Stones Cry Out

Amen and amen!

Sadly, much of what passes for political commentary from many on the Christian Right is boorish, rude, and idolatrous.

Like you, I don't agree with everything that Wallis has to say. But it is difficult to argue that he is less than Christian given the apparent authenticity of his life and witness.

Amen and amen!

Sadly, much of what passes for political commentary from many on the Christian Right is boorish, rude, and idolatrous.

Like you, I don't agree with everything that Wallis has to say. But it is difficult to argue that he is less than Christian given the apparent authenticity of his life and witness.

I think I've made it perfectly clear that I have little use for Sojourners. I find their views to be nearly indistinguishable from that of ANSWER or IndyMedia. That said, I would never question Wallis' salvation. Falwell is really a bore these days and Sean Hannity's complicity in that sort of thing is really disappointing.

But is the word "liberal" really that off base? I'm not criticizing, but I think that's a fair definition of Wallis's politics.

You're right, Matt, Wallis is definitely a liberal, perhaps most evident because he uses the word progressive so much now--the new euphemism for the L word.

But Falwell snarled the word "secular" to go along with. It was quite obvious that he was saying to Wallis: "You are not a Christian." And that totally on the basis of policy differences.

Terrible.

Second the motion.

I would describe my politics as being classically conservative. I'm a registered Republican and I ran as a Republican candidate for the state House of Representatives here in Ohio last year.

But we need to quit viewing "liberal" as a swear word. It is a perfectly legitimate political philosophy with a proud heritage. Furthermore, I know as many Christians who are liberals in their politics as those who identify themselves as being conservatives.

So, even though Falwell used "liberal" as an adjective for "secularist" in his snarling denunciation of Jim Wallis, he clearly feels that one cannot be both Christian and liberal. He is dead wrong and he should be ashamed of himself for saying so.

Mark, as I said in numerous posts below, I'm still waiting for someone to square modern-day liberalism with Scripture. I've yet to hear a biblical basis for welfare state economics. I'm not holding my breath.

And today's liberals have a proud heritage? Like who? Marx? Rousseau? Derida and Foucault? Please. The best they can claim is Mill or Bentham, but lots of consertaives have done well with those two. (Mill moreso than Bentham, but still) Today's liberalism don't have a philosophical heritage. If they did, they wouldn't result to scare tactics. Jonah Goldberg had a long thread about this a while back. I'll try to google it.

That should read: Today's liberalism doesn't...

Here's the link I mentioned:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_05_16_corner-archive.asp

Jonah's argues that there is a heritage, but not one that many liberals can articulate. For point. We have WFB promoting Edmund Burke, but where is the liberal of similar stature promoting John Rawls?

That should read: Today's liberalism doesn't...

Here's the link I mentioned:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_05_16_corner-archive.asp

Jonah's argues that there is a heritage, but not one that many liberals can articulate. For point. We have WFB promoting Edmund Burke, but where is the liberal of similar stature promoting John Rawls?

I can tell you Matt, that when my dad left my mom, brother and I when I was about 5 and didn't provide child support, and my mom secured Section 8 housing for her family, we praised God - not Reagan who went on to cut the program in draconian fashion a few years later.

Were we in sin for accepting these government handouts? Did our government lead us into national sin for offering these handouts? Did voters who installed the leaders who offered these handouts commit sin themselves?

If you can build a Biblical case that shows either my family, our government, or the voters sinned, then I think you will have a case against liberalism.

My opposition to "liberalism" includes only those parts where I can demonstrate that it is not consistent with Scripture. I'm sure many liberal Christians would say the same thing about their opposition to conservatism.

Oh, and Matt, I still love you brother :-)

I don't associate traditional US liberalism with Marxism, any more than I associate traditional US conservatism with fascism.

US liberalism, exemplified by people like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, undertook experiments of policy that, among other things, combatted the Great Depression, defeated Hitler, integrated the US military, and passed landmark civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s.

Liberals in the 60s came to be like generals fighting the last war, prescribing programs patterened after the successful experiments of the 1930s and 40s. But their prescriptions were irrelevant and wasteful, lacking the creativity or the urgency that had characterized earlier liberal policies.

The American people came to see this and the emptiness of 60s-style liberalism was why, as the Vietnam War, certainly an expression of the uncreative atrophy into which liberalism had fallen, they were open to Richard Nixon and later, Ronald Reagan.

As time has passed, liberals have become the mirror image of conservatives from that earlier era: simply against everything.

But none of this argues that classic liberalism didn't have something to offer...or that it might not have something to offer in the future.

Nor does it say that the proponents of liberalism are un-Christian. Like conservative Christians, liberal Christians are small d democrats who believe in marketplace economic and a social safety net.

Hopefully, no Christian would argue that political philosophy should occupy a place any thing like ultimacy in their scheme of values. No matter what philosphies may be ours, we must all concede that in our political judgments, we could be completely and totally wrong. We must also concede that Jesus is not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Bull Moose.

America would be best served, as I think Hugh Hewitt has said, if both parties represented the very best in their philosophical traditions. I would add that it would be great that while that happens, people would respect each other's traditions.

No matter what philosphies may be ours, we must all concede that in our political judgments, we could be completely and totally wrong.

Amen... I keep having to remind myself about that on all my positions. Sometimes, as Ray has fairly rebuked me for, I write as if not trying to have a conversation. I should be more open to the ideas and thoughts of my Christian brothers and sisters (but never stop discerning).

I caught the "debate" too. How about the repeated demand for the address of the church at which Wallis held his membership or attended?

I enjoy your site. Keep up the good work.

Richard
lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com

I caught the "debate" too. How about the repeated demand for the address of the church at which Wallis held his membership or attended?

I enjoy your site. Keep up the good work.

Richard
lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com

ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICS AND XIANITY
I'd say democrats line up w/ biblical compassion, but not with practical teaching on the role of government. The more leftist Democrat position is certainly just this side of socialism, which in its full application, excuses and robs indidividuals of their responsibility to lead and provide for their families, making everyone wards of the state.

I think, however, the plans of Roosevelt and Truman were certainly more "christian" than the modern welfare state, in that they encouraged personal contribution and responsibility, and many of the plans were temporary, not permanent handouts that the government would have to continue to subsidize.

ON WALLIS AND SOJOURNERS
Definitely liberal politics in many ways, with Christian flavor. I used to be a Christian pacifist, until I heard a compelling biblical teaching about God, war, government, and justice. I understand people's desire to teach peace (peacemakers being called sons of God and all), but that teaching in and of itself cannot be used to teach governmental pacifism - in light of all scripture, it does not fit (IMHO).

However, I do think that liberal christianity does a better job at bringing the plight of the poor to our attention, and of empasizing our responsibility to care for the environment. But I also think that, esp. with respect to the former, conservatives don't get enough credit for feeding the poor, helping orphans, and ministering to prisoners - conservative Christians do a lot of that, perhaps more than their liberal counterparts. They just don't call as much attention to themselves and their causes (perhaps to their hurt).

I can't remember how many years ago, maybe 15 or so, that I was listening to a sermon concerning the future downfall of the church and Christianity in America. At the time I thought that this guy was way out here. I thought to myself "Comon now , The Christian testimoney in the greatest Christian Nation in the world was prophesized to be discredited?" "Christians falling away?" "No way" I said. The speaker, his name have I have long since been forgotton , was quite confident that the Christian Churches demise would come as a result of the marriage of the church and partisan politics. The church would no longer be united and would be swallowed up by politics. He iterated that the day the church aligned itself with political parties would be the beginning of the end.

Looking at this prophesy in todays environment I cannot help but feel very uneasy about this. Did you notice that the churches and its members are now often labeled liberals or conservatives rather than Christians? Does it seem to you that the church is increasingly partitioned as " Religous Right" or "Left" or "Centrist" ? Each group are almost to the point of labeling each other as apostates. As an example, consider Jerry Falwell in his denial of Jim Wallis's faith and even his claim as being a Christian. Folks, this is scary!

I am afraid that more and more people will be drawn into Christianity for the wrong reasons. The future may hold Republican Christians, Democratic Christians, Libertarian Christians and on and on. Will the church be seen as Christs and for Him or will it be seen as a political tool to accomplish secular results such as seeking office or increasing business potentials. People we are heading in the wrong direction here.

If we keep heading in the partisan direction the churches, swllowed up and political to the point that they may lose sight of Jesus.

Something to think about.