Get E-Mail Updates

An Evangelical Who Doesn't Like Sarah Palin

I was doing a workout anyway, so I decided to watch Sarah Palin's farewell address while pumping away on the elliptical machine. The first thing I heard was CNN's senior political correspondent Candy Crowley say that "evangelicals" just love Sarah Palin, even though most other groups (even her own Republicans) have steadily soured on the now-former Governor of Alaska. Crowley is a good political analyst who normally has intelligent things to say; but I am tired of the stereotype.

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. 

There are a lot of evangelicals, like me (and especially younger evangelicals), who are just embarrassed by Sarah Palin.

The speech was vintage Palin-absolutely awful. After some frenzied patriotism, that the United States was the BESTGREATESTEVER country in the history of the world, and that those who have any questions about any of that are just, you know, the absolutely wrong kind of people, she went on to an endless extolling of OUR MILITARY. Now, I feel a lot of pain and respect for the kids who have been put in harm's way by the stupid decisions of the last administration, and are still there trying to fight their way out of their leader's mistakes, but again, blind allegiance to the military and all their wars has not been one of our best national characteristics.

Then she talked about how bad the government always is, in everything, and that HOLLYWOOD STARLETS want to come up to Alaska to take OUR GUNS. So she wanted to remind America that support for the Second Amendment to bear arms comes from a deep northern tradition of WE EAT SO WE HUNT.

And finally, she got into some theology, which I guess is what Candy Crowley thinks warms evangelical hearts. She spoke of "God's grace helping those who help themselves." And once again, the vice-presidential candidate who continually startled Americans with an amazing lack of intellectual grasp on so many issues showed that she is also biblically illiterate. God's "grace" is for "those who help themselves?" I wonder where Sarah thinks that text is found in the Bible. Actually, Sarah, the special love of God seems to be for those who have the hardest time helping themselves-hence they need some help from those of us who can help ourselves. In Sarah's version of Mathew 25 it must say, "As you have done to those who can best help themselves, you have done to me."

So from Sarah Palin today, I heard rampant super-patriotism, an uncritical support for everything military, a scurrilous attack on any notion of how government might serve the common good, an effusive defense of guns, and a completely backwards biblical theology of the haves and have-nots. So why, as an evangelical Christian, am I supposed to like her?

When I listen to Sarah Palin, I go back and forth between thinking this person is just not smart enough to be president (and our recent experience of that has been scary enough) to thinking that she is indeed smart enough to be a very effective demagogue -- stoking the fears and myths of the American people to build a frightening political future. Either way, I hope she stays retired from politics. So here is one big evangelical dissent from those who reportedly like Sarah Palin. She makes me wince, grimace, roll my eyes, and even worry a little about the future.

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

by: OneGod1

07-30-2009 @ 6:47pm

What is this comment supposed to be? (That's somewhat of a "tongue-in-cheek response), but since I've started reading these so-called "progressive" and "left-leaning" (if such a thing actually exists) articles, one would think I'm reading "scripts" from the FOX News Channel!

by: duhsciple

08-03-2009 @ 10:49pm

Great idea!

by: fox9201

08-01-2009 @ 7:16pm

Why are suddenly so judgemental of how much money someone makes? I wasn't aware that it was a sin for someone to be successful. The true test is what that person does with that success.

On another note, I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. I disagree with a lot of the things for which she stands. However, I don't think it is necessarily beneficial to insult her intelligence or attack her poor theology. Shouldn't we, instead, demonstrate the true meaning of the grace she doesn't seem to understand?

by: duhsciple

08-03-2009 @ 8:49pm

Great idea!

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 12:47pm

Your mistake, Jim, is watching cable news expecting educated commentary on Christians or evangelicals. Candy Crowley probably couldn't even define what an evangelical Christian is.

When I read your comments on Palin's theology, I wasn't even sure what she meant so I went back and looked at the text of her speech. She said, explaining what she thinks will make people "happy or healthy or wealthy or wise":

It is the wisdom of the people and our families and our small businesses, and industrious individuals, and it is God's grace, helping those who help themselves, and then this allows that very generous voluntary hand up that we're known for, enthusiastically providing those who need it.

She didn't say "God's grace is for those who help themselves" as you wrote. I'm still not sure exactly what she meant - she's quite good at not making much sense - but she didn't say that God's grace is exclusively for a certain group of people who are industrious.

If I were to give her the benefit of the doubt, I would guess she's trying to say that good stewards of what they've been blessed with are assisted by God's grace, or God's grace helps those are "good and faithful servants." And she did go on and say that this allows people to better love their neighbors by meeting their needs.

Again, it's hard to know exactly what she meant, and I don't think she's the most intellectually thoughtful public official out there, but I don't think her theology is as off as you make it out to be. I hope she stays retired as well.

by: fox9201

08-01-2009 @ 7:16pm

Why are suddenly so judgemental of how much money someone makes? I wasn't aware that it was a sin for someone to be successful. The true test is what that person does with that success.

On another note, I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. I disagree with a lot of the things for which she stands. However, I don't think it is necessarily beneficial to insult her intelligence or attack her poor theology. Shouldn't we, instead, demonstrate the true meaning of the grace she doesn't seem to understand?

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 1:25pm

I don't think Palin is ready for prime time, but if you are going to contemptuously dismiss someone's intellect and theology, you might want to spell "Matthew" correctly.

"She makes me wince, grimace, roll my eyes, and even worry a little about the future."

I had the same reaction to Obama's atrocious press conference last week.

by: Lord_Voldemort

07-27-2009 @ 1:35pm

At this point one would think that the progressive Christian practice of generous orthodoxy would come into play here. Maybe Sarah's notion of grace going to those who help themselves is an allusion to the Christian teaching of repentance, a turning away from immoral and self-destructive habits, a determination to do better, to do what one can.

But Jim cannot get past the sheer ickiness of Palin's themes: respect for the military, guns, self reliance. Look, Sarah Palin isn't exactly my favorite conservative standardbearer either. Her speeches can get maudlin and simplistic. But her themes resonate with a lot of people and for good reason: This is a good country. Our men and women in unform are a remarkably disciplined, brave, and (as militaries go at least) humane lot. And Americans are capable of working through a lot of the challenges of life without an extensive govermment. Those are truths that the left, including the current Congress and Administration, either deny or downplay.

To the extent Palin is a demogogue, (I don't think she qualifies, or even comes particularly close.) then it would be wise to recall that the most dangerous demogogues are those who mix truth with fiction. If you're going to neutralize the "threat" that Palin represents, my advice would be that you get over your "ick" factor, recognize the truths in her message, and disentagle the truths from the falsehoods.

Good luck.

LV

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:07pm

But Jim cannot get past the sheer ickiness of Palin's themes: respect for the military, guns, self reliance.

The problem is worship, not simply themes -- which is precisely why she was placed on the GOP ticket in the first place. Such represent idolatry and thus have no place in theological discourse.

In addition, Palin has always lacked humility, believing that she was "above it all," asking people to accept her regardless of qualifications and irritated with anyone who dared to hold her accountable (which is the real reason she stepped down as governor).

by: Hannity2

07-27-2009 @ 2:24pm

Here's what it appears you don't like.

1. This IS the greatest country in the history of the world. We have helped more people in need and spread the gospel more than any nation ever has. Significantly more than your beloved socialist nations have. And you don't like that.

2. Our military is the strongest in the world. And the world is a much much safer place because of that. And you don't like that.

3. The second amendment is part of our constitution and we have the right to protect ourselves. And you don't like that.

4. You took her out of context on her comment about God's grace. (But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story)

5. You broke own code of ethics by saying you don't like Sarah Palin. You didn't say you don't like her politics or her views. You made it personal. Of course liberals always have a double standard. Ask Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, Dan Quayle, Condoleeza Rice and most recently Sgt. Crowley among others
"I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)"

I have read on this blog praises and defenses of Hugo Chavez, Rev. Wright, Michael Jackson, Professor Gates, and others. And yet Sarah Palin worries you. If she is so dumb....why are liberals so obsessed with trying to destroy her?

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 2:34pm

How are you defining worship?

by: arecali88

07-27-2009 @ 2:37pm

Ouch, Mr. Wallis... Maybe you're having a bad day, but that was just mean spirited. I'm not a Palin fan, but bringing religion into your dislike of her is just as icky to me the opposite.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:38pm

Placing anything above a personal relationship with God -- and that can even involve religion.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:47pm

Now who's getting personal? The real issue is that many conservatives don't want to be held accountable for what they do and, as I said before, Palin fits into that category.

Why are liberals "so obsessed with trying to destroy her?" Let me turn the question around: Why was she so obsessed with us? It came out last week in my local paper that she resigned as governor because she couldn't control the bloggers in Alaska who were reporting accurately about her mismanagement of her office. There was much less truth to Bill Clinton's "shenanigans" than there was with Palin -- but, of course, conservative opinion is sacrosanct and above scrutiny. Keep in mind that such an attitude is why the GOP has lost the last two national elections and will probably lose some more.

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 2:55pm

So are you saying that Palin places guns, for example, above a personal relationship with God?

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 3:05pm

He would know. He lives in the same suburb as a prominent Republican.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 3:05pm

She very well might; many of her supporters certainly do. There's nothing wrong with a Christian supporting the military, the Second Amendment or any political issue, but when they supplant mercy, faithfulness etc. there's a major problem.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 3:06pm

In truth, I don't.

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 4:12pm

In fact, that prominent Republican left the GOP because he wised up to the racism and hate inherent in conservatism. You see, back in 1981.......

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 12:47pm

Your mistake, Jim, is watching cable news expecting educated commentary on Christians or evangelicals. Candy Crowley probably couldn't even define what an evangelical Christian is.

When I read your comments on Palin's theology, I wasn't even sure what she meant so I went back and looked at the text of her speech. She said, explaining what she thinks will make people "happy or healthy or wealthy or wise":

It is the wisdom of the people and our families and our small businesses, and industrious individuals, and it is God's grace, helping those who help themselves, and then this allows that very generous voluntary hand up that we're known for, enthusiastically providing those who need it.

She didn't say "God's grace is for those who help themselves" as you wrote. I'm still not sure exactly what she meant - she's quite good at not making much sense - but she didn't say that God's grace is exclusively for a certain group of people who are industrious.

If I were to give her the benefit of the doubt, I would guess she's trying to say that good stewards of what they've been blessed with are assisted by God's grace, or God's grace helps those are "good and faithful servants." And she did go on and say that this allows people to better love their neighbors by meeting their needs.

Again, it's hard to know exactly what she meant, and I don't think she's the most intellectually thoughtful public official out there, but I don't think her theology is as off as you make it out to be. I hope she stays retired as well.

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 1:25pm

I don't think Palin is ready for prime time, but if you are going to contemptuously dismiss someone's intellect and theology, you might want to spell "Matthew" correctly.

"She makes me wince, grimace, roll my eyes, and even worry a little about the future."

I had the same reaction to Obama's atrocious press conference last week.

by: Lord_Voldemort

07-27-2009 @ 1:35pm

At this point one would think that the progressive Christian practice of generous orthodoxy would come into play here. Maybe Sarah's notion of grace going to those who help themselves is an allusion to the Christian teaching of repentance, a turning away from immoral and self-destructive habits, a determination to do better, to do what one can.

But Jim cannot get past the sheer ickiness of Palin's themes: respect for the military, guns, self reliance. Look, Sarah Palin isn't exactly my favorite conservative standardbearer either. Her speeches can get maudlin and simplistic. But her themes resonate with a lot of people and for good reason: This is a good country. Our men and women in unform are a remarkably disciplined, brave, and (as militaries go at least) humane lot. And Americans are capable of working through a lot of the challenges of life without an extensive govermment. Those are truths that the left, including the current Congress and Administration, either deny or downplay.

To the extent Palin is a demogogue, (I don't think she qualifies, or even comes particularly close.) then it would be wise to recall that the most dangerous demogogues are those who mix truth with fiction. If you're going to neutralize the "threat" that Palin represents, my advice would be that you get over your "ick" factor, recognize the truths in her message, and disentagle the truths from the falsehoods.

Good luck.

LV

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:07pm

But Jim cannot get past the sheer ickiness of Palin's themes: respect for the military, guns, self reliance.

The problem is worship, not simply themes -- which is precisely why she was placed on the GOP ticket in the first place. Such represent idolatry and thus have no place in theological discourse.

In addition, Palin has always lacked humility, believing that she was "above it all," asking people to accept her regardless of qualifications and irritated with anyone who dared to hold her accountable (which is the real reason she stepped down as governor).

by: riversims

07-27-2009 @ 5:15pm

i find it interesting you continue to blame the bush administration for the military build up when your friend Obama is doing the same thing in Afcanitstan. I find it strange that you never mention queer issues as justice issues. I find it strange that you take $10,000 for speaking engagements when you practice "voluntary poverty". In otherwords I find your words hypocritical and two faced. Father River Sims

by: Hannity2

07-27-2009 @ 2:24pm

Here's what it appears you don't like.

1. This IS the greatest country in the history of the world. We have helped more people in need and spread the gospel more than any nation ever has. Significantly more than your beloved socialist nations have. And you don't like that.

2. Our military is the strongest in the world. And the world is a much much safer place because of that. And you don't like that.

3. The second amendment is part of our constitution and we have the right to protect ourselves. And you don't like that.

4. You took her out of context on her comment about God's grace. (But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story)

5. You broke own code of ethics by saying you don't like Sarah Palin. You didn't say you don't like her politics or her views. You made it personal. Of course liberals always have a double standard. Ask Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, Dan Quayle, Condoleeza Rice and most recently Sgt. Crowley among others
"I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)"

I have read on this blog praises and defenses of Hugo Chavez, Rev. Wright, Michael Jackson, Professor Gates, and others. And yet Sarah Palin worries you. If she is so dumb....why are liberals so obsessed with trying to destroy her?

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 2:34pm

How are you defining worship?

by: arecali88

07-27-2009 @ 2:37pm

Ouch, Mr. Wallis... Maybe you're having a bad day, but that was just mean spirited. I'm not a Palin fan, but bringing religion into your dislike of her is just as icky to me the opposite.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:38pm

Placing anything above a personal relationship with God -- and that can even involve religion.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:47pm

Now who's getting personal? The real issue is that many conservatives don't want to be held accountable for what they do and, as I said before, Palin fits into that category.

Why are liberals "so obsessed with trying to destroy her?" Let me turn the question around: Why was she so obsessed with us? It came out last week in my local paper that she resigned as governor because she couldn't control the bloggers in Alaska who were reporting accurately about her mismanagement of her office. There was much less truth to Bill Clinton's "shenanigans" than there was with Palin -- but, of course, conservative opinion is sacrosanct and above scrutiny. Keep in mind that such an attitude is why the GOP has lost the last two national elections and will probably lose some more.

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 2:55pm

So are you saying that Palin places guns, for example, above a personal relationship with God?

by: ford49

07-27-2009 @ 6:04pm

I suggest Father Sims objectively read the history of the last 8 years; Bush's operationalizing of faulty theology and Cheney's abuse of the truth are well documented tragedies and real object lessons in "two faced". The truth is often a bitter pill for ideologues to swallow.

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 3:05pm

He would know. He lives in the same suburb as a prominent Republican.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 3:05pm

She very well might; many of her supporters certainly do. There's nothing wrong with a Christian supporting the military, the Second Amendment or any political issue, but when they supplant mercy, faithfulness etc. there's a major problem.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 3:06pm

In truth, I don't.

by: Wonder

07-27-2009 @ 9:18pm

Wow, Jim made a typo.
well, that invalidates his entire statement.

or... something....

/snark

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 10:54pm

Condescension goes both ways. If you are going to call someone stupid, be smart. This post isn't smart.

As for his "entire statement", what is that statement, exactly? Sarah Palin is a stupidhead? I've read God's Politics. That's not exactly what I would call a definitive theological treatise.

And yeah, for $140k per year, he might employ spellchecker every once in a while, eh?

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 4:12pm

In fact, that prominent Republican left the GOP because he wised up to the racism and hate inherent in conservatism. You see, back in 1981.......

by: riversims

07-27-2009 @ 5:15pm

i find it interesting you continue to blame the bush administration for the military build up when your friend Obama is doing the same thing in Afcanitstan. I find it strange that you never mention queer issues as justice issues. I find it strange that you take $10,000 for speaking engagements when you practice "voluntary poverty". In otherwords I find your words hypocritical and two faced. Father River Sims

by: xfree9

07-28-2009 @ 9:12am

<side topic>Wallis makes $140k/year!? The average American makes $40-50, so apparently Jim Wallis is greedy and only wants more money than he needs. </side topic>

by: ford49

07-27-2009 @ 6:04pm

I suggest Father Sims objectively read the history of the last 8 years; Bush's operationalizing of faulty theology and Cheney's abuse of the truth are well documented tragedies and real object lessons in "two faced". The truth is often a bitter pill for ideologues to swallow.

by: BlueDeacon

07-28-2009 @ 1:28pm

And let's leave it as a side topic. Remember that he has a best-selling book and has been on speaking tours -- and also assume that he's plowed most of that money back into Sojourners.

So let's get back to talking about Sarah Palin.

by: Wonder

07-27-2009 @ 9:18pm

Wow, Jim made a typo.
well, that invalidates his entire statement.

or... something....

/snark

by: duhsciple

08-03-2009 @ 10:49pm

Great idea!

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 10:54pm

Condescension goes both ways. If you are going to call someone stupid, be smart. This post isn't smart.

As for his "entire statement", what is that statement, exactly? Sarah Palin is a stupidhead? I've read God's Politics. That's not exactly what I would call a definitive theological treatise.

And yeah, for $140k per year, he might employ spellchecker every once in a while, eh?

by: xfree9

07-28-2009 @ 9:12am

<side topic>Wallis makes $140k/year!? The average American makes $40-50, so apparently Jim Wallis is greedy and only wants more money than he needs. </side topic>

by: BlueDeacon

07-28-2009 @ 1:28pm

And let's leave it as a side topic. Remember that he has a best-selling book and has been on speaking tours -- and also assume that he's plowed most of that money back into Sojourners.

So let's get back to talking about Sarah Palin.

by: lumens

07-28-2009 @ 9:41pm

No. He gets paid $140k per year by Sojo. Remember that he has a best-selling book and has been on speaking tours. He makes much more.

Now, let's get back to talking about how horrible Sarah Palin is.

by: duhsciple

08-03-2009 @ 8:49pm

Great idea!

by: smilinmoo

07-29-2009 @ 12:38am

Don't you believe in the American Dream? Don't you think Jim Wallis is entitled to make money? Or does that just apply to the people that you agree with? When Sarah Palin makes her millions off her book, and probably off her new talk show, will you call her "greedy?"
Jim Wallis is doing a good thing, and has won many dissillusioned Christians back into the fold. I should know.
Remember: it's the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil, not money itself.

by: lumens

07-28-2009 @ 9:41pm

No. He gets paid $140k per year by Sojo. Remember that he has a best-selling book and has been on speaking tours. He makes much more.

Now, let's get back to talking about how horrible Sarah Palin is.

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

by: OneGod1

07-30-2009 @ 6:47pm

What is this comment supposed to be? (That's somewhat of a "tongue-in-cheek response), but since I've started reading these so-called "progressive" and "left-leaning" (if such a thing actually exists) articles, one would think I'm reading "scripts" from the FOX News Channel!

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 12:47pm

Your mistake, Jim, is watching cable news expecting educated commentary on Christians or evangelicals. Candy Crowley probably couldn't even define what an evangelical Christian is.

When I read your comments on Palin's theology, I wasn't even sure what she meant so I went back and looked at the text of her speech. She said, explaining what she thinks will make people "happy or healthy or wealthy or wise":

It is the wisdom of the people and our families and our small businesses, and industrious individuals, and it is God's grace, helping those who help themselves, and then this allows that very generous voluntary hand up that we're known for, enthusiastically providing those who need it.

She didn't say "God's grace is for those who help themselves" as you wrote. I'm still not sure exactly what she meant - she's quite good at not making much sense - but she didn't say that God's grace is exclusively for a certain group of people who are industrious.

If I were to give her the benefit of the doubt, I would guess she's trying to say that good stewards of what they've been blessed with are assisted by God's grace, or God's grace helps those are "good and faithful servants." And she did go on and say that this allows people to better love their neighbors by meeting their needs.

Again, it's hard to know exactly what she meant, and I don't think she's the most intellectually thoughtful public official out there, but I don't think her theology is as off as you make it out to be. I hope she stays retired as well.

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 12:47pm

Your mistake, Jim, is watching cable news expecting educated commentary on Christians or evangelicals. Candy Crowley probably couldn't even define what an evangelical Christian is.

When I read your comments on Palin's theology, I wasn't even sure what she meant so I went back and looked at the text of her speech. She said, explaining what she thinks will make people "happy or healthy or wealthy or wise":

It is the wisdom of the people and our families and our small businesses, and industrious individuals, and it is God's grace, helping those who help themselves, and then this allows that very generous voluntary hand up that we're known for, enthusiastically providing those who need it.

She didn't say "God's grace is for those who help themselves" as you wrote. I'm still not sure exactly what she meant - she's quite good at not making much sense - but she didn't say that God's grace is exclusively for a certain group of people who are industrious.

If I were to give her the benefit of the doubt, I would guess she's trying to say that good stewards of what they've been blessed with are assisted by God's grace, or God's grace helps those are "good and faithful servants." And she did go on and say that this allows people to better love their neighbors by meeting their needs.

Again, it's hard to know exactly what she meant, and I don't think she's the most intellectually thoughtful public official out there, but I don't think her theology is as off as you make it out to be. I hope she stays retired as well.

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 1:25pm

I don't think Palin is ready for prime time, but if you are going to contemptuously dismiss someone's intellect and theology, you might want to spell "Matthew" correctly.

"She makes me wince, grimace, roll my eyes, and even worry a little about the future."

I had the same reaction to Obama's atrocious press conference last week.

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 1:25pm

I don't think Palin is ready for prime time, but if you are going to contemptuously dismiss someone's intellect and theology, you might want to spell "Matthew" correctly.

"She makes me wince, grimace, roll my eyes, and even worry a little about the future."

I had the same reaction to Obama's atrocious press conference last week.

by: Lord_Voldemort

07-27-2009 @ 1:35pm

At this point one would think that the progressive Christian practice of generous orthodoxy would come into play here. Maybe Sarah's notion of grace going to those who help themselves is an allusion to the Christian teaching of repentance, a turning away from immoral and self-destructive habits, a determination to do better, to do what one can.

But Jim cannot get past the sheer ickiness of Palin's themes: respect for the military, guns, self reliance. Look, Sarah Palin isn't exactly my favorite conservative standardbearer either. Her speeches can get maudlin and simplistic. But her themes resonate with a lot of people and for good reason: This is a good country. Our men and women in unform are a remarkably disciplined, brave, and (as militaries go at least) humane lot. And Americans are capable of working through a lot of the challenges of life without an extensive govermment. Those are truths that the left, including the current Congress and Administration, either deny or downplay.

To the extent Palin is a demogogue, (I don't think she qualifies, or even comes particularly close.) then it would be wise to recall that the most dangerous demogogues are those who mix truth with fiction. If you're going to neutralize the "threat" that Palin represents, my advice would be that you get over your "ick" factor, recognize the truths in her message, and disentagle the truths from the falsehoods.

Good luck.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

07-27-2009 @ 1:35pm

At this point one would think that the progressive Christian practice of generous orthodoxy would come into play here. Maybe Sarah's notion of grace going to those who help themselves is an allusion to the Christian teaching of repentance, a turning away from immoral and self-destructive habits, a determination to do better, to do what one can.

But Jim cannot get past the sheer ickiness of Palin's themes: respect for the military, guns, self reliance. Look, Sarah Palin isn't exactly my favorite conservative standardbearer either. Her speeches can get maudlin and simplistic. But her themes resonate with a lot of people and for good reason: This is a good country. Our men and women in unform are a remarkably disciplined, brave, and (as militaries go at least) humane lot. And Americans are capable of working through a lot of the challenges of life without an extensive govermment. Those are truths that the left, including the current Congress and Administration, either deny or downplay.

To the extent Palin is a demogogue, (I don't think she qualifies, or even comes particularly close.) then it would be wise to recall that the most dangerous demogogues are those who mix truth with fiction. If you're going to neutralize the "threat" that Palin represents, my advice would be that you get over your "ick" factor, recognize the truths in her message, and disentagle the truths from the falsehoods.

Good luck.

LV

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:07pm

But Jim cannot get past the sheer ickiness of Palin's themes: respect for the military, guns, self reliance.

The problem is worship, not simply themes -- which is precisely why she was placed on the GOP ticket in the first place. Such represent idolatry and thus have no place in theological discourse.

In addition, Palin has always lacked humility, believing that she was "above it all," asking people to accept her regardless of qualifications and irritated with anyone who dared to hold her accountable (which is the real reason she stepped down as governor).

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:07pm

But Jim cannot get past the sheer ickiness of Palin's themes: respect for the military, guns, self reliance.

The problem is worship, not simply themes -- which is precisely why she was placed on the GOP ticket in the first place. Such represent idolatry and thus have no place in theological discourse.

In addition, Palin has always lacked humility, believing that she was "above it all," asking people to accept her regardless of qualifications and irritated with anyone who dared to hold her accountable (which is the real reason she stepped down as governor).

by: Hannity2

07-27-2009 @ 2:24pm

Here's what it appears you don't like.

1. This IS the greatest country in the history of the world. We have helped more people in need and spread the gospel more than any nation ever has. Significantly more than your beloved socialist nations have. And you don't like that.

2. Our military is the strongest in the world. And the world is a much much safer place because of that. And you don't like that.

3. The second amendment is part of our constitution and we have the right to protect ourselves. And you don't like that.

4. You took her out of context on her comment about God's grace. (But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story)

5. You broke own code of ethics by saying you don't like Sarah Palin. You didn't say you don't like her politics or her views. You made it personal. Of course liberals always have a double standard. Ask Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, Dan Quayle, Condoleeza Rice and most recently Sgt. Crowley among others
"I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)"

I have read on this blog praises and defenses of Hugo Chavez, Rev. Wright, Michael Jackson, Professor Gates, and others. And yet Sarah Palin worries you. If she is so dumb....why are liberals so obsessed with trying to destroy her?

by: Hannity2

07-27-2009 @ 2:24pm

Here's what it appears you don't like.

1. This IS the greatest country in the history of the world. We have helped more people in need and spread the gospel more than any nation ever has. Significantly more than your beloved socialist nations have. And you don't like that.

2. Our military is the strongest in the world. And the world is a much much safer place because of that. And you don't like that.

3. The second amendment is part of our constitution and we have the right to protect ourselves. And you don't like that.

4. You took her out of context on her comment about God's grace. (But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story)

5. You broke own code of ethics by saying you don't like Sarah Palin. You didn't say you don't like her politics or her views. You made it personal. Of course liberals always have a double standard. Ask Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, Dan Quayle, Condoleeza Rice and most recently Sgt. Crowley among others
"I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)"

I have read on this blog praises and defenses of Hugo Chavez, Rev. Wright, Michael Jackson, Professor Gates, and others. And yet Sarah Palin worries you. If she is so dumb....why are liberals so obsessed with trying to destroy her?

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 2:34pm

How are you defining worship?

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 2:34pm

How are you defining worship?

by: arecali88

07-27-2009 @ 2:37pm

Ouch, Mr. Wallis... Maybe you're having a bad day, but that was just mean spirited. I'm not a Palin fan, but bringing religion into your dislike of her is just as icky to me the opposite.

by: arecali88

07-27-2009 @ 2:37pm

Ouch, Mr. Wallis... Maybe you're having a bad day, but that was just mean spirited. I'm not a Palin fan, but bringing religion into your dislike of her is just as icky to me the opposite.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:38pm

Placing anything above a personal relationship with God -- and that can even involve religion.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:38pm

Placing anything above a personal relationship with God -- and that can even involve religion.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:47pm

Now who's getting personal? The real issue is that many conservatives don't want to be held accountable for what they do and, as I said before, Palin fits into that category.

Why are liberals "so obsessed with trying to destroy her?" Let me turn the question around: Why was she so obsessed with us? It came out last week in my local paper that she resigned as governor because she couldn't control the bloggers in Alaska who were reporting accurately about her mismanagement of her office. There was much less truth to Bill Clinton's "shenanigans" than there was with Palin -- but, of course, conservative opinion is sacrosanct and above scrutiny. Keep in mind that such an attitude is why the GOP has lost the last two national elections and will probably lose some more.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 2:47pm

Now who's getting personal? The real issue is that many conservatives don't want to be held accountable for what they do and, as I said before, Palin fits into that category.

Why are liberals "so obsessed with trying to destroy her?" Let me turn the question around: Why was she so obsessed with us? It came out last week in my local paper that she resigned as governor because she couldn't control the bloggers in Alaska who were reporting accurately about her mismanagement of her office. There was much less truth to Bill Clinton's "shenanigans" than there was with Palin -- but, of course, conservative opinion is sacrosanct and above scrutiny. Keep in mind that such an attitude is why the GOP has lost the last two national elections and will probably lose some more.

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 2:55pm

So are you saying that Palin places guns, for example, above a personal relationship with God?

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 2:55pm

So are you saying that Palin places guns, for example, above a personal relationship with God?

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 3:05pm

He would know. He lives in the same suburb as a prominent Republican.

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 3:05pm

He would know. He lives in the same suburb as a prominent Republican.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 3:05pm

She very well might; many of her supporters certainly do. There's nothing wrong with a Christian supporting the military, the Second Amendment or any political issue, but when they supplant mercy, faithfulness etc. there's a major problem.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 3:05pm

She very well might; many of her supporters certainly do. There's nothing wrong with a Christian supporting the military, the Second Amendment or any political issue, but when they supplant mercy, faithfulness etc. there's a major problem.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 3:06pm

In truth, I don't.

by: BlueDeacon

07-27-2009 @ 3:06pm

In truth, I don't.

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 4:12pm

In fact, that prominent Republican left the GOP because he wised up to the racism and hate inherent in conservatism. You see, back in 1981.......

by: Eric77

07-27-2009 @ 4:12pm

In fact, that prominent Republican left the GOP because he wised up to the racism and hate inherent in conservatism. You see, back in 1981.......

by: riversims

07-27-2009 @ 5:15pm

i find it interesting you continue to blame the bush administration for the military build up when your friend Obama is doing the same thing in Afcanitstan. I find it strange that you never mention queer issues as justice issues. I find it strange that you take $10,000 for speaking engagements when you practice "voluntary poverty". In otherwords I find your words hypocritical and two faced. Father River Sims

by: riversims

07-27-2009 @ 5:15pm

i find it interesting you continue to blame the bush administration for the military build up when your friend Obama is doing the same thing in Afcanitstan. I find it strange that you never mention queer issues as justice issues. I find it strange that you take $10,000 for speaking engagements when you practice "voluntary poverty". In otherwords I find your words hypocritical and two faced. Father River Sims

by: ford49

07-27-2009 @ 6:04pm

I suggest Father Sims objectively read the history of the last 8 years; Bush's operationalizing of faulty theology and Cheney's abuse of the truth are well documented tragedies and real object lessons in "two faced". The truth is often a bitter pill for ideologues to swallow.

by: ford49

07-27-2009 @ 6:04pm

I suggest Father Sims objectively read the history of the last 8 years; Bush's operationalizing of faulty theology and Cheney's abuse of the truth are well documented tragedies and real object lessons in "two faced". The truth is often a bitter pill for ideologues to swallow.

by: Wonder

07-27-2009 @ 9:18pm

Wow, Jim made a typo.
well, that invalidates his entire statement.

or... something....

/snark

by: Wonder

07-27-2009 @ 9:18pm

Wow, Jim made a typo.
well, that invalidates his entire statement.

or... something....

/snark

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 10:54pm

Condescension goes both ways. If you are going to call someone stupid, be smart. This post isn't smart.

As for his "entire statement", what is that statement, exactly? Sarah Palin is a stupidhead? I've read God's Politics. That's not exactly what I would call a definitive theological treatise.

And yeah, for $140k per year, he might employ spellchecker every once in a while, eh?

by: lumens

07-27-2009 @ 10:54pm

Condescension goes both ways. If you are going to call someone stupid, be smart. This post isn't smart.

As for his "entire statement", what is that statement, exactly? Sarah Palin is a stupidhead? I've read God's Politics. That's not exactly what I would call a definitive theological treatise.

And yeah, for $140k per year, he might employ spellchecker every once in a while, eh?

by: xfree9

07-28-2009 @ 9:12am

<side topic>Wallis makes $140k/year!? The average American makes $40-50, so apparently Jim Wallis is greedy and only wants more money than he needs. </side topic>

by: xfree9

07-28-2009 @ 9:12am

<side topic>Wallis makes $140k/year!? The average American makes $40-50, so apparently Jim Wallis is greedy and only wants more money than he needs. </side topic>

by: BlueDeacon

07-28-2009 @ 1:28pm

And let's leave it as a side topic. Remember that he has a best-selling book and has been on speaking tours -- and also assume that he's plowed most of that money back into Sojourners.

So let's get back to talking about Sarah Palin.

by: BlueDeacon

07-28-2009 @ 1:28pm

And let's leave it as a side topic. Remember that he has a best-selling book and has been on speaking tours -- and also assume that he's plowed most of that money back into Sojourners.

So let's get back to talking about Sarah Palin.

by: lumens

07-28-2009 @ 9:41pm

No. He gets paid $140k per year by Sojo. Remember that he has a best-selling book and has been on speaking tours. He makes much more.

Now, let's get back to talking about how horrible Sarah Palin is.

by: lumens

07-28-2009 @ 9:41pm

No. He gets paid $140k per year by Sojo. Remember that he has a best-selling book and has been on speaking tours. He makes much more.

Now, let's get back to talking about how horrible Sarah Palin is.

by: smilinmoo

07-29-2009 @ 12:38am

Don't you believe in the American Dream? Don't you think Jim Wallis is entitled to make money? Or does that just apply to the people that you agree with? When Sarah Palin makes her millions off her book, and probably off her new talk show, will you call her "greedy?"
Jim Wallis is doing a good thing, and has won many dissillusioned Christians back into the fold. I should know.
Remember: it's the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil, not money itself.

by: smilinmoo

07-29-2009 @ 12:38am

Don't you believe in the American Dream? Don't you think Jim Wallis is entitled to make money? Or does that just apply to the people that you agree with? When Sarah Palin makes her millions off her book, and probably off her new talk show, will you call her "greedy?"
Jim Wallis is doing a good thing, and has won many dissillusioned Christians back into the fold. I should know.
Remember: it's the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil, not money itself.

by: OneGod1

07-30-2009 @ 6:47pm

What is this comment supposed to be? (That's somewhat of a "tongue-in-cheek response), but since I've started reading these so-called "progressive" and "left-leaning" (if such a thing actually exists) articles, one would think I'm reading "scripts" from the FOX News Channel!

by: fox9201

08-01-2009 @ 7:16pm

Why are suddenly so judgemental of how much money someone makes? I wasn't aware that it was a sin for someone to be successful. The true test is what that person does with that success.

On another note, I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. I disagree with a lot of the things for which she stands. However, I don't think it is necessarily beneficial to insult her intelligence or attack her poor theology. Shouldn't we, instead, demonstrate the true meaning of the grace she doesn't seem to understand?

by: fox9201

08-01-2009 @ 7:16pm

Why are suddenly so judgemental of how much money someone makes? I wasn't aware that it was a sin for someone to be successful. The true test is what that person does with that success.

On another note, I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. I disagree with a lot of the things for which she stands. However, I don't think it is necessarily beneficial to insult her intelligence or attack her poor theology. Shouldn't we, instead, demonstrate the true meaning of the grace she doesn't seem to understand?

by: duhsciple

08-03-2009 @ 8:49pm

Great idea!

by: duhsciple

08-03-2009 @ 8:49pm

Great idea!