Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Janice Shaw Crouse :: Townhall.com Columnist
Jim Wallis: Polarizer or Unifier
by Janice Shaw Crouse
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Jim Wallis has devoted his whole career to trying to force the round peg of leftist ideology into the square hole of biblical orthodoxy. When he wrote his "vision" designed to "transcend" the ideologies of the religious left and right, he ended up further polarizing instead of unifying the two evangelical movements. He rails against the "political language" of the right as well as the tendency of conservative evangelicals, in his opinion, to claim their use of scripture as authoritative. In so doing, Wallis hoists himself on his own petard.

Nobody does leftist religious rhetoric any better than Wallis. This is a man who complains that the war in Iraq "has often been cloaked in the name and symbols of our faith." This is a man who laments any linking of "American imperial designs with God's purposes." Yet, he recently led a so-called "anti-war worship service" at the National Cathedral. His basic thesis was that the war in Iraq is not just a mistake; it is, instead, "morally wrong" and "an offense against God." Does rhetoric get any more messianic or political than that? Have you ever seen anyone who does a better job of cloaking the names and symbols of faith to his positions on contemporary issues? Don't you want to ask who made him "God" and why his pronouncements should be authoritative?

Wallis and his cohorts on the left seem to think that they invented the relationship of religion to social justice. In the late nineteenth century, however, social justice was an integral part of religious faith. For instance, the prohibition movement was grounded in Christian thought. Both Francis Willard and Carrie Nation considered themselves "agents of God" in their fight against "demon rum." Evangelicals were leaders in the abolition movement as famously noted in the life of William Wilberforce and portrayed in the movie, "Amazing Grace." Evangelicals also led prison and labor reform efforts along with building hospitals, caring for the homeless and widows, and establishing colleges.

Even the Moral Majority was formed to counter the disintegration of cultural values –– an integration of religious faith with social reform. For the people and organizations that formed the Moral Majority, their evangelical theology was the driving force behind their concern for social and political issues. Their desire to reverse cultural disintegration was based on Biblical values; there was a total integration of faith and action.

Wallis' writing, on the other hand, seems to spill over from his political ideology; his political philosophy is cloaked in the language of "radical religious roots." The language is there, but the integration of faith and action is purely rhetorical.

In their analysis of Wallis' writing*, Bohn David Lattin and Steve Underhill, point out that in Wallis' book, The Soul of Politics, the first third of the book contains a plea and rationale for reconciliation of the religious left with the religious right, but the final two thirds of the book changes to a "typical liberal polemic against the Religious Right." Their scholarly language boils down to a simple message: Wallis makes no effort to bridge the gap between the two branches of evangelicalism; instead his book consists primarily of "traditional liberal ideology."

Lattin and Underhill describe how Wallis developed a "jeremiad" (a communication structure that defines calamities as signs of God's judgment).

• A jeremiad is based on signs of a crisis or calamity. Wallis vividly describes riots and gang violence. He depicts religious and political leaders as desperate and inept. These "signs" are indication, he claims, of the cultural bankruptcy caused by America's lack of a "coherent and compelling social vision." To his liberal mind, the solution is a change of ideology rather than a need for spiritual transformation. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Janice Shaw Crouse is a former speechwriter for George H. W. Bush and now political commentator for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Janice Shaw Crouse's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Glad you're still checking
I've enjoyed it too.

"first if we are in fact a Christian nation which conservatives in general always claim, than the 90% of people who claim Christianity should not object to Christian values in government."

Au contrare. Specifically because of my religious beliefs as a Baptist I object to gov't making religious evaluations or adopting religious values... even my own.

Have you had the time to read the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom?

What you propose is truly an act of gov't choosing one religion or religious view over another... specifically yours over mine since I don't believe that charity should ever be presented materially absent the spiritual. Offering someone bread to save their body without offering them Christ isn't "Christian".

"so we could let those who chose to "opt out" of any programs they disagreed with or were unwilling to contribute too."

Opt out is a fair way but impractical. The agency wouldn't be able to budget and would have to ration benefits.

"separating charity from the gospel message. feed them first, invite them to stay to listen, as long as it is not a requirment.
we do this at my church all the time and some stay some don't."

I don't necessarily disagree with that approach. But remember that Christ rebuked and refused to perform another feeding miracle the day after feeding the 5000 (John 6). Instead, He preached a hard gospel message after whiche "many of His disciples" followed Him no more.

Jesus refused to feed the hungry apart from the gospel.

"God does not need credit, he knows."

He does but men don't. The Bible consistently proclaims that we should give honor and glory to God. If we let people believe it is just "human goodness" that relieves their need, that's the exact opposite of what scripture requires of you and me as Christians.

"finally, as far as dependence, i have never bought the conservative argument that helping those "legitimately" in need makes them dependent."

I don't have to be sold. I grew up in the southern Appalachians and saw it first hand... alot. I saw people who were plainly just too lazy to work scam the system. I saw a family that probably made as much as we did in cash pulp wood on food stamps and housing assistance.

I saw kids from families better off than mine on the free and reduced lunch/breakfast program. I knew people who used food stamps to buy fresh meat to feed to their dogs because they couldn't use them for dog food. I know of people who traded food stamps for beer and cigarettes.

Bottom line- I've seen what I condemn. I don't condemn the people but I do condemn the situation/actions.

"it is a nice talking point and has some intuitive logic to it but the studies don't bear it out."

Depends on the study and the conditions set for the study.

"by that i mean, most people are not happy being dependent on anything or anyone."

Social Security actually proves that people can rationalize that they aren't dependent when they are if you don't call it dependency... one thing you can call it without forcing people to deal with it is "entitlement"... IOW's, "society owes me this."

"in a country of 300 million you will find a percentage who want to be dependent but my experience has been opposite of that."

For that I'm glad. Mine hasn't. I've lived in NC, SC, GA, MO, Seattle, and Chicago... and have seen it everywhere.

"given the opportunity most americans opt for independence."

Nope. Roughly 40%-50% believe they are entitled to benefits out of someone else's treasury... take universal health care for instance.

"here is a good example of what i am talking about.

in my community we have a 'meals on wheels' which services elderly and home bound.
the funds come from the city social services but the volunteers come from local churches."

Which funds? What source?

If the funds are federal especially, I have a problem with funding the program if the recipients know it is another religion delivering to them... and I have a problem if gov't restricts religions from sharing their message when doing charity.

The only solution is no gov't involvement.

I am specifically talking about the Federal. I think it was a mistake to broadly apply much of the USC to states and localities. Self-governance might mean that my county chooses to cooperate with Catholics but not with Baptists or it might determine to be non-sectarian. Some of the early states tried official religions. The founders did not believe the US Gov't could deny the people of those states that right of self-governance/determination.

sjt18
ok because it is fun exchanging ideas with which you and is why we are both here, although many seem here to vent, i will respond quickly to your last post.

first if we are in fact a Christian nation which conservatives in general always claim, than the 90% of people who claim Christianity should not object to Christian values in government.

so we could let those who chose to "opt out" of any programs they disagreed with or were unwilling to contribute too.

separating charity from the gospel message. feed them first, invite them to stay to listen, as long as it is not a requirment.
we do this at my church all the time and some stay some don't.

God does not need credit, he knows.

finally, as far as dependence, i have never bought the conservative argument that helping those "legitimately" in need makes them dependent.
it is a nice talking point and has some intuitive logic to it but the studies don't bear it out.
by that i mean, most people are not happy being dependent on anything or anyone.
in a country of 300 million you will find a percentage who want to be dependent but my experience has been opposite of that.
given the opportunity most americans opt for independence.

here is a good example of what i am talking about.

in my community we have a 'meals on wheels' which services elderly and home bound.
the funds come from the city social services but the volunteers come from local churches.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.