Retrospective on "Reflections on Class with Jim Wallis"

In the Fall of 2005, I took a class with Jim Wallis at the Harvard Divinity School. This series of blogs was originally posted on crossleft.org.

Taking a class with Jim Wallis

on Fri, 09/30/2005

I'm blessed and excited to have the opportunity to take a class with Jim Wallis at the Harvard Divinity School this semester.

Throughout the next few months, I'll be sharing my thoughts on the class and snippets of his wisdom.

Some thoughts from Jim Wallis from the introductory class:

Wallis: "Religion isn't a wedge, but should be a bridge to understanding"

I love this quote. Religion has been used as a wedge by humans since religions were created. To put it in evangelical terms, we need to be less concerned about who is saved and not saved and a lot more worried about understanding others, their values and their religion. More often than not, we will find that there are plenty of shared values between religions.

Similarly, on the political tip, Christianity has been used as a wedge, but really the teachings of Jesus should bring us together. We may disagree on our interpretations of the Bible around hot social issues like abortion and homosexuality. However, there seems to be much more to agree with around poverty alleviation and non-violence as fundamental principles in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Wallis: "Religion does not have a monopoly on morality."

I would agree with this statement. God may have a monopoly on morality, but any particular religion as a human construct does not have or should claim to have this monopoly on the truth. There is middle ground here though. Religion can (and should if you claim a religion) inform one's values and therefore politics. People should express those politics in their engagement with a democracy. That's what we're trying to facilitate with CrossLeft.

Wallis: "Religion must be disciplined by democracy."

I actually love this quote and despite all attempts by conservative Christians to connect themselves with the founding fathers, this principle of the government not being of any religion is one of the bedrock principles of democracy. Whether Jefferson or Franklin or Hamilton or the many other founding members of the republic, they believed in the separation of church and state and indeed the supremacy of the state in the governance of the country.

More to come as the class progresses.

More on Jim Wallis - Role of Protest and Secularism

on Sun, 10/16/2005

As I mentioned earlier, I'm taking a class with Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics. If you haven't picked it up yet, its worthy of a read if you are interested at all in the role of religion in American political discourse.

From Wallis's readings: "The best protest is not merely countercultural, but is transformational" I could not agree with this statement more. I was at many of the anti war protests in Philadelphia and DC leading up to the Iraq war. I made it to a few of the protests around globalization's effect on the developing world. The problem on the left is that we know what we're against, but we're not real sure what we're for. Proposing realistic alternatives would not only help the protest movement, but help to reframe the context of political dialogue. Every time someone on the left comes out against a policy of Republican-dominated Washington without offering an alternative, they are simply playing into the hands of the Right. In this way, the political debate has been pulled further and further right. Bush is getting way with things that Reagan could only dream of in relationship to tax cuts to the wealth and increases in defense spending.

Wallis's call for a political vision and force to represent economically progressive, but more socially conservative political interests. This would have to be tied to one of the other three groups (liberal social and economic, libertarian conservative economic and socially liberal, or social and economic conservatives). It seems like the best match is combing his target group with the socially and economic liberal. That's easier said than done, especially around issues of abortion and gay rights. But for success on war, poverty, environment, health care, and education, fundamentalists on those crucial social issues will have to stand down. There's wiggle room in abortion, but around the gay rights issue, I think social conservatives will have to learn to accept gays and lesbians and keep their disagreement with their personal lives to themselves.

Where I disagree with Wallis: One of the things that does bother me about Wallis is the middle of the road nature of some his writing. He advises the Bush administration and the Democrats on their platform. Like the old Texas expression says, the only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos. If the Left is going to develop this religious-inspired vision, it will be in direct conflict with the Christian Right's world view. People in the public sphere will have to take sides and the left will need to fight just as passionately as the right. Are there points of comprise? Sure. But there will also be conflict and the Christian Right's hypocrisy around issues of war, poverty, health care, and the environment needs to be called to question.

Similarly, I take issue with Wallis equating "secular fundamentalists" with fundamentalist Christians on the Religious right. Groups like the ACLU can often take their argument a bit far, but if you are going to have religiously-inspired conversations in the public square, we need groups who make sure things don't go too far. Folks who are concerned about the separation of church and state play an important role and unfortunately Wallis discounts that role.

Becoming less enamored with Wallis

on Mon, 10/24/2005

As time marches on, I'm becoming less enamored with Wallis. I do think the he and his groups can be powerful forces for change, but there seems to be an effort to maintain some middle ground in the various debates. In doing so, he often equates the Christian right's disdain for the poor and the promotion of war to folks on the left who hold a secular view or do not enter into the personal responsiblity debate around poor people because they believe the problems are structural in nature. Equating may be helpful to Wallis positioning himself in the vital center, but it undermines those on the left who work so hard on behalf of progressive causes.

The folks on the left may apologize for what some consider immoral behavior, but their hearts are in the right place. Even the most secular anti-poverty advocate or social service work in the ghetto has more of her heart in Jesus's call to serve the poor than the pious conservative Evangelical who consistently votes with policies that against the poor and never ventures into a poor community. Those who treat the poor with disdain should not be equated with those who serve the poor, even if you believe the latter group is misguided in their efforts

Some more thoughts from his book God's politics....

Understanding the Wallis dedicates a later chapter to race and racism, the one paragraph dedicated to race in the entire discussion of poverty was insufficient at best. Wallis frequently uses the Civil Rights movement as his prime example of how the church has been used for social justice purposes. But the anti-Civil Rights movement was church-based as well. The same churches that today are so forceful on issues of gay rights, abortion and public display of 10 Commandments are the very churches that supported segregation 50 years ago.

I'm also struck with the how much Sojourner's and the Call to Renewal is mentioned as vehicles for anti-poverty work. I've done lots of anti poverty work (including faith-based work) in Boston and Philadelphia and frankly I've never heard of them. The Katrina Pledge and the Call to Renewal platform efforts are laudable and speaks to my own feelings of poverty and politics, but they seem rather isolated. How are the connected with similar organizations? What partnerships exist to support the work? And perhaps most importantly, what the policy accomplishments of the political work of each organization. There are allusions to policy changes, but never any specific programs or policies mentioned. As someone concerned about poverty, I am much more interested in those on the ground efforts, than a letter to the President whose ears go deaf when challenged on poverty.

Wallis's prophetic vision and our role

on Sun, 10/30/2005

Perhaps not coincidentally, I got a heavy dose of Micah both in the liturgical readings at church and with my reading of Jim Wallis. In speaking of Micah, I finally see Jim's own anger about the current political situation in both our country's rush to war and the attitude of American imperialism that accompanied the administration's push for war. Indeed, Jim claims that the Iraq War as constructed by Bush and the neocons was a war fought for empire. He is careful to distinguish and not the intentions of the common soldier who has been lead to believe that the war has a noble cause of protecting America or freeing the Iraqi people.

This is the first time in my Wallis readings, where I felt Wallis was truly speaking with a prophetic voice and not positioning himself in the "vital center" of American political discourse. This anger is well-founded, necessary and Biblical. The prophets at various points in the Bible seem to be screaming out to their contemporaries, shouting above the cacophony of sinful people, imploring them to adjust their course before they face demise. Simply, the prophets expressed God's anger to his people.

In Wallis's MLK sermon, he highlights King's understanding that the people will not beat the swords into plowshares without having a piece of the global economy. Ensuring economic security (or alleviating poverty if you wish) should be a key piece of anti-terrorism efforts around the globe. He challenges Bush at an event at the White House in 2002 on this point. Bush has continued to ignore this piece of foreign policy. The question for Wallis is what now? He clearly has a prophetic vision and is granted access to the highest halls of power. When you come in contact with the powerful consistently and little progress is made, what the next step in the process?

I believe that what we're doing at CrossLeft is the next step in the process. We are engaging folks at the grassroots level, both face to face and online. We are working to come up with a common agenda that is derived through our conversations and transcends any organizational or sectional boundaries. And when those in power refuse to listen to our agenda, we will unite with our votes and lift our voices in activism.

Wallis and foreign policy

on Mon, 11/07/2005

This is one of a series of pieces on Jim Wallis's "God's Politics". I have been blessed to be able to take a class with Rev. Wallis throughout this semester at the Harvard Divinity School.

Wallis view of foreign relations in an age of constant terrorist threat is both morally principled and realistic. Wallis puts the challenge to progressives simply: "For nonviolence to be credible, it must answer the questions that violence claims to answer, but in a better way." Wallis cites Walter Wink's distinction between force which is legitimate and violence which is the excessive use of force.

Practically, I'm in agreement with Wallis: "Jesus calls us to be peacemakers, not just peacelovers." Certainly, force being used in the defense of innocent people is morally defensible. Its in the subtleties, that the practical argument gets more complicated. For example, in war innocent people die. Should you kill some innocent people to save other innocent people? What if you had to kill more innocent people in another land to save less people in this land? Should we kill innocent people to "maintain our way of life?" Should violence be undertaken pre-emptively in the expection of violence of the other or should we wait until we're attacked to defend ourselves?

Philosophically, Wallis leaves us lacking if we use the moral tenets of Christianity as our basis for evaluation. Jesus was adamant in his non-violence stance, ultimately sacrificing himself rather than projecting violence that surely could have been welded at the Son of God. The early Christians followed his example by remaining faithful to nonviolence even in the face of awful death at the hands of lions and wild beasts. The early saints faced death for their faith in Jesus. Martin Luther King Jr. and participants in the Civil Rights movement led a movement based on nonviolence confronting violent oppressors at every step. The question is if individuals and organized groups in social movements can follow the tenets of Jesus's teachings.

The reason we find ourselves in this quandary is that we are living in the most powerful nation on Earth. We are not in a position of being oppressed. In fact, our nation has done much of the oppressing. How can we reconcile our Christianity with the fact that we are citizens of this country that now projects its violence on a nation that did not immediately threaten us? Iraq had never attacked the US, never stated any intentions to do so and never had the means to do so. If Iraq did have any weapons of mass destruction its only because we gave them to them. We essentially knew those facts even with the faked intelligence and the lying that the administration engaged in. Even if Iraq did have weapons, how does pre-emptive war find light within the Christian religion of George Bush? Did Jesus say if you think someone is going to strike you on your cheek hit them first and hit their friends and family so that none of them can harm you?

In some interpretations of Jesus's teaching of offering the other cheek was that he was teaching resistance to oppression. In Roman times, it was unseemly or perceived as weak for a man to hit someone with the back of his hand. When Jesus teaches to offer the other cheek, he's teaching resistance by offering up his other cheek forcing the person to make themselves look bad by hitting you with the back of their hand. Jesus taught resistance through peaceful methods, thus providing the moral underpinnings for nonviolent resistance movements throughout the Earth. Can America be a leader in the world through these peaceful methods or does confronting violence require violence? Such questions remind me of the quakers in Philadelphia who say: there is no way to peace, peace is the way.

Wallis offers inadequate solutions to racism in God's Politics

Sun, 11/27/2005

The following is one in a series of commentaries on Jim Wallis's God's Politics. I have been fortunate enough to take a class with him this semester ad the Harvard Divinity School.

Jim Wallis walks the talk around issues of race and for that I admire him. By living in a low-income neighborhood in DC he speaks not only from an academic or theological point of view, but can draw on personal experience to talk to issues of racism and poverty.
Wallis chapter on racism points out many of the interpersonal aspects of racism and prejudice, including his own story of growing up on the white side of the tracks in Detroit. The United States original sin is indeed slavery and racism. Wallis's observation about the changing dynamics of race and ethnicity in America are also well founded. Latinos are now the largest minority ethnic group in the US. The lack of unity in the politics between Latinos, Asian-Americans and African Americans at the local level is often troubling, although the recent Los Angeles mayoral race is an example of Latinos and African Americans coming together politically.
Despite a well-developed understanding as slavery and racism as America's original sin, Wallis offers few solutions to systemic racism that still pervades our society. I would agree that a public apology from the United States government would indeed be a good start. Conversations for reconciliation being led by churches is also worthwhile endeavor, but only as a means to deal with the personal prejudice that still too many of us feel. Beyond an apology and conversation, Wallis offers nothing to address systemic racism that still pervades American life. Whether reparations, affirmative action, or targeted social and financing programs that address historical ills and current discrimination, Wallis steers clear of any substantive solutions. If slavery and racism is America's original sin than it needs some original solutions. Wallis, as a well-intentioned white minister, needs to do more than talk of reconciliation. He must take strong positions that talk directly to the problem and that challenge many white folks who think they no longer have prejudiced views, but hold anti-minority political views and live in racially segregated communities.

Most unfortunately, Wallis is back to trying to find the middle at the end of the chapter has to find the middle ground between the racist system and some small number of minorities who supposedly "play the race card" in public discourse. As a fellow white guy, I do not think its our place to single out African Americans and Latinos that they need to take personal responsibility for their lives. The fact is that most people, regardless of race, do take responsibility for their lives. The social problems to which Wallis alludes happen amongst poor people, again regardless of race. That Wallis feels the need to single our ethnic minorities with this statement indicates a bit racism that Wallis has yet to work out within himself. Instead of trying to find the middle ground, I wish Wallis would use his prophetic voice to speak directly to his own people in suburban White America to dispel the myth that the problem of racism is over. Address the reactionaries that rally against affirmative action as an immoral policy rather than a policy that makes up for historical and current discrimination. Dialogue and apologies are necessary, but systemic solutions are most helpful and they must be addressed courageously in the public square. Unfortunately, Wallis fails to take these steps in God's Politics.

Abortion, Wallis, and priority alignment with Jesus

on Sat, 12/03/2005

I don't agree with Wallis's position on abortion. Without fully claiming it, Wallis is pro-life. Its unclear whether he would work to see it outlawed or even what restrictions to abortion he would advocate, but Wallis definitely wants the abortion rate reduced. As he does throughout his book, Wallis makes an attempt at finding that vital center in the American political discourse, but unlike some of his other forays on the fence, his take on abortion works for me.

Abortion has never been a huge issue for me. I think folks on either side of the argument have legitimate ethical claims given one's conception of life. Abortion is the first of many bio-ethical issues that will come to the fore in the political discourse over the next fifty years. Stem cell research, cloning and abortion are the tip of the iceberg of issues that challenge are existing theological and ethical frameworks. Artificial intelligence, bionic tissue/organ replacement and choosing your kid's DNA are issues just over the horizon that will require progressives to be welcoming of public discussion and debate.

Wallis is correct to point out that the Democratic Party should open itself to pro-life people for the simple reason that the party is losing millions of voters on that one issue alone. The platform could still call for a pro-choice position, while being welcoming to pro-life members and candidates. Indeed, pro-life Democratic candidate Bob Casey has a huge lead in the polls of Sen. Rick Santorum heading into next year's Senate race in Pennsylvania. Being more open to folks who have pro-life position would bring some of those working class folks that Thomas Frank speaks of in "What's the Matter with Kansas?" back into the fold of the Democratic Party.

The simple fact is that we don't have a record of Jesus saying anything concrete about abortion, homosexuality or any of the bio-ethical issues that lie ahead. Therefore, good Christians can disagree and good progressives should be able to disagree. What Jesus did spend his time on was healing the sick, helping the poor, challenging the risk, and advocating for nonviolence. If Christians (progressives, moderates, conservatives, and apoliticals) spent their time in debate and activism on issues in the same proportion that Jesus spent his time discussing, then abortion would be a much lesser issue than ensuring that the millions of children who starve around the globe each year get fed or providing health insurance for every American. These are the core issues of Jesus's teaching and we all need to do a better job of following his word.

My Last Class with Jim Wallis

on Mon, 12/19/2005

The following is the final in a series of commentaries on Jim Wallis's God's Politics. I have been fortunate enough to take a class with him this semester at the Harvard Divinity School.

The conclusion to Wallis's book and indeed his class leaves me with a heavy heart. I have enjoyed debating the issues of our day with fellow classmates. For the points of disagreement that I have taken up with Jim Wallis this semester, sitting in on his lectures and reading his book have greatly informed my own thinking and my life's direction. He has confirmed that my new track is absolutely what I should be doing at this point in my life. Frankly, I agree with the guy a heck of a lot more than I disagree with him. We have to do our best to minimize the burning social issues of abortion and gay marriage by finding some common ground in order to get at issues of poverty and peace in which Jesus spent so much more of his time. The great tradition of populism in this country was largely made up of Evangelical Christians and we have to state the case for the progressive Jesus with a prophetic voice.

However, before engaging the right, we need to develop a voice and vision. The fact is that the bench is not that deep. How many times can we run Rev. Jesse Jackson out onto the public square to react to yet another injustice in our system. As much as I love Rev. Jackson, where are the other voices? Where are the leaders? We are right here in class with Jim Wallis and in cyber space blogging on the CrossLeft website(www.crossleft.org).

I would agree with the Epilogue: "We are the Ones We've Been Waiting For." The Left has been stagnant if not paralyzed over the last thirty years. We need new ideas, new innovations in policy, new forms of organizing that leverage the connecting power of the Internet. Having recently helped to form CrossLeft this class came at absolutely the perfect time when I have mentally and emotionally pouring myself into building an organization and platform for which progressive Christians to become more assertive politically. The class readings and discussions helped me to refine my own thinking on a myriad of issues. I can now move forward with CrossLeft, partnering with organizations such as Sojourner's, to build a lasting social movement that will indeed change the very nature of American politics as the most richest, most powerful country in the history of the world learns to walk in the humble path of Jesus Christ, serving the poor, healing the sick and being a global peacemaker.

Thank you Rev. Jim Wallis for being a prophetic voice all these years and for continuing to serve Christ through political action.