Listened to an interview with Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics: Why the Right gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It and editior of Sojourners Magazine today. Very, very interesting. I agree with a great deal of what he said. I HIGHLY recommend that you listen to this interview for a refreshing voice in the Evangelical community.
If you're more of a TV kind of person here's Jim Wallis on the Daily Show. (however, the radio interview is more in depth)
On a different note, while I was watching the Daily Show on Comedy Central I also looked at their other videos. Their "Top 5 Bush Inauguration Videos" were really funny. Especially "Black Bush" and "Speechalist" (Warning: Black Bush has way too much profanity (thankfully it's beeped out), however, if you can get past that it's really funny.)
The sad thing about the "Speechalist" video is that I totally relate to Bush because when I'm nervous I mess my words all up, too.
Philip Johnson, a famous architect died yesterday. Check out his most acclaimed building called the "Glass House". Amazing-isn't it? Never seen anything quite like it. It was actually the house he built for himself.
8 comments:
I guess Mr. Wallis is refreshing if you have never heard of John Shelby Spong, Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, Episcopalians, PCUSA, Unitarians, Tony Campolo...ad infinitum.
Let's see if I can summarize...
God believes in a progressive tax system, a flat tax would be sinful and would only benefit the rich. This is clearly spelled out in one of the "lost" gospels which were clearly written 100's of years before anything else in the New Testament.
God isn't quite clear about abortion and homosexuality and really doesn't want us to bicker about it because it will disrupt our families.
If God uses a word more times than another word in the Bible then that is His way of telling us it is more important. So any word used 3000 times must really be important! If he had time he would have explained how the words abortion and homosexuality don't appear in the Bible so there really not that important.
God's answer to Middle Eastern foreign relations..."Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King
God is very unhappy with Mr. Bush (so is Mr. Wallis by the way) because he is an arrogant, naive, white, male, conservative...ad infinitum, God wants Mr. Bush to listen to Mr. Wallis.
Seems to me this guy is just the other side of the coin, using the pretext of religion poorly to advance his personal views and his goal is simply to train more democrats on how to do the same.
Hi Joyce! That was me, Alison, on the previous blog. Who wrote the sarcastic comments about Jim Wallis? I find his/her insights quite refreshing!
Hi Joyce, this is Bryant, Margaret told me to read this entry and the long comment.
Dear Anonymous 12:41 am,
I've met Jim Wallis before, and have taken in much of his speaking and writing. You seem to be quite familiar with him too, but I can't help feeling that you've misrepresented him. I understand that you're employing sarcasm to make your point, but I feel that some implications of what you've said are misleading.
I highly doubt that the gnostic gospels are in any sense authoritative for Jim Wallis, and I highly doubt that he believes they were written before the canonical gospels. Do you have a source for this? Perhaps John Shelby Spong, members of the Jesus Seminar, and/or John Dominic Crossan believe these things, but Jim Wallis has theologically very little in common with these others. Also, it seems irresponsible to me to imply that all Episcopalians share these beliefs (or some of the other beliefs you mention). For example, N.T. Wright, an Anglican bishop, is commonly accepted to be the most formidable critic of the Jesus seminar and of the proponents of the gnostic gospels.
Further, my understanding is that Jim Wallis is pro-life (indeed, one of his main arguments is that we need to be pro-life on a broader scale) and believes that homosexual practice is not in line with God's desire for his people. Now, he is against making homosexuals scapegoats for the breakdown in the American family, rather than, say, heterosexual divorce. But that's a far cry from what you suggest in your comment.
I need to go to an appointment now, but there are other things you said that I also find to be misleading.
Two questions. Are you a follower of Jesus, and if so, do you think the tone and content of your comment were as faithful an expression of that as they could have been? Also, I'm curious about what sort (if any) of wisdom you think we might glean from the Bible about how to submit our personal and collective economic lives to Jesus and the cross-shaped ways of his kingdom? Perhaps it would be more constructive for you to offer some concrete rebuttals and even alternative proposals to those offered by Jim Wallis.
Thank you for your time.
- Posted By Turtle-Neck-Man
> "I understand that you're employing sarcasm to make your point"
It was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" and not so much sarcasm. The blog referenced videos from the Daily Show that I am sure employed the same type of technique. It can't be all that bad.
> "I highly doubt that the gnostic gospels are in any sense authoritative for Jim Wallis, and I highly doubt that he believes they were written before the canonical gospels. Do you have a source for this? Perhaps John Shelby Spong, members of the Jesus Seminar, and/or John Dominic Crossan believe these things, but Jim Wallis has theologically very little in common with these others."
I was not implying he agreed with the sentiment/beliefs/teachings of all of each of these references, but merely that the "refreshing" perspective he espoused in the interview (which I have listened to twice now) is classic theological liberalism and is nothing new, the folks on the list are just other examples, they have a lot in comment (primarily the denial in one form or another of the authority of scripture). I think if you search the Fresh Air archives you will find Terry Gross interviews at least one of these folks a month and there is no real difference in the types of things they say and what Wallis was saying.
> "Also, it seems irresponsible to me to imply that all Episcopalians share these beliefs (or some of the other beliefs you mention). For example, N.T. Wright, an Anglican bishop, is commonly accepted to be the most formidable critic of the Jesus seminar and of the proponents of the gnostic gospels."
Of course I did not mean each and every Episcopalian church is theologically liberal, but the leadership and direction of the church in the U.S. is chock full of it.
> "Further, my understanding is that Jim Wallis is pro-life (indeed, one of his main arguments is that we need to be pro-life on a broader scale) "
I hope you at least blushed a bit when you wrote that. If we assume he is pro-life because he thinks abortion results in the murder of an innocent human being then why don't they deserve to be protected by the same laws you and I are protected by? He espoused the word "justice" numerous times during the interview. Justice would be protecting the most vulnerable in our society and punishing those that murder babies in their womb (http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0501/05/A01-50709.htm). In fact he is redefining the word "pro-life" to mean something it doesn't really mean. His argument is the same as those that are "personally opposed to abortion" but don't want to create laws against it. These people are not and have never been considered "pro-life" and I don't think we should give Mr. Wallis the benefit of that label either. I predict that many more Democrats will adopt Wallis's version of "pro-life" before 2008 (http://www.lifenews.com/nat1157.html).
> "and believes that homosexual practice is not in line with God's desire for his people. Now, he is against making homosexuals scapegoats for the breakdown in the American family, rather than, say, heterosexual divorce. But that's a far cry from what you suggest in your comment. "
Not sure if you listened to the NPR interview but he made no mention of his view that homosexuality is not in line with God's desire for his (OR ALL) people. He avoided his particular view, basically made it out to be some sort of obscure debate between theologians, how many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Well it is not an issue that is all that debatable. The Bible is SO clear on this issue and all of the supposed arguments against the relevant texts of scriptures fall flat on their face (for $4.88 you can see for yourself @ amazon.com isbn=0764225243). The breakdown of the American family has numerous causes and I am not aware of any single movement in evangelicalism to put the blame all on homosexuals. It is simply a massive culture shifting issue and it got the prominence it rightly deserved.
> "Are you a follower of Jesus, and if so, do you think the tone and content of your comment were as faithful an expression of that as they could have been?"
I don't think tone comes across all that well in print. I disagree with Joyce and Mr. Wallis and expressed that. Theological liberalism is a great danger within the church, always has been, Spurgeon fought it (http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/dwngrd.htm) and so have many others. In general if I get really out of line my wife will let me know. After all she is a Bethel girl! If our views are as divergent as I think they are we are not going to get a lot of mileage out of a discussion on proper comment blog etiquette for Christians 101.
> "I'm curious about what sort (if any) of wisdom you think we might glean from the Bible about how to submit our personal and collective economic lives to Jesus and the cross-shaped ways of his kingdom?"
Vow of poverty, standing on a pillar for 60 years at a stretch, life of celibacy, reading lot's of really bad books about "god" that have made the NY Times list. Kidding :)
Honestly I don't really understand what that question means. Sounds very emergent however.
> "Perhaps it would be more constructive for you to offer some concrete rebuttals and even alternative proposals to those offered by Jim Wallis."
'I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound.' - Cornelius Van Til
Much of what Wallis stated is rebutted in any decent Systematic Theology book or in the Senate/House/Talk Radio everyday. During the interview he used the same sloganeering that is so prevalent today on the campaign trail and in the media. The idea that the poor may actually benefit from a smaller government and lower tax burdens on all citizens was simply portrayed as the rich wanting to get richer. Talk about not being "as faithful as expression as it could have been".
"The defining characteristics of modern liberalism are radical egalitarianism (the equality of outcomes rather than of opportunities) and radical individualism (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification). These may seem an odd pair, for individualism means liberty and liberty produces inequality, while equality of outcomes means coercion and coercion destroys liberty. If they are to operate simultaneously, radical egalitarianism and radical individualism, where they would compete, must be kept apart, must operate in different areas of life. That is precisely what we see in today's culture." - Robert Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah
The quote above is exactly what Wallis seems to be advocating when he uses the word "justice" for the poor.
One final quote from Machen in Christianity and Liberalism.
"What is it that forms the content of that primitive teaching? Is it a general principle of
the fatherliness of God or the brotherliness of man? Is it a vague admiration for the character of Jesus
such as that which prevails in the modern Church? Nothing could be further from the fact. "Christ died
for our sins," said the primitive disciples, "according to the Scriptures; he was buried; he has been raised
on the third day according to the Scriptures." From the beginning, the Christian gospel, as indeed the
name "gospel" or "good news" implies, consisted in an account of something that had happened. And
from the beginning, the meaning of the happening was set forth; and when the meaning of the happening
was set forth then there was Christian doctrine. "Christ died"--that is history; "Christ died for our sins"--
that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no
Christianity.
It is perfectly clear, then, that the first Christian missionaries did not simply come forward with an
exhortation they did not say: "Jesus of Nazareth lived a wonderful life of filial piety, and we call upon
you our hearers to yield yourselves, as we have done, to the spell of that life."
From what I have gathered so far about Mr. Wallis would define the good news being something poor people hear about not being poor anymore. I read that sentiment tonight in an interview I found with Wallis. Well Machen's book was written in 1923 and you can see Machen was already struggling with the likes of Wallis. In summary Wallis's views are not new. They have just come at a timely fashion with some lessons learned after a defeat in a major election and some more hot "moral" topics still to come in the 2008 election. You can bet Wallis will be the source of many Democrat talking points in the next 4 years.
dear pharisee man,
do you have an alternative view of what the christian's role in serving the poor in strategic and loving ways? i find it interesting how so many of these fundamentalist extremist types are keen on rejecting any plans to help the poor yet so slow to offer help.
Who is the name caller in the previous blog? I wonder how they can justify calling someone pharisee man at all, let alone on the basis of that blog?
Alison
Dear Turtle-Neck-Man,
Thank you much for taking the time to write a detailed and carefully considered reply to my comment. I will read it through again carefully and think about it.
I'm sorry to see that someone seems to have called you a name.
I still can't help but feel that you have misperceived Wallis's position. I share many of your concerns, but they are not concerns that I feel about Wallis. I know it can be easy to lump the views of several people together (I'm sure I do this myself more than I ought), but I really think Wallis' views are quite distinct from many of those with whom you have grouped him. For example, I really thought that Wallis was in favor of outlawing abortion. Was I mistaken about this? I stand willing to be corrected...I'm not certain about it.
Oh, and one last question. You said that one of my questions sounded "emergent." I stumbled on the website a couple weeks ago of what I think was called the Emergent Church, or Emergent Village, or something. Seemed to be some sort of movement. Is this what you were referring to? If so, what do you see as characterizing this movement? I haven't heard much about it, and would be thankful if you could educate me a little.
Thanks, and God bless,
Bryant
UCLA grad student
well, that turned out to be an interesting conversation.
Feel free to keep the dialog going turtle-neck man and Bryant if you want to.
Post a Comment