated thinly veiled racism that so many white Evangelicals (Dobson and Tony Perkins are some notable examples) are displaying. Two years ago I registered as a Democrat after being an Independent for most of my adult life. I have witnessed some of the vilest attacks on the patriotism and Christianity (someone on this blog said I wasn't a Christian and called me a stupid name) of people who identify as Democrats or those who lean left as opposed to those who identify as conservative. I think my conversion to the Democrats came after the lack of compassion and total disregard for the people of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. I was so distraught and angry by how the whole thing was handled and the heaping of blame and disregard on the people from that region. I was also tired of the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of so-called family values politicians (Vitter) and preachers (Ted Haggard) and the overall corruption. I am tired of the gotcha mentality where many Evangelicals want to point out the sin in others while wallowing in their own stench. When one of their own is "caught", they ask for compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation but they are not willing to extend the same grace to others who have fallen. I am sick to death of it.

Posted by: Nuttshell | September 4, 2008 7:09 PM

Thanks for your suggestions.

I have a hard time watching and hearing how the Republican media and the Republican party are willing to use religion as a cover for saying lies, distorting reality, destroying people's virtues and honor, and spreading hate in the name of God.

I truly feel ashamed that religious groups are giving their back to Senator Obama when he is an honest religious person who does not lie or trash others and treats everyone with respect and honesty.

The religious groups doubt that Obama is a Christian, doubt that he is honest and doubt that he has good intentions. They discredit the fact that he has been married with the same woman for more than 10 years, distrust that he has been an example of a student, and a worker for the poor.

On the other side, these same religious groups support McCain and Palin, when McCain has betrayed his first wife with several women, abandoned his first wife when she was ill to marry Cindy, and now lives of money made from the selling of alcohol. Alcohol being amongst the greatest temptations towards sin, a provoker of addiction, a destroyer of individuals and families and a destroyer of pregnancies. McCain is pro-war and pro-weapons that kill, he is pro- death penalty. Palin is a woman who used her body to get free college, has 5 children, one pregnant daughter that only after 5 months of pregnancy decided is time to legitimize the child. Palin wanted to know if the youngest child would be normal and so, she did a check up. Why did she do it if she was going to have the baby anyways?
Palin in her speech has lied repeatedly about Obama and his wife, but she is given a free ride.

And, with all this, she is still supported because she is a Christian, no one doubts about it. Why?

Obama and Michelle are over-qualified as human beings. Why? Because in this Christian country, if a person is black, he or she in order to be accepted, needs to be 10 times better than any white person. And even when they are more qualified and have passed for tremendous pain in their lives as blacks in a country with little love and admiration for the effort blacks do, they are not accepted, on the contrary they are distrusted.

Blacks in this country are amongst the most patriotic people around. After suffering abuse, lack of payment, poverty, overwork, disease, and lack of opportunities...they are still here. They did not leave. They are still here, putting up with our envy and discrimination, continuing to fight to prove themselves worth it.

Christian Churches are supporting the Republican party and covering up for the lies and misleading information they spread around--all because republicans are supposedly pro-life--This speaks more about where these Churches stand before God, than the republican party that lives from it and its members.

Lying is a mortal sin.
Killing is a mortal sin.
Attacking is a sin.
Misleading is a sin.
Hate is a sin.
Attack without provocation is a sin.

So, the republican party has one No-Sin they are pro-life of new-borns. But they are pro-war, pro-weapons, pro death penalty (all 3 death bringers) They mislead, and they lie.

Democrats have only one problem--not being pro-life.

The choice is clear. I just do not know if the Churches will have the decency to be there for the truth and the people, or will continue to promote its own agenda.

Posted by: Alma | September 5, 2008 3:23 AM

I like the disclosure written by one presenter concerning how to close our conversations with, "but, I might be wrong." How appropriate! Now, if only we would admit that we have been wrong - terribly wrong - in electing George Bush to two terms as president of the youngest yet most influential country in the world. Today, I heard another report about job loss, inflation, foreclosure and other economic down turns. It is time for the conservatives, Christians and all Americans to recognize a need for transformation.

As I see, from the perspective of faith, there is some confessionals that we need to make. We ought to confess that the only reason this election cycle is even close is a matter of 'race' [sic]. And, although Tony speaks to this issue, the facts remain that America still suffers from a terrible case of anti-other sentiment. Those of us who claim to be Christian ought to read and study more. Because Paul said, God "is not a respecter of persons... there is neither bond nor free, male nor female..." and you ought to include black or white. So, because in God's economy we are each on equal footing, then we ought to allow God's economy to pervade our human practices. I will be voting for the original idea of change as presented originally by Barack Obama. I do not believe that John McCain has experienced an epiphany overnight.

Posted by: michael, atlanta | September 5, 2008 12:02 PM

I agree that us Christians should excercise civility in this election or in any other venue.
Having said this, I believe we Christians know truly what is at stake here in this election. Three of the most liberal Supreme Court justices may be retiring within the next 4 to 8 years. No politician since 1973 have been successful in passing a law to overturn Roe v. Wade which has caused so many instances of infanticide. If these three liberal supreme court justices are replaced with justices that uphold and respect the right to life, the Supreme Court may overturn itself and make infanticide (i.e. abortion) illegal.

Posted by: nate | September 5, 2008 12:39 PM

Memo to Sarah Palin

Jesus Christ was a community organizer: Pontius Pilate was a governor.

P.s. I got this quote from the Mike Mally Show, Thursday,September 4, 2008, on Air America.

Posted by: William Joseph Miller | September 5, 2008 2:27 PM

Mr. Obama is like a promise. the substance or evedince of hope to come if only we have the trust to lauch out into the deep or lengthen our stakes.

Posted by: walc | September 5, 2008 5:20 PM

This is the very first time I have ever visited a Christian site. I am 50 yrs old.

It has been very interesting. Considerably different to what I anticipated.

Jim Wallis, your article is thought provoking, fair minded and generous of spirit.

I shall follow your conversation regularly.

Posted by: Linda | September 13, 2008 9:59 PM

Biblical Christianity provides answers to man's problems be they financial, social, etc, that is unique and non political. Biblical Christianity does not rely on man or governments to solve our problems but on God and his word, the Bible. Biblical Christianity has anwers man would never think of or dream of. So look to God not Obama,McCain,to Republican or Democrat,liberals or conservatives.Try it it may be as easy as it sounds.

Posted by: Clifford Ishii | September 24, 2008 10:48 PM