Jim Wallis is an evangelical. He's a minister. And he's a Democrat. Some of you are laughing to yourself thinking that an "evangelical Democrat" is an oxymoron. Maybe. But consider his op-ed piece in the New York Times about how Democrats need to change their message in five distinct areas: the poor, the environment, abortion, family values, and national security.
Registration is free for the NY Times online and they won't send you spam so sign up, read the article and tell me what you think.
Registration is free for the NY Times online and they won't send you spam so sign up, read the article and tell me what you think.
posted by jch at
12:47 PM
17 Comments:
Joe,
I haven't read the article yet, but I have the author's book, entitled "God's Politics". Interesting stuff! It makes you think! I'll have to check out the article.
Thanks for the updates! I can't wait to see Sophia and Ira (and, you and Laura!) Take care of yourselves and those precious little cousins! Love y'all dearly! Julie Gay
Great article. Today I was especially bothered with what is happening with CAFTA. How and why would we want to promote a free trade agreement with Central America with the full knowledge that it will create poor working conditions and horrible wages for people who are already struggling? Anyway, I was pleased to read what Jim Wallis calls "fair trade" as opposed to out and out free trade. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but it's something we should be striving for.
-D.J.
Joe,
Just because you're my "favorite" nephew isn't reason enough for me to read the N.Y. Times!! Sorry!
SL in Texss (Pres. Bush country!)
joe,
my last year at ACU has made me aware of several things that article talks about such as fair trade. also, as a future teacher and, i pray, mother, what it says about being pro-family as far as povery and hollywood sleeze while not alienating so many is also very interesting. i would love to see a candidate and party that is more interested in the american people than they are about pleasing their party's corporate sponcers as both republicans and democrats do. then i could cast a vote i truely agree with. thanks for the enlightening article.
brittany kahla
Hey Joe,
"First time (caller), long time (listener)" as they say on WFAN, Sports Radio 66.
If "Evangelical Democrat" sounds funny, so would "Evangelicals for Social Action." Your brother-in-law likes to point out to me that since this ministry's name is in the plural, that must mean that there are two members! Actually, it is a growing ministry led by Ron Sider (Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger). They publish a bi-monthly magazine/journal called PRISM with accounts of all kinds of social ministries around the world. Their editorial board and contributing editors number 49, including Jim Wallis. I recommend it. In fact, for a while I was putting my issues on display at the church building, but I got positive comments from exactly one person--your sister!
We're praying for you guys out here on "the Island."
David and Maureen Fritz
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well Joe, because you have been my friend for so long, I read this article. Although, the spam you refer to is actually NYT itself. Ha. And being in Texas, I feel as though just by reading this, I will not be played any longer on the Country music stations, but I did it anyway.
Following my mothers words, as well as some words in Proverbs, its hard to express what feelings I had while reading this. But I do know, in order to minister to others, it is sometimes necessary to view the life from 180degrees ... looking back at me.
Here are some thoughts that came to mind while reading this:
1. I'm disturbed that having "family" values and "getting back faith" is something that is stressed on a person when they are running for office and in the public, and not necessarily their conviction of the heart.
2. THe comment "Democrats must offer new ideas and a fresh agenda" is disturbing, b/c the ideas and agendas of what its striving to be in the future, "one about moral values", should not be something new... its old, its perfect and its fairly obvious. That is, if your conviction of morals comes from the Good Book.
3. I do not like the idea of doing things politically for the "image of our country". We should be striving to correct this nations poverty, and this nations issues before reaching out to the rest of the world. Reminds me of a verse, maybe out of context, but how can we see to take the spec out of our brothers eye, when there is such a huge forest in ours. The needs of the USA is the USA. Feeding our hungry, helping our elderly, taking care of our future and seeking rules, laws, statutes, policies that will protect that which over the years has been proven a good "family values" country.
Do families have their problems? Yes. Do Christians sin? yes. Does that give me the "right" to then rebel against God's instruction?
The one thing I tire of, and have recently thought about, is the lack of backbone to stand up for my beliefs, and for those to become swayed by they loudest complainer. Stand Firm, we are instructed. This is not about Democrats or Republicans, but as Christians living in the world, becoming a light on the hill.
Finding a vision and language will not bring about a change. Finding Jesus Christ will bring about a change. I wonder how many politicians know this, yet don't say it in fear of their credibility.
Ok, enough from your NRA, Ducks Unlimited, Bush Supporter in Houston, my truck is running.
But then again, maybe this is exactly what Mr.Wallis is trying to get across.
Jim Wallis has long troubled me, and here's another instance. The reason I vote republican is because it gives us the only chance to end abortion (and it should be ended for the same reasons child abuse is illegal). This is really, above all else, the paramount moral issue of our time. 1 million children destroyed a year, the vast, vast majority medically unnecessary. Cutting that "by half" doesn't cut it. That is still 500,000 destroyed children. In my mind, voting for a pro-abortion politician or party is unconscionable. What the democratic party needs to do (along with liberal republicans) is repent.
Of course the above comment is written anonymously. It doesn't surprise me.
Abortion is a huge problem. I won't disagree with that. But to base your vote on that issue and that issue alone is to have too narrow a focus.
Our current president, GWB, put to death more people as governor than any other governor in the history of our nation. So if one is going to argue a pro-life stance then it should be taken to its logical conclusion: life for all. The most conservative Republicans have just as much to answer for than the most liberal of Democrats. So Mr. or Mrs Anonymous, what do you think of Christians who vote for Democrats? Bound for hell?
And to Steve: Wallis argues that getting back to family values is getting back to the party's roots. It's not something new. It's reclaiming what was once was. And I disagree that we need to take care of us first. If you want to start spouting Jesus as your standard then you can't really say, "the needs of the USA is the USA."
It's not God Bless America! according to Jesus. It's God Bless the World.
Conversation about "Family values" a buzzword with an extremely narrow definition bothers me in the extreme. If we are to speak of the traditional family then we must resurrect a family of mother, father, grandparents, children, sisters, cousins, and others living often under the same roof (historically). The so called "family values" is an affirmation of the nuclear family-a 20th century invention at best. A family, any family, is where the Spirit of God is present and consciously invited and pursued in the family system. This can be a family with a single parent, a divorced family, a homosexual couple (with or without children), or even those few who are "married." (Defined legally as a contractual arrangement and nothing more-as was "tradional families/marriage" historically) Let's recognize the imago dei in all of God's creation and affirm families rather than narrowly define what never really existed-and was not intended. Biblically speaking - David, Abraham, Solomon, had multiple wives and sexual partners (With no comment from God-who is cited as speaking directly to the aforementioned). I do not condone Abraham's infidelity to Sarah, etc..but if we are to speak of traditional family arrangements, for the time period in question these things were not considered "immoral". Perhaps if we affirmed monogamous loving relationships that exist in the context of faith between two human beings our world would be better off. Do we really want to reinstitute tradional marriage? And for those who take the creation story literally, this traditional family lingo is problematic. Conservative Evangelical Theology holds too many inconsistences, it will philosopically and theologically implode. Untenable. -Reed
If the Democrats change their vision and message, will they still be Democrats?
Changing appearance will not change who they are.
Maybe, like CoC who want to no longer appear to be CoC, and should no longer be CoC, Dems should no longer be Dems.
What counts is not the name on the building/party, but the actions of those inside. We need to question our loyalty to an identity.
Vicki,
Wallis is arguing that Democrats should be Democrats and not be ashamed of it. History will remind you and me that it was the Dems who championed abolition of slavery and fought for your right to vote, not the Republicans.
But you are right on one account, we all should question our loyalty to an identity. None of us should claim with much assurance that we are Republicans or Democrats.
Point of clarification. The nations policies were dominated by the Democratic party in the 1800's. After the Dred Scott decision the Democrats divided along southern and northern lines and around the issue of slavery. The northern Democrats renamed themselves Republicans. In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.
The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.
I know that's not the thrust of this whole discussion, but they are important historical facts.
Now to the discussion. With the news of today's energy policy being signed into law, it's become increasingly clear to me that our politicians work for us (the people) only about 30% of the time. The other 70% is spent working for individuals and corporations that help them get re-elected. Check out this comentary on the recent energy bill here.
I think Wallis is right on in his commentary about the Democrats. A lot of my support for the Republican party stems from the lack of direction, vision, and message of the Democrats. In times of duress people will follow someone who seems sure of where they are going, even if it's in the wrong direction. GWB personifies a Republican party that appears to know exactly what it wants and how to go about doing it. The thing is, it's all a house of cards that is going to fall with dire consequences for the party. The budget, the war, medicare, social security, gun control, stem-cell, etc are all going to come to a head based on the policies of this administration. When that happens there will be no-one to blame but the Repubicans since they have had control of both houses and the White House. I am not so sure the Republicans will be happly with reaping what they have sown.
I would gladly and eagerly vote for a Democrat or Republican if they had the courage to put forth a candidate who had half of the convictions that Wallis described. Barak Obama Vs. John McCain anyone!?
Jason, your five minute google search for "Republicans, slavery and woman's right to vote" served you poorly.
It was the Democrats under Pres. Johnson who championed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act. So maybe I should alter my wording a bit from my earlier comment: it was during the 20th century that any real movement was made to insure equality for women and people of color and it was spearheaded by the Democrats.
Your "point of clarification" is helpful but quite misleading. The Republicans, like many southern churches, stood idly by while women and people of color suffered.
But I agree with what you say about a candidate with conviction. I'm tired of being played.
Totally agree that during the twentieth century the Republicans served as major roadblocks against integration, voting rights acts, and other civil rights legislation. The "Southern Strategy" implemented by the Republican party is indefensible and was a collosal mistake both in moral and politicle terms.
The main point is that neither party has their hands clean when it comes to issues like life, race, war, or religion. Arguably the most destructive war in US history was initiated and expanded when Democrats controlled Washington (Vietnam). I believe neither party is clean because we as American's don't have our hands clean when it comes to all of these issues. Both parties have had times in which they have stood on the correct sides of moral issues, and times in which they were dead wrong in every aspect. Much like people. I know of family members who are good Christians but are racist as you can be. Wallis' article highlights to me a way to be both supportive of an ideal, and constructive in the reality our society is in (reducing abortions by half, fair trade, etc.) Abortion, the death penalty, war, and capatilism are here to stay we can't kid ourselves into thinking that they will go away. The question is how can we minimize the negative impact those things have on our society and culture.
Both parties have the ability to do that....if they choose to! I sincerely hope, as Wallis said, that one of the parties decides to.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home