Get E-Mail Updates

Obama, Perkins, Palin, and a Plea for Christian Civility

Whew. Take a breath, Christians! I just read all the comments to my post Friday on Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech of a major party's nomination to the highest office in the country -- the first African American to have achieved that American milestone. The post was about the historical significance of that event and speech, especially on the very day of the 45 anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s most remembered "I Have A Dream" speech at the 1963 March on Washington.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

I didn't even comment on the content of the speech, except to say it allowed Obama to clearly and eloquently present himself and his policy ideas, so Americans could agree or disagree. But the heat of the comments to the post was amazing and alarming to me. So I think it is time to plead for some Christian civility in this election year.

Let me give an example of Christian civility from Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, which is a leading institution of the "Religious Right" and whom nobody would confuse with a Democratic or Obama supporter. On Friday, Perkins released a statement on "Obama's Historic Speech," which said:

Sen. Barack Obama's speech last night, accepting the Democratic nomination for President, was a historic moment. Coming on the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, the selection of the first African American to be the presidential nominee of a major party illustrates the progress America has made in fulfilling Dr. King's dream of racial equality. The "promise" of equal opportunity was in our nation's founding documents, but it has not always been fulfilled. Every American should fondly hope and fervently pray, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, for the time when this milestone, remarkable as it is, is a memory, and the mere fact of a person's skin color is not reason for political discussion or notice. That truly was the Founding Fathers' vision for our country, and they bequeathed us governing articles and a ruling philosophy - a firm belief that our rights are the gift of our Creator - capable of carrying us through many a "stormy present." By any measure - eloquence, organization, stagecraft, and motivation - the Democratic convention this week and the primary that preceded it were impressive. Yes, the smoke-filled rooms have given way to skies glowing with the haze of fireworks, but our nation is seeing once more that we have a vibrant republic and real choices before us.

I really respected that and agreed that Obama's speech had "eloquence" and offered the American people "real choices." Tony Perkins invited me to debate Richard Land at his own FRC Convention last fall, and to speak at his own book signing some weeks later, just as I had invited Richard Land to speak at the launch of God's Politics in 2005. Tomorrow morning Richard Land and I will be together again in a public forum on "the faith factor" in this election, at the Republican Convention in the Twin Cities. I will be there all week, just as I was at the Democratic Convention in Denver.

Here is a fact that might clearly upset the vitriolic partisans on both sides of the political divide: Richard Land and I call each other friends, and Tony Perkins and I are also enjoying our dialogue and frequent conversations. None of us endorse candidates, but I honestly suspect we will likely be voting differently in the fall election.

Since Friday, I have been asked by many journalists what I think of Sarah Palin as the choice for the Republican vice-presidential nomination. I've confessed to knowing little about the new Alaskan governor but have said that she seems to be an interesting, decent, and compelling person, and that her nomination is another milestone as the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket, as Geraldine Ferraro was on the Democratic ticket in 1984. Like the milestone candidacy of Barack Obama, she, too, will be evaluated by Christians on a whole range of moral values issues, including poverty, the environment, the sanctity of life, strong and healthy families, human rights, health care, the war in Iraq, and more. Christians, including evangelical Christians, are not monolithic and most Christians will not be single-issue voters in this election. Rather, we will evaluate both presidential tickets according to our moral compass and broad agenda. The Republican Convention, like the Democratic Convention, should offer the voters clear choices, and I suspect it will.

So maybe we should have some rules of civility for this election. Let me suggest "Five Rules of Christian Civility."

  1. We Christians should be in the pocket of no political party, but should evaluate both candidates and parties by our biblically-based moral compass.
  2. We don't vote on only one issue, but see biblical foundations for our concerns over many issues.
  3. We advocate for a consistent ethic of life from womb to tomb, and one that challenges the selective moralities of both the left and the right.
  4. We will respect the integrity of our Christian brothers and sisters in their sincere efforts to apply Christian commitments to the important decisions of this election, knowing that people of faith and conscience will be voting both ways in this election year.
  5. We will not attack our fellow Christians as Democratic or Republican partisans, but rather will expect and respect the practice of putting our faith first in this election year, even if we reach different conclusions.

On Nov. 4, Christians will not be able to vote for the kingdom of God. It is not on the ballot. Yet there are very important choices to make that will significantly impact the common good and the health of this nation -- and of the world. So we urge our Christian brothers and sisters to exercise their crucial right to vote and to apply their Christian conscience to those decisions. And in the finite and imperfect political decisions of this and any election, we promise to respect the Christian political conscience of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: kevin s.

09-02-2008 @ 10:00pm

"Then why did you raise it?"

My follow up was a way of saying that I should not have.

The Factcheck piece sustains the argument that Obama supported what his opponents say he supported, but (oddly) stipulates that prematurely born babies are not technically infants. Who cares? A living baby is protected by the constitution. Anyone who disagrees shouldn't be president.

"Here's a question...at what point do we expand the Right To Life, and include ALL life, even those of our perceived enemies. What about children killed durin our War On Terror in Iraq? "

I think we should make every effort to preserve the lives of children abroad. I also think this requires military efforts abroad, which will invariably result in collateral damage, which is political-speak for civilian deaths.

Doug and/or Jan, what is your proposed answer to this conundrum? To keep the slaughter of unborn babies legal? How does that help?

by: Gordon

09-02-2008 @ 10:00pm

Peter S,

I googled the title you suggested. All I see there is an assertion without proof.

I have real trouble with the collectivist leanings of the Christian left, but to say they're Marxist - that just seems to me to be a pejorative way of saying they are collectivists. In my view, saying they are collectivist is enough of an indictment.

by: Don

09-02-2008 @ 10:04pm

Gordon, what's your definition of 'collectivist,'? I don't see them as collectivist, either.

D

by: Peter S.

09-02-2008 @ 10:06pm

Don:

I have read them and believe I have followed all the Rules of Conduct.

Maybe you skimmed over this section yourself:

"Beliefnet members represent a wide variety of religious and spiritual orientations - all welcome to participate in conversations on our Forums. When you participate in Beliefnet discussions, you may encounter persons whose beliefs differ from your own. We hope that you will approach these encounters in a spirit of tolerance, accepting the rights of others to follow freely their own religious beliefs, even if they seem false to you.

We will not censor members for expressing an opinion, within the limits of these Rules of Conduct."

by: Gordon

09-02-2008 @ 10:16pm

Don,

I see them as collectivist because they want to end poverty by redistribution of wealth.

by: atheist

09-02-2008 @ 10:22pm

Can an atheist get in on the discussion? If this whole discussion is about respect and civility the way you Christian's go at it, I think I will stick with questioning an interventionist god who picks sides and sends the other side to hell for believing the wrong things.
Part of the problem with our world is that people of religion often think it is their way or no way. Why don't you work for common ground that can respect others views. For those of you who think abortion is murder and always wrong; I will bet your are not poor living in the inner city. If we outlaw abortion what do you think the rich little girls will do when they get pregnant? Daddy will buy one. Something the poor will not be able to do. I am not for abortion but sometimes in this world the choice is not all that simple.
Sorry for breaking into your little believer's gab fest but can't you treat each other with some respect?
Peace,
atheist

by: Peter S.

09-02-2008 @ 10:24pm

To Carl C:

Sorry I missed your above post earlier. Re Marxism vs Socialism:

Wikipedia cites:
On Socialism: Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and Communism.

On Marxism: Any political practice or theory that is based on an interpretation of the works of Marx and Engels may be called Marxism.

So to answer your question: They have transitional differences however cut from the same cloth.

by: Don

09-02-2008 @ 10:25pm

Rule #9 (Courtesy): "Do not make negative personal remarks about another's age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, sexual orientation, intelligence, character, appearance, health, mental health, education or any other personal characteristic."--emphasis mine

Peter S. wrote:

(To Rev. Wallis): "I will grant this "civility" to non-christians but you I rebuke!"

You also called him Marxist, etc. And you wrote "boo on you." These sounds like negative personal remarks to me.

But I'll let Beliefnet be the judge.

by: Rick

09-02-2008 @ 10:27pm

Peter S. -- Calling people who disagree with the your ideological agenda "Marxists," "socialists" and "collectivists" is an outright insult having nothing to do with the topic at hand and indeed skirts, if not violates, Beliefnet's rules.

by: Don

09-02-2008 @ 10:28pm

I see them as collectivist because they want to end poverty by redistribution of wealth.

Well, we can argue whether that's really their goal, because I thought it was more empowering the poor than redistributing wealth.

by: Rick

09-02-2008 @ 10:29pm

Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and Communism.

So what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

by: Don

09-02-2008 @ 10:30pm

I see them as collectivist because they want to end poverty by redistribution of wealth.

Good point, athiest.

by: Peter S.

09-02-2008 @ 10:31pm

Welcome Atheist! We are all just sinners saved by grace, however debate and opposition is one of the things that is great about Christianity. We are not forced to hold all views pragmatically. There would be no freedom in that. I for one follow the Bible as truth and try to live by it. My convictions and interpertation sometimes lead me to disagree with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

by: Peter S.

09-02-2008 @ 10:43pm

Rick: RE: "Peter S. -- Calling people who disagree with the your ideological agenda "Marxists," "socialists" and "collectivists" is an outright insult having nothing to do with the topic at hand and indeed skirts, if not violates, Beliefnet's rules." 7:27pm

If you read the trail you will see that those labels have indeed been ascribed to Rev Wallis in external articles ie: christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5297.

Regardless, I believe that is is the responsibility of the church to promote the cause of Christ to the poor and orphans and widows--NOT the responsibility of any government that uses the police power of state to take citizens money and send it to other countries and/or fund "social" domestic programs that foster dependence further on the "State".

Government is not the answer.

by: Don

09-02-2008 @ 10:44pm

OK, I googled "UK to US Red Letter Christians: Admit You Are Marxists!" and was directed to a blog site called "Watcher's Lamp."

Gordon is right: all accusation but no evidence.

Those of us who have been on this forum for a while are familiar with the name "Watcher."

If you long-time bloggers here go to this blog, you might want to click on the "view my complete profile" link. The little scenario written under "about me" made me shudder a bit. I can't say for sure whether this is the same person as our old "Watcher," of course, but the characteristics and tone are all too familiar for comfort.

Peace,

by: Don

09-02-2008 @ 10:47pm

The "good point" for which I was commending our atheist friend for was not Gordon's comment about collectivism. Somehow, my clipboard didn't pick up the line from "atheist."

That line was: "Sorry for breaking into your little believer's gab fest but can't you treat each other with some respect?"

D

by: Gordon

09-02-2008 @ 10:51pm

Thanks Don - whatever else I happen to be, I am no atheist.

by: Don

09-02-2008 @ 10:59pm

Of course you aren't.

Peace,

by: Paul

09-02-2008 @ 11:02pm

"You haven't walked in the shoes of either McCain or his wife."

Yes, Judith, you are right. I haven't walked in their shoes. We should give Sen. McCain the benefit of the doubt on this. Just like we should not assume we know the circumstances of every young woman who becomes pregnant.

I haven't walked in the shoes of anyone who has been divorced. Nor have I walked in the shoes of anyone who has suddenly been faced with a pregnancy they hadn't bargained for. (Mine children were both planned and lovingly welcomed.) Nor have I walked in the shoes of homosexual people who can't seem to catch a break from the Christian community.

So that brings me right back to my earlier point: McCain/Palin is no more the family values ticket than is Obama/Biden.

by: Pastor Jeff Staples

09-02-2008 @ 11:36pm

So Peter S.: Do you think that we should tolerate you or rebuke you?

Thanks for your praise of the Anabaptists, Don. I'm reminded of the "theologian" in Fiddler on the Roof" as well.
Funny thing about the Catholics in Central America that decided to focus on the Gospels, specifically the teachings of Jesus; they developed "Liberation Theology", and were soon after called Marxists.The primitive church, as described in Acts, looked quite communistic with the endorsement of the Holy Spirit demonstrated in the story of Annanias and Saphira.

Pastor Jeff

by: ando

09-02-2008 @ 11:38pm

"Regardless, I believe that is is the responsibility of the church to promote the cause of Christ to the poor and orphans and widows--NOT the responsibility of any government that uses the police power of state to take citizens money and send it to other countries and/or fund "social" domestic programs that foster dependence further on the "State".

Government is not the answer."

apparently, God didn't know what He was doing when he ordained governments in the first place. Also, the Church must not be doing it's job, or haven't you read about widespread poverty going on throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America? You can talk a good libertarian talk all you want, but in the end God isn't looking for how much money we accumulate, but whether we "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him.

It's not our money, it belongs to God. And God can use indviduals, the church and governments to do His will. So let's not confuse the American Right political agenda with God's will.

by: Pastor Jeff Staples

09-02-2008 @ 11:42pm

I will again point out to the "church should do it" crowd, in this case Peter, that you have not fully counted the cost of such proposals. For starters, who do you think the apostles are in America that should have all capital laid at their feet?

Pastor Jeff

by: Peter S.

09-02-2008 @ 11:48pm

"It's not our money, it belongs to God. And God can use indviduals, the church and governments to do His will."

I disagree strongly that God's will is done through Government in light of the New Testament. Jesus said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Mat. 22:21 The distinction is clear.

What New Testament example do you have of God promoting a model of State run benevolence vs Church run?

by: Peter S.

09-03-2008 @ 12:00am

Pastor Jeff: RE: "I will again point out to the "church should do it" crowd, in this case Peter, that you have not fully counted the cost of such proposals. For starters, who do you think the apostles are in America that should have all capital laid at their feet?"

If someone chooses to sell it all and give to the poor I applaud that, but it is not the role of government to force someone to do it. There are plenty of churches and non-profits that do excellent jobs of really helping people.

To suggest that government should be the cure to poverty, suffering etc, to me, negates man's free will and the power of The Cross in our lives. You can vote for those type of proposals, but I will not.

by: Sam

09-03-2008 @ 12:02am

Jim,
Your call to civility is very much in order!

As a Christian who studies the Bible with an assumption that God has communicated the truth to us as demonstrated (evidenced?) in past fulfilled prophecy and no reason to question His veracity concerning the future, I applaud your call to rise above the fray and not feel obligated to adopt majority or even large minority viewpoints as the only alternatives regarding what is right, good, and true. The very idea that I must be on the "right" or the "left" disturbs me.

Someone who places far more value in those terms than I will place me to the left on some issues and to the right on some other issues. But I am neither a rightist nor a leftist. I seek to follow Jesus, the Christ. How I live that out in the political arena is how I try to live that out in all my life. From that biblical perspective I have the sense of having dual citizenship. May heavenly citizenship precedes my earthly citizenship both in priority and in loyalty. To the extent that it does not call upon me to disrespect my King, Almighty God, I do seek to be a loyal citizen of the United States of America.

Neither McCain nor Obama have all the answers. I do have a preference which might even change by Novemeber, but the future of the USA does not rest in the hands of either of these men. Our future as a nation still rests in the hands of our Creator. You know, the one who provided and still provides those inalienable rights outlined in our Declaration of Independence. He is also the one who James Madison, the writer of our constitution, acknowledges when he wrote, 'We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.'

And certainly I must be close to the thinking of that great patriot, Patrick Henry, when he stated,'It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ'.

Nor do I believe any of this abrogates the principle of separation of church and state. Those who think it does have not thought through what constitutes the strength of the foundation of our country.

All of this certainly supports your call for civility at the very least.

by: Mr Curious

09-03-2008 @ 12:25am

Hey conservatives, if we make abortion a crime like you want, can we also prosecute the man who got her pregnant in the first place and decided to run or at least he offered no help, advice support, money, or love for what would be his baby too?

Or do you just want to hold 1/2 of the pair responsible?

by: Don

09-03-2008 @ 12:47am

Peter, do you really expect me to believe that your thirty-plus-year-old comments from Wallis that were lifted (out of their original contexts, no doubt) by a Religious Right Web site that is clearly and blatantly partisan proves your point?

Not a chance.

You gotta do better than that.

by: ando

09-03-2008 @ 12:48am

"To suggest that government should be the cure to poverty, suffering etc, to me, negates man's free will and the power of The Cross in our lives. You can vote for those type of proposals, but I will not."

That's cold. That's putting politics over principle. You're telling us that Christians shouldn't be part of the political process? Or only when it's related to your pet moral issues? But not when it comes to your pocket book?

Perhaps the power of The Cross leads some of us to believe that God can use government, Bread for the World, World Relief, etc. etc., to alleviate poverty in the world. This should not be a political issue. In fact, some members of Bread For the World's advisory board are Republicans. And much of what BFW does is to lobby government to allocate more resources or change policies to improve the plight of the world's least of these. That's putting principle over politics, and they've been effective in gaining bi-partisan support for helping the poor.

That seems to be a better approach than to just spout libertarian pap.

by: Pastor Jeff Staples

09-03-2008 @ 12:49am

Peter: Only if government is "other".

Pastor Jeff

by: Eric

09-03-2008 @ 12:50am

Another nonymous,
I apologize then for over reacting to your comments. I must have misinterpreted them. Again, my apologies.

I definitely agree that Christian conservatives do not have a nuanced view of abortion. But they often do have nuanced views (at least as far as what one can support and not be on the "outs" with Biblical teaching) about other policy issues. That's the point I was trying to explain and why you probably don't hear them ask those questions about those issues.

God Bless.

by: Eric

09-03-2008 @ 12:55am

Another non - I just saw your post from 4:11 PM. Sorry I didn't get around to reading it until this evening. Again, it's probably my fault for not reading more clearly and writing too quickly (often happens!).

I, too, have tried to encourage people here to write as if the other people here were sitting across the table from me. Sometimes it's hard though.

by: Another nonymous

09-03-2008 @ 1:07am

Eric -

Apology accepted. And I think you're absolutely right that Christian conservatives have a nuanced view of policy issues that liberals can tend to see in black and white.

In my own case, I struggle with the issue of war. I have always seen war exactly the same way that you see abortion: as a "horrible ill" that represents the pinnacle of the human capacity for evil. I know all the arguments for "just war," "preventive war," etc., but I still cannot get beyond my fundamental view of war as an unmitigated evil, and frankly, I'm not sure I want to. So I think I understand exactly how you feel about abortion.

Suspecting that this will satisfy no-one...

by: Another nonymous

09-03-2008 @ 1:18am

PS - Eric, I had really been hoping that you would respond to my posts, and that I hadn't driven you off. Good to have you back!

by: Peter S.

09-03-2008 @ 3:22am

Peter, do you really expect me to believe that your thirty-plus-year-old comments from Wallis that were lifted (out of their original contexts, no doubt) by a Religious Right Web site that is clearly and blatantly partisan proves your point?

Not a chance.

You gotta do better than that.

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 9:47 PM

***********************************

Your original comments expressed outrage at the very notion of Wallis being associated with Marxism. I have provided at least two sources and now they are too "old" to be relevant for discussion??? Where is Wallis recant or apology? If he has changed I offer all apologies to him. But his recent blogs and stealth support for DNC of late suggest to me that he has not. I have no problem with the freedom to believe in Communism, I do verbally disagree if it is promoted under the shroud of Christianity.

by: Peter S.

09-03-2008 @ 3:29am

Rick: "Which meant that they should consider life from the perspective of the poor and powerless, as Marx did. Nothing more."

Nice try but, I think Jesus eyes are enough for me. How many Millions have been killed under the regimes of Marxism in Russia, Vietnam, China and others. Marx was no Ghandi much less Jesus. I don't want to see a single thing through his hate-filled eyes!

by: Robert Alu

09-03-2008 @ 3:44am

"So, when a presidential candidate has a brother living in a shack in Nairobi while calling on other wealthy Americans to make sacrifices, is that also double talk? Or are only Republicans capable of such a thing?

Posted by: kevin s. | September 2, 2008 1:49 PM"

Good morning America,

I am a Kenyan who has never been out of East Africa.

First of all, Kevin, as a Christian I must state that all you brothers in Christ in America may need to understand that God has blessed you so much so that you may serve Him.

If that means making sacrifices for people living in shacks, so be it.

Secondly, it is people like you who are, probably happily, possibly out of ignorance, spreading this non-information about Obama and his family.

Well,

Obama's namesake, his father,left the young boy when he was 1 year old and only saw his son once more, when the candidate was 10 years old.

Because of his own curiosity young Obama traveled to Kenya to seek his roots. He has since been there a few times and has not disowned his African relatives in any way, shape or form. He could easily have done so. A half brother from Kenya was best man at Obama's wedding, right?

Here in East Africa, by the way, it does not matter how rich you are, somehow, in your extended family, somewhere, there will be relatives living in shacks. After all 60 plus % of Nairobi, Kenya's capital, is shacks. We are really poor, you see, and could use some compassion from the people that God has given so much.

Jesus said the poor you will always have with you.
It seems, from reading about America's elections, including here, most people are agreed that Obama has plans to tackle poverty.

If your argument is that charity begins at home then Obama's home is America. If it is that he needs to do something about a half brother who was quoted in Nairobi newspapers as saying that some American newsmen are spreading lies about him and his family then you need to do some homework. If you did you would question how anyone can live on a dollar a month, for example.

According to the young man he is doing just fine!

SEE THIS, from our papers (sorry, I cannot provide a link):

"George had been living a quiet life, studying to become a car mechanic, until earlier this week when Vanity Fair magazine tracked him down to Huruma, which stands on the outskirts Nairobi.

He said he was furious at reports he had been abandoned by the Obama family and that he was filled with shame about living in a slum.

"It seems there are people who want to destroy me and my family," he said.

"They say I live on a dollar a month but this is all lies by people who don't want my brother to win."

As the Japanese say, "if you believe everything that you read then you had better not read".

But, I know, I know. Kevin, you don't believe everything - only what you choose to.

GOD BLESS THE PEOPLE LIVING IN SHACKS, AND ALL THE RICH CHRISTIANS TOO!

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

by: Robert Alu

09-03-2008 @ 8:12am

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." ACTS 2:44, 45 (NIV)

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" KARL MARX

"If anyone has two coats he must give one to the man who has none, and the one with something to eat must do the same." JOHN The Baptist

Peter S,

Marxism has killed thousands, perhaps millions.

But then so has another religion, namely 'Christianity', whatever that means!

God alone knows how many have died - and still do - in the name of Christ, and I don't mean just martyrs (like the ones being persecuted in India as I type).

Karl Marx may have died without Christ, but we have a duty to serve the Lord by loving others as ourselves.

If we are successful in that the only label worthy would be, Christian: as in 'true follower of Christ'. That is the name that was first given to the church when they lived sort of the Marxist ideal (in Antioch).

God bless you ALL, CHRISTIANS AND FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST.

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

by: Rick

09-03-2008 @ 11:06am

I don't want to see a single thing through his hate-filled eyes!

Peter -- Based on what you've posted here, I'd rather see things from his eyes than yours. I haven't seen as much pure nastiness on this blog as I've seen from you.

Anyway, you might have said some of the same things about Martin Luther King Jr., who was indeed consistently called a Marxist for supporting equality. However, he actually preached a sermon called "How Should a Christian View Communism?" in which he delivered a stinging criticism of Marxism -- but in the end he said, essentially, "You know, as bad as his system was, Marx made some good points we ought to consider." Wallis was saying the same thing.

by: Anonymous

09-03-2008 @ 11:41am

Your original comments expressed outrage at the very notion of Wallis being associated with Marxism. I have provided at least two sources and now they are too "old" to be relevant for discussion??? ... I have no problem with the freedom to believe in Communism, I do verbally disagree if it is promoted under the shroud of Christianity.

Peter, the comments you posted don't demonstrate that Rev. Wallis is an ideological Marxist. I will try to demonstrate this in my following comments, though I don't really expect you will accept them. But I am going to try analyzing your "evidence" in order to move beyond the visceral toward the rational.

First, the comments are taken out of their original contexts. You know as well as I do that comments removed from their contexts can be manipulated to mean just about anything. (Lots of people do that with Scripture passages, as you know.) In order for me to know what Wallis was really saying in each of these instances, I would need a fuller context. As they stand, the comments are not reliable so far as demonstrating what Wallis' thinking was.

Second, I frankly don't trust the source you got these comments from. They are blatantly partisan (just look at their home page) and cannot be relied on to provide rational, objective analysis of anything Wallis (or anyone else for that matter) wrote or said.

Third, in your comments to Rick ("I don't want to see a single thing through [Marx's] hate-filled eyes!") you indicate the black-and-white way you are looking at the world. Well, as Another nonymous indicated earlier on this thread, the real world where people do their thinking and dreaming is full color, not black and white only. True, Marx said and wrote a lot of things that have led others to do horrific evil. But that doesn't mean everything he said and wrote is evil, or leads to evil. Marx, like you, me, and everyone else, was a mixture of good and evil. Marx, like the rest of us, was both made in God's image and tainted by the fall from grace. As Rick indicated, the truth of some of the things Marx wrote cannot be denied. Many others have seen and recognized the same thing. (See Rick's comment about MLK above [8:06 AM].)

Fourth, you refuse to recognize that some of Wallis' ideas come from Christian sources that are much older than Marx (such as the Anabaptists). Moreover, Marx didn't live in a vaccuum and so may have also borrowed and echoed some of this earlier thinking. Marx's thinking wasn't entirely original, and he did live in a Western culture that was still deeply influenced by biblical ideas. Some of these ideas certainly rubbed off on him.

Fifth, just becasue Wallis quoted from Marx, or borrowed ideas from him, or referred to him, doesn't mean he's an ideological Marxist. By analogy, if I quoted from Pope Benedict, or referred to him, or expressed admiration or approval of something he said or wrote, you would be very wrong in thinking that therefore I must be Roman Catholic. The same is true for Wallis and Marx.

Finally, these words of Wallis' are over thirty years old. You said you haven't heard him ever recant these words, but that's an argument from silence. He wouldn't have to publically recant something if he's changed his mind about it. And because they're taken out of context, they may not mean at all what traditionalvalues.org wants us to think they mean. The only way to know what he thinks today is to discuss it with him.

The bottom line is this, Peter: you haven't demonstrated that Rev. Wallis is an ideological Marxist or even that he's a socialist. Not even close. Your "evidence" is flawed and your reasoning is flawed. Therefore, in the absence of real evidence to demonstrate that he is a Marxist, I must conclude that your accusation is false.

PS: just because your personal attacks against Wallis were lifted from someone else doesn't absolve you from the concern that you may be in violation of Beliefnet guidelines. You are the one who pasted these personal attacks here.

Peace,

by: Don

09-03-2008 @ 11:45am

The above post (8:41 AM) was mine.

Don

by: Pastor Jeff Staples

09-03-2008 @ 11:46am

Peter: Jesus didn't wear rose colored glasses.

Pastor Jeff

by: Keith

09-03-2008 @ 11:52am

I have no problem voting on one issue.

I am thrilled that so many lives were being saved with the response to Gustav.

But at the same time all of those lives were being saved in New Orleans, approximately 3,500 unborn babies were being aborted on Monday.

3,500 unborn babies lost their life on a single day.

In 2 days, more unborn babies will lose their life than in all of the lives taken in Iraq.

In 2 days, more unborn babies will lose their life than was taken on 9/11.

It is great that Christians want to address all of those issues but that should NOT BE done at the expense of 3,500 babies EACH DAY not be allowed to be born.

Our success in fighting poverty, health care issues, racial and gender imbalance should not be done while standing on the corpses of unborn babies.

No way, no how, I can ever VOTE for someone who thinks it is acceptable for this country to kill unborn babies.

We get upset with the Darfur situation. And yet, more babies have lost their life in this country (and somehow I am told that should be acceptable??) than people killed in Darfur.

We get upset with the Holocaust and rightfully so are horrified by the abuses. And yet, I believe, that the number of babies aborted in this country exceeds the number that was killed in the Holocaust. And yet, you want me to accept that and consider a candidate that wants this practice to continue.

I can't do it. I can't get to the end of time and have to be judged for my actions and when God asks what I did to stop this abortion stain on this country and I say, well but the candidate was going to support the unions and raise my wages and somehow think God will say, Okay that was more important than the killing of unborn babies.

Sorry, Jim, I WILL BE A ONE ISSUE VOTER as long as this country thinks it is acceptable to kill unborn babies.

by: Don

09-03-2008 @ 11:56am

Gordon:

If you're still around and reading this thread, my understanding of collectivism is along the lines of what the Soviet Union did to agriculture during the Stalin era--you know, the "collective farms" and five-year economic plans and such.

Since I don't hear Rev. Wallis or the other Sojouners regulars advocating for these kinds of things--or anything remotely similar--I have trouble applying the term "collectivist" to their ideas.

Peace,

by: Robert Alu

09-03-2008 @ 1:06pm

"Our success in fighting poverty, health care issues, racial and gender imbalance should not be done while standing on the corpses of unborn babies."

Posted by: Keith | September 3, 2008 8:52 AM

Hi all,

Is the situation that bad?

Horrible!

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

by: Paul

09-03-2008 @ 2:58pm

solagratia,

Thanks for your reflection. I, too, hope that McCain's choice of Sarah Palin will even the score in ways that will force real discussion of the issues. Now both tickets have a long-experienced Senator, a young and vibrant go-getter, a candidate who breaks the white male barrier, and a certain amount of "change" -- a popular word these days. Now we should be able to have honest discussion without getting bogged down in just who is racist or sexist.

Furthermore (and I hope you're still with me on this one) I want the discussion to stay away from either ticket owning Christianity, family values and patriotism.

Rest assured, I love God, my wife, my kids and my country. I also plan to vote for Obama/Biden.

by: Keith

09-03-2008 @ 4:07pm

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

You ask if the situation is that bad.

About 3,500 babies PER DAY is aborted in the US.

That is about 145 per hour.

That means in the past two minutes it took me to read your post and compile this response, about 5 unborn babies have lost their life.

By the time, you have finished reading these 5 sentences, two or 3 more have lost their life.

Personally, I think the best attack on abortion is a combination of the Dems and Reps platforms.

All that can be done to remove the NEED for abortion, should be a main tactic and vital to the welfare of this country.

And at the same time, it should be a banned practice in this country and we should quickly be moved in that manner.

by: Sister Marie

09-03-2008 @ 4:57pm

"Rest assured, I love God, my wife, my kids and my country. I also plan to vote for Obama/Biden."

Paul, I concur with your comments, and I also intend to cast my vote for Obama/Biden. As long as the campaign is about all of the issues, I'm confident that our choices will do well. Unfortunately, the Republican slime machine is gearing up, and they have demonstrated their capacity to divert attention away from the issues and to execute character assassination on candidates who have served our country honorably. John McCain is an honorable American, but I don't think that he will be successful in getting the Republican party out of the gutter. Karl Rove could be immediately recalled to "active duty" if the present Republican Team is not up to the job.

by: SecularAnimist

09-03-2008 @ 5:29pm

Keith wrote: "I WILL BE A ONE ISSUE VOTER as long as this country thinks it is acceptable to kill unborn babies."

If a fetus is an unborn baby, then logically you are an undead corpse.

by: Andrew

09-03-2008 @ 6:35pm

This article was so well written that I don't know what else to say but, YES!

by: Anonymous

09-04-2008 @ 3:53pm

I tried to read all of your comments. I agree with Sister Marie, and Bruce. I want to say here that I am glad there are people like Jim Wallis.

I know that the right wing evangelical Chistians do vote on abortion. I have heard them talking.
They think that is the main issue. Look what the last eight years have been like, because of this experienced administration, and their compassionate conservatism.

When I was young the chuch did not get mixed up in politics. They were mute. I do not think that we as Christians should be voting one specific issue. I know that the spoken word when I was young was the Republicans were for the rich, and the democrats supported unions, wages and equality, and FAMILY VALUES.

About SARAH PALIN, she has in place laws for the killing of wolves and bears from helicopters in Alaska. Would it be better to dart them and neuter them and spay the felmales to keep the population down. She gets a thumbs down on that one from me.

My daughters are so upset with Chistians they want to go back to the roots of there Hebrew ancestors. Instead of preaching about what and who to follow politically, follow Jesus. What would HE do and how would HE think.

What is wrong!!! THE CHURCHES ARE TEACHING HOW TO CONDEMN, CRITIZE, BE JUDGEMENTAL INSTEAD OF teaching how JESUS WOULD VIEW THINGS, and his LOVE.

THIS IS NOT THE CHRISTIANITY I WAS BROUGHT UP IN.
I HAVE LOVED JESUS ALL MY LIFE. IF YOU LOVE HIM TOO, PUT HIM IN YOUR HEART AND LET HIM GUIDE YOUR THOUGHTS. WHAT WOULD HE DO. I AM ASHAMED SO ASHAMED OF HOW YOU CHRISTIANS ACT.

Pray that you might get an understanding how Jesus might see you. Let him put His love in your heart

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Eric

09-01-2008 @ 2:12pm

Jim,
I definitely agree with most of what you've written here. Obama's speech definitely was historic. The fact that, as he has pointed out, a man can rise from a pretty low level (economically speaking), as well as be a member of a racial minority group, and be very close to being the next president says something about this country.

The only quibble is with the first clause of Point Number 2. I don't think there is anything wrong with voting on one issue as long as it is done with reflection and thought. If I thought, for example, ending the war in Iraq was the single most important issue I don't think there'd be anything wrong with casting my vote on that one issue alone.

by: Eric

09-01-2008 @ 2:12pm

Jim,
I definitely agree with most of what you've written here. Obama's speech definitely was historic. The fact that, as he has pointed out, a man can rise from a pretty low level (economically speaking), as well as be a member of a racial minority group, and be very close to being the next president says something about this country.

The only quibble is with the first clause of Point Number 2. I don't think there is anything wrong with voting on one issue as long as it is done with reflection and thought. If I thought, for example, ending the war in Iraq was the single most important issue I don't think there'd be anything wrong with casting my vote on that one issue alone.

by: T

09-01-2008 @ 2:12pm

GREAT ARTICLE!!! As a Christian who generally votes Democratic, many of my fellow Christians scoff at me for voting "for" abortion. I am glad to see that someone with religious influence finally understands that Christian values transcend ideals about abortion and include issues such as ending violence and the war, reducing poverty and improving the quality of life AFTER birth. Christians will have legitimate reasons to vote for either Obama of McCain this fall, and thank you for realizing that.

by: T

09-01-2008 @ 2:12pm

GREAT ARTICLE!!! As a Christian who generally votes Democratic, many of my fellow Christians scoff at me for voting "for" abortion. I am glad to see that someone with religious influence finally understands that Christian values transcend ideals about abortion and include issues such as ending violence and the war, reducing poverty and improving the quality of life AFTER birth. Christians will have legitimate reasons to vote for either Obama of McCain this fall, and thank you for realizing that.

by: jesse

09-01-2008 @ 2:42pm

Agree with most of the 5, though #2 of course has nothing to do with civility. Wallis would likely have no problem with someone voting based on the "single issues" of poverty or pacifism. It's perfectly respectable to me, as well.

Civility has nothing to do with how one votes and everything to do with how you treat others who vote differently.

by: jesse

09-01-2008 @ 2:42pm

Agree with most of the 5, though #2 of course has nothing to do with civility. Wallis would likely have no problem with someone voting based on the "single issues" of poverty or pacifism. It's perfectly respectable to me, as well.

Civility has nothing to do with how one votes and everything to do with how you treat others who vote differently.

by: Jeremiah speaks...

09-01-2008 @ 3:10pm

Absolutely! People of faith are cynically allowing themselves to be divided-- and then conquered-- through the constant use of a lexicon of discord and incivility.

We need to consider what how we really want to change the world, and how we can use the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. ESPECIALLY when it comes to politics. That's why I have started what I hope will be a conversation at "The Bible and Politics."

by: Jeremiah speaks...

09-01-2008 @ 3:10pm

Absolutely! People of faith are cynically allowing themselves to be divided-- and then conquered-- through the constant use of a lexicon of discord and incivility.

We need to consider what how we really want to change the world, and how we can use the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. ESPECIALLY when it comes to politics. That's why I have started what I hope will be a conversation at "The Bible and Politics."

by: Roy

09-01-2008 @ 3:25pm

Good article here Jim and that is coming from a man who usually doesn't agree with nearly anything you write. I do think its unfortunate, however, that Dobson and other conservatives are attacked for their support of Republicans while Brian McLaren and emergents get a pass on this site for supporting Democrats. Why not just ignore both parties and simply preach the gospel of freedom from sin through the blood of Jesus?

by: Roy

09-01-2008 @ 3:25pm

Good article here Jim and that is coming from a man who usually doesn't agree with nearly anything you write. I do think its unfortunate, however, that Dobson and other conservatives are attacked for their support of Republicans while Brian McLaren and emergents get a pass on this site for supporting Democrats. Why not just ignore both parties and simply preach the gospel of freedom from sin through the blood of Jesus?

by: Duh-sciple

09-01-2008 @ 3:27pm

I celebrate Jim's friendship with Richard Land and Tony Perkins! John 13:34

And... may we outdo one another in showing honor, even when we disagree. Romans 12:10

Treasured people, treasure other people,

Duh-sciple

by: Duh-sciple

09-01-2008 @ 3:27pm

I celebrate Jim's friendship with Richard Land and Tony Perkins! John 13:34

And... may we outdo one another in showing honor, even when we disagree. Romans 12:10

Treasured people, treasure other people,

Duh-sciple

by: Another nonymous

09-01-2008 @ 4:00pm

"Wallis would likely have no problem with someone voting based on the "single issues" of poverty or pacifism."

Do you really think that's the case? When have we even had the chance to vote for a candidate who supports pacifism? As a committed pacifist, I am forced to base my decision on other factors every time I vote. Even if there were a pacifist candidate, though, I probably wouldn't vote for him/her, since I'm realistic enough to know that pacifism is a "bottom up" issue that can hardly be endorsed by the commander in chief of the military.

Likewise, the whole thrust of Sojo's anti-poverty campaign is that poverty isn't a single issue - any more than life is a single issue. Virtually every issue in this election - taxes, military spending, health care, environmental regulation, deficit reduction, education - has the potential to affect poverty. In what way would an anti-poverty candidate present this position as a single issue? I can't even begin to imagine how this would be possible.

by: Another nonymous

09-01-2008 @ 4:00pm

"Wallis would likely have no problem with someone voting based on the "single issues" of poverty or pacifism."

Do you really think that's the case? When have we even had the chance to vote for a candidate who supports pacifism? As a committed pacifist, I am forced to base my decision on other factors every time I vote. Even if there were a pacifist candidate, though, I probably wouldn't vote for him/her, since I'm realistic enough to know that pacifism is a "bottom up" issue that can hardly be endorsed by the commander in chief of the military.

Likewise, the whole thrust of Sojo's anti-poverty campaign is that poverty isn't a single issue - any more than life is a single issue. Virtually every issue in this election - taxes, military spending, health care, environmental regulation, deficit reduction, education - has the potential to affect poverty. In what way would an anti-poverty candidate present this position as a single issue? I can't even begin to imagine how this would be possible.

by: Lord Voldemort

09-01-2008 @ 4:12pm

I like Jim Wallis' principles for the most part, but find that for each principle he lists there is an equal and opposite principle that is also valid.

1 "We Christians should be in the pocket of no political party; but should evaluate both candidates and parties by our biblically based moral compass."

1a This does not preclude our working closely with a political party on issues we consider important, but Christians should always keep in mind that however long-running our political alliances may be, these are temporal. Our dedication to Christ is eternal. Our rhetoric should always reflect this.

2 "We don't vote on only one issue, but see biblical foundations for our concerns over many issues."

2a A Christian may find that one or two issues are particularly decisive. He or she should still respect the opinions of other Christians with different priorities.

3 "We advocate a consistent ethic of life from womb to tomb, and one that challenges the selective moralities of both the left and the right."

3a We also recognize that however controversial it might be in the context of abortion, the ideal of "Choice" and freedom to make individual decisions is a valid one, and that reasonable people can differ on the proper balance between protection and freedom on a wide range of issues.

4 "We will respect the integrity of our Christian brothers and sisters in their sincere efforts to apply Christian commitments to the important decisions of this election; knowing that people of faith and conscience will be voting both ways in this election year."

4a We will also respect the freedom to debate. We will recognize the distinction between questioning reasoning or political ideologies on one hand, and questioning a fellow Christian's intentions or commitment to Christ. We will be slow to both give and take offense.

5 We will not attack our fellow Christians as Democratic or Republican partisans, but rather will expect and respect the practice of putting our faith first in this election year; even if we reach different conclusions.

5a We will recognize that excessive partisanship is a danger, and guard against this in our own hearts. We will also bear in mind that one of the best services we can provide for our allies is an honest if discrete assessment of the weaknesses of their positions.

LV

by: Lord Voldemort

09-01-2008 @ 4:12pm

I like Jim Wallis' principles for the most part, but find that for each principle he lists there is an equal and opposite principle that is also valid.

1 "We Christians should be in the pocket of no political party; but should evaluate both candidates and parties by our biblically based moral compass."

1a This does not preclude our working closely with a political party on issues we consider important, but Christians should always keep in mind that however long-running our political alliances may be, these are temporal. Our dedication to Christ is eternal. Our rhetoric should always reflect this.

2 "We don't vote on only one issue, but see biblical foundations for our concerns over many issues."

2a A Christian may find that one or two issues are particularly decisive. He or she should still respect the opinions of other Christians with different priorities.

3 "We advocate a consistent ethic of life from womb to tomb, and one that challenges the selective moralities of both the left and the right."

3a We also recognize that however controversial it might be in the context of abortion, the ideal of "Choice" and freedom to make individual decisions is a valid one, and that reasonable people can differ on the proper balance between protection and freedom on a wide range of issues.

4 "We will respect the integrity of our Christian brothers and sisters in their sincere efforts to apply Christian commitments to the important decisions of this election; knowing that people of faith and conscience will be voting both ways in this election year."

4a We will also respect the freedom to debate. We will recognize the distinction between questioning reasoning or political ideologies on one hand, and questioning a fellow Christian's intentions or commitment to Christ. We will be slow to both give and take offense.

5 We will not attack our fellow Christians as Democratic or Republican partisans, but rather will expect and respect the practice of putting our faith first in this election year; even if we reach different conclusions.

5a We will recognize that excessive partisanship is a danger, and guard against this in our own hearts. We will also bear in mind that one of the best services we can provide for our allies is an honest if discrete assessment of the weaknesses of their positions.

LV

by: kevin s.

09-01-2008 @ 4:54pm

I dunno that the comments were any more or less heated on the Obama thread than usual.

People can call me partisan all they like. Given that I am unlikely to support any Democrats on my ballot this year, it's probably a fair descriptor.

Voting on the basis of one issue is unwise in the present political culture. I don't know if that has anything to do with civility. I also don't know of anyone who intends to do so.

Moreso, I think a one issue can make the difference between voting for one candidate or another, particularly when both candidates are perceived to be advocating largely the same agenda. If both candidates adovcate A, B, C and D, but sharply disagree about E and F, a voter is left to decide which of E or F is more important to them.

by: kevin s.

09-01-2008 @ 4:54pm

I dunno that the comments were any more or less heated on the Obama thread than usual.

People can call me partisan all they like. Given that I am unlikely to support any Democrats on my ballot this year, it's probably a fair descriptor.

Voting on the basis of one issue is unwise in the present political culture. I don't know if that has anything to do with civility. I also don't know of anyone who intends to do so.

Moreso, I think a one issue can make the difference between voting for one candidate or another, particularly when both candidates are perceived to be advocating largely the same agenda. If both candidates adovcate A, B, C and D, but sharply disagree about E and F, a voter is left to decide which of E or F is more important to them.

by: readerOfTeaLeaves

09-01-2008 @ 5:01pm

Unable to get the streaming on that discussion earlier today in MN; I hope that you or Mr Waldman will put up a link to the archive if one is available.

Politics is definitely 'emotional', but I very much fear that we rely far too much on 'personal narratives', and that's similar to putting a pair of blinkers on a horse. The horse will go where the driver tells it, but then unexpectedly find itself at the butcher's.

Civility does much to take the blinkers off, or at least allow a fuzzy view of the larger world.

by: readerOfTeaLeaves

09-01-2008 @ 5:01pm

Unable to get the streaming on that discussion earlier today in MN; I hope that you or Mr Waldman will put up a link to the archive if one is available.

Politics is definitely 'emotional', but I very much fear that we rely far too much on 'personal narratives', and that's similar to putting a pair of blinkers on a horse. The horse will go where the driver tells it, but then unexpectedly find itself at the butcher's.

Civility does much to take the blinkers off, or at least allow a fuzzy view of the larger world.

by: Rick

09-01-2008 @ 5:11pm

I do think its unfortunate, however, that Dobson and other conservatives are attacked for their support of Republicans while Brian McLaren and emergents get a pass on this site for supporting Democrats.

Because the conservatives themselves generally shift to attack mode. I was on another "Christian" blog that generally, and unfairly, criticizes Barack Obama; when I challenged that, even for the sake of offering another view, I was attacked as a non-believer.

Voting on the basis of one issue is unwise in the present political culture. I don't know if that has anything to do with civility. I also don't know of anyone who intends to do so.

Oh, I do -- I live in a strongly "pro-life" area.

by: Rick

09-01-2008 @ 5:11pm

I do think its unfortunate, however, that Dobson and other conservatives are attacked for their support of Republicans while Brian McLaren and emergents get a pass on this site for supporting Democrats.

Because the conservatives themselves generally shift to attack mode. I was on another "Christian" blog that generally, and unfairly, criticizes Barack Obama; when I challenged that, even for the sake of offering another view, I was attacked as a non-believer.

Voting on the basis of one issue is unwise in the present political culture. I don't know if that has anything to do with civility. I also don't know of anyone who intends to do so.

Oh, I do -- I live in a strongly "pro-life" area.

by: Mark Congdon

09-01-2008 @ 6:15pm

It is odd to me that in your point #3, you make a judgment about the validity of the political viewpoints of both the "left" and the "right" (however you intend those to be defined). I would imagine that many left-leaning and right-leaning Christians do not believe that their morality is selective.

Is it possible to be a pro-choice Christian without having a "selective morality"?

Is it possible to e a non-pacifist Christian without having a "selective morality"?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is yes, then I'm not sure what you mean about the "left" and the "right" having selective moralities.

And, at the least, I am sure that many people on both sides of the political spectrum would answer one or the other of the above questions in the affirmative.

Is it necessary for me to view my political party as having a "selective morality" for me to be able to act with civility toward those who disagree with me? I certainly hope not.

Mark

by: Mark Congdon

09-01-2008 @ 6:15pm

It is odd to me that in your point #3, you make a judgment about the validity of the political viewpoints of both the "left" and the "right" (however you intend those to be defined). I would imagine that many left-leaning and right-leaning Christians do not believe that their morality is selective.

Is it possible to be a pro-choice Christian without having a "selective morality"?

Is it possible to e a non-pacifist Christian without having a "selective morality"?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is yes, then I'm not sure what you mean about the "left" and the "right" having selective moralities.

And, at the least, I am sure that many people on both sides of the political spectrum would answer one or the other of the above questions in the affirmative.

Is it necessary for me to view my political party as having a "selective morality" for me to be able to act with civility toward those who disagree with me? I certainly hope not.

Mark

by: Christian Prophet

09-01-2008 @ 6:28pm

I do believe it is very appropriate to examine Barack Obama's version of "Christianity." I also believe it is appropriate to examine Barack Obama's Marxist background. And I believe it is very appropriate to examine whether Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama. Read:
http://christianprophecy.blogspot.com/

by: Christian Prophet

09-01-2008 @ 6:28pm

I do believe it is very appropriate to examine Barack Obama's version of "Christianity." I also believe it is appropriate to examine Barack Obama's Marxist background. And I believe it is very appropriate to examine whether Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama. Read:
http://christianprophecy.blogspot.com/

by: John Leslie

09-01-2008 @ 6:56pm

I am beginning to pray over the word that asks if we are not being warned that detachment will be more and more required as we enter the last days, in fact if we are not fast approaching the period whether in this and in future elections, it is a distinct possibility that NEITHER major candidate deserves a vote from the conscientious Christian. For example, Obama is the most lenient candidate, based on his record, towards that "culture of death" called abortion, including, late-term and partial-birth abortion. That cautions my supporting him at all, to say the least!
McCain as well, concernedly I say, has the ideologists (usually opposed to Christian Reality as ideology is, in fact) known as Neoconservatives or Neocons, heading up his foreign policy team with their more than just aggressive views about changing other countries' governments because we don't like them and are prepared to force other nations and cultures to change. This is likely to cause, in McCain's phrase, "more wars, my friends, sorry to say!"
Well, that many of these wars may not be advisable is the most charitable way of putting it, but perhaps more accurate, we can more strictly criticize by terming such wars as an international "culture of death."
Thus both candidates are seriously compromised! And this meets the sober, penetrating view of our Lord Jesus Christ, who may be saying to us by all of this - get ready, my people, and do not run after either, but lift up your heads because your redemption draweth nigh!

by: John Leslie

09-01-2008 @ 6:56pm

I am beginning to pray over the word that asks if we are not being warned that detachment will be more and more required as we enter the last days, in fact if we are not fast approaching the period whether in this and in future elections, it is a distinct possibility that NEITHER major candidate deserves a vote from the conscientious Christian. For example, Obama is the most lenient candidate, based on his record, towards that "culture of death" called abortion, including, late-term and partial-birth abortion. That cautions my supporting him at all, to say the least!
McCain as well, concernedly I say, has the ideologists (usually opposed to Christian Reality as ideology is, in fact) known as Neoconservatives or Neocons, heading up his foreign policy team with their more than just aggressive views about changing other countries' governments because we don't like them and are prepared to force other nations and cultures to change. This is likely to cause, in McCain's phrase, "more wars, my friends, sorry to say!"
Well, that many of these wars may not be advisable is the most charitable way of putting it, but perhaps more accurate, we can more strictly criticize by terming such wars as an international "culture of death."
Thus both candidates are seriously compromised! And this meets the sober, penetrating view of our Lord Jesus Christ, who may be saying to us by all of this - get ready, my people, and do not run after either, but lift up your heads because your redemption draweth nigh!

by: Pastor Jeff Staples

09-01-2008 @ 7:13pm

Christian Prophet: You mean the version where he publicly confesses that Christ shed His blood on the cross for the forgiveness of his sins and that he went forward to make a personal commitment to the Kingdom? I guess you best be questioning all the evangelicals then (including your pastor, if you have one). Here Rev Wallis appeals for people of grace to act graciously, and you want to pick up stones.

Pastor Jeff

by: Pastor Jeff Staples

09-01-2008 @ 7:13pm

Christian Prophet: You mean the version where he publicly confesses that Christ shed His blood on the cross for the forgiveness of his sins and that he went forward to make a personal commitment to the Kingdom? I guess you best be questioning all the evangelicals then (including your pastor, if you have one). Here Rev Wallis appeals for people of grace to act graciously, and you want to pick up stones.

Pastor Jeff

by: Don

09-01-2008 @ 7:49pm

I do believe it is very appropriate to examine Barack Obama's version of "Christianity."

I echo Pastor Jeff, especially his comment about your wanting to pick up stones, and I would add by way of reminder that Barack Obama's understanding of Christianity has no bearing on whether he's qualified to be President. We aren't electing a Theologian-in-Chief, and the Constitution forbids religious tests for public office.

Peace,

by: Don

09-01-2008 @ 7:49pm

I do believe it is very appropriate to examine Barack Obama's version of "Christianity."

I echo Pastor Jeff, especially his comment about your wanting to pick up stones, and I would add by way of reminder that Barack Obama's understanding of Christianity has no bearing on whether he's qualified to be President. We aren't electing a Theologian-in-Chief, and the Constitution forbids religious tests for public office.

Peace,

by: Sarah

09-01-2008 @ 8:36pm

Thank you! I think of all things, mutual respect should be most common among Christians. I wholeheartedly second your article!

by: Sarah

09-01-2008 @ 8:36pm

Thank you! I think of all things, mutual respect should be most common among Christians. I wholeheartedly second your article!

by: naturalaw

09-01-2008 @ 9:24pm

While Wallis and Perkins may not be in the pockets of any particular political party, they are both in the pocket of the two-party system. Several times Wallis uses the word "both" when comparing or contrasting parties or candidates. He never makes any mention of a third party, and whether voting for one might be the "Christian thing to do," in this election. For shame.
May I recommend the following voting strategy:
1. Vote for every third party candidate on the ballot.
2. Vote against every incumbant, whatever the party.
3. Evenly divide the rest of your votes among the various parties.
4. Vote every bond referendum down.
Voting for gridlock, to me, is the Christian thing to do.
Nathanael Snow

by: naturalaw

09-01-2008 @ 9:24pm

While Wallis and Perkins may not be in the pockets of any particular political party, they are both in the pocket of the two-party system. Several times Wallis uses the word "both" when comparing or contrasting parties or candidates. He never makes any mention of a third party, and whether voting for one might be the "Christian thing to do," in this election. For shame.
May I recommend the following voting strategy:
1. Vote for every third party candidate on the ballot.
2. Vote against every incumbant, whatever the party.
3. Evenly divide the rest of your votes among the various parties.
4. Vote every bond referendum down.
Voting for gridlock, to me, is the Christian thing to do.
Nathanael Snow

by: brenna

09-01-2008 @ 9:43pm

Being civil doesn't require that you fail to state the very clear policy and wisdom failures of people who will be responsible for our future.

by: brenna

09-01-2008 @ 9:43pm

Being civil doesn't require that you fail to state the very clear policy and wisdom failures of people who will be responsible for our future.

by: Paul, seeking..

09-01-2008 @ 9:51pm

Try as I might, I can't seem to be neutral in the debate over who is more "Christian" between the two major Party candidates.

Try as I might to get my fellow evangelical Christians to see that they have one issue candidate as president, they can only see the one issue. They remind me of the Pharisees who when they saw Jesus working miracles, they condemned him for "working on the Sabbath".

These are the same Christians that say "Works have to value" when I read scriptures to them about how we are called to care for one another.

by: Paul, seeking..

09-01-2008 @ 9:51pm

Try as I might, I can't seem to be neutral in the debate over who is more "Christian" between the two major Party candidates.

Try as I might to get my fellow evangelical Christians to see that they have one issue candidate as president, they can only see the one issue. They remind me of the Pharisees who when they saw Jesus working miracles, they condemned him for "working on the Sabbath".

These are the same Christians that say "Works have to value" when I read scriptures to them about how we are called to care for one another.

by: Eric

09-01-2008 @ 10:07pm

There's a lot of criticism here of "single issue" Christian voters (which is code for Christians who only vote for "pro-life" candidates). But I really wonder whether there are many of them out there in the first place.

I think the assumption that is often, incorrectly, made is that Christians who vote for pro-life Republicans are simply doing so because that candidate it pro-life. This assumption is made because Christians who are politically liberal make another assumption that if any Christian honestly looks at issues other than abortion that they'd easily see things their way. So it must be the abortion issue that's driving all these Christians to the Republican Party.

Stop and think for a second and give these Christians who vote Republican a little credit. Perhaps they actually agree with the GOP on issues such as taxes, or energy, or foreign policy, or immigration. You can argue that Christians shouldn't support the GOP agenda on those issues, but don't assume that it's just abortion that is causing them to vote this way.

by: Eric

09-01-2008 @ 10:07pm

There's a lot of criticism here of "single issue" Christian voters (which is code for Christians who only vote for "pro-life" candidates). But I really wonder whether there are many of them out there in the first place.

I think the assumption that is often, incorrectly, made is that Christians who vote for pro-life Republicans are simply doing so because that candidate it pro-life. This assumption is made because Christians who are politically liberal make another assumption that if any Christian honestly looks at issues other than abortion that they'd easily see things their way. So it must be the abortion issue that's driving all these Christians to the Republican Party.

Stop and think for a second and give these Christians who vote Republican a little credit. Perhaps they actually agree with the GOP on issues such as taxes, or energy, or foreign policy, or immigration. You can argue that Christians shouldn't support the GOP agenda on those issues, but don't assume that it's just abortion that is causing them to vote this way.

by: openeyes

09-01-2008 @ 11:17pm

Wow. Even a post about civility produces some significant incivility in response.

Imagine the revolution if, instead of investing energy in figuring out how to one-up one another while counting the stars in our crowns, we figure out what it is that sets us off about someone else's post, and figure out what it says to us about ourselves?

And folks who get most of their news from the Internet at selective sites, aren't wrestling for truth; they believe they've found it.

Please please, just for now, talk about the things and people you love, not the ones you hate. I love people who give me a chance to be faithful, and who want me to grant them the same.

And a bunch of other people, too.

by: openeyes

09-01-2008 @ 11:17pm

Wow. Even a post about civility produces some significant incivility in response.

Imagine the revolution if, instead of investing energy in figuring out how to one-up one another while counting the stars in our crowns, we figure out what it is that sets us off about someone else's post, and figure out what it says to us about ourselves?

And folks who get most of their news from the Internet at selective sites, aren't wrestling for truth; they believe they've found it.

Please please, just for now, talk about the things and people you love, not the ones you hate. I love people who give me a chance to be faithful, and who want me to grant them the same.

And a bunch of other people, too.

by: Rick

09-01-2008 @ 11:30pm

I also believe it is appropriate to examine Barack Obama's Marxist background.

Except it doesn't exist.

I think the assumption that is often, incorrectly, made is that Christians who vote for pro-life Republicans are simply doing so because that candidate it pro-life ... So it must be the abortion issue that's driving all these Christians to the Republican Party.

The assumption, however, has considerable merit. It's no secret that the "religious right," which already had an in with the GOP in 1978, began using abortion as a battering ram for the sake of votes.

Perhaps they actually agree with the GOP on issues such as taxes, or energy, or foreign policy, or immigration. You can argue that Christians shouldn't support the GOP agenda on those issues, but don't assume that it's just abortion that is causing them to vote this way.

Actually, those other issues came later.

by: Rick

09-01-2008 @ 11:30pm

I also believe it is appropriate to examine Barack Obama's Marxist background.

Except it doesn't exist.

I think the assumption that is often, incorrectly, made is that Christians who vote for pro-life Republicans are simply doing so because that candidate it pro-life ... So it must be the abortion issue that's driving all these Christians to the Republican Party.

The assumption, however, has considerable merit. It's no secret that the "religious right," which already had an in with the GOP in 1978, began using abortion as a battering ram for the sake of votes.

Perhaps they actually agree with the GOP on issues such as taxes, or energy, or foreign policy, or immigration. You can argue that Christians shouldn't support the GOP agenda on those issues, but don't assume that it's just abortion that is causing them to vote this way.

Actually, those other issues came later.

by: Another nonymous

09-01-2008 @ 11:41pm

Eric -

Maybe it's because most Christians who vote Democratic have had conversations in which we explain our political views, only to be told: "OK, but I just don't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who supports abortion."

I've never been told "I just don't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who opposed the war," or "I just can't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who supports universal health care," or "I just can't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants." The trump card is always abortion.

Now, I could conclude that these people are cynically using the abortion issue to avoid genuine debate. But I honestly don't think so. I really believe they do find abortion to be the defining issue: the one that elicits the strongest gut level reaction.

In fact, I have invested considerable energy in trying to explain this to my friends on the left. If anything, those friends tend to *underestimate* how important abortion is to Christians who vote Republican.

Since this is a discussion on civility, let me repeat something I've said many times before: There is plenty of need for people on both sides to try to understand the amount of passion that the abortion issue arouses in their political opponents, and why.

by: Another nonymous

09-01-2008 @ 11:41pm

Eric -

Maybe it's because most Christians who vote Democratic have had conversations in which we explain our political views, only to be told: "OK, but I just don't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who supports abortion."

I've never been told "I just don't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who opposed the war," or "I just can't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who supports universal health care," or "I just can't understand how a Christian can vote for somebody who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants." The trump card is always abortion.

Now, I could conclude that these people are cynically using the abortion issue to avoid genuine debate. But I honestly don't think so. I really believe they do find abortion to be the defining issue: the one that elicits the strongest gut level reaction.

In fact, I have invested considerable energy in trying to explain this to my friends on the left. If anything, those friends tend to *underestimate* how important abortion is to Christians who vote Republican.

Since this is a discussion on civility, let me repeat something I've said many times before: There is plenty of need for people on both sides to try to understand the amount of passion that the abortion issue arouses in their political opponents, and why.

by: ando

09-02-2008 @ 12:40am

"Stop and think for a second and give these Christians who vote Republican a little credit. Perhaps they actually agree with the GOP on issues such as taxes, or energy, or foreign policy, or immigration. You can argue that Christians shouldn't support the GOP agenda on those issues, but don't assume that it's just abortion that is causing them to vote this way."

I was wondering if you could enlighten me on what the biblical basis is for supporting the Republicans' positions on these issues? It seems that for many Christians the litmus test IS abortion, and they build their case for voting Republican around that one issue, no matter how the Republican establishment's positions on other important issues.

by: ando

09-02-2008 @ 12:40am

"Stop and think for a second and give these Christians who vote Republican a little credit. Perhaps they actually agree with the GOP on issues such as taxes, or energy, or foreign policy, or immigration. You can argue that Christians shouldn't support the GOP agenda on those issues, but don't assume that it's just abortion that is causing them to vote this way."

I was wondering if you could enlighten me on what the biblical basis is for supporting the Republicans' positions on these issues? It seems that for many Christians the litmus test IS abortion, and they build their case for voting Republican around that one issue, no matter how the Republican establishment's positions on other important issues.