For the Record: Still Not the Religious Left

Very well said!!!

Using your framework, I would agree Jim is on the left (personally, I would be happy to toss out the categories as I think they get in the way of dialogue and solving problems). I also agree with your evidence focused on what he sees as within the purview of the Federal government.

I would expand a bit and offer as further evidence, that neither he, nor many on the 'religious right,' have found a way to genuinely transcend the gap. And in the meantime, he seems firmly entrenched in the 'left' approach.

Poverty is not God's desire. Christians seek God's desires to be fulfilled on Earth and in Heaven. Left and Right acknowledge government systemically impacts the reality of poverty in this nation.

There is no reason both sides cannot come together.

The failure is because we are more committed to our answers than working together on the questions.

"I like your point by point response. I am not sure how well my overall argument comes through. I think at the core we disagree whether marriage with a gender qualification, is at the heart, a restriction--or a legal side to affirm a single good. I don't have any trouble accepting your view as reasoned and defensible. I don't agree with it. I think the issue can be seen through another prism that does not require viewing marriage law as disccriminatory. I am not arguing that I have made the case well :)"

The view that you express is discriminatory. You wish to have laws restrict marriages based upon a single physical characteristic: gender. Gender, like race, is an external characteristic; gender does not define the humanity of a person. So to use laws to restrict marriages to those of certain physical characteristics and bar marriages between people of other physical characteristics is -- by definition -- discriminatory.

Remember that no one is forcing anyone to marry any person that they don't choose. If having a partner of a certain gender (or a certain race, religion, etc.) is vitally important, that is anyone's choice. However, to bar people from marrying because of external physical characteristics restricts peoples' natural rights.

"In short, I think it perfectly legitimate for a culture to see a distinction between male and female. Making that distinction does not answer every question. It does not guide us in what to do when a baby is born that is not clearly one or the other. It does not answer what to do when a person feels they are in the wrong body. Those issues however, do not demand we give up our general understanding that there are males and females--and that there is something about this male-female thing that allows human life."

The logic, according to this thinking, is to bar marriages between sterile people. Anyone who cannot or refuses to reproduce shouldn't be allowed to marry, according to this logic. Older people no longer capable of reproducing shouldn't be allowed to marry either, according to this logic. Needless to say, this "logic" makes no sense. So the idea that barring marriage between people because of gender per se also makes no sense.

There are males and females. There are Blacks, Whites, and Asians and other races. There are Americans, Canadians, Eurpopeans, Japanese, and other nationalities. It's a great thing that human beings come in so many varieties of gender, color, nationality, and other factors. Wouldn't it be completely boring if human beings were all the same? That's why God created differences between human beings. God did not create differences between human beings in order to drive them apart and prevent them from loving and forming partnerships/marriages with each other.

"It is legitimate to notice people have different shades of skin pigmentation. But, it is a much harder jump to force those observations into defensible objective categories."

Really? I gather that you weren't around when they had all of the "white" and "colored" drinking fountains and washrooms. I was around (now you know my age) and I observed the effects of legalized segregation and discrimination. I was active in the civil rights movement in the middle 1960s to help eliminate legalized forced segregation of the races and discrimination based on race. Legalized forced segregation and discrimination based upon gender is as wrong as legalized forced segregation and discrimination based upon race.

"A simple comparison of pictures of peoples' skins to a color chart demonstrates the silliness of our "red-yellow-black-white" categories of humanity."

As is a simple comparison of pictures based on pictures of peoples' gender -- this demonstrates A similar silliness. Do you believe that women should all be housewives, stay in the home? Not be lawyers, doctors, or judges? It was not too long ago when these sorts of ideas formed a majority opinion. Up until 1964, it was perfectly legal to bar women from certain jobs. To bar a person because of gender -- regardless of ability -- makes as much sense as barring a person because of race. Gender and race are external characteristics.

"It is legitimate to note distinctions and similarites between man-woman and same-sex unions. They are both unions. One involves a man-woman. One involves a man-man or woman-woman."

And some unions are Black-White, others are White-White or Black-Black. Or Asian-White or Asian-Asian. These are all unions. Same with man-woman or man-man or woman-woman.

"It is legitimate to note there is a difference between a man-woman-man relationship and a man-woman-woman-woman-woman-woman relationship. These are different things."

Actually, they are not. This is the fallacy.

However, I realize that some people strongly believe this (as I gather you do). Just as there are people who strongly believe that White-Black relationships are different from White-White or Black-Blck unions. Which is the natural right of people to have these views. What violates natural rights is to try and use the force of law to enforce one sort of view over another.

"[skipping a few points] Not everyone likes the cultural construct of heterosexual marriage. Obviously many dedicated to the advancement and protection of civil rights for gay citizens reject the construct of heterosexual marriage as something to value or emulate."

No one has ever said that heterosexial marriage isn't something to value or emulate. Of course there are those rush-rush "marrages" that end up in divorce two days later; I don't think that too many people who support Gay civil rights would want to emulate this at all.

But heterosexual marriage isn't the only type of marriage. I need to ask you again, because something here is troubling to me. When you talk about "emulating" heterosexual marriage: are you implying that same-gender couples who are in long-term stable relationships should break up, desert each other in order to "emulate" a heterosexual union? Would you support laws that would pressure such splits? Please clarify me on this.

What the Bible and my church has told me: "What God has put together, let no one tear asunder." Working to split up a long-term loving union is a grievious sin.

Thank you for the thoughtful, considerate response talitha. I appreciate that, and the fact that you acknowledge that Christians from different cultures might approach the gospel from different perspectives.

To answer your question about why American conservatives tend to shy away from advocating greater federal government involvement in anti-poverty initiatives, there are several different reasons that might vary depending on the conservative you talk to. The first reason is that some right-of-center people take a very literal view of our constitution - if it's not explicitly stated in the constitution that the federal government should be involved in something, it shouldn't be doing it.

For others, it's not so much constitutional constraints that are the problem, but concerns about too much power being centralized in Washington, D.C. It's not so much an issue of government getting involved in anti-poverty efforts, but which government. This is more where my beliefs fall. I'd much rather have state or local governments doing the work than the federal government because 1) they're more in touch with the local poverty problems than the feds and therefore, hopefully, more effective and 2) there's more accountability to how the money is spent because these governments are closer to the voters. The more responsibility that is given to Washington to help the poor, the less responsibility is given to us as individuals. Also, conservatives wisely worry about centralized power.

For others, there's another reason and it's less philosophical and more pragmatic. They see the federal government as inefficient and overly bureaucratic and that giving more money to Washington to spend is not being good stewards of our resources. They'd rather see the money go to churches or charities.

As for why Christian conservatives are happy to hand abortion policy to the federal government and not anti-poverty issues, they see a clear obligation of the federal government to protect human life. There's no disputing, in their minds, that this is a fundamental purpose of government so they don't see any inconsistency in their positions.

I hope this at least gives you a glimpse into the mind of the American conservative.

Thanks. I agree that labels are generally not helpful, particularly when one person is labeling someone else. Self-applied labels are a little more useful.

And good point about being committed to answers rather than questions and that there is more than unites us than divides us. There are very few people out there who believe that the federal government has zero role in reducing poverty and there are very few people on the other side who believe that expanding federal power in this area would solve all the problems. Most of us are all in the mushy middle - it's just a matter of degree.

Glad to see Mr. Wallis is working alongside the Republican party as well as the Dems. Yep, they're right down the middle. Because he says so. A rose by any other name is still a......

"Why then was this the fourth website that came up when I typed "Christian Left" into google? "

Kind of funny actually . Not that I don't MORE voices on the Blog that actually are Evangelicals and some that actually do have a heart for loving all of us , and not limit that love into the categories the bloggers usually try to put us into.

I think the confusion over this is a result of different people giving different meanings to "religious left". I suspect that when some people say "religious left" they mean that Jim Wallis, Sojourners and the other people who write commentaries here approach public policy from a left-of-center worldview. From what I've read here, this is undeniable. Obviously there are some non-partisan issues they work on that don't fall neatly onto one side of the political spectrum, but on all the big partisan issues of the day, Wallis and others come at them from a left-of-center perspective. And Wallis and others are religious, hence "religious left".

But I think when Wallis hears "religious left" he hears more than that. He hears "Sojourners is the left-of-center equivalent of the religious right" - not just that Sojourners is an organization made up of people who are left-leaning politically and religious, but that it is intertwined in an operational sense with the Democratic Party such as some argue the religious right is with the Republicans. Personally, I don't think they are there

Don't believe everything you Google...

Make sure the dagger goes in all the way, Bluedeacon. We don't want to see
any vestiges of the right. But, then who would you have to kick around?
Oh, and of course the left never uses issues to divide people. They're so
much more righteous, aren't they.

"So if the people care about it, so should the government. And I see that as what Wallis is ultimately trying to say."

So, the question is: the government can take $100 of my tax dollars to put into foreign aid or a domestic food program for the poor. Or, instead of taking that $100 from me, I have the $100 in my hands to do what I want. I know a lot of non-governmental organizations doing great work both here in abroad. Is my money -- which God has given me to be a good Steward -- better served in the government's hands, or in my hands? Yes, the Church has fallen far short in the area of generosity. But, privately, we are the most generous nation in the world. It remains to be seen whether governments can be better stewards of resources than non-governmental organizations.

I agree with you, and I would add, that is a good kind of competition - NGO's and governments trying to beat each other at being the best stewards of other people's money! Now if we could just get Wall Street to join the comp!

The very cycnical part of me now wonders if the tax benefits of generosity were taken away from US citizens, would your status as *privately* the most generous nation be held ;)

We have tax deductible giving here in Australia too, of course, but to churches, or to programs that are explicitly religious, there's no tax benefit. Please correct me if I'm wrong about tithes and such in the US being tax deductible - it's been some years since I last checked on that.

Very well said!!!

Using your framework, I would agree Jim is on the left (personally, I would be happy to toss out the categories as I think they get in the way of dialogue and solving problems). I also agree with your evidence focused on what he sees as within the purview of the Federal government.

I would expand a bit and offer as further evidence, that neither he, nor many on the 'religious right,' have found a way to genuinely transcend the gap. And in the meantime, he seems firmly entrenched in the 'left' approach.

Poverty is not God's desire. Christians seek God's desires to be fulfilled on Earth and in Heaven. Left and Right acknowledge government systemically impacts the reality of poverty in this nation.

There is no reason both sides cannot come together.

The failure is because we are more committed to our answers than working together on the questions.

Question: in order to be a "true evangelical" must one ignore the issues of poverty and concentrate mostly on "speaking on behalf of the unborn and traditional marriage"? Are these the "litmus tests" for being a true evangelical?

Not at all . Wave Tossed . Not at all . Making those issues all that was identified with Evangelical Christianity was a drastic mistake . Made by people , and followed by many people . I can see why it caught on , PC in public schools , a very unfriendly secular view point grasping academia .
many good things happened , but for those of us who remember getting on our bikes in the morning when we were kids and coming home when the street lights came on to remind us , this culture has not become kid friendly . The cultural acceptance or just indifference of certain behaviors get highlighted and scape goated , but the truth of the matter this is not a kid friendly culture anymore . A mom and dad being the primary care taker and cultural supports that considered that the most important thing to embrace are not our priority anymore . The Religious Right chose to blame people for this , which was wrong . Sojourners tends to blame the religious right , which is just as wrong .

Reaching out to the poor , those who are foreigners, those without , is a major aspect of the New and Old Testament. Concern for the envirnoment is about as Bibical as you can get . Supporting life that was created by God and the system he ordianed and civil supported supported by government in most places should however limit your particpation or make your particpation unwelcome or View point any less valid or respected then others here . It however is not .
I think that was the problem with Wallis considering he is not part of the religious left. Christianity is not the norm in this nation, and from out policies , spending more then we make , playing rich against poor, minority against minority againstmajority , etc . perhaps that is a good thing to recognize .. You can;t blame all the problems in this country on Christians anymore ;0)

But I like the idea of an organization reaching out to the poor , Salavation Army and the local Mission Gospel Missions are my favorite charities .
They do not preach politics , they reach out with the hands of Christ through his people to help the least of us .

But if you happen to be an Evangelical and believe in less government , you sound quite a bit of liberaterianfrom your previous posts , well I respect that . I don't think you are more or less of Christian because of your view on legalizing drugs . I think Sojourners and the Christian Coalition are on the same page , different sides , and should both turn the page and concentrate on people . All of us .

Thanks. I agree that labels are generally not helpful, particularly when one person is labeling someone else. Self-applied labels are a little more useful.

And good point about being committed to answers rather than questions and that there is more than unites us than divides us. There are very few people out there who believe that the federal government has zero role in reducing poverty and there are very few people on the other side who believe that expanding federal power in this area would solve all the problems. Most of us are all in the mushy middle - it's just a matter of degree.

Did I say that? Why put words in my mouth? Why does it have to be always so
one-sided? (I was kicked off a more conservative website for being too
liberal. Kind of ironic, no?) There is an evangelical center that speaks
out about all these issue, unlike Sojo. The media don't like to cover this
group of centrists, because they are more interested in creating discord.

" I am saddened that my Church has become a single issue organization indistinguishable from a purely secular and political approach to public morality"

Having grown up Catholic, and with most of my family still in the Church, I believe that is a serious overstatement. I'm probably in line with about 90 percent of what the Roman Catholic church believes in politically. The Roman Catholic Church has done much to alleviate poverty and speak out on behalf of the less fortunate around the world. It just happens to combine social justice with a consistently pro-life and pro-marriage agenda. That's being in the Center.

Eric Thank you . Just too bad that understanding and respect is not used in the day to day bloggers here when they are trying to repressent a different view point . Often the disareement is seen as negative type of people who have no real love of Christ or people . Thats too bad . You can;t win people over to the Love of Christ by promoting a negative perception of the people who look to Him to help them to be more Like Him . If they are failing , if I am failing , perhaps some encourgagement and prayer would be a good thing . And holy mackaral , could Soujourners actually be wrong on an issue ?

Ironic? No.

But you clearly enjoy continuing the discord. Criticizing here, kicked off there.

So until I see more posts that are seeking mutual encouragement, the glory of Christ, and justice - I feel that the words written are hollow ones.

For this post the old saying that 'it takes one to know one' is definitely true. So I don't write these things to win an argument, but to hopefully push you in your walk as I have been pushed by others.

If you really, really believe that the conservatives are interested in reconciliation, it might help you to ask Ron Sider sometime. Now, Sider explicitly opposes abortion and supports traditional marriage (and I agree with those stances), but that doesn't win him any brownie points -- four years ago he was the victim of an insult-fest masquerading as an interview in World magazine, whose writer Gene Edward Veith tried to paint him as a socialist! And that's not at all an isolated incident.

As for the "left" dividing people similar to the right, where are the TV and radio programs, mass crusades, political action groups with direct connections to the Democratic Party? They don't exist!

Question: in order to be a "true evangelical" must one ignore the issues of poverty and concentrate mostly on "speaking on behalf of the unborn and traditional marriage"? Are these the "litmus tests" for being a true evangelical?

"They don't exist!"

I take that as a willful delusion. It is the analysis of the upper class, educated, liberal, status quo controllers of the culture who wish to portray the religious right insurgency of political fundamentalists. This group has every bit as much of a connection to religion. But it sees the relationship between faith and culture as being a bit different--so the connection looks a bit different.

Do you think Episcopalians are more, or less, politically engaged? Do you think they have a voice? Do you think the voice is shaded left or right? Do you think they can express their views in the media? Where do you think they find their views represented?

I agree with you in the sense that overall the Evangelical stance towards culture is that faith is in conflict with the culture; or the culture must be transformed. In that sense it is an oppositional stance.

It demands publishing houses, organizations, TV stations, colleges, etc. to express this 'counter-culture.'

Persons on the other side channel their energies through the dominant institutions and structures. They are comfortable with culture as being good and a vehicle for God's grace. They don't need a counter movement.

That does NOT mean there is less of a faith connection.

Do you think Episcopalians are more, or less, politically engaged? Do you think they have a voice? Do you think the voice is shaded left or right? Do you think they can express their views in the media? Where do you think they find their views represented?

Let me respond with the following: Are Episcopalians begging, insisting, demanding to be heard or else? Not from what I can tell. (For that matter, neither are Presbyterians or Methodists.)

Persons on the other side channel their energies through the dominant institutions and structures. They are comfortable with culture as being good and a vehicle for God's grace. They don't need a counter movement.

I went to a "religious left" church from 1977 to 1983 -- I left because it was, frankly, spiritually dead -- and trust me when I tell you it was as activist as any congregation I've ever been involved with. Where I live, however, is fairly conservative; therefore, it was unable to make a serious dent in changing the ethos of the region. The church, now over 40 years old, still exists but has trouble attracting members. So, that statement doesn't tell me anything.

Question: in order to be a "true evangelical" must one ignore the issues of poverty and concentrate mostly on "speaking on behalf of the unborn and traditional marriage"? Are these the "litmus tests" for being a true evangelical?

Not at all . Wave Tossed . Not at all . Making those issues all that was identified with Evangelical Christianity was a drastic mistake . Made by people , and followed by many people . I can see why it caught on , PC in public schools , a very unfriendly secular view point grasping academia .
many good things happened , but for those of us who remember getting on our bikes in the morning when we were kids and coming home when the street lights came on to remind us , this culture has not become kid friendly . The cultural acceptance or just indifference of certain behaviors get highlighted and scape goated , but the truth of the matter this is not a kid friendly culture anymore . A mom and dad being the primary care taker and cultural supports that considered that the most important thing to embrace are not our priority anymore . The Religious Right chose to blame people for this , which was wrong . Sojourners tends to blame the religious right , which is just as wrong .

Reaching out to the poor , those who are foreigners, those without , is a major aspect of the New and Old Testament. Concern for the envirnoment is about as Bibical as you can get . Supporting life that was created by God and the system he ordianed and civil supported supported by government in most places should however limit your particpation or make your particpation unwelcome or View point any less valid or respected then others here . It however is not .
I think that was the problem with Wallis considering he is not part of the religious left. Christianity is not the norm in this nation, and from out policies , spending more then we make , playing rich against poor, minority against minority againstmajority , etc . perhaps that is a good thing to recognize .. You can;t blame all the problems in this country on Christians anymore ;0)

But I like the idea of an organization reaching out to the poor , Salavation Army and the local Mission Gospel Missions are my favorite charities .
They do not preach politics , they reach out with the hands of Christ through his people to help the least of us .

But if you happen to be an Evangelical and believe in less government , you sound quite a bit of liberaterianfrom your previous posts , well I respect that . I don't think you are more or less of Christian because of your view on legalizing drugs . I think Sojourners and the Christian Coalition are on the same page , different sides , and should both turn the page and concentrate on people . All of us .