WALLIS PROVIDES BIBLICAL VOTER’S GUIDE OF ISSUES
Posted by Terry Hull under Jim Wallis, 2006 U.S. Elections at 3:32 pm.Jim Wallis of Sojourners and author of the God’s Politics blog provides a “voter’s guide” of biblical issues Christians should consider in evaluating candidates on Tuesday’s ballots. Here is a link to the full text of Wallis’ “Voting God’s Politics.” The following is my own abridgement of Wallis’ issues list:
• Compassion and Economic Justice: Does the candidate support measures that provide for family economic success and security, … that promote fair and decent wages, that show a serious commitment to lifting children out of poverty, and support policies on aid, debt, and trade that would bring extreme global poverty to an end?
• Peace and Restraint of Violence: Is the candidate committed to a serious plan for ending the war in Iraq … to remove American forces while seeking both security and peace for Iraq, to the elimination of nuclear weapons, to supporting security and freedom in the Middle East, and to strengthening international law to fight terrorism?
• Consistent Ethic of Life: All life is a sacred gift from God … public policies should reflect a consistent ethic of life. … Abortion is always a moral tragedy, but how do we find real solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies and supporting women caught in very difficult and desperate circumstances? Does the candidate support policies that will dramatically reduce the number of abortions, end capital punishment, and stop genocide, especially in Darfur?
• Racial Justice: Racism is a sin and undermines the integrity of a society. Is the candidate committed to reversing and ending racial discrimination in all aspects of our society, especially in the criminal justice and education systems?
• Human Rights, Dignity, and Gender Justice: Each human being [is] created in God’s image. … On immigration, how do we welcome the stranger, respect the law, and insure national security? And how do we combat the growing epidemic of sexual trafficking and virtual slavery? Does the candidate support humane and holistic immigration policies and comprehensive immigration reform? Do they insist on policies that end torture, stop human trafficking, promote religious freedom, and protect women?
• Strengthen Families and Renew Culture: Does the candidate support policies that strengthen marriage and families, restore integrity to our civic and business practices, and act to prevent violence in our society — especially the alarming incidence of domestic violence against women and children.
• Good Stewardship of God’s Creation: The earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God’s good creation … Global warming is a religious issue. Does a candidate support protections to clean air and water, to reduce the dangerous emissions that cause global warming, to shift from our addiction to oil and fossil fuels to cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy sources? Do they support the transformation to conservation and new energy sources that could provide jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help solve the Middle East crisis, and even reduce the threats of terrorism?
(Also posted on Terra Extraneus).
November 5th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
[…] (Also posted on RedBlue Christian). […]
November 5th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I handed out dozens of these pamphlets in the last week to family and friends.
November 5th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
For me this is far more Christian than the voting guides I’ve seen. We need to look at the bigger picture, both in our society, as well as in Scripture. Not narrowing everything down to three or four issues, and then handling them questionably, in some respects.
November 5th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Before endorsing his ideas, you might want to see the comment I just left there. His support for “comprehensive immigration reform” will only make the situation far worse, and that scheme is neither humanitarian nor moral.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Wallis does have a few good points to make, albeit from a decidedly liberal point of view. It’s interesting to see the way he convolutes issues in, though, as in “Does the candidate support policies that will dramatically reduce the number of abortions, end capital punishment…” How about a re-write such as, “Does the candidate support policies that will end abortions, dramatically reduce capital punishment…”? He seems to be resigned to the fact of abortion in his rationalizing statement, “We believe abortion is always a moral tragedy, but how do we find real solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies and supporting women caught in very difficult and desperate circumstances?” (emphasis added)
While his “broader agenda” is wide enough to visualize an end to capital punishment, extreme global poverty, and genocide, I guess it isn’t big enough to visualize an end to the conservative’s “narrow list” item of abortion.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:06 am
Rusty: Perhaps Wallis would respond that we can eliminate capital punishment legislatively, but no law prohibiting abortion will ever succeed in completely eliminating it — and so, a dramatic reduction in abortion is going to require other compassionate measures, in addition to the goal of making abortion illegal. At any rate, Rusty, you and I have found one thing we agree on: the goal to end the slaughter of unborn children.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:44 am
I.I,
Does the candidate support humane and holistic immigration policies and comprehensive immigration reform?
********
Can a Christian ask for better advice?
November 6th, 2006 at 6:49 am
Wallace needs to be more detailed or this just becomes more feel-good sloganeering.
He wants to restrain violence, but what if that is what it takes to stop Iran and N. Korea from building nuclear weapons? What if it requires force to settle Darfur?
His abortion comments are toothless. I am not familiar with any candidates clamoring for more abortions. Is he proposing that we make it illegal? If not, he is just another Hillary / Kerry / Planned Parenthood mouthpiece - “Abortions are sort of bad, but I won’t suggest making them illegal . . . now watch me change the subject!”
Why end capital punishment? As long as it is fairly applied there is nothing un-Biblical about it. (see http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/10/31/bad-biblical-arguments-against-capital-punishment/ and http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/11/01/effective-biblical-arguments-against-capital-punishment/)
He wants to strengthen families, which is a brave stand against those candidates whose platform is to weaken marriage. Seriously, what does he plan to do to accomplish that? He is oddly silent on the gay union issue.
I do give him credit for highlighting the human trafficking and virtual slavery issues.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:56 am
P.S. When he says, “the elimination of nuclear weapons,” does he mean that we should get rid of our nukes? If so, why does anyone listen to someone so foolish?
November 6th, 2006 at 7:16 am
Our current nuclear policy in crazy.
”
This regime is not merely unserious about preventing nuclear proliferation, they’re actively promoting it. As I said six months ago in an effort to make the point that their warmongering about Iran has nothing to do with weapons (just as the warmongering about Iraq didn’t, either):
They have unilaterally abrogated the ABM treaty, defunded the disposal of Soviet client nukes, adopted an official first-strike nuclear posture, developed new nuclear weapons, encouraged favored governments to undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty, bullied international arms control agencies, purged arms control experts from the State Department, weakened international agreements and alliances of all kinds…”
Posted by: Nell
November 6th, 2006 at 9:20 am
There’s a lot of good thoughts here, but I second Rusty’s concern about Wallis’ definition of a “consistent life ethic.”
60 convicted murderers were executed in the US in 2005. In contrast, over 1,000,000 unborn children were killed by abortion.
How about instead, we vote for a “consistent justice” ethic — no innocent people killed.
And while global poverty is a serious issue, the biggest problem is greed, corruption, and injustice in poor countries. The US is the largest donor of international aid. We’ve been pouring resources into failed kleptocracies for decades. What we need is reform in how we provide aid.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:01 am
There are now 100,000-600,000
innocent dead Iraqis. Consistency in morals makes sence to me.
November 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
The term Consistent Life Ethic isn’t Wallis’ private definition. I think it comes from a Catholic tradition; I’ve heard JP II’s views characterized using this terminology. Some Buddhists and other non-Christians are comfortable with this label as well.
Per wikipedia, it opposes war or unjust war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and abortion.
November 6th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I am an avid believer in a Consistent Life Ethic, and know and am aware of many others in my Lutheran (ELCA) denomination.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
It is an INCONSISTENT “Life Ethic” to be opposed to abortion out of belief that the life of an unborn child is sacred, but to believe the sanctity of life stops at birth and so we are justified to abandon the child for the rest of its developmental years. If a child is born to parents who are poor or ill or absent, or born into an underdeveloped nation or a war zone, the same “Life Ethic” that motivated us to defend that child’s right to be born should motivate us to do everything we can to help that child, once born, against poverty, hunger, violence, warfare, etc.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
“It is an INCONSISTENT “Life Ethic” to be opposed to abortion out of belief that the life of an unborn child is sacred, but to believe the sanctity of life stops at birth and so we are justified to abandon the child for the rest of its developmental years. If a child is born to parents who are poor or ill or absent, or born into an underdeveloped nation or a war zone, the same “Life Ethic” that motivated us to defend that child’s right to be born should motivate us to do everything we can to help that child, once born, against poverty, hunger, violence, warfare, etc.”
This makes sense when you say it, but I know what you really mean is that if one is pro-life, one should also want a large welfare system, more government in health care, etc… Some people think the government should act to protect life, but not to do all in its power to preserve it. While some may not agree with this philosophy, in my view, it is at least consistent. In other words, people can’t harm other people.
Some people believe gov’t should protect people from other people. Some believe gov’t should have people help other people. Some belong to the first philosophy and simply apply that to unborn babies. I don’t think that makes them inconsistent.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
But let me add on a personal level, we should be concerned with both. We should be concerned about those less fortunate and whose life is hanging by a thread. My previous comment was just addressing gov’t issues, just to clarify.
November 6th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
The idea that these suggestions are Biblical is so silly. I could make “Biblical” suggestions for rape, revolution, murder, slavery, and on and on and on.
We have to look at Christian values, not just values that show up in the Bible. Christian values are NOT socialist and communist values, but that’s just what Wallis is suggesting in his policies. Christian values are personal responsibility and interPERSONal responsibility, not mommy-state-GOVERNMENT taking care of your every need.
We have to distinguish between the justice that must be managed by the government (solving and punishing crime and protecting us) and the justice that MUST NOT be managed by the government (all the ludicrous forms of charity which are actually confiscated from the public).
If our liberal government weren’t stripping Christians of our money, Liberal Christians wouldn’t have to demand that the government take care of every little social need. Instead, Christians would be voluntarily helping people and bringing people to Christ as well.
And the idea that God supports ending the death penalty is so patently absurd - that alone shows Wallis’ utterly political and NOT Christian perspective. From the beginning and through all history, God both killed people and ordered people to be killed for all kinds of offenses. Through God, early Christians were sentenced to death on the spot for stealing money from the general fund. Don’t tell me God doesn’t support the death penalty.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Vindicated Cynic,
You’re on a roll!!!!!!!
Keep it up!
BTW. That means i agree with you.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
V.C.
We have to distinguish between the justice that must be managed by the government (solving and punishing crime and protecting us) and the justice that MUST NOT be managed by the government (all the ludicrous forms of charity which are actually confiscated from the public).
*************
I think small government is good but we certainly don’t want to see a return of a Dickensian Age of poor Houses and child labor. I just read a great article in the New Yorker about the richest young man in the US, Pierre Omidyar. Oct. 30 issue Sometimes you can read these on their site, and anyway it talks about how giving can be a life saver in many instances.
Also, about all the killing God directed, that is an old testament thing, Christianity brought in the “turn thy cheek” age. As to the killing on the spot for stealing, I’d never heard of that, and is not dogma.
November 6th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Re: Killing on the spot for stealing
Perhaps VC is thinking of Ananias and Sapphira.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
“Turning the other cheek” is about personal insults, not government’s authority to administer the death penalty. Also see Romans 13. Presumably the “sword” was meant for capital punishment, not corporal punishment.
The notion that pro-lifers believe that “the sanctity of life stops at birth and so we are justified to abandon the child for the rest of its developmental years” is a non-sequitor, albeit a common one. To see why, just plug a toddler into the equation in place of the unborn. If people were killing toddlers for financial reasons I doubt anyone would say that we need to solve poverty before addressing the killing of toddlers. Similarly, if abortion kills innocent human beings (and it does) then it should be outlawed TODAY. We don’t have to wait until poverty is cured.
BTW, pro-lifers do a whole bunch to help after the kids are born, even though that isn’t a requirement to protest a moral evil like abortion. Just check out your local Crisis Pregnancy Center.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
I don’t think I’m quite getting your stance. Its a question I’ve wanted to ask a long time. That is if its wrong, and it is, to kill a unborn baby, why is it o.k. for capital punishment? One is inoccent and one not? I don’t want to put words in ones mouth but if that is the case, what of those who have sinned and are up to be killed but then confess and even convert, as in a case in Texas when Bush was president. Also, I’m glade “do a whole bunch after kids are born,” but is it really as much as they could We do have a very high infant mortality in the US. One more question. Wouldn’t there be less abortions if condoms and protection were given a higher priority. Thanks.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Its been a long day, meant to say when Bush was governor.
November 6th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Hi Russ - I’m not sure if your question was directed at me or not, but I’ll take a shot at it.
Abortion kills an innocent human being, and capital punishment kills a human being guilty of the greatest crime on our books. That is a big difference to me.
I addressed the confession / conversion issue here - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/10/31/bad-biblical-arguments-against-capital-punishment/ .
The short version is that capital punishment was God’s idea (Genesis 9), it was for murderers and it came way before the Israelites (so it wasn’t an Israelite ceremonial or civil law fulfilled by Jesus).
Sure, Jesus will forgive them if they repent and believe. Death row conversions are great. But the question isn’t whether we forgive or not, or you wouldn’t put them in jail at all. After all, if we should bypass the death penalty because Jesus would forgive, then wouldn’t we also bypass life in prison?
I’m not sure how much more emphasis we could give to condoms, as there seems to be quite a bit already. And would more help? I think that roughly half of abortions occur when people were on birth control (or trying to be on it). And teaching people to sin more safely just doesn’t seem like a Biblical motif.
Pushing condoms on kids sends a really convoluted message. Organizations like Planned Parenthood encourage kids to have sex whenever they want and with whomever they want, but only if they use condoms. Guess which parts of that advice kids are likely to follow and which part they’ll ignore?
These “experts” act like kids don’t know how to use condoms. Yeah, there are some dense kids out there. But seriously, do people really think it is that complicated? They put the directions right on the wrapper.
Yes, I know that technically if kids are going to have sex no matter what that a condom would reduce the chance of pregnancy and disease. But here are some reasons pushing condoms on kids is a bad idea:
1. They probably won’t listen. Has anyone noticed that teens often rebel against what adults tell them to do, or that they experiment with risky behaviors? What makes these experts think kids will become rules followers once their “authority figures” have given them the green light to have sex, and even made it an expectation?
2. Condoms don’t always work. Especially Planned Parenthood condoms.
3. Kids are often inebriated when having sex, which reduces the odds of them using the condoms effectively or at all.
November 6th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Re. “but is it really as much as they could We do have a very high infant mortality in the US.”
This is a little open ended to address here. One could claim we could be doing more as long as there is one poor person left. The broader question is what are the best ways to minimize poverty? Hint: The “War on poverty” was a flaming, counterproductive disaster, so we might start by not doing that again.
Again, to the pro-choicers I say: Whether we are doing enough for the poor or doing the right things for the poor has nothing to do with whether crushing and dismembering innocent human beings should be legal or not. Nothing.
November 6th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Neil, Thanks I see your sides view more clearly now. I’d like to research a few of your assertion though. I thought the war on poverty had been a success, but I could remember wrong. I have seen studies where contraceptives were helpful. Your right on though with your facts about planned parenthood and kids. Whatever you do think, don’t think I want to talk you out of your belief that abortion is bad. I also really believe that we could approach the I.M. rate with well spent money and forethought.
November 7th, 2006 at 5:36 am
Thanks, Russ, I appreciate your points.
A trip to the inner cities and/or a quick glance at the statistics of out of wedlock children in the black community will show just how horribly the War on Poverty was. If you make unwed motherhood a paying job you’ll have no shortage of applicants. (that applies to all races, BTW)
One additional thought on poverty: Girls who graduate high school, don’t have kids out of wedlock and don’t get married too young are almost never poor (I think the figure is in the single digits). If youth followed a Biblical model for human sexuality for one generation that would do more to reduce poverty than anything I can think of, especially if they don’t end up divorced.
I don’t expect the government to preach the Bible, but telling kids that graduating high school and not having sex outside of marriage is a great way to avoid poverty would be a start.
November 7th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Neil writes in defense of capital punishment:
Of course, Cain’s murder of Abel, in Gen. 4, was punished by banishment/disfigurement, not death…
If we were to institute OT guidelines for capital punishment in our civil society, would we do so for the hundreds of crimes that were deemed to merit it in Leviticus/Deuteronomy? Or maybe this application was mere ceremonial CP (and now fulfilled) while Gen 9 was divine, civil CP (jot and tittle law, not to be tinkered with)? Sounds pretty fishy.
I don’t support capital punishment, principally because it is irrevocable and because it is unevenly applied (more likely to be meted out to poor and minority offenders than rich white ones with high-powered lawyers and expert witnesses). I don’t call those criticisms biblical. I actually think the state needs to keep treason punishable by death, even if virtually never applied.
It’s mighty tough to “proof text” the Bible into a literal wholesale condemnation of CP. Every contemporaneous society, creed, and ruler presupposed capital punishment, and the Bible is no different in the peoples it records.
To me, the context and application of CP in the Bible is particularly instructive. The Bible’s prescription for CP (and “eye for an eye” in general) had the effect of lowering the overall level of violence in a time when clan-based blood feuds threatened to rip the loose tribal nation apart. The allowance for banishment, and substitutionary civil penalties in some cases, and cities of refuge, all show God’s mercy and his justice. I read Jesus’s words “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” not as a call for prior moral purity or for correct administration of the death penalty, but as an indictment that we are all guilty of sins that merit death and thus can’t sit in ultimate judgment. I think that much of this sort of wisdom was essentially gone by the time Jesus’ clerical opponents twisted their own law to have him unjustly put to death by the Roman authorities.
Since I don’t think applying CP makes our society safer, or more just, or more conscientous regarding human life, or brings anyone to God, I have a hard time finding it consistent with the overall Bible witness.
November 7th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
[…] Neil writes in defense of capital punishment: The short version is that capital punishment was God’s idea (Genesis 9), it was for murderers and it came way before the Israelites (so it wasn’t an Israelite ceremonial or civil law fulfilled by Jesus). […]
November 7th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
I mentioned earlier a good story about modern day charity and found it for anyone interested.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061030fa_fact1
November 7th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
A few fact about the success of The War on Poverty.
In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the US dropped to 11.1% and has remained between 11 and 15% ever since.
Poverty has significantly fallen among Americans under 18 years old from 23% in 1964 to 16.3% today. The most dramatic decrease in poverty was among Americans over 65, which fell from 28.5% in 1966 to 10.1% today.
The Census Bureau reported that there were 35.8 million Americans living in poverty in 2003, an increase of 1.3 million over 2002, and that the number of people without health insurance rose from 43.5 million to 45 million.»
November 7th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Andrew P. - just fyi, I also wrote a “con” piece on capital punishment (that’s me, always fair and balanced!) - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/11/01/effective-biblical-arguments-against-capital-punishment/
Russ - thanks for the stats. Now it is correlation time. My objection is with specific War on Poverty initiatives like giving financial incentives to girls to have more babies without husbands. This seems to correlate with the dramatic increase in out-of-wedlock births and fatherless children. But I think a few other things have happened in the last 40 years to impact poverty other than expansion of the welfare benefits. It would be interesting to go through the other planks of the initial program and see what effects they had.
You have got me thinking about the root causes / corrective actions for poverty. I need to do some posts on that.