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.
• The language of Wallis' jeremiad, according to the two analysts, "reveals conservative language masking liberal ideology." For instance, Wallis states that "conservatives . . .echo the mean-spirited diatribe of Pat Buchanan's us-and-them rhetoric." Further, he says, "The Right has failed to generate the moral imperative to challenge the unjust status quo."
• The language has another dimension: the left is described as "caring for the disenfranchised and insist[ing] on a society that is responsible for its people." The word, "reform," is used to mean "change" -- change from an emphasis on "salvation" to an emphasis on "racial and gender justice." Further, Wallis writes about "going beyond" or "transcending" the old ways of spirituality; instead, Evangelicals are urged to move beyond the old "spirituality" to new political involvement that is "moral" and "just."
• There is a vast chasm between the criticisms addressed to the right (13 arguments) as opposed to the left (only two arguments). Clearly, he sees the right as wrong and needing to turn to the left, which is the "moral and just" position to take. For instance, he argued that "it is time for principled conservatives to prove they are not just providing intellectual and political cover for wealth, power and Right-wing self-interest."(emphasis added)
The two scholars conclude that Wallis' hostility toward conservatism prevents any transcendence from taking place. Even Commonweal criticized Wallis' simplistic generalities. Citing a lack of understanding of "the country's complex political history" and a "disturbingly naive" view of foreign policy, Commonweal called Wallis' writing "simpleminded" and declared that he essentially wrote "an extended sermon." The Nation declared that Wallis was "on a roll" by appearing on "Meet the Press" and accused him of the same "triumphalism" and "self-righteousness" that he claimed characterize the right. Further, they declared that Wallis was "translating politics into theology" as a "power play" just like the leaders from the right.
Wallis' latest action –– the "anti-war worship service" at Washington's National Cathedral –– continued the polarization of evangelicals. None of his simplistic slogans about a "revolution of love" and none of his exaggerations and generalities about the church being "united on the issue of peace" will bring unity. Wallis did not cite all the Biblical texts that support social justice because those same texts require bending the knee to the one true God and clearly prohibit human beings from setting ourselves up as "God."
*Bohn David Lattin and Steve Underhill, “The Soul of Politics: The Reverend Jim Wallis’ Attempt to Transcend the Religious/Secular Left and the Religious Right,” The Journal of Communication and Religion, (November 2006), 205-223.