DISQUS

Cynthia Adams · 3 years ago

After viewing the segment here, I am not sure Wallis came out ahead. Perkins' language is clear, simple, focused, and unambiguous. Wallis' language is more intellectual, broader in scope, of course, and less easily understood in this segment. Unfortunately, the interviewer makes it look like we are just seeking a political position, instead of standing where we have always stood but making it more public. I'd call this one a 'draw'. Sorry.>

Tim Palmer · 3 years ago

The Religious Institute applauds Wallis' calls for a broader conversation about religion and human sexuality. For more thoughts on this, see Rev. Haffner's blog at www.debrahaffner.blogspot.com>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

Cynthia,


Perhaps that is because Wallis clings to his talking points as though they were scriptural truths. Honestly, I don't think either man really said anything, or addressed the heart of the argument in any real way.>

Frank · 3 years ago

kevin s.,


At least someone is trying to speak spiritual truths. Is your idea of spiritual truths holy war rhetoric? You know, the "it's a mean, nasty, violent, militaristic, angry, black vs. white, take it or leave it" kind of world. Did Jesus promulgate an 'us vs. them' mentality? Did he describe people seeking a moral center to bring people together "dead skunks?">

Joanna · 3 years ago

After watching it last night, my husband and I agreed that Wallis DID come out ahead. Perkins' divisive language was not full of grace and respect like Wallis', and I think that is key to credibility as a leader claiming to be a Christian. Wallis made more sense, and, as has been mentioned, didn't refer to anyone as a 'dead skunk'.>

Bob · 3 years ago

I feel like Wallis came out much better, although I can understand some people saying that they agree with both at points. I feel like the primary difference between Perkins and Wallis is a matter of emphasis (thus acknowledging that both "sides" care about some of the same issues). As biblical Christians, should the PRIMARY planks of our political efforts - upon which we build everything else - be homosexuality and abortion or justice and compassion?


It seems to me that - if we want to place the emphasis where Jesus and the OT prophets did - we should be concerned with the widow, the orphan, the alien, the stranger, and the least of these. THAT'S the language and constant refrain of the Bible. I am still baffled how 1) scapegoating gays for the disintegration of marriage (while not paying attention to the high failure rate of Christian marriages) and 2) fighting for the unborn (often at the expense of supporting any programs that actually care for these kids once born) have somehow trumped the 2,000 biblical mentions of God's heart for the poor and oppressed. Jesus never mentioned abortion or homosexuality, so how have those become the cornerstones of the Right wing's platform? It is not that those issues cannot and should not be inportant, but I agree with Wallis that we as the church should be taking the lead on issues that are so clearly about justice, mercy, and compassion (i.e. fighting poverty globally and domestically, not baptizing profit-over-all economic policy, protecting the most vulnerable, seeking peace, etc.).



It is unfortunate that in some non-faith circles Christianity has come to be seen as completely antithetical to the very virtues that Jesus modeled for us. Shouldn't it be the Christians, with their faith of mercy and compassion, being a voice for the voiceless? Rather, the loudest Christians tell people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and believe that the best economic policy is to pad the pockets of the rich, eschew any government programs, and believe that the most vulnerable are somehow magically helped by the trickle down effect. I don't see Jesus as a trickle down sort of guy, letting the market do what it will regardless of who gets mashed in its gears and just hoping that it all equals out in the end.



Lastly, as Wallis mentioned, the evangelical tradition - back before the Modernist controversy, the fundamentalist debacle, and the popular advent of dispensational theology - was firmly grounded in a progressive social tradition that did not sacrifice the Gospel message while maintaining a robust social gospel rooted in the here and now. Where is the Bible's emphasis, and where is ours?>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Jim says that the monologue of the Religious Right is over and a new dialogue has begun. He invited Ralph Reed to express his views on this brand new blog. This story makes it pretty clear such an offer is not forthcoming from the leaders of the Religious Right. They will happily go right on monologuing, vaguely remembering that other people exist, but only in theory.


I'm happy that everyday Religious Right folks are not so obtuse. Thank you all for engaging us as something other than roadkill.>

Will · 3 years ago

I am grateful that Jim Wallis and Sojourners are getting wider exposure. The segment was just that, a segment. I thought Jim sounded strong and inviting. Let's make sure that this kind of coverage of evangelical progressives continues -- and that more progressive Christian voices are amplified in the press such as Diana Butler Bass, Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren, Alan Jones, Michael Battle, Sister Helen Prejean, Desmond Tutu and Ched Myers.


For the monologue to be over -- we all need to speak up online, in our churches, and in our communities. There are many people especially in rural America (I was born and raised in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia) who don't realize that there are progressive evangelical Christians. So even short segments in the media like the one last night make a difference.



There have been progressive Christians throughout history --- St. Francis of Assisi was hardly a hard-hearted conservative, nor was Dorothy Day in the 20th century. St. Francis was a pacifist who refused to support the crusades and went on a peace mission to meet with the "enemy." Dorothy Day was a strong supporter of worker rights and critic of the military industrial complex. Both were sincere Christians who believed in the Bible, in the creeds, and believed that Jesus wanted followers of his way of life not just worshippers.



Also Democrats have spoken about their faith and how it shapes public policy for a long time. Robert F. Kennedy was very articulate about how faith called us to care for the least of these. FDR's New Deal was organized by people of faith like Episcopalian Frances Perkins, also the first woman on a president's cabinet. We progressive Christians need to remember our history and our heros -- the Saints of God who have spoken out in every generation for justice, peace and human dignity.>

Bucky Blue · 3 years ago

I think the difference you see is the difference between a politician and a man of god. Perkins may very well be a believer but he uses the words of a politicians whose goal is to affect legislation. Calling people extreme is making a political reference. That's my major issue, how politicized my faith has become. My faith has become a way of getting out the vote, or speaking the language of the voters. I believe christians need to be in the political process and can and should use their faith in office, but I hate the backward influencing. It has made Christianity and the claims of Christ less powerful. The more political power Christians have, and a certain type of christian has, the less 'real' power that the church and Christians actually possess. You can pass all of the legislation you want to stop certain behaviors but that will have less effect than lives changed through Jesus.>

clarissa · 3 years ago

Here is what I think. I personally believe that if we are as we say that we are true christians and we belive in what Jesus was about accoring to scripture, then we need to stand next to what the issues are. And to me why are we arguing over what the issues are. Yes there are alot of problems in todays world. We do not live in Christs time. We live in ours and we are the ones who let this world get this bad. We are no one else. So in order to "fix" things, we need to fix everything not just the ones that are politically correct. So I say to start with the most pressing issues first. Help our children, and familes get strong in God first, then we can go from there. We must also educate ourselves and our children, instead of working on the christian vote.>

victoria loorz · 3 years ago

sigh. i understand how the media has to make a story...and nothing works better than to catch a catfight on tape. perkins was willing and proficient in his catfighting. i think wallis was beautiful in his refusal to play the game the media and the right want to make him play. keeping focused on what the real issues are, and evading the pressure to be a spokesman for the "enemy on the left" keeps him squarely, imho, in the footsteps of Jesus, who never answered a politically-motivated question directly. he just kept focused on his message. you go, jim! you're awesome. we're behind you. keep it up.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

Victoria,


Jim Wallis says the same thing, regardless of the questions asked. He is phenomenal at message discipline, I'll give him that.



Bucky,



I think you see Jim Wallis as less political because you agree with him. he is very, very political.>

Frank · 3 years ago

hey kev s., again, he's not political in the "it's a mean, nasty, violent, militaristic, angry, black vs. white, take it or leave it" sense. And because that style is par for the course I'm sure that seems "foreign" to you. Rev. Wallis is different from most everyone else in that he's able to address the left-right "talking points" and keep on his moral center message at the same time.>

Frank · 3 years ago

But is he political? Yes, at least I hope so.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

The problem is that he does not engage the criticisms of his ideas. He feigns in the direction of answering a question, and then retreats to one of the cliches he evokes in his book.


I work in government affairs, so this is in no way foreign to me.



I am not accustomed to mean or nasty dialogue, nor do I appreciate it, but I would appreciate substance from someone who claims to have found a new way.



I think Newt Gingrich is a good example of this concept. He explains his ideas in detail, and engages criticisms of those viewpoints. Wallis could learn something from Newt in this regard (he could learn something about sound policy too, but that's a different discussion).>

justintime · 3 years ago

Newt Gingrich is an arrogant, divisive, mean spirited failure - hardly a model for public discourse or public policy.
.>

Frank · 3 years ago

kevin s., Wallis doesn't engage criticisms? He has repeatedly invited numerous religious conservatives to debate him. And of several with great dismay I might add. He's met publicly with numerous government officials as well. You say, "The problem is that he does not engage the criticisms of his ideas." You're forgetting that many political criticisms come from the corrosive left-right paradigm and that's exactly why they are not engaged. Besides, I recall Gingrich and the boys saying liberals were the ones who made folly of seeing every criticism of every issue?!?>

Tenoch · 3 years ago

Thank you Jim Wallis for articulating a faith that rejects the xenophobic fundamentalist hate that I argue still monopolizes U.S. evangelical discourse.


We need to show the Party of Torture & War that there are people of faith who will not be ashamed of the teachings of Jesus.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

Frank,


Simply meeting with people does not mean you are intelligently engaging their ideas (see Hannity and Colmes). Instead of engaging a debate about how to implement government policies that are effective at helping the poor, he simply says that conservatives don't care about the poor.



Look at what his supporters are saying on this board. Conservatives are espousing "xenophobic fundamentalist hate". Republicans are the party of torture and war (as though the Democrats have never, in this nations history, conducted war or condoned torture). That's not dialogue, that's sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs.



I brought up Newt Gingrich, and had two quick responses telling me what an awful person he is. Take some time, and listen to the way he engages debate, remembering that this is a man who WAS effective in achieving change in Washington.>

Joseph · 3 years ago

Lets not forget there is no Left no
midle of the way... GOD is always "Right"..keep up the good works and dont forget angels are taking notes!

Joseph>

justintime · 3 years ago

Yes, the Grinch was the first to show Republicans what they could do when they have a majority.
Achieve change the Republican Way - "Our way or the highway!".



Newt Gingrich shut down the US Government and poisoned the well of public discourse in America.

And it's become more and more toxic ever since.



And this is a guy who asked his first wife for a divorce when she was on her death bed.



Newt Grinch's bright ideas have led to corrupt government, a tyranny of the majority and America deeper into corporate feudalism.



Americans have had enough of heartless opportunists in their government.



If the Republicans run this pathetic human being for President, they will be crushed.

.>

Tenoch · 3 years ago

kevin,


Followers of Jesus' teachings naturally will never support xenophobic fundamentalist hate, no matter how politically fashionable it is.



This blog calls for dialogue, yes, but that musn't be confused with calls for being ashamed of Jesus' teachings. There is a difference.>

Frank · 3 years ago

Kevin s.,
Re Instead of engaging a debate about how to implement government policies that are effective at helping the poor, he simply says that conservatives don't care about the poor. I ve heard Wallis say that churches are good at pulling the bodies out of the river, but at some point someone needs to go upriver and see who keeps throwing them in. Alternatives are recommended in God s Politics. But if the dialogue continues to be defined so narrowly, alternative solutions remain unattainable. How can we engage your side when it s so comfortably aligned with the black or white, take it or leave it, narrowly presented conservative-political agenda?



In regards to your criticism of the supporters here I would simply say that emotions are running high everywhere. I don t think it does any good to accuse anybody of hate. Both of us should not condone that. But there s a fine line here. One can seem civil but still harbor a kind of subtle contempt. Let me ask you something in all sincerity and I m not trying to pick a fight here. How is the Barbara Bush mindset not indicative of a type of shared contempt for poor people held between her family and their supporters? When asked about the shelter situation after hurricane Katrina Mrs. Bush replied, "This is working very well for them and so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them." Can you see how this mindset might conflict with the religious conservative agenda when they remain so tightly partnered with the Right?



And lastly, one can expect some strong speech in a kind of culture of anger that has been developing for several years. But one should not expect this from religious leaders. Have you listened to Rod Parsley lately, kevin s.? Have you ever heard a Russell Johnson speak? It s strange and scary.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

Emotions aren't running high everywhere. That's the thing. The majority of people are not ready to come to blows over these issues. If you want to make a difference, you can't be either.


As far as contempt goes, the quote, in context, doesn't reveal contempt. Bush was gushing about the hospitality of her home state, and made an ill-advised comment.



She is 80-something, not president, and neither is she all that conservative. So to say that her views are reflexive of some undercurrent of poor hatred among conservative Christians is nonsensical.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Kevin S.


I don't think you know very much about Barbara Bush or the Bush dynasty.



"American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips will open your eyes.

Phillips is the Republican strategist who came up with Nixon's so called Southern Strategy that produced the present American political landscape.

Phillips is an impeccable scholar and has the goods on the Bushes.

.>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Gingrich....


Whoa. I disagree with the man and most of his public actions. And I do think he bears responeibility for some pretty awful things. However, I would like to suggest we all learn our lesson from Bono and Jess Helms [or Wallis and Bright!].



Bono disagrees with Helms and thinks he has been responsibile for some pretty bad policy decisions. The Edge advised Bono not to even approach Jesse Helms. In the end, Jesse turned out to be one of Bono's most powerful allies in working to alleviate poverty and disease in Africa, as did Pat Robertson.



Whatever anathema some people feel for Gingrich, Clinton, Falwell, or Kerry I would like to suggest that it is always possible we can cooperate and work together. But we can only do that if we are willing to put down our fists even while the other side is still swinging. As long as we judge, name-call, and condemn someone it is only likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Jim's prophetic message is that reconciliationa nd cooperation are always possible, but only if we select it. If we accept division and resentment and build our house on such shaky ground then we have doomed ourselves to failure. We have allowed cynicism to steal our hopefulness.



We need to be the ones who offer hope. If we cannot do so then we only do the first job of a prophet, which is to complain and protest. Prophets always have to go on to highlight a path to set things to rights. We have one. Let's engage Gingrich and everyone else.>

justintime · 3 years ago

I hear you Daniel, but after reading some of Newt's latest rants, I can see he hasn't changed and feels no remorse for his past.


How can you approach arrogance, divisiveness and opportunism personified?



If Bono can reach Jesse Helms and Pat Robertson, maybe he can reach Newt.

I'll have to leave Newt up to Bono.

I wish him the best.



Curious, though, did Bono talk Robertson into leaving his African dictator friends, selling his investments in the African slave worked gold and diamond mines and closing his off shore tax shelters?

.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

Phillips' work relies on, among other things, thoroughly debunked conspiracy theorists, works that have been pulled by their publishers, and works that have cited only anonymous sources.


He sold a lot of books, and he has otherwise produced credible work, but one can see where the scent of sales conflicted with his objectivity.>

Frank · 3 years ago

IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT by kevin s. on - 09.23.06 @ 6:10 pm


"The majority of people are not ready to come to blows over these issues."



You wouldn t have said that with a deigning grin on your face would you ve? These issues are very important and hopefully they re very important to everyone on this blog. I m also very thankful for the opportunity to try and make the very best I can out of this journey, even with you.



If you want to make a difference, you can't be either.



I will just say that it's not as easy for me. And declaring your own cool demeanor raises my doubt level about you, quite honestly, kevin s. But there's no need to even go there... A rolling stone gathers no moss.



I don t know how reliable your overall information and analysis is regarding Barbara Bush but K. Phillips is dead on about that family dynasty." We should ask the leading expert. Perhaps you might be the nonsensical one if you think she simply made some "ill-advised" remarks in the midst of some kind of terrible distress. What was the word for the way you said she was acting? Gushing? Any you accuse others of pretending to answer questions. Shame on you, kevin s.



p.s. You are no critic of Kevin Phillips, I m sorry.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Kevin S. says:


"Phillips' work relies on, among other things, thoroughly debunked conspiracy theorists, works that have been pulled by their publishers, and works that have cited only anonymous sources."



You speak with such authority, Kevin.

Could you be more specific about your claims?

And have you actually read "American Dynasty"?

It's clear that you don't want to believe the truth about the Bush family.

Your statements sound like you're just passing on to us what someone else has said about Phillip's book.

Where do you get your information about current events and politics in America?

.>

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Everyone has comment,even I. I pray both can pull togather and do whats right.We know what is right and what is wrong.It is time we pull togather in the Lord and leave the ritual of religon behind. If you don,t have the spirit you only have religon.An empty shell without the spirit. We are supose to join togather in the Lord not go our seperate ways.Both essues are good,now pull togather.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

Of course that is what has been said about Phillips book. Do you think I went and investigated every single one of his sources to verify their veracity? However, what I said is true, and was widely available during the peak of the book's popularity. The New York Times (one of the places I go to find out what's goingon in America) described the book as a collection of "angry, conspiratorial rants". No thanks.


Frank said:



"You wouldn t have said that with a deigning grin on your face would you ve?"



On this board, I have been accused (albeit obliquely) of, alternately, being a hate-driven troglodyte, and a condescending snob. Please inform me which one I am, and I will play to type.



Perhaps, I am just interested in these issues, and their interrelationship with our faith?



Frank also said:



"And declaring your own cool demeanor raises my doubt level about you, quite honestly, kevin s."



So, my demeanor should be "all rage, all the time"? I can get fired up over these issues. I am often frustrated by Jim Wallis' brutal misinterpretation of Biblical text to advance a partisan viewpoint (which he claims, absurdly, to be nonpartisan). However, my disagreements are forged of an understanding of policy, and I temper my beliefs with the reality that any political ideology is fallible, even if it is successful.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Kevin S.


Good to hear that the NYT is one of your sources for news and opinion.

But remember the NYT prints a wide range of opinions and you can find opposite opinions on just about any topic in the NYT.

If you find a negative review on "The Bush Dynasty" I'll find you a positive review, also from the NYT.

If you haven't read the book, you're just taking someone else's word for what's in there.

Finding the truth takes an effort.

.>

Gabrielle · 3 years ago

Jim Wallis , Genius. Ralph Reed, Skunk.
Let's bring back the Tradition of SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

It made life so much worth living, sweeter really.

On Love, Let's get progresssive. Marriage for ALL, and for ALL a good marriage. Now that would be sweet.>

Frank · 3 years ago

OK, kevin, I can't continue to keep going back and forth with you about temperament. Especially if you cannot clearly see and acknowledge that the power structure is completely entrenched throughout the country, inside the government and out. Conservatives placate their own moderate wing, which makes their extreme philosophy and policies seem relevant. Sadly, the right imagines Clinton as a subversive radical and much of the "liberal left" chooses to view him as a hero. I appreciate your humble effort to be fair and balanced but these are not mere fallible hypotheses. There is no room for diplomacy in these conditions, no matter the temperament.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

I consider Clinton a moderate democrat.
It wasn't his politics I found so appalling, it was the rest of him.



Frank,



If there is no room for diplomacy and debate, then we have nothing else to say to each other.>

Frank · 3 years ago

Enjoy your sporty perspective on politics and religion, sir. For the first time I think you're dead on. We don't have anything else to say to each other. You s
ee what you want to see. I'm not your opponent in some 'winner or loser' game. No intelligent person on this blog wants your left-right blame game either. I'm sorry.>

Frank · 3 years ago

btw, I don't recall asking for your opinion of Bill Clinton. Again, you miss the larger point.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Separation of Church and State is a crucial part of America's Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers were only too familiar with religious persecution by the tyranny of a majority.

That's why they put it in there.



Religious reformers make a big mistake when they ignore the Constitution in their efforts to make things right.



All this does is create resentment, divisiveness, fear, friction, heat, anger, even violence, with little progress made on the very issues dear to the reformers.



Religious reformers need to find other ways to accomplish their goals besides destroying Separation of Church and State provisions in the United States Constitution.



Marriage for all and for all a good marriage.



That's sweet, Gabrielle.

Can I use that?

.>

Tenoch · 3 years ago

"Religious reformers need to find other ways to accomplish their goals besides destroying Separation of Church and State provisions in the United States Constitution."


Well stated, justintime. And a good place for them to start is with the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never taught his followers to campaign for state-enforced religion. Not once.



Jesus offers a fairly simple yet profound gospel. But will fundamentalist evangelicals dare follow it?>

justintime · 3 years ago

Isn't that what the Bible says:


"Render unto Caesar what is due Caesar and unto God what is due God."



Did I get that right?

.>

Gabrielle · 3 years ago

It's my copywright, Marriage for all and for all a good Marriage. I see teeshirts, bumber stickers , huge banners. I have a great one for Bush, makes my mother's eyes roll, but I love it in all it's crass.Here is what you can do, make a donation to any organization that promotes tolerance, that will pay for your use of the phrase. America needs to revisit tolerance. Walk her talk so to speak.>

Frank · 3 years ago

I must have run kevin off?>

justintime · 3 years ago

Gabrielle,


I could use one of those bumper stickers.

.>

Mark Calder · 3 years ago

Cynthia Adams, I disagree. It may be a cultural thing but, as a Brit, I found Perkins superficial, insulting, evasive, unloving, naive, childish and ultimately embarrassing as a fellow Christ follower.


He wouldn't get air time over here.>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

I would pay poster "Bob" for using his quote:


"As biblical Christians, should the PRIMARY planks of our political efforts - upon which we build everything else - be homosexuality and abortion, or justice and compassion?"



I vote for the latter. It's what Jesus taught.>

RHEMA · 3 years ago

What the sacrilegious right fails to realize is that after they succeed in breaking down the barrier between church and state, then the government is going to turn on them. If they believe in "end times" and a one world religion, they should have the intelligence to understand that a "one world religion" would be difficult to enforce in the United States because of separation of church and state, but if you eliminate that principle, it's easier to ease it in. They don't even realize that they are being suckered into setting up end time conditions.


Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. After they get their barriers broken down, then the government is going to create rules to govern the new conditions, which is what government does. It regulates. Right now, they are free to preach as they are led for the most part. In the future, they won't be. Then if they don't abide by the law, there will be a knock on the door and they won't have anyone to blame but themselves.



In the words of Pastor Martin Niem ller (1892-1984) when speaking of the Germans under Hitler:



First they came for the Communists,

and I didn t speak up,

because I wasn t a Communist.



Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn t speak up,

because I wasn t a Jew.



Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn t speak up,

because I was a Protestant.



Then they came for me,

and by that time there was no one

left to speak up for me.



Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Jim Wallis' position is a better one than Perkins'. Believers should be focusing on ministry more than political domination and divisiveness.>

Erma · 3 years ago

Perhaps I should not be offended by perkins' characterization of Wallis as "roadkill." Consider the fate of Jesus>

Anonymous · 3 years ago

After watching the right wing, Christian conservatives use power grabs to push their politics, I am just as fearful of the left wing, liberal Christians now attempting to do the same thing.


We are all prone to do evil. Abandon politics and let's all go serve our communities! Jesus never turned to the government to announce his social agenda, he just loved, healed and communed with others. When the "tyranny of the majority" turned against him, he submitted to them, and he instructed his disciples to do the same thing.



By debating politics are you putting your hope in the God of love or in the idolatry of government?>

Gabrielle · 3 years ago

God gave me a voice and I am using it.
God gave me an open mind and I am keeping it.

Jesus was a rebel thinker, questioned the status quo and I read had quite a temper, table turning in the temple.

My hope is that a compassionate mind will win out over a conditioned mind.>