Katha Pollitt, Jim Wallis and God's Politics

Katha Pollitt spanks God's Politics (and by extension, Jesus Politics too). A quote:

Wallis's God calls on Christians to fight racism, poverty, war and violence--what's wrong with mustering support for these worthy goals by presenting them in the language spoken by so many Americans? The trouble is, the other side does that too. You can find anything you want in the Bible--well, almost anything. Thus, the more insistently people bring Christianity into politics, the more political argument becomes a matter of Christian hermeneutics. Does God say gays should be executed or married? "Spare the rod" or "suffer the little children"? I don't see how we benefit as a society from translating politics into theology. We are left with the same debates, and a diminished range of ways in which to think about them. And, of course, a diminished number of voices--because if you're not a believer, you're out of the discussion. In this sense, Wallis's evangelicalism is as much a power play as Pat Robertson's.
----
And Wallis is as much a power player. By a remarkable act of providence, God's politics turn out to be curiously tailored to the current crisis of the Democratic Party. God, like many of the black, Hispanic, Catholic and working-class voters who voted for Bush in 2004, is an economic progressive and a family-values conservative. He doesn't like "pornography," divorce, abortion or gay marriage (civil unions are OK). It's interesting that in his earlier book The Soul of Politics Wallis cited numerous women theologians, while God's Politics mentions not one. Perhaps this is because the liberationist theologians he wrote about in The Soul of Politics are mostly very strong feminists who think women are capable of making moral decisions about childbearing and that abortion can be one such decision. Wallis constantly accuses "the left" of resisting "moral" arguments. I would say it is he who resists fully engaging moral arguments that differ from his own.

Comments

[Scott]

Sojourners has been sending out lovely emails about Wallis' book - "make a political statement by putting my book at the top of the best sellers list" sort of thing. A bit shameless, IMHO.

I'm curious about one thing since the the subject of Jim Wallis came up - can anyone verify the accusation against him below:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson107.html
...when refugees were fleeing Vietnam in the late 1970s, many perishing in the open seas, [Wallis] blamed capitalism and condemned the refugees for leaving and declared that they were nothing more than "consumerists" who were "in search of a fix."

[dlw]

I don't see anything wrong with asking supporters to help see that the book becomes a best-seller.

The above writer shows a fair amount of ignorance about proper biblical hermeneutics. Sure, if one took a fundamentalist approach, one could twist the Bible to say anything, but a more systematic approach that pays more careful attention to the Hebraic worldview surrounding the text limits the range of interpretations very strongly. And, it makes it so that Christians, one way or another, have to deal with the significant number of passages calling upon people to consider the plight of the poor.

So yes, Wallis is changing the balance of power within the Democratic party and making room for people to use a language of faith. But it seems this is a needed change for the Democratic party for it to be more competitive in the future.
dlw

[Carlos]

I think Katha Pollitt is raising some important concerns, not unlike the concerns raised here by Caleb, Chameleon, and Kevin.

Liberal or progressive Christian political activists need to be careful not to fall into the same trap as conservative Christians who are fond of using their faith to score political points.

I am sympathetic to the progressive Christian cause, but I wonder if liberal Christians would be better served if they concentrated their efforts first on being political activists trying to make common ground with other activists who share their progressive vision rather than more blatantly using their faith to be so reactive to the other Christians who use their faith. I am not sure I expressed myself clearly, but this is an interesting conversation to continue.

[dlw]

I can see that there would be some tension over with whom one builds/burns bridges.

I think that Wallis definitely is gearing his book toward USEvangelical "moderates". That was his primary intended audience with the whole Call to Renewal movement.

dlw

[The Atheist]

Urg. As much as I enjoy discussing religion with respect to politics, I really wish people would not let them bed together in practice. It makes me sad that people think the democratic party needs to *get religion* or *speak church,* in order to compete, or even worse, to be valid. If we really value a pluralistic society, I wish we would start acting like it.

[The Atheist]

I think *liberal* theologians would do well to speak up and counter all the oppressive, hateful, and not pedagogically sound doctrine of conservative fundamentalists/literalists (as though they were at all concerned with the literal or fundamental).

However, I wish both sides of the church would advise people to practice what they preach instead of voting it in order to focibly influence what should be other peoples personal choices. Vote logically, intelligently, with the overarching society in mind, and if you really need a moral guideline, use the golden rule. If you disagree with what other people do with their lives, be an example; all these *values voters* see *sin* and try to *vote it out,* electing ever more ridiculous candidates in hopes of passing some crazy legislation that will keep other people from getting married or something...but even then, EVEN IF something is actually wrong, you`re going after the symptoms, not the disease.

[Dale]

Athiest,

I tend to side with you on what I perceive to be a disgust with "all talk and no walk", but I differ on the point where you say that if we want to be a pluralistic society we should act like it; my take on pluralism is that we have respect for ALL rather than ignore faith. What you stressed in your second note is what I agree with; what you express in the first is where I think you miss Wallis' point. The POLITICAL facts are that this country is overwhelmingly , in terms of numbers, and in terms of "professed beliefs", Christian. So Wallis is saying that we ought to be stressing the "applications" and "practices" and not relegate religion to a "privatized faith" that is irreleveant to actual life. The Religious Right basically talks and then ignores all the social dimensions of the Scriptures they say they believe literally, and yet when they ignore one of the more obvious themes, care for the poor; for "the least of these" (where Jesus CLEARLY lays it on the line; if you did it not unto the least of these you did it not unto me"

[dlw]

As I understand it, laws inevitably affect values. To care about values, is to care about both interpersonal relationships and participation in the reformation of the rules that guide us all.

The problem with the religious right is not that they let their faith affect their political involvement, but rather the relatively non-reflective manner they go about it and how their faith tends to mix up their culturally specific beliefs/dispensations with what is taught by scripture.

dlw

[The Atheist]

Thanks for the comment Dale. I agree, despite the way my first comment sounded, with "respecting all" as much as possible in the interest of a pluralistic society.

Though I agree with your comment about the religious right emphasizing some biblical verses over others in their interpretation, as it affects their particular view of "morality," I have never been able to get someone on the "fundy" side of christianity to admit to this, and I doubt I ever will.

What I meant by "keep religion out of politics," is that religion SHOULD NOT be relegated to a "privitized faith," but rather, a "personal faith," that is applicable to one's own life, but respects and acknowledges the differences in others. People should be as religious as they feel, but I feel like one should not be able to use religious beliefs to justify political actions which affect people not sharing the same belief. When Goerge Bush and other fundies act like it's divine providence that W was elected for the first time, to his second term, I want people to laugh because it's completely ridiculous.

Throughout history, everyone who believed in any god whatsoever has said "god is on my side," but "winning" does not make you right nor does "losing" make you wrong. The Bible says god was on the side of the Israelites, and they still spent 40 years wandering through a desert. If I believed in a God, I would hope he would have better things to do than "election coverage."

Basically, though I disagree with indoctrinated faith, people are free to have it if they really want. I would just prefer the pulpits be used for preaching, not politicizing.

[The Atheist]

dlw,

I agree with your second paragraph, "the problem with the religious right."

However, in your first paragraph you said:

**As I understand it, laws inevitably affect values.**

I do not believe that laws AFFECT values so much as laws REFLECT values/interests. Most people seem to feel that killing other people isn't such a good thing, but I don't think those feelings extend from law, whether federal or biblical. There are laws against speeding, and laws against smoking marijuana, but the only people I know who think these things are "wrong" (on a moral basis) BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS they are wrong (again, federal or biblical) are my grandparents.

**To care about values, is to care about both interpersonal relationships and participation in the reformation of the rules that guide us all.**

Oh, I agree. I care about values, but I am liberal in that I am more interested in "the spirit of the law" rather than a strict, literal interpretation. I feel the same way about the bible.

[dlw]

Athe,(Can I call you that?)

I agree with you and made a poor word-choice before.

I agree that we need to have a democratic discussion over laws and that advocacy of a position should be separated from advocacy of a faith and that one's faith/belief-system should not affect one's say-so in a debate, unlike with one's understanding of the key essential issues. And, ideally, one as an intellectual should not try to settle a debate but rather shed light on the key disagreements that may help better resolve the issues at hand.

dlw

[The Atheist]

Yeah, Athe, I like it, thanks.

I completely agree with your stance on intellectualism as it should be used to enhance understanding and hopefully affect cooperation, compromise, and the realization of common goals.

[dlw]

thanks man(or woman as such as it may be)!

dlw