Thanks, Jim. In a year where the campaign seems more like a soap opera or a reality show than an opportunity to really transform society, you once again write words of wisdom that challenege us all. I look forward to the follow-up posts related to this...

Posted by: | September 15, 2008 1:01 PM

I agree with this. I don't think it will happen for a bunch of different reasons but it is possible.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 15, 2008 1:03 PM

Between "outrage" at the use of the colloquialism about putting "lipstick on a pig" to the Obama ads that childishly mock McCain for his unfamiliarity with computers, I certainly agree. For two campaigns that were promising a good clean fight, I am NOT impressed. It just shows, I think, the corrucpting influence of desire for power. Maybe the voices of reason will win out some time before November and we can see the differences not just in perosnality, but in the merits of the solutions they propose.

Posted by: Brian | September 15, 2008 1:24 PM

Jim is right. We need a strong leader who can built real bipartisan coalitions to tackle these problems. We need real reform. That is why John McCain and Sarah Palin offer the best hope for real solutions.

Posted by: Real Answers | September 15, 2008 1:34 PM

For the record, I find Palin's personality to be rather annoying.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 15, 2008 1:42 PM

I think there's another Tom Eagleton moment coming. Who is McCain's second choice?

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 15, 2008 1:54 PM

As I read this latest post, it seems that Mr. Wallis continues to offer his only solution: Empower the state. Give the state unlimited powers and all these problems will be "solved."

We are NOT seeing "unprecedented" warming, despite the Al Gore hyperbolic language he uses. In fact, over the past decade, we actually have seen a small cooling trend, and during the early Middle Ages, the planet was considerably warmer than it is now.

Mr. Wallis, is there anything in life you have not politicized? From the weather to the food we eat to the very worship of Jesus Christ, you have politicized everything. You are not the only one, but yours is a pure political gospel and nothing else.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 2:05 PM

The last things Obama wanted was to have to talk about experience, abortion, and his role as a community organizer.

If that's what you think, I think you have pegged Obama quite wrong. Not only is he ready to talk, but he's probably saying to himself, "Bring it on!" Talking about his record would be refreshing if it means not having to deal with negative personality-based campaign nonsense.

D

Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 2:18 PM

Mr. Wallis, is there anything in life you have not politicized? From the weather to the food we eat to the very worship of Jesus Christ, you have politicized everything. You are not the only one, but yours is a pure political gospel and nothing else.
Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 2:05 PM
---------

William, Good post. I agree. Jim co-opts Jesus on every issue that he supports.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 2:26 PM

William, Good post. I agree. Jim co-opts Jesus on every issue that he supports.

And I take that to mean that you don't? Take a look at Carl Copas' comment on the NRA thread.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 2:52 PM

Heck, I'd be happy if each candidate answered, "What is about this ecomony that concerns you most?"

Posted by: frankie | September 15, 2008 3:42 PM

And I take that to mean that you don't? Take a look at Carl Copas' comment on the NRA thread.
Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 2:52 PM
----------
Don, No I don't employ lobbyists in a commune in DC to change US politics, or have a pseudo-christian leftist propaganda magazine that continually brow-beats anyone and everyone who has ever stepped foot in a church to believing that Jesus would like higher taxes in the US to accompany a more 'socialized' political agenda.

Some here constantly invoke Dr. Dobson as an example Wallis counterpart on the right. The difference is that every major protestant denomination and Catholicism strongly sides with Dobson on abortion and even the more liberal denominations would not dare suggest that Jesus wants more socialist political policies. Jim Wallis is a true outsider in all but the most leftist religious circles thus the comparison is not balanced.

PS: Carl is welcome to post as infrequently as he likes.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 3:57 PM

"3. Globally, the progress we were making on international poverty has been seriously set back because of food and fuel prices. Untold numbers of people are facing starvation."

I would be interested to hear some honest opinions from those who agree with the assumption of this point that the US government should use it's police power to collect taxes from its citizens then send that money to poor people in other countries. Honestly this makes no sense to me and is surely unconstitutional.

By voting for these type of policies, who am I to force others to feed the poor?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 4:10 PM

I agree, the issues are critical. As Evangelical Christians we feel a responsibility to let our vote count for the Kingdom of God. As a missionary’s kid and as a Christian Education major at Wheaton College I learned the Bible well. and I am very thankful for this strong background but I’ve struggled with how my fellow believers see it's application in politics. The Bible has many commands, we tend to focus on only one or two.

The Evangelical community has been focused on one verse in politics, “thou shalt not kill.” In the last two elections Bush was voted in as president partly because he didn’t believe in abortion and he didn’t believe in gay marriage. The problem is that even with a Republican congress most of those years he not stopped abortions or gay marriage in almost eight years. Instead he has gotten us involved in two wars that have killed thousands of people. In my view he has not obeyed the commandment, “thou shalt not kill”.

According to the congressional record, McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. McCain is pro-war. McCain’s father and grandfather were admirals; he graduated from the Navel Academy and fought in Vietnam. He said he will never surrender in Iraq. He is focused on war and will most likely lead us into more wars where more people will be killed. Palin in a recent interview suggested that she may be willing to attack Russia.

Obama takes the verse, “thou shalt not kill” seriously. He tackles the root of the problem with programs to prevent teenage pregnancies and health care reforms that will give people the support they need to keep their babies (60% of abortions occur because the women doesn’t have the money to deliver her baby) Obama believes in war only as a last result. He believes in diplomacy, reconciliation, building community and working with our allies. I am convinced that far less people will be killed if Obama is president.

Jesus’s says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, love your neighbor as yourself.” Mathew 22:36. Which candidate believes in loving your neightbor? Obama’s program includes taking care of the poor and downtrodden. He proved his commitment to the poor by working in the ghettos of Chicago. Obama will tip the scales away from the rich to be kind to the poor. According to the Washington Post, Obama will help even out the wealth by lowering taxes 1.9% for those who make less than $227,000, 2.4% under $66,000, 3.6% under $38,000 and 5.5% for those under $19,000. He believes in taking care of all Americans.

There are numerous verses in the Bible about our responsibility to help the poor. "He who gives to the poor lends to the Lord and He will reward him for what he has done." Proverbs 19:17 Obama believes in helping the poor. He’s lived what he believes. He worked in the inner city coordinating with a number of churches to help that Chicago community. He has a number of well thought out programs for helping the poor.
In Psalms 24:1 God says, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof....” If the earth is the Lord’s who are we to ruin its delicate balance and cause global warming with our carelessness. McCain and Palin want to drill for oil in our sensitive national park which would destroy that ecosystem and the wildlife that depend on it (Palin’s husband works for the oil company). Obama is focused on funding alternative energy which will help us wean ourselves off the oil that is damaging the earth and causing wars.

The Bible instructs us to tell the truth but Palin insists that she was against the “bridge to no-where” when there is documented evidence that she fought for it until congress stopped it. In addition, she and McCain have made a number of false statements about opponents. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.” Exodus 20:16. If they are not honest in campaigning will they be honest in the White House? Will they tell us there are “weapons of mass destruction” when none exist?

Palin is under two investigations for mistreatment of employees in Alaska. Shouldn’t these investigations be completed before voting her into the White House? Some of her financial dealings in Alaska are also questionable. Palin is pro-life and carries her babies to term which is admirable but is it right to not take responsibility for raising these children? She has a four month old baby, a 7 year old, a 14 year old and a pregnant 17 year old at home, is this a good time in her life to leave them and run for office? Pro-life includes taking care of life. McCain, according to those who know him well, has always showed apathy toward religion until he realized that his ticket to the White House was ( like Bush before him) the Evangelical vote, so he chose inexperienced Palin.

Obama is not an Evangelical Christian but his faith has proven to be more consistent. When you’re sick, would you rather go to a good doctor who cures your illness or an Evangelical Christian who doesn’t? American has a serious illness and we need a good doctor, Obama is an excellent healer. He has more integrity than either McCain or Palin. Obama is honest and straightforward. With all the scrutiny on him he has not been found in any scandal. He cares for the poor. He wants to rebuild our relationships abroad. He cares about taking care of the earth that God called us to be steward of.

If you listen to both convention speeches you see that McCain’s is “the warrior” and Obama is “the healer”. Micah 6:8 instructs us to, “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God.” We will be accountable for what we as a nation do. If we want God to continue to bless American we cannot continue to kill and main thousands in war. We need to heal our nation and help heal the world. I believe that we Evangelical Christians honor God and His Kingdom by voting for Obama. I believe that would be Jesus’ choice.

Posted by: Kathi Simonsen | September 15, 2008 4:20 PM

I would be interested to hear some honest opinions from those who agree with the assumption of this point that the US government should use it's police power to collect taxes from its citizens then send that money to poor people in other countries. Honestly this makes no sense to me and is surely unconstitutional.

Two things about that.

1) It's likely that more of the tax monies you pay actually finance pet projects of lawmakers in wealthy districts in order to keep them in office -- depending on where you live, you actually might get more money than you pay out (see Alaska and, by inference, Sarah Palin). The poor, whether domestically or around the world, really don't see that kind of money.

2) This has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Posted by: Rick | September 15, 2008 4:21 PM

Like you Mr. Wallis, I was raised in an, evangelical home. Mine also happened to be dysfunctional amd emotionally abusive. As a minister's child, I grew up trying to reconcile the God of the bible and my family politics. I always voted Republican. But then I felt like a square peg in a round hole. I was just about ready to give up on how to practice my faith when I discovered your blog. Thank you so much for a home where I can follow my heart and Jesus.

If we go back to the bible and discover what God's plan is for our lives, being salt and light really boils down to seeking justice for those who need it, to feed widows and orphans, take care of the strangers, (those with out legal rights) in our midst. The far right would "Christianize" our nation by making "sin" illegal. I find the only way we can fulfill the law of Christ is by loving our neigbor as ourselves. This is true religion and in my opinion true politics.

If anyone out there is willing to print, bumper stickers that says, Attention Christians, Dobson is not God, I'd put it on my bumper. If we can learn to think for ourselves, raise good questions and follow Jesus, we may end up putting down our political fisticuffs and fulfill the law of Christ. May the best candidate win and may Jesus rule.

Posted by: liberalinlove | September 15, 2008 4:26 PM

I'm going to make a prediction now that if McCain wins the election commentators on this blog will say how unfortunate is was that the election was decided on personality, culture, or wedge issues rather than on real issues. There will be no consideration given to the idea that perhaps the average American voter thought McCain had better answers for the real issues Americans face.

Posted by: Eric | September 15, 2008 4:39 PM

"William, Good post. I agree. Jim co-opts Jesus on every issue that he supports."

As opposed to the religious right, which never ever would do such a thing.

(I'm being sarcastic)

Posted by: squeaky | September 15, 2008 4:41 PM

"...so in that sense he's more "establishment" than they."

"And perhaps that might be a good thing -- because he doesn't have to worry about offending the "powers that be" in delivering God's message."
Posted by: Rick | September 15, 2008 4:15 PM
------
Hmm you seem to have argued that Jim is both establishment AND an outsider.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 4:54 PM

Please, Rick--Does Jim need you to step in and defend him ad nauseum??? It gets to be a bit annoying.

Yeah? And all the unprovoked and unwarranted attacks on Rev. Wallis are much more than annoying. They're often slanderous, too.

Thank God for people like Rick who are willing to step up to the plate and tell things like they are.

It's the ultra-right-wing partisans who refuse to cut Rev. Wallis--or many of the others who post here--even the tiniest bit of slack, it is they who need to chill out.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 5:03 PM

"By voting for these type of policies, who am I to force others to feed the poor?"
Do you also think, then, that we shouldn't provide any HIV/AIDS assistance to impoverished nations?
And on another note--if a nation is in need of military support, should we spend tax money on that?
Posted by: squeaky | September 15, 2008 4:55 PM
------
S, you make a good point and one worth mentioning that Bush has given far more to world poverty, aids, & debt relief than any other president ever. Far more than Clinton. And while these are noble causes, we are completely out of control spending-wise here. Whether it be Fannie/Freddie bailouts or pork barrel spending, we are out of control. Since Obama has never bucked the Democrats I don't have any confidence that he will 'change' the spending game. I think maybe McCain/Palin will. Their record certainly is more favorable toward this than Obama who has managed to add billions in port to his district even while campaigning for the last 20 months.

So to answer your question, no I don't think it wise to pass so much of our kids money around to other countries. Charity can do it if they like. The UN can do it if they like, but we should get our spending under control, then let the people decide. As for the military aid, we have carried that burden for 60 years plus, let someone else take a turn as the world's bail-bondsmen.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 5:14 PM

I THINK THERE ARE VERY FEW CHRISTIANS THAT BLOG HERE. So if you want to insult people and think you are so smart get lost---OR ASK FORGIVENESS OF YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND ASK HIM INTO YOUR HEART. IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE ARE TOO MANY HERE THAT WALK IN HIS FOOTSTEPS AND HAVE HIM IN THEIR HEART..

JIM IS RIGHT AND NOT A LIBERAL. THAT MIGHT SOUND LIKE A PUN BUT WE WANT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND CORRECT AND WHAT WILL BENEFIT THE MAJORITY.

Ask yourself "Am I REALLY A CHRISTIANS? JESUS SAID "MANY WILL COME AND SAY, LORD, LORD DIDN'T I DO THIS IN YOUR NAME OR THAT IN YOUR NAME" AND he says "BUT I NEVER KNEW YOU!".

THERE ARE MANY SELF SERVING CHRISTIAN
ORGANIZATIONS OUT THERE THAT PREACH
FALSE GOSPLES. (Isn't that what scripture says)

I AM SO PRIVILEDGED TO HEAR JIM WALLIS, FOR HE IS THE FIRST REAL CHRISATIN I HAVE HEARD IN A LONG TIME. HE IS NOT JUDGEMENTAL OR ANGRY. IF IT WEREN'T FOR HIM I WOULD PROBABLY FEEL VERY LONELY.

(I think some hearts need to be circumcised here.)

Jesus would distribute the wealth and take care of everyone. He did feed the poor, and He healed them. Would he be a socialist? Or would he say seek "THE KINGDOM OF GOD" THAT IS WHERE OUR REAL SALVATION IS"

It was discussed by many of us when I attended church friends-not in the church but by many of us college kids.

IF YOU ARE CHRISTIANS YOU SHOULD PUT SCRIPTURE IN HEART. WHAT I HEAR HERE IS NOT FROM THE LORD.
IT IS HATE! AND YOU KNOW WHERE SARCASISM, INSULTS, AND HATRED COME FROM.

Posted by: Judith | September 15, 2008 5:31 PM

Judith,

I bristle when someone tells me I am not a Christian because I don't believe a certain way. And although I think you and I probably agree on many points regarding our approach to Christianity, it is not your right to judge whether or not someone is a Christian. It is true--you can be a Democrat and still be a Christian. And it is equally true that you can be a Republican and still be a Christian.

You said Jim Wallis is not judgmental and that you appreciate him for it. Your post is very judgmental, so if you admire that of Jim, strive to be non-judgmental yourself. I think most here who proclaim to be Christians can agree that He is our Lord and Savior. We don't, however, agree about what that means for our political lives. But just because someone disagrees with us, that doesn't mean we have the right to question whether they are even Christians. I think that most of us have very good Scriptural reasons for what we believe politically, even if others would find our justifications incomprehensible and astounding.

God made us all different so that we would approach problems from a wide array of perspectives. When we do that well (and that seems to be a rare occasion these days), we are able to avoid pitfalls we would not avoid had we only received input from those who agree with us.

Posted by: squeaky | September 15, 2008 5:47 PM

Today's verse of the day:

O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not listen? Or cry to you "Violence!" and you will not save?

Why do you make me see wrongdoing and look at trouble? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise.

- Habakkuk 1:2-3

For eight years we have had a policy of de-regulation and support of privatization and individual control. Today our economy is on the brink of total collapse. For the last five years we have had a policy of war, torture, and violence. Today our national security is more precarious than ever. It is time for Obama - an A student - in the White House. Not McCain, who was the bottom of his class (884 out of 889). In today's complex society we need someone like Obama who perceives nuances - Jesus taught in parables, did he not?
O Lord, how long must we cry for help?

Posted by: Annie | September 15, 2008 6:02 PM

Peter S: "PS: Carl is welcome to post as infrequently as he likes."

Why, thank you!

Posted by: carl copas | September 15, 2008 6:14 PM

carl, buddy, i responded to your inquiry about the gazelle & the tapes on the russia post but it rotated off. i reckon you can click on "september 2008" over there on the left & scroll down & find it. peace brother,

Posted by: nad2 | September 15, 2008 6:25 PM

If someone is seeking what Mr. Wallis called "solutions that result in real abortion reduction," he certainly should not look to Senator Obama, who is firmly committed a public policy agena that will, if implemented, predictably and substantially increase the number of abortions.

The issue of public funding of abortion is indeed a good place to begin a reality check. The Hyde Amendment cutting off almost all federal funding of abortion, and the comparable policies that most states have adopted, have resulted in major reductions in the number of abortions. Both sides agree that this is so. For example, a December "factsheet" issued by NARAL observes, "A study by The Guttmacher Institute shows that Medicaid-eligible women in states that exclude abortion coverage have abortion rates of about half of those women in states that fund abortion care with their own dollars." By even the most conservative estimates, over one million Americans are alive today who would have been aborted if the federal Hyde Amendment had not been enacted in 1976. So, here we have what both sides agree is a proven "abortion reduction" policy (although one side thinks it is a good thing, and one side thinks it is a bad thing). Obama advocates the repeal of the Hyde Amendment and all other such restrictions on tax funding of abortions. Moreover, in 2007 Obama gave a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in which he promised abortion would be covered in his national health care plan, which means that everybody would be required to pay for elective abortion through taxes, mandatory premiums, or
both. I am sure he means it.

In addition, Obama is a cosponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act," a bill that would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion. In addition, this bill would make partial-birth abortion legal again, and require tax-funded abortion on demand in both state and federal health programs. The "Freedom of Choice Act" further provides that "A government may not . . . discriminate against" abortion "in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” (That doesn't sound like a formula for "abortion reduction," does it?) In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do." More on this radical bill here: http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/index.html

In the past, Obama has gone to even further extremes in his zeal to defend "abortion rights." In the Illinois state Senate in 2001-2003, Obama led the opposition to, and ultimately killed, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was a simple three-sentence bill to provide protection for babies who are born alive during abortions. The bill that Obama killed was virtually identical to a bill that passed Congress without a single dissenting vote in 2002. When the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) on August 11 released recently uncovered documents to prove that this was so, Obama himself said that we were "lying." After an investigation, Annenberg's independent FactCheck.org concluded: "Obama's claim is wrong . . . The documents from NRLC support the group's claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082 [the 2003 Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act]." Obama's history on this legislation, and what it tells us about his thinking on abortion, is explored in a White Paper released by National Right to Life on August 28, 2008, which can be read or downloaded here: http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
http://www.nrlc.org

Posted by: Douglas Johnson | September 15, 2008 6:36 PM

Jim is on the right track and this is why I will vote for Obama-Biden. At least they have demonstrated sound judgement and if Supreme Court vacancies will have to be filled in the next four years that sound judgment will mean a lot for the country.

Posted by: Sunriverat | September 15, 2008 6:39 PM

Who is kidding whom this election cycle? The “issues” are the same as they have been for at least the past 8 years; the talking points on both sides are the same as they have been in recent elections; and the political rhetoric has remained politically divisive for as long as I can remember. McCain is lying in his ads, and Obama seems to just tow the party line - despite his cries of "Change You Can Believe In".

The whole system is filled with absurdity. A great quote from Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury comes to mind when I think of either side winning this election, because there is so much to overcome and both sides are full of crooks and liars: "Victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools."

Posted by: Steph | September 15, 2008 6:45 PM

Posted by: squeaky | September 15, 2008 5:47 PM

Thank you, squeaky, for that post. I personally see little evidence of hatefulness on this site, although it does sometimes get heated. Both in my present life as a conservative and in my former life somewhere far to the left of Wallis, I have had to constantly remind myself that people who disagree with me are just people who disagree with me, and not make it into a moral issue.

Posted by: Gordon | September 15, 2008 6:49 PM

I liked the article. I'd have included something on foreign debt.

But what I found most interesting was the responses from both sides.

The responses were almost entirely about personality and character. Who's stronger, more experienced, more faithful, more glamorous.

Which is exactly the point Wallis made. None of those ought to matter. What ought to matter is who has the best plan to address some (ideally all) of these issues.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | September 15, 2008 7:42 PM

kevin, i don't think editorials count as journalism, the same way the editorial from the WJS that "broke" the story was not journalism. if you've got some other source that has evidence that obama sent a team of lawyers (or anyone for that matter) in there, please let me know. they should be called on it if they are denying it but it is a fact.

Posted by: nad2 | September 15, 2008 9:20 PM

"We are NOT seeing "unprecedented" warming..."

Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 2:05 PM

Unless you were around prior to modern record-keeping and can document otherwise, perhaps you ought to consider the very real possibility that your statement is a load. This is only the 2nd summer on record that the deep channel of the Northwest Passage has thawed sufficiently to permit ship traffic. Oh, that's right, Al Gore probably manufactured that data too, right?

Posted by: canucklehead | September 15, 2008 9:38 PM

Generally it turns out that people who want this election to be about personalities, have long since made up their minds about whom they'll support. The "personality" issues are handy things to grab if one is looking for back-up for a decision he/she made for other reasons.

We only hear what we want to hear.

Comparing moral qualities between the parties is dangerous business; both sides have their serious slip-ups. "The ends justify the means" is not a Christian value; neither is lying either for applause or support.

Deciding who to vote for based on TV commercials means you aren't concerned about objective info.

Since Sojourners are, and always have been, committed to justice and peace, why come here if those qualities bother you? Find a political blog and argue out the bitter biases of partisanship there. If the bloggers on this site can't bring up any issue without being accused of being partisan, "left" or "right," what's the point of even attempting to see the world through the eyes of faith?

And Peter: what gives you such pleasure in cutting people to written ribbons? Putting people in "defense mode" leaves little time for constructive support and reflection. This Christians-for-justice-and-peace website gets uglier and less faithful than secular sites.

Posted by: openeyes | September 15, 2008 9:55 PM

I find it interesting that on God's Politics Blog, a person is able to tell lies about me. Here is the quote from I and I:

"William, what a remarkable, orginal insight you have made. We must stop the politicization of life and listen to James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Rod Parsley, who present us with the pure unadulterated gospel. Your post has inspired me to go join the John Birch Society and even the Council of Conservative (White) Citizens, who are also against the power of the state. Bless you!"

Posted by: I and I | September 15, 2008 2:19 PM

Indeed, over the years, I have written a number of articles that have dealt with how Dobson and Bauer and others have politicized the Gospel. I am NOT a member of any racist group, and, for the record, my two sons (adopted) are black. I don't support McCain, and I do not approve of what the Religious Right has done, and I clearly am on the record as being critical of these groups.

But, Mr. Wallis permits someone to call me a racist because I disagree with how he politicizes the Gospel. I guess this is part of "God's Politics" in which God permits Mr. Wallis and others to violate the commandment against bringing false witness. Truth apparently does not matter on this blog.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 10:27 PM

As for the resurgence of John McCain's campaign, we need to remember something. It was not John McCain or even Barack Obama who brought the Culture War into this campaign; it was the hard left of the Democratic Party with its over-the-top reaction to the nomination of Sarah Palin.

When Democratic women write that Palin really is not a woman, and when a seminary professor from the University of Chicago claims that Palin, who has been a working woman, does not know what working women experience, I have to laugh. Yes, I am sure that a highly-privileged seminary professor from one of the most exclusive universities in the world really is in touch with "working people." Right. I am a college professor myself and am quite aware of the disconnect between working people and those in my profession.

So, if McCain is elected, it actually will have been the Democratic left that put him there. I believe that McCain and Palin can and should be criticized on the issues. Deal with their support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and for the growing culture of government abuse of individuals. Deal with their support of the Patriot Act and the like.

Instead, we hear criticism from Democratic women because she did not abort her Downs child. A Canadian doctor even expressed alarm because he believes that Palin might encourage other women to take Downs children to term instead of killing them. Truly sick and evil.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 10:37 PM

Hilarious. Who has the stronger bi-partisan record out of Obama and Palin? Hint: Obama has never gone against his party on anything of substance.

Irrelevant -- when you get as much money from the feds as Alaska does, who needs partisanship? Heck, in that environment Republicans and Democrats both make out like bandits.

Hmm you seem to have argued that Jim is both establishment AND an outsider.

He's not really establishment, but he's been around longer than much of the Christian "establishment." That should count for something.

But, Mr. Wallis permits someone to call me a racist because I disagree with how he politicizes the Gospel.

That's not what was said. However, Christian conservatism does have a historic racist streak that many of its defenders simply won't address -- remember, the Ku Klux Klan calls itself a Christian organization, Jerry Falwell was a staunch segregationist and the "religious right" started in response to the IRS under Carter investigating "seg academies" that sprung out in the South to avoid court-ordered desegregation in the public schools.

Anyway, whether we like it or not, the Gospel does have political implications. Even though he said that His Kingdom was "not of this world," Jesus Himself was a political figure in his day precisely because He was a threat to the established order. Knowing Him intimately does have implications for all of one's life, not just "salvation" or participation within a local church. The only problem is when religion is used for the sake of political power, which the likes of James Dobson has always done but I have never seen Wallis do -- take away the spotlight and Wallis will still do what he does.

Posted by: Rick | September 15, 2008 10:49 PM

"What is the deal on this blog? I thought Christians posted here, but all I see is hate spewing from right wingers."

Translation: I am reading things with which I disagree.

Read: How dare they criticize us!

Posted by: Rick | September 15, 2008 10:55 PM

william, the post you reference was out of line. i don't think it was intended to say you are a racist, but it certainly was not a very nice response, and i too would have been offended was it directed at me. then again, your post, the one to which it was a response, wasn't brimming with the spirit of mutual respect either. you said to jim that he wants to "Give the state unlimited powers and all these problems will be 'solved,'" that he politicizes everything and that his "is a pure political gospel and nothing else." really? if i was rev. jim, i think i would have taken issue with that too.

if mr. wallis is permitting things to be said by not monitoring this site for content to your liking, then he has also permitted posters here to say i am an apostate headed for the lake of fire when i'm done (nevermind the wonderful contributions of Donny or any crazy right-winger we could ascribe to jim under your logic). your association of someone else's content to jim wallis is pure sophistry. how can you say with a straight face that jim wallis is bearing false witness because you are ascribing to jim what an anonymous blog poster put in the comments? show respect & the odds of it being shown to you will increase. peace

Posted by: nad2 | September 15, 2008 11:27 PM

"Read: How dare they criticize us!"

Not really. I don't recall ever getting up in arms over the fact that people disagree with me here.

" i read that response by the obama team on factcheck to mean that indeed they are denying that anyone is there one behalf of obama or the dnc."

That people are there on his behalf is indisputable.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 16, 2008 12:20 AM

I don't recall ever getting up in arms over the fact that people disagree with me here.

That you made that post in practice says otherwise. The real problem is that conservatives often project their motivations onto other people and assume that their opponents do certain things because they would do the same if given the opportunity, witness their consistent attacks on the MSM.

Posted by: Rick | September 16, 2008 12:54 AM

The real problem is that conservatives often project their motivations onto other people and assume that their opponents do certain things because they would do the same if given the opportunity"

Actually that is how I have taken many of the posts here by certain bloggers on the racist roots of conservatism . I agree with you in a sense but that I believe liberals often do this .
They are racist seeing the way laws should be enacted such as affirmitive action , hence they project racism in everyone . I have seen racism in all avenues , but never more preavalent then in liberal strong holds , like my Union job or political grandstanding by the left like Hate Crimes legislation that is about as helpfull as anti gay petitions .
In religion The worse offenders I see is the secular media and its unprofessional and lack of in depth reporting on religion from the mainstream media , from Sean Hannity screaming about Reverend Wright and his cult . Sean Hannity has no clue to Black Theology being as common as it is . The Church of Christ is a mainstream denomination , and Trinity is the biggest church in that denomination . We now have the CNN anchor talking about what will happen if
Sarah Palen was influended by her Assembly of God teaching in childhood . Ahhhhh , the world will fall apart by the teaching of the fastest growing Evanagelical church in America , and the largest Penetecostal denomination in the world .
What will we have , people advocating food and shelter for the homeless. baton down the hatches , God is in the House .
Most media have no clue to the spirtual beliefs or the importance people put in Faith in God by regulr people .Elites see it as a crutch , something for the uneducated . When they find it , they are scared of it or mis charactercize it to fit a stereotypical box .

Just like some do with conservatives , and what i do to liberals too I guess.

Posted by: Michael | September 16, 2008 1:42 AM

Here in Dar es Salaam Christians strongly believe that GOD has enabled Obama to reach the position, Democratic Party Presidential nominee, that he has.

We are not so politically correct and would, without any prompting tell you that the white man would NEVER allow a black man to be the leader of a country dominated by white people.

Incidentally, here, Obama would be called 'white' by many Africans, because, at least, he is half-white.

And,

Most of my fellow Africans, reading the comments here, would call Kevin S, Peter S and a host of others RACIST.

FR

we believe that Americans will decide the next President

Posted by: | September 16, 2008 3:41 AM

It is not racist to criticize Senator Obama.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 16, 2008 4:20 AM

Thank-you Nad2 and Squeaky for your contributions; and to those expressing desire for fair and reasoned dialogue.

Last night at bedtime prayer my 8-yr-old quietly revealed, "Daddy, I'm trying to love God more than anybody; but I love you so much; but I am getting there."

Could I submit to such a simple call to a live of love, allowing my words, meditations, and acts to be fully pleasing to God; reflecting an understanding and humility that would be truly a gift to those around me?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 16, 2008 4:43 AM

Michael wrote:

I am tired of your insulting diatribes hiding in I obey all rues of conduct , I insult everyone who disagrees with me BUT with no names attached . What are you a professional insulter ?

Whom have I insulted? Name names, please. If the answer that comes to your mind is you, Michael, you have to carry at least some of the blame. During our last exchange, you went to great lengths to make sure you misunderstood me so you could ream me out, and then you threw in some insults of your own ("grow up!"). In fact, calling me a "professional insulter" is itself rather an insult. Meanwhile, during that exchange, I tried to make sure my replies stuck to the issues and stayed away from personalities. Believe me, that wasn't easy, as I was getting more and more steamed with your intransigence and belligerence.

How many times do we have bloggers here speak to the racist origins of beliefs that differ with your ULTRA LIBERAL VIEWS . I never see you speak to that , NEVER .

I have never brought up the racist thing. Never. And I don't comment on it because I have nothing to say on it. Frankly, I try not to spout on about things I don't know much about. I just don't think that's a wise thing to do. Maybe the racist thing is true, maybe it isn't, but I don't really know. So why should I respond out of ignorance? Just to defend people like you who are offended by such comments, or to make you feel good?

The answer to the racist thing, instead of attacking people here because they refuse to counter such comments, is to do some research yourself and find out if what is being said is true. And if it isn't, give the reasons why it isn't. Otherwise you are just whining.

And you don't really know what my views are, because sometimes I play devil's advocate here to try and get people thinking. Sometimes what I write here, in other words, doesn't reflect my own views. So calling me an 'ultra liberal' is rather silly, isn't it?

HPulllesse , we know you always had a problem with the religious right , or beliefs that conflict with yours . If it makes you feel better the leftys here think your intellectually and kind hearted .

My problem is not with well-articulated, well-defended views on either side of an issue or on either side of the political spectrum. My problem is with people who think personal attacks are arguments and who are then offended when they are confronted with that fact.

But on email Don , your just an ultra liberal throwing mud on conservatives . That is how your viewed by us .

Laugh out loud!!! Michael, who is throwing mud here?

For one thing [Rev Wallis] needs to respect those who differ, he needs to understand those in Christ ...

Respect is a mutual thing, Michael. Please tell me, do any of the following comments, taken right from this thread, exhibit respect for Rev. Wallis and the Sojourners organization?

"Mr. Wallis, is there anything in life you have not politicized? From the weather to the food we eat to the very worship of Jesus Christ, you have politicized everything. You are not the only one, but yours is a pure political gospel and nothing else."

"Jim co-opts Jesus on every issue that he supports."

"I don't employ lobbyists in a commune in DC to change US politics, or have a pseudo-christian leftist propaganda magazine that continually brow-beats anyone and everyone who has ever stepped foot in a church to believing that Jesus would like higher taxes in the US to accompany a more 'socialized' political agenda."

Isn't it possible, Michael, that Rev. Wallis' thoughts about the Religious Right are informed by the attitudes expressed in comments such as these?

Finally, Michael, you really to re-read and reflect on Squeaky's reply to our last exchange. It's on Amy Sullivan's "Are evangelicals sold on Palin" thread. (Posted by: squeaky | September 9, 2008 7:32 PM) I don't sense from what I read here that you have taken her comments to heart.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 16, 2008 6:50 AM

I concur with comments about public debt and deficit spending needing to be in Top 5.

To me public debt represents not only poor stewardship, bad policy, and a 'mortgaging' of the future; but also a fundamental failure to govern. This USA 'experiment' in self-governance risks melt-down.

The melt-down in financial services sector has no single cause but I fear we are seeing but a sliver of a harvest that has been sewn. The financial services sector is a monster created by a thousand forces. We need good governance--and a basic national revival of ethical responsibility.

Government reform must occur to bring a revived governance. We have two "reform candidates." Sadly, I cannot say I see either one having waged an effective battle for reform in the Senate. I am always doubtful of reformers who only need a little more power to accomplish the reform they advocate. I am doubtful of reformers who believe they can forego reform in the way they get power so as to change once they get there.

The budget is the primary mechanism for governance. It demands not only one take a stand on an issue (e.g. "I am for truth, justice and the American Way"), but requires us to conceive exactly the parameters of what government can/should do. The failure to control the budget largely represents the failure to debate and agree on how to govern.

This failure is rampant in government, business, churches, families and individuals--and these are connected.

Let us awake from our slumber. God has granted us a spirit of power, love and a sound mind. Deficit spending is fear. Let us dialogue, vote and govern with a clarity of mind, heart, and love.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 16, 2008 7:44 AM

First, while Jerry Falwell was a segregationist when he was younger, he certainly did not hold to that position in his later years. If we are going to hold him to the earlier standard, then we also should hold Mr. Wallis to the same standard.

When Mr. Wallis was younger, he fervently supported Mao ze Dong during the Cultural Revolution. Clark Pinnock, who was part of Mr. Wallis' circle when they were in Chicago, wrote about how all of them believed that what Mao was doing was perfectly in line with what the Gospels preached.

Remember that Mao had the bloodiest reign of any dictator in history, and he was even more brutal than Hitler or Stalin. So, would it be fair to say that Mr. Wallis today supports genocide? Obviously not, but if one is going to call all Christian conservatives racist, then it would se