Get E-Mail Updates

God in Wisconsin: Scott Walker's Misguided 'Obedience'

As the stand off between workers and Governor Scott Walker continues in Wisconsin, religious leaders have weighed in on the dispute. Roman Catholic bishops came out on the side of the unions, urging the governor to protect worker's rights. Many mainline pastors, including Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, and American Baptists have written letters, issued statements, and preached sermons supporting labor, unions, and collective bargaining. In Madison, interfaith prayers and proclamations have upheld and encouraged the teachers, police, firefighters, and other public employees in their resistance to the governor's plan to break their union.

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. 

This is an impressive religious group by any standards -- particularly so in Wisconsin where traditional faith still plays an important role in the life of a large number of its citizens. Wisconsin is almost evenly split between the three largest American religious groups: 29 percent are Roman Catholics; 24 percent are evangelical Protestants; and 23 percent are mainline Protestants.

Yet none of these prayers or sermons has swayed Scott Walker. He has steadfastly stayed on his original course, unfazed by the full weight of Roman Catholic authority or the mainline social justice tradition pressing upon him and urging him toward compromise and change.

Scott Walker is neither Roman Catholic nor a mainline churchgoer. The son of a Baptist pastor, born in Colorado Springs, the heartland of the Religious Right, Walker is a member of Meadowbrook Church in Wauwatosa, a non-denominational evangelical church. Meadowbrook's statement of faith, a fairly typical boilerplate of conservative evangelical theology, includes beliefs in biblical inerrancy, sin, exclusive salvation through Christ, and eternal damnation.

In other words, Scott Walker does not give a rip about pronouncements by the Roman Catholic Church, any Lutheran, Episcopal, or Methodist bishop, or the Protestant social justice pastors. These religious authorities, steeped in centuries of theology and Christian ethics mean absolutely nothing in Scott Walker's world. His spiritual universe is that of 20th century fundamentalism, in its softer evangelical form, a vision that emphasizes "me and Jesus" and personal salvation.

Before he was elected governor, Walker shared his testimony with a group of Christian businessmen. In it, he said that his religious life was expressed in the words of an old hymn, "Trust and Obey." From childhood onward, Walker recounted how God specifically directed his life, how he had learned to trust that direction, and how he sought to obey Christ in all things and at all times. He related the biblical story of the apostle Peter in a boat, whom Jesus directed to walk on the water. At first, Peter followed Jesus and did, indeed, walk upon water. But Peter became fearful and sank. According to Walker, this is a parable of the whole Christian life. If you "fail to trust and obey," Walker said, "You sink." Doubt is not allowed. Only obedience.

This is the same sort of evangelical spirituality that shaped George W. Bush -- and led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Once you know God's direction, no change is allowed. Doubt opens the door to failure. Obeying Christ's plan is the only option. In this theological universe, hard-headedness is a virtue, compromise is the work of the devil, and anything that works to accomplish God's plan is considered ethically justifiable.

In other words, the Catholic bishops and mainline pastors -- as well as the Quakers, Jews, Buddhists, and others -- who have been trying to convince the governor to shift course are pretty well preaching in the wind. Other than David Koch (fake or otherwise), Walker is listening to One Person and One Person only: Jesus speaking directly to him. God, evidently, has directed him on his current path. Scott's just trusting and obeying. He bears no responsibility other than that.

Unlike the Roman Catholics and traditional Protestants who have spoken on behalf of the laborers, Walker has no spiritual "check" on him, no authority other than the ones he hears in his own head, and no moral culpability in this situation. He's the good Christian soldier, just following God's lead.

And this is why Scott Walker's religion is actually dangerous in the public square. Because it lacks the ability to compromise, it is profoundly anti-democratic. Many faith traditions actually possess deep spiritual resources that allow them to participate in pluralistic, democratic, and creative political change. But those sort of traditions tend emphasize the love of God and neighbor over strict obedience to an unyielding God. Despite anything Scott Walker might say, the confident dictum of the old hymn, "Trust and Obey" is not the best way to govern a state.

portrait-diana-butler-bassDiana Butler Bass blogs at Christianity for the Rest of Us and The Huffington Post, and is the author of A People's History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story. This article is cross-posted from Beliefnet.

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

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2011 @ 4:20pm

How is my statement convoluted when teachers are forced to be in a union in order to teach?

What does that have to do with anything?

by: justintime

03-11-2011 @ 4:27pm

Jim . . The party IS, in fact, the Democrat Party. It is no more democratic than are Republicans.

Democrats call themselves Democrats because they believe in democracy.

Republicans demonstrate repeatedly their belief that democracy is merely an inconvenient obstacle to their plan for dominating American society.

by: jimdoze

03-11-2011 @ 4:29pm

"Republicans demonstrate repeatedly their belief that democracy is merely an inconvenient obstacle to their plan for dominating American society."

Do you really believe such hogwash, Justin? C'mon!

by: MikeSw

03-09-2011 @ 9:58pm

Thanks for clarifying that. Obviously, we disagree. I would tend to see a more closed view on the part of the left. After all, the reps who fled the state did not have the courage of their convictions to engage in a debate. And, for the record, I hope that Walker recants his apparent willingness to compromise because I think he is correct on this issue, but then, I'm not the governor.

by: Baumpflanzer Treeplanter

03-12-2011 @ 4:47pm

Sorry I disagree to the reason for the destruction of Sodom....it was (unfortunately) basically mans inhumanity to man ie pure violence by the powerful on the weak....read the description thoroughly with the help of biblical aids.......

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2011 @ 4:36pm

The proof is in the pudding.

by: Ngchen

03-09-2011 @ 10:09pm

Well, in terms of compromise, one typically cannot govern without it, provided that the other side is willing to do the same. A refusal to compromise I feel is justified only on issues of strong moral significance; absolute defeat there is often more noble than making a "deal with the devil." But that's not what we're writing about.

The state senators "not debating" is a red herring. By busting the quorum, they make their point far better than any speech could have, and they knew they'd be outvoted on a straight up-or-down vote.

by: Patricia

03-10-2011 @ 10:35pm

Mike, there was no participation possible - why can't you admit that?

The Republicans intended to force a vote WITHOUT debate! They were not willing to have any case made, because they were intent upon getting this bill through before the smoke cleared and the people of Wisconsin realized they had been lied to and hoodwinked.

That was the whole point - "git 'er done!", so to speak, before anyone could look to closely or find grounds to object.

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 10:12pm

After all, the reps who fled the state did not have the courage of their convictions to engage in a debate.

You completely missed the point -- there wasn't going to be any debate whatsoever because the Republican members of the Wisconsin Senate would have passed the bill over the objections of its Democratic members, which were essentially disenfranchised. You also ignore the huge tax cut he enacted toward the wealthy in that state and then tried to pass that off onto unionized state workers by announcing that the state was "broke." If you can't see the political shenanigans in that ... well, I don't know what to tell you.

by: MikeSw

03-10-2011 @ 4:33am

it has an impact on future budgets but not current appropriations so in a sense it's fiscal if you want to call it that.

If you are looking at it legally, it's not fiscal under the constitution. that's the distinction I was making.

by: Patricia

03-10-2011 @ 10:36pm

The health care bill was debated for MONTHS before it was passed - there was PLENTY of debate before the vote.

This is a different situation entirely.

by: Ngchen

03-10-2011 @ 4:32am

MikeSw wrote:
Now the question to ask is this: virtually all of the CB rights were stripped. Compromises were offered. The Democrats chose to stay away. Don't you think they could have got a better deal for their benefactors, the unions, if they had stayed and fought rather than running away?

First, what compromises were actually offered? I don't believe there were any. Second, an emphatic no. The Democrats knew they were going to be outvoted, and if today's vote told us anything, they were right.

by: MikeSw

03-09-2011 @ 10:21pm

The tax cut is a red herring. There is a huge budget deficit going forward that has to be addressed regardless of that tax cut. Your refusal to see this illustrates my point about the closed mind on the other side of the aisle perfectly.

If you can't see that, well....

by: MikeSw

03-10-2011 @ 4:35am

Could be BlueDeacon. They might have been elected like we do here in Ohio. I don't know what Wisconsin does for judges.

Here in Ohio, they are elected. There are nine justices on the Supreme Court. Eight were elected, one appointed to fill an unexpired term. The appointed one is a Democrat; the other eight were all elected and are Republicans.

by: jimdoze

03-11-2011 @ 4:37pm

@Blue:
"What does that have to do with anything?"

Where have you been? Teachers being forced to be in a union, being forced to pay union dues, with those dues being direct contributions to the Democrat Party, with its concomitant corruption of the union/politician bargaining/election process IS what the kerfuffle in Wisconsin is about. Or is that, to you, a convoluted take on what has been going on there?

by: MikeSw

03-09-2011 @ 10:23pm

And just so the record is clear, Scott Walker signed legislation that had been enacted by the democratically elected representatives of the people of Wisconsin. He's not a dictator.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2011 @ 4:39pm

While it's true that unions can raise unlimited money for elections in theory, so can corporations thanks to Citizens United. If union money is poison, why is corporate money kosher?

BTW, the claim that the people elected with the help of union money would then rig the negotiations with the unions to give them everything is almost certainly an exaggeration, just like the claim that corporate donations flat-out "buy" officials for 100% of their decisions. Influence, yes. Near complete control, no.

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 10:26pm

Under false pretenses, as things turned out.

by: Ankaboot

03-10-2011 @ 4:39am

Ankaboot: Have you heard the latest about Walker taking the bargaining rights out of the original bill and creating another bill, passing it within 30 minutes which didn't require any democrats to be there? I think you might want to rewrite your response on Walker based on this latest scenario.

I don't have a dog in that fight, I'm not watching the blow by blow. I have some opinions about a public policy of prohibiting collective bargaining, but with all of them together and a dollar I couldn't buy a cup of coffee. Our Imam, who works as a substitute teacher four or five days a week regularly, lives considerably below the federal poverty level but can't get food stamps; our local emergency response people are absolutely crackerjack but are underfunded; our local Town government is bankrupting the Town but can't keep the streets drivable; I'm watching Thorsten Veblen's economic forecasts (from the early Twentieth Century) merge with V. I. Ulyanov's re-election campaign in America, Wisconsin is trivial from my perspective.

Ms. Bass' article gave me some very significant demographic analysis I've been waiting to see for years, I ordered her book from Amazon as soon as I finished reading the article. The venom directed at her caught me by surprise, it's an anomaly in these forums to begin with, and its intensity and magnitude inspired me to comment on it.

My focus (here) is on dynamics of the conversations, not the substance of the arguments. The "Kingdom among you" is beset with animosities grown from differences in imagination that have no meaning at all. The Ministry of Jesus is your only salvation, and it's been forgotten in the pitched battle for supremacy in "right thinking," which no one can win. "A house divided cannot stand," but without a foundation no house can be built. And too few are willing to say "God will inform us of our difference, let's go together to visit our neighbors on the other side of the tracks and see how we might help them weather the coming storm."

Too many are looking to Caesar's minions and the devil's disciples for resolution of yesterday's unresolved problems, while the solutions of tomorrow's problems are in their own hands.

And what is driving the most active, contentious, and divisive discussion on this forum since I came here last August? "Gimme."

In a situation like this, what would Jesus do?

by: Ankaboot

03-11-2011 @ 4:43pm

When elected representatives illegitimately exclude themselves from the legislative process, the people they represent are disenfranchised.

Only when their opponents take advantage of their absence. "Absenting themselves" to stop a vote is no different than a filibuster, which is a tactic intended to forestall decision while other influences on the process are developed and brought to bear.

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 10:26pm

The tax cut is a red herring. There is a huge budget deficit going forward that has to be addressed regardless of that tax cut.

A lie -- the state was in surplus beforehand.

by: MikeSw

03-10-2011 @ 4:37am

It's my understanding that Walker had been talking to at least two senators about changes in the CB provisions. Then today a guy named Miller wrote a letter and things changed.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2011 @ 4:43pm

jimdoze wrote:
The party IS, in fact, the Democrat Party. It is no more democratic than are Republicans.

This statement suggests that you're unwilling to actually discuss the issue; since the term "Democrat Party" is pejorative, and the party calls itself the "Democratic Party."

I would be guilty of the same if I insisted on calling Tea Party people "teahadists" in a discussion involving them.

by: Ngchen

03-09-2011 @ 10:30pm

So how precisely does gutting employee collective bargaining in itself going to address a budget deficit?

by: MikeSw

03-10-2011 @ 11:01pm

Patricia: the final bill, the 2,000 pages was not given to people in time to read. That's the point.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2011 @ 4:47pm

jimdoze wrote:
How is my statement convoluted when teachers are forced to be in a union in order to teach? And, by being so forced, are forced to pay $800 to $1,000 annually in union dues, the vast majority of which, after salaries for union bosses, finds its way into Democrat coffers?

Well, the reason union dues are required is to prevent what otherwise would be free-riders. Union negotiates better working conditions and wages; the effects benefit ALL workers. Would it be fair for those who never joined to obtain the benefits?

Now, unions can be formed or fired by the workers at a workplace. And yes, firings of unions have taken place. Why do you suppose there were the protests galore, if the act would actually benefit all these people?

by: MikeSw

03-10-2011 @ 10:59pm

Absolutely correct, but I think they might have made their case look better.

by: Ngchen

03-11-2011 @ 4:50pm

justintime wrote:
Republicans demonstrate repeatedly their belief that democracy is merely an inconvenient obstacle to their plan for dominating American society.

This statement is questionable. BUT, one has to wonder why they seem to enjoy throwing up obstacles for people to participate in the democratic process. Things like ever-increasing scrutiny of voter registration, IDs, and the like make one wonder.

by: jimdoze

03-12-2011 @ 9:12pm

Take another look. Water flowing downhill is no longer "stagnant."

I've only seen water flow uphill through capillary action and evaporation. Which is it you would prefer for the "middle class"?

by: justintime

03-11-2011 @ 4:49pm

Jim . . Teachers being forced to be in a union, being forced to pay union dues,

Why don't you go out and take a poll of Wisconsin teachers and find out how many of them resent belonging to the WEAC now that their rights are being threatened. . . Let us know the results.

by: jimdoze

03-12-2011 @ 9:11pm

"America's economy is staggering under the weight of poverty ~ not the weight of "the poor," who weigh very little, but of poverty itself, eating away at the foundations of the society"

America's economy is staggering primarily under the weight of entitlements/transfer payments and the vast growth of government. It is secondarily staggering due to technological change which has brought worldwide competition to occupations formerly highly paid and secure.

by: Ankaboot

03-11-2011 @ 4:53pm

It isn't -- the majority leader in the Wisconsin Senate has recently admitted that the goal is to unseat Obama in 2012 (and, by inference, put the Democratic Party out of business).

In other words, the common business of the public is being mismanaged for the sake of political theater. Obama is following his marching orders, working hard for the people who brought him onto the political stage and advancing the core agendas of America's one ruling party with two faces.

And with this Janus political order Christians expect to use the secular government to carry out the Ministry of Jesus?

Bread and circuses. Stale bread and sham gladiators.

You only need to fool enough people at the right time ...

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 10:44pm

She provides evidence of the probability.

Can you show me where she provides the evidence that it's probable that Walker thinks Jesus is telling him to pursue this particular tactic or policy?

I am not persuaded by it sufficiently to conclude that his faith is the determining factor for the governor, but I think she has persuasively established that it may be a determining factor.

And therein lies the problem. She writes as if his faith is the determining factor and that it is an incontrovertible fact that he thinks Jesus is telling him what to do here. She proposed no other alternatives (e.g. Walker's attacks on unions are a political move to break their political power). In actuality, she doesn't know anything at all other than a few snippets (which any Christian would agree with) from a personal testimony and basic Christian doctrine (which she admits is "a fairly typical boilerplate") taken from his church's website. That's it. And from that she goes on to make all sorts of baseless accusations that he doesn't "give a rip" about what other Christians think or say and that it's some sort of dogmatic fundamentalist faith that's leading him to supposedly oppose any compromise (which we now learn isn't the case) on these issues. If she'd simply said "it may be a factor, but we really don't know, I'm just putting forward a hypothesis" then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with what she wrote.

Disagreeing with her conclusions does not mean they were "out of character" or not "well reasoned and thoughtful." "Different" and "opposed" are not synonyms.

Of course not. Please don't make assumptions about my disagreements with what Diana wrote. I've disagreed with Diana on several occasions, but thought she made her points well and thoughtfully. I don't always call her thoughts unreasonable or unthoughtful when I disagree. However, these specific comments fall into those categories. It's not just her conclusions that are problematic; it's the means by which she's reached and presented those conclusions that are problematic.

by: BlueDeacon

03-10-2011 @ 11:14pm

No, that's beside the point -- the opponents wanted NO bill because they didn't want a liberal getting credit for anything. They did Bill Clinton dirty for the same reasons.

by: jimdoze

03-12-2011 @ 9:20pm

"Sorry, but the right bought the tea-party movement, whether you realize it or not."

Sorry, Blue. That is simply not true. However, you are free to think so... and proselytize the notion, if you wish. But, that does not make it any more true.

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 10:40pm

...there wasn't going to be any debate whatsoever because the Republican members of the Wisconsin Senate would have passed the bill over the objections of its Democratic members, which were essentially disenfranchised.

Let's be realistic. This statement could be said about any vote taking place in any legislature around the world in which a majority vote wins the day. No one is "disenfranchised" because they don't have the votes to prevail.

by: jimdoze

03-12-2011 @ 9:21pm

"Individuals destroyed themselves with arrogance and sodomy."

I take it that you would be vociferously against gay marriage, Anka?

by: jimdoze

03-11-2011 @ 5:06pm

Ngchen, if you believe that the term, "Democrat Party," is a pejorative, I will bend to your sense of it... so long as it is understood that the Democratic Party is no more democratic than is the Republican Party or the Tea Party.

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2011 @ 5:08pm

Or is that, to you, a convoluted take on what has been going on there?

Not just to me but to others on this blog.

by: BlueDeacon

03-11-2011 @ 5:09pm

I would be guilty of the same if I insisted on calling Tea Party people "teahadists" in a discussion involving them.

Or "tea-baggers."

by: MikeSw

03-10-2011 @ 11:35pm

He might just be recounting what some union guy told him. Having looked at the certification criteria, I'm not sure he has a point.

by: justintime

03-11-2011 @ 5:19pm

Ngchen . . This statement is questionable.

OK, here's my revised statement:

Republicans demonstrate repeatedly their belief that democracy is merely an inconvenient obstacle.

BUT, one has to wonder why they seem to enjoy throwing up obstacles for people to participate in the democratic process. Things like ever-increasing scrutiny of voter registration, IDs, and the like make one wonder.

I don't wonder at all about Republican motives behind throwing obstacles in front of the democratic process. . . Actions speak louder than words.

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 10:53pm

Not so fast. The Republicans have access to far more money and know full well that the Democrats get a lot of union support, and the political right over the years has moved to defund their opponents.

by: BlueDeacon

03-12-2011 @ 10:30pm

Sorry, Blue. That is simply not true. However, you are free to think so... and proselytize the notion, if you wish. But, that does not make it any more true.

Hate to break it to you, but it is -- that's how it came to become so well-broadcast. The right-wing paper in my city put a picture on the front page because the moneybags who publishes it is a supporter.

by: Ankaboot

03-11-2011 @ 5:31pm

Well, the reason union dues are required is to prevent what otherwise would be free-riders.

The reason union dues are required is that some people think their working hours are sixty times more valuable than the working hours of other workers.

by: Patricia

03-10-2011 @ 11:43pm

That may be your point, but that is not the truth.

by: jimdoze

03-11-2011 @ 5:30pm

"Why don't you go out and take a poll of Wisconsin teachers and find out how many of them resent belonging to the WEAC now that their rights are being threatened. . . Let us know the results."

Justin, there is now no need to take such a poll. Those who want to be in the union and pays dues still most certainly may. Those who wish to opt out may NOW do so as well. Can you think of a better way to get to the truth of that issue?

"Also please advise on the latest Scott Walker approval ratings."

Are you suggesting that Scott Walker should govern only based on approval ratings?

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 10:58pm

Well, Diana has written about politics and American culture for decades, so I would give her the benefit of the doubt even though in this case her conclusions may come across as presumption. And it is undeniably true that much of the evangelical machine denigrates "mainline" Christians, even to the point of questioning their faith; I grew up in a Presbyterian denomination that split from the larger church -- in the 1930s.

by: Ankaboot

03-11-2011 @ 5:25pm

You still call folks by their proper name.

One party lies to voting constituencies A, B and C, the other lies to voting constituencies X, Y and Z, and irrespective of the decision of the majority, the diversionary sham battles continue unabated while the best Congress money can buy works for those that buy it.

Meanwhile, voting majorities in controlling districts have a vested interest in increasing military spending, with a majority of voters employed in defense-related industries, and the disfranchised at the lower levels of the economic pyramid don't have any direct impact on the stock markets.

Perhaps in a few years ~ or months ~ when there is no more "middle class" and we've all learned to live on the next-to-nothing that some of us have been living on for most of our lives, then people who today can't see the forest for the trees will see that it's burning.

by: jimdoze

03-11-2011 @ 5:39pm

"No, but you can't govern by giving the finger to those who don't support your policies."

Neither can you govern by bending to mob rule... who, by the way, are giving the finger to those who were duly and democratically elected.

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

by: Minnesotan

03-09-2011 @ 1:25am

At the end of each comment, there is a button called "Flag," so readers can alert the editors to inappropriate postings. How do we push the "Flag" button for the article?

by: Friedensliebe

03-08-2011 @ 8:41pm

Hmm. In my opinion, Walker's problem is not that he is too dedicated to obeying God. It's that he doesn't understand what it is that the God he claims to believe in actually commands. "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27). It's not that he is somehow too uncompromisingly Christian; it's that he's not Christian enough.

by: Friedensliebe

03-08-2011 @ 8:41pm

Hmm. In my opinion, Walker's problem is not that he is too dedicated to obeying God. It's that he doesn't understand what it is that the God he claims to believe in actually commands. "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27). It's not that he is somehow too uncompromisingly Christian; it's that he's not Christian enough.

by: jesse3

03-08-2011 @ 8:51pm

What a nasty, condescending, bigoted little piece.

How do you know Scott Walker doesn't receive anyone else's counsel? Because he doesn't do what some people say? He's obviously doing what some people want, which according to your flawed logic (listening to someone=doing what they want) involves some kind of 'listening.'

Do you know anything about his faith at all? This whole article seems like completely unsubstantiated speculation. You're trying to pigeon-hole every evangelical as being only about 'me and Jesus.' According to you, evangelicals do not seek out guidance from others and apparently believe everything they do is because God told them directly to (again--any evidence that Walker thinks this way?). That is bigotry, plain and simple.

by: jesse3

03-08-2011 @ 8:51pm

What a nasty, condescending, bigoted little piece.

How do you know Scott Walker doesn't receive anyone else's counsel? Because he doesn't do what some people say? He's obviously doing what some people want, which according to your flawed logic (listening to someone=doing what they want) involves some kind of 'listening.'

Do you know anything about his faith at all? This whole article seems like completely unsubstantiated speculation. You're trying to pigeon-hole every evangelical as being only about 'me and Jesus.' According to you, evangelicals do not seek out guidance from others and apparently believe everything they do is because God told them directly to (again--any evidence that Walker thinks this way?). That is bigotry, plain and simple.

by: 22044

03-08-2011 @ 8:53pm

As an evangelical, I suppose I could insert my name wherever the name "Scott Walker" appears in this piece, since my faith likely identifies with his a lot. If I did that, I would conclude that "wow, I don't like that guy", based on the ill-informed & ignorant punditry expressed here.

by: 22044

03-08-2011 @ 8:53pm

As an evangelical, I suppose I could insert my name wherever the name "Scott Walker" appears in this piece, since my faith likely identifies with his a lot. If I did that, I would conclude that "wow, I don't like that guy", based on the ill-informed & ignorant punditry expressed here.

by: BlueDeacon

03-08-2011 @ 9:17pm

How do you know Scott Walker doesn't receive anyone else's counsel?

Diana just told you how.

You're trying to pigeon-hole every evangelical as being only about 'me and Jesus.' According to you, evangelicals do not seek out guidance from others and apparently believe everything they do is because God told them directly to (again--any evidence that Walker thinks this way?).

Many in fact are. Much "evangelicalism," especially of the media variety, represents what psychologists refer to as a "closed" system where no other competing information is allowed -- watch Christian TV for any length of time and this will be obvious. (I stopped a long time ago for that reason.)

by: BlueDeacon

03-08-2011 @ 9:17pm

How do you know Scott Walker doesn't receive anyone else's counsel?

Diana just told you how.

You're trying to pigeon-hole every evangelical as being only about 'me and Jesus.' According to you, evangelicals do not seek out guidance from others and apparently believe everything they do is because God told them directly to (again--any evidence that Walker thinks this way?).

Many in fact are. Much "evangelicalism," especially of the media variety, represents what psychologists refer to as a "closed" system where no other competing information is allowed -- watch Christian TV for any length of time and this will be obvious. (I stopped a long time ago for that reason.)

by: BlueDeacon

03-08-2011 @ 9:18pm

Hits too close to home, huh?

by: BlueDeacon

03-08-2011 @ 9:18pm

Hits too close to home, huh?

by: kansasmennonite

03-08-2011 @ 9:19pm

jesse3 said:"How do you know Scott Walker doesn't receive anyone else's counsel?"

When I read this I had to laugh! Koch's counsel?

by: kansasmennonite

03-08-2011 @ 9:19pm

jesse3 said:"How do you know Scott Walker doesn't receive anyone else's counsel?"

When I read this I had to laugh! Koch's counsel?

by: jesse3

03-08-2011 @ 10:37pm

"In other words, Scott Walker does not give a rip about pronouncements by the Roman Catholic Church, any Lutheran, Episcopal, or Methodist bishop, or the Protestant social justice pastors. These religious authorities, steeped in centuries of theology and Christian ethics mean absolutely nothing in Scott Walker's world."

--I forgot...since you, Wallis, Obama, and most Democrats oppose the Catholic and evangelical churches' stance on the legal protection of the unborn, one could say the exact same thing about all of you. Apparently, "these religious authorities, steeped in centuries of theology and Christian ethics mean absolutely nothing" in your world.

by: jesse3

03-08-2011 @ 10:37pm

"In other words, Scott Walker does not give a rip about pronouncements by the Roman Catholic Church, any Lutheran, Episcopal, or Methodist bishop, or the Protestant social justice pastors. These religious authorities, steeped in centuries of theology and Christian ethics mean absolutely nothing in Scott Walker's world."

--I forgot...since you, Wallis, Obama, and most Democrats oppose the Catholic and evangelical churches' stance on the legal protection of the unborn, one could say the exact same thing about all of you. Apparently, "these religious authorities, steeped in centuries of theology and Christian ethics mean absolutely nothing" in your world.

by: BlueDeacon

03-08-2011 @ 10:51pm

-I forgot...since you, Wallis, Obama, and most Democrats oppose the Catholic and evangelical churches' stance on the legal protection of the unborn, ...

Irrelevant. Stick to the topic at hand.

by: BlueDeacon

03-08-2011 @ 10:51pm

-I forgot...since you, Wallis, Obama, and most Democrats oppose the Catholic and evangelical churches' stance on the legal protection of the unborn, ...

Irrelevant. Stick to the topic at hand.

by: Ngchen

03-08-2011 @ 11:07pm

Actually, while it's certainly an aside, there is a plausible claim of a double standard in terms of the abortion issue. If the vast majority of faithful counsel that abortion should be illegal, and people flat-out ignore such, aren't they behaving like Walker?

by: Ngchen

03-08-2011 @ 11:07pm

Actually, while it's certainly an aside, there is a plausible claim of a double standard in terms of the abortion issue. If the vast majority of faithful counsel that abortion should be illegal, and people flat-out ignore such, aren't they behaving like Walker?

by: BlueDeacon

03-08-2011 @ 11:17pm

Except that Walker will likely claim moral sanction from Catholic bishops were abortion the issue -- the kind of "cafeteria Christianity" we're talking about.

by: BlueDeacon

03-08-2011 @ 11:17pm

Except that Walker will likely claim moral sanction from Catholic bishops were abortion the issue -- the kind of "cafeteria Christianity" we're talking about.

by: justintime

03-09-2011 @ 12:26am

Thanks to Diana for an insightful piece on what might be going on inside Governor Scott Walker's mind as he faces the angry and divided citizens of Wisconsin.

Should we speculate on what Thomas Aquinas might say about Christian leadership in the State of Wisconsin ? . . .

In Summa Theologica II.II, Thomas Aquinas asserts the following correspondences between the seven Capital Virtues and the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit:

by: justintime

03-09-2011 @ 12:26am

Thanks to Diana for an insightful piece on what might be going on inside Governor Scott Walker's mind as he faces the angry and divided citizens of Wisconsin.

Should we speculate on what Thomas Aquinas might say about Christian leadership in the State of Wisconsin ? . . .

In Summa Theologica II.II, Thomas Aquinas asserts the following correspondences between the seven Capital Virtues and the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit:

by: MikeSw

03-09-2011 @ 12:34am

But, Walker has not done this to any one's knowledge, but what Ngchen notes is that Diane Butler Bass and others around here will do exactly that. The result is that we're speculating about Walker's hypocrisy, but sure about the others who use the Pope as a prop when it suits them.

by: MikeSw

03-09-2011 @ 12:34am

But, Walker has not done this to any one's knowledge, but what Ngchen notes is that Diane Butler Bass and others around here will do exactly that. The result is that we're speculating about Walker's hypocrisy, but sure about the others who use the Pope as a prop when it suits them.

by: 22044

03-09-2011 @ 12:45am

It would, if it wasn't so dreadfully off the mark.

by: 22044

03-09-2011 @ 12:45am

It would, if it wasn't so dreadfully off the mark.

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 12:53am

Then why did you react the way you did?

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 12:53am

Then why did you react the way you did?

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 12:55am

That's completely beside the point. This is a Christian blog, if you haven't noticed, and people who call themselves Christians but don't listen to fellow believers not like themselves are in for a fall.

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 12:55am

That's completely beside the point. This is a Christian blog, if you haven't noticed, and people who call themselves Christians but don't listen to fellow believers not like themselves are in for a fall.

by: MikeSw

03-09-2011 @ 1:06am

Unless, of course, the others are wrong.

by: MikeSw

03-09-2011 @ 1:06am

Unless, of course, the others are wrong.

by: justintime

03-09-2011 @ 1:06am

Mike, if you had read the NYT editorial before you posted it entire, you might not have posted it.
This editorial DOES NOT oppose public unions' right to collective bargaining. . .
This article does not mention George Meany nor does it mention FDR.
Of course you already posted the FDR quote that's been bouncing around right wing sites.
But I'll be surprised if you can show me where George Meany said he's opposed to public unions' right to collective bargaining.

The NYT editorial advocates negotiating public employee pensions to eliminate unreasonable benefits enjoyed by some.

Every state is different and New York is not Wisconsin or Ohio.
And Cuomo is a lot smarter than Walker or Kasich.
I predict Cuomo will have a lot less trouble balancing the New York budget then Walker or Kasich.
It's looking like Walker might even lose his job because of his overreaching and stubbornness

by: justintime

03-09-2011 @ 1:06am

Mike, if you had read the NYT editorial before you posted it entire, you might not have posted it.
This editorial DOES NOT oppose public unions' right to collective bargaining. . .
This article does not mention George Meany nor does it mention FDR.
Of course you already posted the FDR quote that's been bouncing around right wing sites.
But I'll be surprised if you can show me where George Meany said he's opposed to public unions' right to collective bargaining.

The NYT editorial advocates negotiating public employee pensions to eliminate unreasonable benefits enjoyed by some.

Every state is different and New York is not Wisconsin or Ohio.
And Cuomo is a lot smarter than Walker or Kasich.
I predict Cuomo will have a lot less trouble balancing the New York budget then Walker or Kasich.
It's looking like Walker might even lose his job because of his overreaching and stubbornness

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 1:10am

By whose standards?

by: BlueDeacon

03-09-2011 @ 1:10am

By whose standards?

by: justintime

03-09-2011 @ 1:15am

Mike . .The result is that we're speculating about Walker's hypocrisy, but we can sure about the others who use the Pope as a prop when it suits them and discard him when it doesn't.

Unless, of course, the others are wrong.

What's the point you're trying to make, Mike ?

by: justintime

03-09-2011 @ 1:15am

Mike . .The result is that we're speculating about Walker's hypocrisy, but we can sure about the others who use the Pope as a prop when it suits them and discard him when it doesn't.

Unless, of course, the others are wrong.

What's the point you're trying to make, Mike ?

by: Minnesotan

03-09-2011 @ 1:15am

Wow! Is Diana Butler Bass trying to be the Glenn Beck of the Left? Her bile-spewing op-ed is a new low for Sojourners! I am rather surprised at the amount of the high-handed judgmental attitude she vents against whole swaths of Christianity. She indulges in rank stereotypes, and superficial reasoning. Diana, if you are reading this, I urge the writer to take some time to search your soul about what is motivating you to speak so strongly against someone else. Of course you can disagree with him, without libeling evangelicals, Gov. Walker's spiritual life, etc.

And where are the editors at Sojourners? How did you let this op-ed through the editing process? Did anyone question whether the tone of this piece was a bit over the top? I think Sojourners needs to explain why it allowed such a harsh, uncharitable piece to be posted.

by: Minnesotan

03-09-2011 @ 1:15am

Wow! Is Diana Butler Bass trying to be the Glenn Beck of the Left? Her bile-spewing op-ed is a new low for Sojourners! I am rather surprised at the amount of the high-handed judgmental attitude she vents against whole swaths of Christianity. She indulges in rank stereotypes, and superficial reasoning. Diana, if you are reading this, I urge the writer to take some time to search your soul about what is motivating you to speak so strongly against someone else. Of course you can disagree with him, without libeling evangelicals, Gov. Walker's spiritual life, etc.

And where are the editors at Sojourners? How did you let this op-ed through the editing process? Did anyone question whether the tone of this piece was a bit over the top? I think Sojourners needs to explain why it allowed such a harsh, uncharitable piece to be posted.

by: MikeSw

03-09-2011 @ 1:21am

I agree with Minnesotan. Butler Bass is way out of line here. People will rail, rightly at times, about using the Bible as a public policy manual.

What Butler Bass does here is paint Scott Walker as some sort of non-believing or unwise fool. Look at what she says: Walker has no spiritual "check" on him, no authority other than the ones he hears in his own head, and no moral culpability in this situation.

justintime, we disagree a lot, but I do respect you. This is over the top. I suspect that if I took out like this against you, I would be banned.

I'm merely playing off Ngchen's comment that Butler Bass is willing to quote the Pope as authority and support but when it comes to abortion (and I don't know Butler Bass' position on this so I'm referring to the pro-abortion people in general), the Pope is viewed as a neanderthal.

by: MikeSw

03-09-2011 @ 1:21am

I agree with Minnesotan. Butler Bass is way out of line here. People will rail, rightly at times, about using the Bible as a public policy manual.

What Butler Bass does here is paint Scott Walker as some sort of non-believing or unwise fool. Look at what she says: Walker has no spiritual "check" on him, no authority other than the ones he hears in his own head, and no moral culpability in this situation.

justintime, we disagree a lot, but I do respect you. This is over the top. I suspect that if I took out like this against you, I would be banned.

I'm merely playing off Ngchen's comment that Butler Bass is willing to quote the Pope as authority and support but when it comes to abortion (and I don't know Butler Bass' position on this so I'm referring to the pro-abortion people in general), the Pope is viewed as a neanderthal.

by: justintime

03-09-2011 @ 1:21am

Why don't you tell us what you really think, Minnesotan ?
Don't sugar coat it, just on our behalf.

by: justintime

03-09-2011 @ 1:49am

George Meany . ."It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.". . 1955

If you put George Meany's meaning into the historical context you will realize that this was a statement of frustration over his inability to negotiate with the governmental bureaucracy he was faced with in 1955.
Later on, unions were able to apply political pressure by helping to get elected, public officials who saw the benefits of collective bargaining.
Although conservatives like to claim that George Meany's 1955 statement means that he was philosophically opposed to collective bargaining with government, that was not the case.
Conservatives also like to take FDR's comments about collective bargaining with government out of the historical context to undermine the legitimacy of collective bargaining.
Nice try, conservatives . . . but sorry no cigar.

by: justintime

03-09-2011 @ 1:49am

George Meany . ."It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.". . 1955

If you put George Meany's meaning into the historical context you will realize that this was a statement of frustration over his inability to negotiate with the governmental bureaucracy he was faced with in 1955.
Later on, unions were able to apply political pressure by helping to get elected, public officials who saw the benefits of collective bargaining.
Although conservatives like to claim that George Meany's 1955 statement means that he was philosophically opposed to collective bargaining with government, that was not the case.
Conservatives also like to take FDR's comments about collective bargaining with government out of the historical context to undermine the legitimacy of collective bargaining.
Nice try, conservatives . . . but sorry no cigar.

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 2:28am

I respect Diana Butler Bass, but this is really badly done. I read the "testimony" she linked to (it's really not a testimony, but a couple quotes) and there's nothing objectionable in it at all. Are we not to obey God? Are we not to trust Him? We might not agree with all Walker's policy decisions, but there's absolutely no evidence that his Christian faith or the One Person has any bearing on his policy choices or unwillingness to compromise. Diana provides no evidence that Walker thinks Jesus is telling him what to do on this issue. This is all a bunch of conjecture and attempted mind reading.

How does Diana know he doesn't give a rip about what the various faith leaders say? Maybe he has taken it into account and disagreed. Is every Christian in government supposed to follow what the Catholic Bishops or other leaders say or should they take what they have to say into account and then make up their own minds? I don't know what Walker did but neither does Diana, yet she feels free to mind read. Then the whole comparison to GWB is just plain awful. What an awful rant this is.

Oh, and Diana failed to mention this quote from Walker's "testimony" which is often repeated here by God's Politics bloggers: "I don't believe God picks sides in politics," he said. "I believe God wants us on His side." Why'd that go unquoted? Did it not fit the stereotype Diana wants to craft?

Awful, awful, awful.

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 2:28am

I respect Diana Butler Bass, but this is really badly done. I read the "testimony" she linked to (it's really not a testimony, but a couple quotes) and there's nothing objectionable in it at all. Are we not to obey God? Are we not to trust Him? We might not agree with all Walker's policy decisions, but there's absolutely no evidence that his Christian faith or the One Person has any bearing on his policy choices or unwillingness to compromise. Diana provides no evidence that Walker thinks Jesus is telling him what to do on this issue. This is all a bunch of conjecture and attempted mind reading.

How does Diana know he doesn't give a rip about what the various faith leaders say? Maybe he has taken it into account and disagreed. Is every Christian in government supposed to follow what the Catholic Bishops or other leaders say or should they take what they have to say into account and then make up their own minds? I don't know what Walker did but neither does Diana, yet she feels free to mind read. Then the whole comparison to GWB is just plain awful. What an awful rant this is.

Oh, and Diana failed to mention this quote from Walker's "testimony" which is often repeated here by God's Politics bloggers: "I don't believe God picks sides in politics," he said. "I believe God wants us on His side." Why'd that go unquoted? Did it not fit the stereotype Diana wants to craft?

Awful, awful, awful.

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 2:30am

Minnesotan - I agree. This is totally out of character for Diana too. She's usually very well reasoned and thoughtful. It's almost like some Daily Kos intern got ahold of her log in and posted this screed.

by: SamHamilton

03-09-2011 @ 2:30am

Minnesotan - I agree. This is totally out of character for Diana too. She's usually very well reasoned and thoughtful. It's almost like some Daily Kos intern got ahold of her log in and posted this screed.