RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Jim Wallis: The Ever-Widening Evangelical Agenda

by Administrator 05-14-2007

This article in Sunday’s LA Times caught my attention:

Evangelical leader Rick Warren came to the heart of the religious right movement last week to criticize a narrow focus on abortion, homosexuality and pornography as un-Christian.

Strikingly, top Christian conservatives agreed.

During a three-day summit here, members of Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ joined Warren and dozens of other pastors from across the nation in a pledge to devote more of their resources and clout to helping children in need.

“We’ve got some people who only focus on moral purity and couldn’t care less about the poor, the sick, the uneducated. And they haven’t done zip for those people,” said Warren, a mega-church pastor in California and author of the best-selling “The Purpose-Driven Life.”

Warren hastened to say that he also opposed abortion and gay marriage. But too often, he said, Christians these days are defined by their “big mouth” – what they argue against, not what they embrace. He pointed to a verse from the Book of James that calls caring for orphans an essential element of a “pure and undefiled” faith.

“It’s time for the church to stop debating the Bible and start doing it,” Warren said.

I’ve had some good conversations with Rick Warren about his deep passion to serve the poor. He’s helping to guide a shift among religious conservatives that should not go without notice or welcome. I pray that this movement keeps moving – beyond personal changes that produce acts of charity (where it always begins) to structural changes that bring about social justice. The criticism Warren alludes to – that conservative activists seem to care more about unborn children than about those living and suffering in poverty – has often been accurate. So when they begin to talk about moving from a narrow focus to a broader agenda that includes loving and sacrificial action for the poor, it feels like a movement of the spirit; one that shows there’s hope for the church, and hope for the poor.

Categories: Poverty
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Ben Wheaton
    Yes, but... While I feel that Rick Warren is right, and Jim Wallis as well--to an extent--I nevertheless am nervous about the wandering gaze from abortion. Lump the war in Iraq (a moot question still, by the way), poverty, and any other social ill next to abortion, and the million babies killed every year outweighs them all. The intense focus on abortion has begun to shift the debate in the U.S. and already the legislation as well. Continued pressure is needed to achieve the goal of a ban on abortion by increments. Jim Wallis, I fear, is merely getting evangelicals to vote democrat while abandoning the pro-life movement (his protestations to the contrary nothwithstanding). Also, um, some of us oppose Rev. Wallis' economics on grounds of common sense and prudence. Government programs are not necessarily the best way to go. And neither is universal healthcare. And unions.
  • paradox
    Well, yes there is the abortion thing, god forbid, if we let that go for a minute. The point of this article I HOPE, is that the religious right can FINALLY let go of such controversial topics they've just pounded into the political world the past few years. It creates divisiveness, and it creates hate. They've used this to "define" people of one political party or another. What has been lost in this hatefulness and divisiveness, is love for our fellow man. People, including me....a Christian, now have a "roll my eyes" thing when we hear from a James Dobson, or Rick Warren. They've spent so much time criticizing others...that what's been lost is how our faith is really about help. Helping others. Recognizing the downtrodden, helping kids in poverty, helping people down on their luck. My religion is not about hate. It's about caring for others. Isn't it about time that we start promoting that again? I don't recall growing up, where I was embarrassed about what a Christian espoused...I related to it. Now? The extremists have taken it from the pulpit to the political realm.....and it makes me sick to see it. It's as sinfull as the things they bash, in my opinion. The last election proved it. The general public is much more middle of the road than what we see from these people. And I know they don't define or have any influence on my view of God, and what I feel a true Christian should do in this world. It's not a huge number of people's identity. We don't hate...or promote it. We love or try to, and try to accept others into our brotherhood. Hate never converts...why do they try? Why do they take my religion and turn it into something it's not....and give me a bad name too? I'm not happy about that. I'm angry about it. paradox.
  • Brent
    As a "Christian Secularist" I find it heartening that some in the evangelical movement are at last moving beyond a narrow sexual and reproductive poltics to embrace other important issues such as peace, poverty, justice, and the environment. A move from a masculinized religion of strident righteousness that focuses on the correctness of a few acts to a total Christian agenda that is interested in a loving concern for and action regarding all of the central problems of our times represents a more wholesome equilibrium in which goodness is balanced with righteousness, love is balanced with toughness.
    Such a redefinition will do much to convince secularists such as myself that there is more to modern American evangelism than a narrow and rigid neo-Puritanism.

  • butch
    Three really well written post, give me specifics about what you want to do, I want answers. What is your program? Don t knock yourself out, just one.
  • Unsympathetic reader
    Ben Wheaton: "Lump the war in Iraq (a moot question still, by the way), poverty, and any other social ill next to abortion, and the million babies killed every year outweighs them all." Work on poverty and other social ills and you will reduce abortions. Dropping the insistence on abstinence-only sex-ed wouldn't hurt, either.
  • Ben Wheaton
    Paradox, you seem to be saying that Christians should not be what you deem to be 'judgmental,' but, lest we forget, Christ himself was exceedingly 'judgmental.' Also, I don't think that a condemnation of abortion is hate. If you see a tremendous evil in the world, do you not condemn it? And, if abortion is murder, than it is the prime evil in this country right now. Please be very clear--I am not saying other issues do not matter, but I am concerned that you are trying to make it a secondary priority that will be all but ignored. This seems to be what you are advocating--that Christians avoid such 'divisive' issues as abortion because condemning it only creates hate. Balderdash. Democracy is divisive, get used to it. Christ was divisive. What we should be careful about is being divisive for no good reason, but 1 million deaths each year is an excellent reason. Butch, ideas? Well, for starters, the focus on other things is good, but I think that a statement on abortion, confirming that it remains a priority, would be appropriate.
  • butch
    but I think that a statement on abortion, confirming that it remains a priority, would be appropriate. Ben Wheaton
    Your statement is noted, what do you want to do for the poor or are you a one trick pony.

  • Another nonymous
    To those who really want to lower the abortion rate in this country, I have three words: Universal Health Care.
  • "Well, yes there is the abortion thing, god forbid, if we let that go for a minute." This is condescending. What is the issue that is most important to you? Now, pretend someone said "well, God Forbid we let (your issue) go for a minute." What would your reaction be?
    Perhaps you would take it in stride. If so, good for you. But surely you can understand why it would frustrate others. May I ask what the most important political issue is, to you? "The point of this article I HOPE, is that the religious right can FINALLY let go of such controversial topics they've just pounded into the political world the past few years." I don't think Rick Warren is suggesting that we should let it go. Rick Warren believes abortion should be illegal.

    "It creates divisiveness, and it creates hate." Actually, I think the misinformation campaign surrounding abortion has more to do with this. According to a recent study, more than 60% believe that abortions should be illegal in circumstances that account for 90% of the country's abortions. Shall we kowtow, then, to an angry minority on this, by virtue of the fact that they are angry? I don't see why. "They've used this to "define" people of one political party or another." How so? Are you talking about the pro-life vs. pro-choice labelling? Both sides use these labels as a political shorthand. I have not been persuaded that it is a big problem.

  • "What has been lost in this hatefulness and divisiveness, is love for our fellow man." Now this presumes that abortion is not murder. For the pro-life side, this is not a settled question. For me, loving my fellow man does not entail shrugging my shoulders at the question of whether 1.3 million people should be murdered legally on an annual basis. "People, including me....a Christian, now have a "roll my eyes" thing when we hear from a James Dobson, or Rick Warren." Why should I care whether you roll your eyes? What comments by Rick Warren have made you roll your eyes? "They've spent so much time criticizing others..." With which Warren criticism do you find fault? "that what's been lost is how our faith is really about help." Let me ask this. If a bill were proposed that would provide $100 billion for adoption reform, $250 billion for aid to single mothers, and $25 billion to ensure that deadbeat dads paid their fari share, but also outlawed abortion, would you support it? Yes or no? Anyone can feel free to answer this question. If I get an honest answer, I'll eat jellyfish.
    "My religion is not about hate. It's about caring for others." You might be surprised to learn that people who disagree with you politically also care about others. "I don't recall growing up, where I was embarrassed about what a Christian espoused..." I, too, am embarassed by how Christians articulate their political views oftentimes. That said, w/r/t abortion, I do believe history will smile on Christians, to the extent that we work to put this evil to bed.

    "It's as sinfull as the things they bash, in my opinion. The last election proved it." This is awfully vague. There were a number of issues facing Republicans, not least of which the fact that they failed to reach conservatives.

    "The general public is much more middle of the road than what we see from these people." Not sure I agree with this. Obviously, if you take the average, then you wind up with something in the middle. But there are a lot of conservatives, liberals, and everything in between. It is not as though every single person sits at some sort of political center.

    "Hate never converts...why do they try?" Why do who try? I don't think Warren is hateful at all. Have you read Purpose Driven Life? It is a wonderful book. Dobson's books aren't hateful either, though his entre's into politics have been a bit bumbling. "Why do they take my religion and turn it into something it's not....and give me a bad name too? I'm not happy about that. I'm angry about it." I agree, though I feel the same way about Al Sharpton and those who would label our President the anti-Christ.

  • Sarasotakid
    I believe that the church has to be salt and light. There is no politician that will support all of my values. Nor is there a politician that will support all of the values of anybody on this blog. The left tends to focus on very important macro-issues- poverty, peace, justice, etc. The right focuses on personal moral issues. Both talk past each other. I have become so frustrated with it that on one Sunday I go to a theologically liberal church where I hear good teaching on peace, social justice, etc.. The next Sunday I go to a more conservative evangelical church where I am certain that most people do not share my left-leaning views. I see a place for that conservative evangelical church because it teaches strong personal moral values. I do not feel like a complete Christian without aspects of both churches.
  • Another nonymous
    Kevin is right about Rick Warren, and this item proves it. Warren understands that the issue of abortion can't be separated from the issue of caring from the poor, because they are the same issue. This, I think is Jim Wallis's point too, and if he is in fact getting Democrats to abandon the pro-life movement (which I doubt) it is in order to redefine the movement, not to scrap it.
    Whatever your ideological position, it is a fact that countries where abortion is illegal do not have lower abortion rates. Countries with universal health care do.

  • butch
    Sarasota I understand your searching journey and I listen to many sides but my frustration is that we never get to concrete answers in the middle of any issue brought forward here on SoJo.
    Give me a concrete workable program addressing any issue even abortion that works now with current laws. Until the law on abortion changes then we can only deal with the situation as is. Now give me a specific program dealing with the growing number in poverty?

  • butch
    Sara By the way if you can talk about any issue in concrete terms I ll ignore the political operatives.
  • butch
    Countries with universal health care do. Another nonymous This qualifies to my definition of concrete programs, and I didn t know about the fact that countries that have universal healthcare have lower abortion rates, very interesting. For those who appose abortion why not talk about something that would reduce abortion now while we have laws that allow women choice. If you want to change the constitution what is wrong with doing other things to reduce abortion.
  • butch
    Just dawned on me universal healthcare works on all of the issues I ve said are important to me. Children, elderly, mentally ill. Many believe that universal healthcare will cost less than we currently pay for healthcare because we will have more interest in preventive methods that will keep people out of doctors offices and hospitals.
  • squeaky
    Ben Wheaton: "Christ himself was exceedingly 'judgmental.'" True--but He seemed to aim judgementalism at those who thought they were religiously righteous. Any judgement aimed at the downtrodden was mixed with a heavy dose of compassion and love, and really not that judgemental, afterall. "Let me ask this. If a bill were proposed that would provide $100 billion for adoption reform, $250 billion for aid to single mothers, and $25 billion to ensure that deadbeat dads paid their fari share, but also outlawed abortion, would you support it? Yes or no? Anyone can feel free to answer this question. If I get an honest answer, I'll eat jellyfish." I hope you have access to some fresh jellyfish, because I would support it. As tongue in cheek as you are being, you've hit the nail on the head as to why I am pro-life but do not support laws against abortion. Abortion laws are nothing more than band-aids for far deeper issues, some of which you mention above. If these and other issues, such as what Unsympathetic points out ("Work on poverty and other social ills and you will reduce abortions") all laws will do is force abortion to go underground again, and that is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination. Pro-choice people do see the Christian stance on abortion as hateful, and the reason is they see the rights of a fetus, who many don't believe is a person, as trumping the life and safety of the mother. Part of the problem comes when Christians don't strongly offer visible, tangible solutions concerning the issues you brought up.
    I'm not at all saying I agree with the statements of pro-choice advocates. On the contrary. However, I do think it is important to understand their side of the issue, and I honestly see little to no attempt made on either side of the debate for people to try to understand each other.

    I for one am glad Rick Warren is advocating for this wider range of concern among Christians. I think issues like abortion get very oversimplified when strong, uncompromising stances are made. Instead of focusing on only one issue, we may find that focusing on other issues such as social justice, that these issues are actually interelated, and working on one may have positive effects on other issues.

  • Amazon Creek
    Great article! I was so glad when I heard this. Answers to prayers prayed a long time? And...wonder of wonders...for once I agree with Kevin - can you imagine that? Golleeeee..... I also take strong exception to anyone that tries to lump Rick Warren into the same category as Dobson, etc...you know...the list of "usual suspects". I've read the Purpose-Drive Life - and thought it was a great book. He appears to be a genuinely sincere person who genuinely tries to follow God and do what is right. Would I always agree with everything he says? I doubt it...but...then there is probably nobody I always agree with. We're all just journeying and growing in Christ - every last one of us. As long as folks are sincerely trying...you gotta cut them some slack - just as we have to each cut ourselves some slack most days. "We all see through a glass dimly". Now there ARE people who SHOULD be exposed - because they are bringing disgrace on us all. But...even sincere folks - we don't always get it all right. And there's also a place for "being patient with one another." We ALL get it wrong - quite frequently.
  • l'etranger
    Another nonyous - do you have a citation for the universal health care/ lower abortion link - I'm not doubting that it's true but I can't really see what the prime causal link would be. Butch - two good points
    For those who appose abortion why not talk about something that would reduce abortion now while we have laws that allow women choice.

    Good point - the interesting thing is that the only significant reduction in abortion rate in the US was during the Clinton administration, which if nothing else shows that vociferousness of opposition to Roe v Wade does not correlate with reducing the numbers of abortions. Many believe that universal healthcare will cost less than we currently pay for healthcare because we will have more interest in preventive methods

    This is almost certainly true although not necessarily for that reason - the reasons for US very high levels of expenditure on healthcare are complex but include Multi-purchasers and multiple providers leading to massive bureaucracy around chasing of the dollars. (bureaucracy costs in US healthcare are about 20-25% of total compared to less than 10% in most socialised systems - and about 2% at the Veterans Administration). Fragmentation caused by the plethora of providers and purchasers making the continuity of patient care a nightmare and increasing costs and venture capitalist investment in healthcare infrastructure - particularly diagnostic imaging equipment - encouraging over testing and over-intervention. Jack Wennburg and Elliot Fisher have both shown pretty convincingly that the worst outcomes are in the areas of the US that undertake the most activity. Any sensible universal scheme would address the first two and could plausibly address the third as well.

  • l'etranger
    Another nonyous - do you have a citation for the universal health care/ lower abortion link - I'm not doubting that it's true but I can't really see what the prime causal link would be. Butch - two good points
    For those who appose abortion why not talk about something that would reduce abortion now while we have laws that allow women choice.

    Good point - the interesting thing is that the only significant reduction in abortion rate in the US was during the Clinton administration, which if nothing else shows that vociferousness of opposition to Roe v Wade does not correlate with reducing the numbers of abortions. Many believe that universal healthcare will cost less than we currently pay for healthcare because we will have more interest in preventive methods

    This is almost certainly true although not necessarily for that reason - the reasons for US very high levels of expenditure on healthcare are complex but include Multi-purchasers and multiple providers leading to massive bureaucracy around chasing of the dollars. (bureaucracy costs in US healthcare are about 20-25% of total compared to less than 10% in most socialised systems - and about 2% at the Veterans Administration). Fragmentation caused by the plethora of providers and purchasers making the continuity of patient care a nightmare and increasing costs and venture capitalist investment in healthcare infrastructure - particularly diagnostic imaging equipment - encouraging over testing and over-intervention. Jack Wennburg and Elliot Fisher have both shown pretty convincingly that the worst outcomes are in the areas of the US that undertake the most activity. Any sensible universal scheme would address the first two and could plausibly address the third as well.

blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008