Progressive People of Faith: Jim Wallis

[guillaumeb]

Jim Wallis is the Editor of Soujourners Magazine.

About Soujourners:

In 1995, Sojourners founded Call to Renewal, with many other partners and organizations, to specifically focus on poverty by uniting churches and faith-based organizations across the theological and political spectrum to lift up those whom Jesus called "the least of these." For more than a decade, Call to Renewal convened the broadest Christian table on poverty in America. In 2006, Sojourners and Call to Renewal re-united organizationally under the name Sojourners/Call to Renewal. In October 2007, the organizational name returned to Sojourners, while the special focus on uniting churches on poverty continued to be a priority in the advocacy work of Sojourners.

To read more:

https://sojo.net/about-us/our-history

Putting the message of Jesus in action.

[Bretton Garcia]

1. Does the Church oppose, or structurally glorify and create, poverty?

[guillaumeb]

2. What an interesting, and perhaps revealing, question.

Breaking it into its constituent parts, and starting with the last and easiest:

Does religion create poverty? No, economic systems create poverty.

Does religion glorify poverty? Speaking as a Christian, Jesus stated that the poor will always be with us, meaning that we will always have an obligation to help those who need it. That is not glorifying poverty, unless by glorify you mean something very different from my understanding of the word.

Does religion oppose poverty? Explain to me what that means.

[Bretton Garcia]

3. The Bible said the rich cannot get into heaven.

And a rich man who wanted to follow Jesus, had to give up, when he found head to give up everything, give his money to the poorto follow him.

"Blessed are the poor," Jesus also said. And he and most disciples themselves had no homes.

Because of this, to this day,Catholic priests took vows of "chastity, poverty, and obedience."

So it appears clear to many, that Jesus glamorized poverty.

And once he had done that? Many followers lost their motivation to make much money.

In that way, Christianity actually produced poverty. Particularly in priests.

[guillaumeb]

4. Jesus did NOT say that the rich cannot enter into the Kingdom.

He merely said that wealth was an impediment.

[trotsky]

31. Yep, that is generally the rejoinder given...

by those who have plenty in this world.

[rug]

5. It's refreshing to hear you say priests are impoverished.

As opposed to the usual bullshit that, between raping children, they are living off their gullible parishioners.

[No Vested Interest]

6. Order priests take vows of poverty; diocesan priests do not.

This has been stated here many times.
The rich man who was told he had to give up his worldly possessions did not have to give up, but chose not to give them up.
Jesus said "Blessed are the poor in spirit". Being poor no more makes one blessed than does being rich.

Many of the early Christians lived a communal life - they shared the fruits of their labor, and cared for those unable to produce for themselves - widows, orphans, and presumably, the disabled.

"it appears to many, that Jesus glamorized poverty". - Where and who are these "many"? Sounds like a Trump or Fox statement "People say...; it has been reported...."
Please point to statements of those to whom it is clear that Jesus "glamorized" poverty.

Money is a means to an end; in no way is the accumulation of wealth a laudable end in and of itself.
I always choked a little when I heard Romney and Trump refer to their "success", meaning their wealth, as I've never considered being wealthy the same as being successful. One can be successful while having wealth, but the two words are not interchangeable.

[Bretton Garcia]

7. The various orders read Jesus as requiring followers to be poor

That is why they take vows of poverty.

These persons are arguably the most devoted experts on Jesus. They give up everything, wives and family and worldly possessions or gold and wealth. Believing that God required them to give up all that, to devote their attention only to him.

And the Bible in their reading required that. The poor are spiritually blessed, they have felt.

The New Testament was written in such a way as to encourage, cause, poverty in many.

Most ordinary believers do not entirely hear or follow that voice in the Bible. They do not join priestly orders. But many of them de-emphasize the pursuit of wealth, "gold," in their lives, at least somewhat.

In this way, the Bible makes them materially poorer than they would have been otherwise.

[trotsky]

8. Unfortunately Wallis has "punted" on a number of key social issues.

Particularly those concerning LGBT* equality.

https://sojo.net/articles/statement-sojourners-mission-and-lgbtq-issues

3. We have also suggested that the major differences of theology and biblical interpretation in the church with regard to issues such as the nature of homosexuality, gay marriage, and ordination are not issues that should be allowed to divide the churches -- that local churches should lead the way here, and that an honest, open, respectful, and, hopefully, loving dialogue should characterize the church on these very controversial questions.

4. But these debates have not been at the core of our calling, which is much more focused on matters of poverty, racial justice, stewardship of the creation, and the defense of life and peace. These have been our core mission concerns, and we try to unite diverse Christian constituencies around them, while encouraging deep dialogue on other matters which often divide. Essential to our mission is the calling together of broad groups of Christians, who might disagree on issues of sexuality, to still work together on how to reduce poverty, end wars, and mobilize around other issues of social justice.

Wallis and Sojourners are of course free to focus on whatever they like. But apparently Wallis doesn't think the "message of Jesus" includes equality as much as others do.

[guillaumeb]

9. Number 3 suggests that dialogue is necessary. It does not imply any stand.

And Wallis is free to concentrate on some issues, but what is apparent to you is not supported by the work that he does. It is merely an inference on your part.

[trotsky]

10. Until recently, Wallis himself was quite opposed to LGBT equality.

He evidently has "softened" to what is essentially a "don't ask, don't tell" position.

So I've held off on the hero worship. Perhaps one day he'll join true progressives and be worthy of hailing as a "progressive person of faith."

[guillaumeb]

11. I am anxiously awaiting your list of perfect, progressive, non-theists.

I feel that it will be a very long wait.

My view is that one can focus exclusively on negatives and try to make the perfect the enemy of the good, or one can know that no one is perfect.

And you?

[trotsky]

12. I already explained in the other thread where you are hailing the words of a man who...

thinks trans people are an abomination, and that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered."

I think we can do better than that. Evidently you don't.

[guillaumeb]

13. Still waiting for the list of progressive and perfect non-theists.

(Cue Jeopardy music)

[trotsky]

14. That's cute.

But I am under no obligation to do what you demand.

The few times I have tried you simply move the goalposts anyway. When you decide to start discussing with honesty and integrity, I will respond in kind.

An apology for your past insults and false accusations against me would go a long way toward that goal.

Or you can continue on the path you've chosen.

Your call.

[Lordquinton]

27. Nice straw man you have there

No one is focusing on the negatives. Theists here are attempting to erase the negatives. When we point it out you try to turn it back, but that's more erasure.

Here's the thing. When we talk about Secular folks, we always have to preface it with "Hitchens had some horrable views, but he was spot on with this..." "Dawkins sticks his foot in his mouth on twitter too often, but has contributed incalculably to modern society..."

Never have I seen, from a theist here "The pope is terrible on LGBTQIA issues, but here he is trying to help refugees..."

Never.

We're not making the claims you are, we're providing balance where you are putting a thumb on the scale.

[beam me up scottie]

34. + a bazillion

[trotsky]

35. A post worth of its own thread so it could be recommended.

Well put, Lordquinton.

[beam me up scottie]

15. This is what you call progressive?:

The abortion debate has really gotten very stale. It's a symbolic legal battle that takes place mostly only in election years. And it's a litmus test on the Left and the Right. No one seems to care about the abortion rate. The Republicans want a constitutional amendment banning abortion. That's just symbolic. It's never going to happen in America. And even if you do ban it, you're still going to have a huge problem in the culture.

But the abortion question is real. It's a moral issue. The number of unborn lives that are lost every year is alarming. It's a moral tragedy. And I want Democrats to say it's a tragedy, and to take it seriously. Whichever Democrat wins, Barack or Hillary, I'm going to work very hard to make abortion reduction a central Democratic Party plank in this election. It never has been before. Their plank is simply a woman's right to choose. That's not adequate. The Democratic Party is not going to call for criminalization, but they can call for serious abortion reduction. And I want Republicans to not have only a plank that they trod over every four years to win elections. I want them to try and actually help reduce the abortion rate.

After I spoke in Chicago, a father came and said, "I'm a father of a Down syndrome child. You know that test that everybody wants you to take to make sure you don't have a Down syndrome child?"

I said, "Yeah. Joy and I were pressured by our doctor to take that test because we're older parents and the chance of Down syndrome is greater. But we wouldn't take it." There was no reason to take it because we wouldn't abort our child. But the pressure was really enormous, and we just finally said, "Hey, we're not taking it. End of conversation."

This father told me that because of that test, 90 percent of Down syndrome children are now aborted. Ninety percent. That's genetic engineering, and that's a culture issue. Just changing laws isn't going to change that culture.

It should be more difficult to get an abortion. It's too easy, and it's even harder in secular western Europe than it is here. How do you make it more difficult, yet not push people back in the back alleys? That's not pro-life. I don't have it all figured out, and I want to seriously work on the question.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/may/9.52.html

Wallis repeated right wing talking points about abortion: that it's a "moral tragedy", that it's genetic engineering, that couples are pressured to abort fetuses with Down Syndrome - that's nothing but anti-choice propaganda right out of the Republican playbook. And Wallis also advocates more restrictions on abortion because it's "too easy".

This is what you call progressive? Seriously?

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. Eight years later, he's still beating the anti-abortion drum.

https://sojo.net/articles/read-you-cast-supreme-court-vote

These threads are fun. I can't wait until we get to William Jennings Bryan.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Lovely.

If Wallis is so concerned about abortion why doesn't he suggest more sex education, family planning clinics and easy access to no cost birth control?

I guess it's easier to blame women for this mythical abortion epidemic and advocate more restrictions on our reproductive rights because we don't value life. Or something.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. He kinda-sorta does suggest those things.

By way of quoting other people, and even then the suggestions are vague.

What I find more troubling is how he presents abortion as this widespread moral issue. I don't know what amount of abortions per year Wallis would find acceptable, but I can't really bring myself to give a shit when women are still fighting for uniform legal access to safe abortions. We don't need to be softening our tone on abortion when year by year the right is increasingly positioned to restrict access even further.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Imo as long as women are being denied abortions there aren't enough abortions.

As long as women are being denied this basic human right there is a problem - and it's not with women, doctors and clinics or our 'culture' as Wallis suggests. It's with the religious notion life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus = taking a life.

[trotsky]

18. "It's too easy" to get an abortion, eh, Jim?

Tell that to the women in Kentucky where there is ONE abortion provider, who is in danger of being shut down.

Yeah, let's all fawn over Jim Wallis the "progressive person of faith."

[beam me up scottie]

19. He said he needs to "seriously work on the question".

You know - because us wimmenfolks can't be trusted to know whether or not abortion is the right choice.

Thanks be to gawd we have men of faith like Jim around to help set things right.

[guillaumeb]

22. This:

Your response was:

You know - because us wimmenfolks can't be trusted to know whether or not abortion is the right choice.

Thanks be to gawd we have men of faith like Jim around to help set things right.

I missed that in the article.

[beam me up scottie]

24. It's right here:

It should be more difficult to get an abortion. It's too easy

Why should it be more difficult to get an abortion?


To simplify his Newspeak for those unfamiliar with anti-abortion rhetoric: by saying it's "too easy" Wallis is opining that women shouldn't always be allowed to decide when to have abortions. He's saying more of these decisions should be made by someone other than ourselves.

He is advocating MORE restrictions on abortion because as a man of faith he's APPALLED by how often we choose abortion.

What right does Jim have to make that claim? Unless he's discussing his own uterus and reason for having an abortion or not it's none of his business.

Jim Wallis is not progressive. Anyone who thinks we need to further restrict abortion rights is not a progressive.

Period.

[guillaumeb]

39. In your personal opinion, Wallis is not a progressive.

So tell me who, in your personal opinion, IS a progressive.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Anyone who signs a letter calling for abortion to be banned isn't a progressive.

progressive:

a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas

Advocating for a constitutional amendment banning abortion and/or further restrictions on abortion is not progressive. In fact it's not even liberal. That's a conservative position.

[guillaumeb]

42. A repeat, and not the answer to what I actually asked.

I understand, because if any here name someone, I know what will happen.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Not my monkey, not my circus.

If you want me to refrain from criticizing your so called 'progressive' people of faith maybe you should find one that isn't a conservative in drag like Jim Wallis.

#sorrynotsorry

[guillaumeb]

44. Your criticism is constructive, and informative.

But I will stay with my decision. If you are looking for perfection, do not look to humans.

[beam me up scottie]

45. Another straw man. No one is 'looking for perfection'.

We're simply looking for proof that these progressive people of faith you keep citing are actually - you know - progressive.

Wallis is not.

[guillaumeb]

46. Define progressive.

And wait for the debate.

[beam me up scottie]

47. I already provided a definition.

Here's what's NOT progressive:

Advocating for a complete ban on and/or more restrictions on abortion.

If you disagree then please explain your reasoning.

We are specifically discussing abortion here and Jim Wallis' opposition to it, so I'm not going to allow you to further deflect from the topic at hand.

If you want to discuss which qualities make one a progressive start another thread.

[guillaumeb]

48. I did:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218247770

Feel free to join the conversation.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Nice try but I created a poll without the loaded question about purity.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218247789

[guillaumeb]

50. Are you really framing your "poll" as lacking a loaded question?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooookay.

[beam me up scottie]

51. It's specific to women's and lgbt rights, how is that a loaded question?

In fact it's what we've been discussing all day.

Seems simple enough.

[trotsky]

55. It's "loaded" because it didn't provide the result he wanted.

Duh.

[Lordquinton]

28. "I missed that in the article."

Yes, yes you did miss that in his article. Apparently you were reading it as a literalist without taking into account the symbolism he was using.

[trotsky]

33. Oh, snap! n/t

[trotsky]

29. Oooh, I hope women get the answer they need from the wise man!

[beam me up scottie]

32. We're so lucky!

There's no shortage of religious men who can't wait to help us see the error of our ways.

We obviously don't understand that this is a moral issue and we need guys like Jim to splain it to us. And just in case we still don't comprehend how immoral our abortions are Jim's going to be around to make sure we have fewer opportunities to exercise our right to choose in the future.

[guillaumeb]

21. Abortion is a talking point for the GOP.

Wallis is talking about taking life.

[beam me up scottie]

23. Did you read what he said? Wallis is talking about abortion.

Last edited Mon Apr 10, 2017, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I even bolded the relevant text.

Wallis is repeating right wing talking points about abortion and he's not even being coy about it.

Here are his words again:

But the abortion question is real. It's a moral issue.

Their plank is simply a woman's right to choose. That's not adequate

That's genetic engineering, and that's a culture issue.

It should be more difficult to get an abortion. It's too easy

[trotsky]

30. BINGO.

You get it.

[trotsky]

36. Jim Wallis, a true "progressive person of faith"

http://www.christianpost.com/news/cultural-left-democratic-party-jim-wallis-175419/

The influence of the "cultural Left" on the Democratic Party has become a real problem for American political discourse, prominent progressive Christian leader and social justice advocate the Rev. Jim Wallis has warned.

In an interview with The Christian Post last week, Wallis, the 68-year-old founder of the Christian social justice group Sojourners, explained that during the 2016 election, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party should have taken steps to show that the party is embracing middle ground when it comes to the issue of abortion.

Although Wallis is critical of Christians who voted for President Donald Trump and believes they ignored the "racial bigotry" furthered by the Trump team throughout the campaign, Wallis admitted that both Clinton and Trump were "flawed" choices.

Wallis, who identifies as pro-life, said he understands why a lot of conservative Christians felt they could not vote for Clinton, considering her strong support for elective abortion up until birth and her early endorsement from the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

[guillaumeb]

40. And?

Although Wallis is critical of Christians who voted for President Donald Trump and believes they ignored the "racial bigotry" furthered by the Trump team throughout the campaign, Wallis admitted that both Clinton and Trump were "flawed" choices.

Wallis, who identifies as pro-life, said he understands why a lot of conservative Christians felt they could not vote for Clinton, considering her strong support for elective abortion up until birth and her early endorsement from the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

I have read comments at DU expressing much the same points as the bolded portion. Mainly from Sanders supporters. Does that make these DU Sanders supporters non-progressive also?

[trotsky]

54. Please link to the comments you claim you saw.

Without links, they are just your unsupported assertion.

Thanks!

[guillaumeb]

57. Nice reference.

Notice that I did not say constant posts.

[trotsky]

58. Whooosh!

There go those goalposts again. Damn.

[trotsky]

37. Jim Wallis and the "Moral Center" on Abortion

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/343415/-

...Before his elevation as an "evangelical progressive" celebrity, together with a Who's Who of the Religious Right -- Gary Bauer, Charles Colson, James Dobson, Robert George, William Kristol, Beverly LaHaye, Richard Land, Bernard Nathanson, Frank Pavone and Ralph Reed -- Jim Wallis signed a lengthy document that said plenty about his moral center, culminating in a call for a constitutional amendment to criminalize abortion entirely.

And to this day, Wallis has yet to repudiate a word of it.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Whoa. Did you read the letter he signed?

THE AMERICA WE SEEK

The women of America do not need abortion to be full participants in our society. To suggest otherwise is to demean women.
:::
(T)he abortion license cuts to the heart of America's claim to being a law-governed democracy, in which equality before the law is a fundamental principle of justice. ... Thus, the abortion issue is the crucial civil-rights issue of our time.
:::
There are also disturbing signs of the corrupting influence of the abortion license in other professions. History has been rewritten to provide specious justification for Roe v. Wade. The teaching of law has been similarly distorted, as have political theory and political science. Such extremism underlines the unavoidably public character of the abortion license. The abortion license has a perverse Midas quality--it corrupts whatever it touches.
:::
Our goal is simply stated: we seek an America in which every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. ... (W)e bear a common responsibility to make sure that all women know that their own physical and spiritual resources, joined to those of a society that truly affirms and welcomes life, are sufficient to overcome whatever obstacles pregnancy and child-rearing may appear to present. Women instinctively know, and we should never deny, that this path will involve sacrifice.
:::
Promotion of the pro-life cause also requires us to support and work with those who are seeking to re-establish the moral linkage between sexual expression and marriage, and between marriage and procreation.
:::
We believe that Congress should adopt (abortion-restricting) measures and that the President should sign them into law. Any criminal sanctions considered in such legislation should fall upon abortionists, not upon women in crisis.
:::
The right to life of the unborn will not be secured until it is secured under the Constitution of the United States. ... The Supreme Court could reject central finding of Roe v. Wade. ... A more enduring means of constitutional reform is a constitutional amendment both reversing the doctrines of Roe v. Wade and Casey, and establishing that the right to life protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments extends to the unborn child. Such an amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states: a requirement that underlines the importance of establishing a track record of progressive legal change on behalf of the unborn child at the state and local levels.
:::
Such a process does not, we emphasize, amount to the determination of moral truth by majority rule. Rather, it requires conforming fundamental constitutional principle to a fundamental moral truth.
:::
The renewal of American democracy according to the highest ideals of the Founders requires us to stand for the inalienable right to life of the unborn.

Jim Wallis is a fraud. He wants to have it both ways, he signed a letter calling for an amendment to ban abortion but still wants to declare himself a 'progressive' person of faith.

I actually have more respect for conservatives who are up front and honest about their anti-abortion views. At least we know where they stand.

[trotsky]

53. Apparently to be hailed as a "progressive person of faith", the bar is pretty damn low. n/t

[Bretton Garcia]

52. Faith is Evil; It Creates Poverty, Hate, Arrogance

Faith is arrogant. In that it asserts that things it believes can be known or held to be true, without having to provide any proofs.

So deep in things that trumpet themselves as the greatest goods - like say, Faith and its apparent humility - are actually the greatest concealed evils. Coiled up in the middle of what the Faith that presents itself as the greatest humility, for instance, is actually the great black snake of a massive arrogance. And deep inside the promise of material prosperity, is actually a path to poverty and privation.

We should have known; even the Bible admitted that the devil often comes to us disguised as the very Angel of light, and goodness. That one heaven-shattering .day," we are supposed to discover that the whole world had been deceived by false religion, prophets.

As we look into religion, Christianity today, many of us are beginning to feel that Christianity itself was in many ways, this foretold false religion. Its greatest virtues - like faith, Christian humility - turn out to be disguised arrogance. Its constant promises to fix our poverty, are found to be lies that actually lead us into poverty.

And some suggest here? It's vaunted "love" actually turns out to be misogynistic and anti-gay hate.

No one should have been surprised that often things turn out to be the exact opposite of what we were promised; there were many warnings about this, even in the religious books themselves. That deep inside our greatest good, religion, will often be found the very greatest evils.

No one should have been surprised. But somehow? Believers do still seem surprised and resistant.


End of Sermon

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Swing and a miss.