Comments

The article on Jim Wallis' opinions was typical progressive speak. Jim has been trying to convince everyone that he is not a liberal or a conservative for years. He is a liberal progressive with extreme socialist leanings. His attack on Pres. Bush gives him away. There have been mistakes made by Pres. Bush but we have not been attacked again since 9/11. That is his primary job and he has done it well. Jim would have us send care packages to Al Qaida. As for Mrs. Bill Clinton, to say she is more in touch with the poverty issue than McCain is laughable. Her husband pulls in $1,000,000 a speech.

This is the second time I have heard Jim Wallis liken Obama to a public theologian. (I generally like Jim by the way). He basically said the same thing as he said above, "Barack Obama is virtually a public theologian and the most sophisticated political leader in many years in articulating the relationship between faith and politics." http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/01/political-earthquakes-by-jim-w.html

I am attracted to Obama in many ways but Jim Wallis greatly overstates it when he says Obama is "virtually a public theologian." Anyone who read Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen's Christianity Today's recent interview
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html
can tell that Obama is a sincere Christian but is far from being a "theologian."

The facts are that Obama gave a speech to Jim Wallis's "Call to Renewal" group in June 2006. The transcript and MP3 of the talk are both at Obama's website.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_1/index.php

The speech is almost exactly the same as his chapter entitled "Faith" in his book The Audacity of Hope. Obama writes in the acknowledgements of the book that people including "Jim Wallis took the time to read the manuscript and provided me with invaluable suggestions" (p. 364). In sum, I think Obama has a few basic talking points about faith and politics which others have helped him refine. His points are basically acceptable to evangelicals they are mostly just general points about avoiding the two extremes of fundamentalism and complete fear of religion.

As Wallis states, there are some good reasons why many evangelicals are pulling for Obama to win (except for his record on abortion), but I just don't want people to vote for him because he is "almost a public theologian." I'm afraid you will be disappointed. Still, Obama is trying to reach out to evangelicals and I give him a lot of credit for that.

I have written about this at my blog at http://www.andyrowell.net/andy_rowell/2008/01/reflections-on.html
but I have given you a good summary here so you don't need to go there.

Grace and peace,
andy

Andy Rowell
Th.D. Student
Duke Divinity School
Blog: http://www.andyrowell.net/

No child in my state of Maryland gets left behind when it comes to healthcare. They are all insured. Maryland also takes care of its pregnant mothers. We feed our children in school.
I have been supporting organizations like World Vision and Samaritain's Purse for 34 years. I care about the poor, but I care about how my tax dollars are spent. Private organizations do a much better job handling my funds than does the US Government. Conservative Republicans DO care about the poor. Why are we getting this bad press? Mr. Wallis is painting me as the bad guy! My husband and I make much less, yet give much more than Al Gore!!
Mr. Wallis--ask any scientist-there is no global warming!

"His attack on Pres. Bush gives him away."

No, Darrell, an attack on George W. Bush does not make one a liberal or progressive. I consider myself a conservative Libertarian, and it's been obvious to me for about three or four years that GWB had surpassed Buchanan and Harding to become the worst president in US history.

I hope life is nice in the so-called "conservative" bubble, where there's apparently a consensus among everyone but liberals that GWB is a fine president. Out here in reality, everyone but the dead-end 28% loyal Republican-authoritarians has repudiated this President long ago.

I agree that Wallis appears to lean a bit leftward, but disgust with GWB has nothing to do with it.

McCain's net worth excedes that of the Clintons according to this http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/saloncom-presidential-candidates-net-worth/

McCain is worth 40.4 Mil
Clintons are 34.9
Obama is only 1.3

Obama is definately very in touch with the poverty issue. He started out by working in poor areas of Chicago.

Wallis can crow all he likes about how the Democratic candidates are evangelical-friendly, but I haven't seen evangelicals making a beeline for the Democratic party, and it seems pretty unlikely even if McCain wins the nominations. Most older evangelicals I know vote conservative first and evangelical second. The younger ones do like Obama, but only because he hasn't made it known how far he leans to the left. And Hillary is right out.

By the way Darrell, if calling Bush's presidency a failure is all it takes to be labeled a "liberal progressive with extreme socialist leanings," then color me red.

Now, let me get this straight. Obama and Clinton are faithful Christians, but McCain is having trouble. McCain's having trouble alright, but I rather seriously doubt that Obama and Clinton are faithful to anything other than big government.

There's no way Mrs. Bill Clinton is a faithful, practicing Christian, Methodist or otherwise given her antics throughout her professional life.

Then again, the Methodists are a progressive denomination and Wallis as the previous poster noted is himself a progressive. I question whether one can be a progressive and be a Christian. At the very least they can't be an Evangelical.

I'm soooo glad that Mr. Wallis doesn't speak for all Christians. It is amazing that he totally overlooks Mike Huckabee as a viable candidate. Barack, Hillary & John all pale in comparison to Mike so far as their understanding of Christianity's place in life, be it political, social or spiritual. When a person's faith doesn't come into play when dealing with moral and ethical issues, then their faith is lacking. Mr. Wallis seems to be trying very hard to position himself with the liberal left...and he's doing a good job of it.

Jim Wallis is a contemporary prophet. He is one of the few voices that can be trusted to offer a truly Biblical perspective on our times. It is understandable that entrenched voices would hate him. But he continues to speak the truth with clarity and insight.

Jim Wallis, like most political liberals who espouse faith, has replaced personal morality with social morality. If his goal is truly to be nonpartisan then why would he characterize Bush's presidency with such maliciousness? Bush has not estranged evangelicals as much as Wallis's wishful thinking suggests, certainly not on social issues. It's very offensive to traditional Christians to constantly hear from the Jim Wallises of the world that somehow they have turned their back on the poor. Many of the conservative Christians that I work with are too busy helping in soup kitchens and traveling on misson trips to participate in political protests. I would strongly recommend an important, non-religous book on the subject that uses hard data to show that traditional Christians actually give more of their time and money to charity than political liberals when measured on a per capita basis. "Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide -- Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters" by Dr. Arthur Brooks in an eye opener.

I agree with the article; unfortunately Darrell's comments are what many Christians want to distance themselves from. When I go through scripture I find many more passages urging caring for the poor than caring about my own safety. Are we finally getting it right?

I agree with the article; unfortunately Darrell's comments are what many Christians want to distance themselves from. When I go through scripture I find many more passages urging caring for the poor than caring about my own safety. Are we finally getting it right?

"There have been mistakes made by Pres. Bush but we have not been attacked again since 9/11."

Yes, but wasn't that one big mistake that resulted in more than 3,000 deaths enough?

I'm not exactly sure why only poor Democrats are allowed to be concerned about poverty.

Jim Wallis seems so hypocritical, namely, his denial of being liberal and a Democrat. Note that he is a public spokesman for the Democratic Party. He may not have registered in the party, but that is a mere technicality. Evangelicals and Republicans have done much more for the hungry and oppressed than they have been given credit for, especially by the likes of Wallis. There is nothing wrong in being a Christian and being a Democrat, but there is a lot wrong in endorsing a party that has as a central part of its platform the promotion of abortion and same sex marriages. His attacks on Pres Bush and the Republican Party is often one-sided and unfair.

Could it be that the reason conservative Christians are busy working at soup kitchens and homeless shelters is that conservative policies make them necessary?

"I question whether one can be a progressive and be a Christian. At the very least they can't be an Evangelical." - David -

I'm not sure of your exact definition of progressive - but as I think of progressive and a common political difinition "Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods" - I cannot help but believe that Jesus was the strongest Progressive in His time - he challenged the status quo and acted outside of traditional ways in order to reach those who needed God. Evangelicas need not fear progressive thinkers.

Jim Wallis never said that he isn't a Democrat. He is saying that God is not a Republican or a Democrat. Just as Jesus wouldn't be pigeonholed by those who wanted him to pick a side in the hot-button political debates of his time (i.e. taxes to Caesar), Wallis is saying that neither party should have a monopoly on God. "Who would Jesus vote for?" is like asking if the Almighty Christ would rather drink Coke or Pepsi, if he would be a Yankees or a Red Sox fan. The choices are terribly limited, flawed and it seems we are seeking God as celebrity endorsement of sorts. The Kingdom of Heaven as described in the Sermon on the Mount transcends American political constructs, yet it offers real substance when it comes to God's "moral values" if we can call them that.

For decades, the evangelical church has been allowing the conservative political opinions of Dobson, Perkins, Bauer and others to determine which issues are most important to God. Why do we cry "hypocrisy" when Wallis offers a liberal rebuttal? Are Republican Christians and so-called independents the only ones who can be trusted? Since when does having political views disqualify you from discussing the will of God as it relates to politics? Would it be hypocritical for a Pepsi-drinker to say that his preferred beverage and God's are not one in the same?

It doesn't bother me that Wallis is a Democrat or drinks Pepsi, etc. because he's not saying that he has a monopoly on the will of God. What bothers me is the simplistic idea that all Christians have to vote the same way, as if one party is always wrong and the other is always correct. Jeffrey's comment that he questions "whether one can be a progressive and be a Christian" describes the kind of thinking that Mr. Wallis is up against. I appreciate Jeffrey's honesty, but it sounds like he's basically saying that God is a Republican. This saddens me because I have observed genuine Christ-like faith and action from believers on both sides of the conservative / liberal divide.

Jim Wallis is a hypocrite of the first order offering nothing more than a tired retread of the Social Gospel for a new generation that prefers to advance secular liberal political agendas at the expense of Christian doctrine. I have to laugh at how he mocks Evangelicals who care about the issue of gay marriage, because like all social liberals of his ilk it requires a conveniently purposeful whitewashing of how the only reason WHY anti-gay marriage amendments became necessary in the first place: Because activist judges appointed by the kind of liberal politicans Wallis favors, in bending to the pressure of militant left-wing social action groups, decided to impose gay marriage on the rest of the nation by judicial fiat instead of popular democracy. Which then makes it NECESSARY for evangelicals who actually give a darn about the sanctity of marriage to take action through the ballot box. That's the point a social leftist like Wallis is too dense to ever figure out because he's ultimately more beholden to the Social Gospel than to the Gospel of Christ. Oh and as for the person who trashed President Bush by saying one attack on 9/11 was too much, take up your argument with the President on whose watch 9/11 was hatched, because that President's name was Bill Clinton.

This is a man (Wallis) who lives not for the glory of God or Christ, but to the glory of his own political agenda.

you cannot e a christian and support partial birth abortion and gay marriage

Jim Wallis also seems to to have no problem kicking the Jews to the curb. Also, Christ never forced anyone to give to the poor, but shame on us if we don't! We are supposed to be cheerful givers. Jim Wallis is another deceiver. He definitely is more for pushing his own agenda than saving souls.