What Would Jesus Do: Review of God's Politics: Why the Right gets it Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get it. By Jim Wallis

Ok, I'll go right out and say it, if you are a Christian, or a Jew, or a Liberal, or a Conservative, or a Human, this could quite possibly be the best political book you will ever read. If you are not political, this book could make you political, but the best thing about it is this: It will make you Political in the best way.

I first became familiar with Jim Wallis while watching some videos on the Veritas Forum. What he said just struck a chord with me. I had been listening to conservative talk radio, and I did not like all that I heard, you see, I like listening to Christians, and when you listen to talk radio, you get not Christians, but conservatives. Republicans are not necessarily Christians, though they have courted the Christian vote for decades. The rhetoric of the "Christian Right" has become quite pervasive in our culture, seemingly only concerned about issues of abortion and gay marriage on the moral front while giving tax breaks for the rich and slowly dismantling the safety nets under the poor. This is the "How the Right gets it Wrong" part of the subtitle.

But then, the Democrats have often steered me the wrong way as well. They support the poor, but seem determined to remove God from public life. I've heard politicians say things like "I believe in God, but it won't affect my political stance." What do you think about a person like that? Do I really want to vote for someone who does not always act according to their beliefs? Do I want to support someone who wants people to be able to legally kill their babies? Do I want to support someone who would like to remove any representation of Christianity from the public view? This is how "the Left doesn't get it." The answer to bad religion is not no religion, it's good religion.

The politics that Jim Wallis offers us is what he calls prophetic. Not prophetic in the sense of the prediction of the future, but prophetic in the sense of what the Biblical prophets did the most often, and that was to tell God's truth. To tell the people to shape up, to not take advantage of the poor, not to defraud widows and orphans (pronounced single mothers and children without fathers.) Prophets insisted on justice, and that the blessings of God be spread around more or less evenly. This is the kind of politics that Rev. Wallis wants us to believe in. The the belief that says we've had enough of trying to clean up the trash of the world without trying to figure out who's dumping the crap here to begin with.

Also Rev. Wallis asks us what Jesus would do. The Right would like us to believe that Jesus is pro rich, pro war, and only pro American. Over 30,000 children around the world die of starvation each day, and we are supposed to be concerned about capital gains tax? You see, it's not that there is any shortage of food or water in the world, it's that there is a shortage of people who care enough to give it to someone who needs it. Millions of women still die of complications in child birth, the vast majority could be prevented by modern medicine. Wars still rage in the poorest countries in the world because of stupid things like diamonds and money. And there is still the epidemic of HIV/AIDS.

Wallis tells us that the monologue of the Right wing is over. I think it is close, but not quite there yet. Our current presidential situation is a bad one, and hopefully it will be over soon, but it seems that on so many fronts, we have lost ground instead of gained it, not only as a country in a world, but as a faith. I want to see Prophetic Politics gain some ground, not a politics of complaining about problems and passing the blame to the other party, but a politics of solutions, of ideas to fix problems, not just to throw money at problems, but to guide passionate people into their life work of helping other people. Because I think it's what Jesus came to do, help people, and not the rich ones, but the ones who really need it. The poor.

In conclusion, I'd recommend this book to anyone, especially if you have become discouraged by the current political climate. It is a pretty long book, it took me quite a while to read, much longer than normal and you can tell just by the last time I did a book review, but it is well worth it. It's a great book written by a man fully qualified to write it. It will change your view of things.

WiredForStereo

Divorced from the Wings

I am becoming more and more moderate.

I used to be a bit to the right, conservative and all. Then in my massive intake of data, I found Jim Wallis. I clicked the little link on the Veritas Forum that said "Politics" and found a message by Jim Wallis. Now, coincidently I had listened to this message last year some time, I don't remember, but it didn't really stick then, and I think it was because then I was not as interested in politics as I am now.

So Wallis I guess is more of a left wing Christian guy, though I would probably classify him as left center or center left, maybe even Center Moderate if I wanted to classify him with me. At any rate, conservatives think he is left.

Jim's message is that the real contemporary Christians are no longer accurately represented by the conservative religious right who's flagship issues are abortion and gay marriage. He contends that those issues are not as important as poverty. He says that both sides of the aisle would agree that fewer abortions are better than more, and none would be better still, but the differences lie in the fact that the left wants rare, safe and legal, while the right wants rare and illegal. Jim himself just wants there to be no abortions, preferably because no one wants them. I would agree, now how do we make no one want them. Fixing poverty and education. Fabulous! As far as gay marriage, Jim would say that all agree on what the gay marriage people want, rights to personal property, hospital visitation, and medical care decision making. I am ok with this as well, though I'd take it a step further and say that government should have no interference or control whatsoever in marriage, and I'll post on that later.

So I hear about the bickering the political maneuvering on the news and talk radio all the time. The Democrats will fund the war as long as there is a timetable for withdrawal, then back down on the withdrawal proving again that they have no spine. The Republicans are very unwilling to compromise, and can be very harsh, but I guess both sides are very harsh.

So I am caught in the middle, and at this point am very happy to be there. I am a registered independent. I consider myself a Center Moderate, because in politics, you can ride the fence. But the reason I am in the middle is not because I want to pick and choose which side I'll side with on a particular issue, but because I am absolutely repulsed by both sides. I look at Democrats with the things they have stood for in the last 20 years and say "Not bloody likely," and I look at the Republicans and the things they have stood for and are standing for now and I say "forget it." None of you people represent me. I wash my hands of all party affiliations and all claims to conservatism or liberalism.

But, remember, you can't fly a bald eagle without both wings, and you darn sure can't without the head and the rest of the body. So, you Republicans and Democrats just flap away, and I'll fly this bird, and maybe we'll get somewhere.
WiredForStereo

The Fundamentals of Fundamentalists

Fundamental, noun: A leading or primary principle, rule, law, or article, which serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part, as, the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Wikipedia says:
Christian fundamentalism: A movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to Modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

So, let's compare the definition with the group, but first, what are the real fundamentals of the Christian Faith? Think for a second. I think we could consider a subject that is mentioned more often than others in the Bible a fundamental don't you? Ok, what is mentioned most in the Bible? Is it the inerrancy of the Bible? No, I don't think that's in there. Is it Sola Scriptura? No, the Bible even quotes other books. Is it the Virgin Birth of Christ? A few times, but still no. Is it the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement? More times but still no. Is it the bodily resurrection of Christ? Closer, but no. Finally, is it the imminent return of Jesus Christ? No, money is still mentioned more than that.

So what is it?

What is mentioned more than anything in the New Testament, and comes in second in the Old Testament? Simple. Poverty. What? No, surely not, you mean it's not abortion or gay marriage or immigration or even Islam? Number one in the Old Testament is idolatry by the way.

Poverty. Poverty is mentioned over 2000 times in the Bible.

So we have a case here of missing the fundamentals by the Fundamentalists. How ironic, don't you think? A political party that claims a monopoly on Christianity and Faith, yet seems to be pro war, pro rich, and only pro American to quote Jim Wallis.

Other reasons I am not a fundamentalist are the first two on the list under the definition, inerrancy of the Bible, and Sola Scriptura. First I'd like to say that the "Word of God" is inerrant. But the Bible is not so much the Word of God as the Word of God and some history according to a number of authors. This is why we have the "Gospel According to ..." not "God's Inerrant Word About Some Stuff That Happened." Was there one Gerasene Demoniac or two? Don't let me discourage you however. The Bible contains the inerrant Word of God, but the whole thing isn't the whole of the inerrant Word of God. This leads me to the second point. Sola Scriptura was created in response to people trying to add onto the scriptures. However, I believe in Sola Scripture insofar as it does not preclude the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And of course as the Bible says, spirits must be tested in light of scripture.

So what's the message here? The prime fundamental of the Christian Faith should be Jesus' work on the cross, because without that, there is nothing else, but then care for the poor, you know, widows and orphans, and then we can add all those other things. Because after all, if we are not following God's most mentioned command, what's the point of trying to pretend we are following the rest?

Inspired,
WiredForStereo