Interesting book I'm reading

[TitanTiger 20,510]

The first chapter starts off and grabs your attention right away. Here's an excerpt:

The religious and political Right gets the public meaning of religion mostly wrong -- preferring to focus only on sexual and cultural issues while ignoring the weightier matters of justice.  And the secular Left doesn't seem to get the meaning and promise of faith for politics at all -- mistakenly dismissing spirituality as irrelevant to social change.  I actually happen to be conservative on issues of personal responsibility, the sacredness of human life, the reality of evil in our world, and the critical importance of individual character, parenting and strong "family values."  But the popular presentations of religion in our time (especially in the media) almost completely ignore the biblical vision of social justice and, even worse, dismiss such concerns as merely "left wing."

It is indeed time to take back our faith.

Take back our faith from whom?  To be honest, the confusion comes from many sources.  From religious right-wingers who claim to know God's political views on every issue, then ignore the subjects that God seems to care about the most.  From pedophile priests and cover-up bishops who destroy lives and shame the church.  From television preachers whose extravagant lifestyles and crass fund-raising tactics embarrass more Christians than they know.  From liberal secularists who want to banish faith from public life and deny spiritual values to the soul of politics.  And even from liberal theologians whose cultural conformity and creedal modernity serve to erode the foundations of historic biblical faith.  From New Age philosophers who want to make Jesus into a nonthreatening spiritual guru.  And from politicians who love to say how religious they are but utterly fail to apply the values of faith to their public leadership and political policies...

...The media like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious Left."  No, not at all, and the very question is the problem.  Just because a religious Right has fashioned itself for political power in one utterly predictable ideological guise does not mean that those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart.  The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan.  To always raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left and right-wing governments the put power above principles.  Religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights" -- that place being the image of God in every human being.

I could go on but that might whet your appetite enough. I'm just getting started in the book. It's called God's Politics: Why The Right Is Wrong And The Left Doesn't Get It by Jim Wallis. I picked it up at the library. Might be fun if some others wanted to read and discuss, or chime in one what I wrote above.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The first chapter starts off and grabs your attention right away.  Here's an excerpt:

The religious and political Right gets the public meaning of religion mostly wrong -- preferring to focus only on sexual and cultural issues while ignoring the weightier matters of justice.  And the secular Left doesn't seem to get the meaning and promise of faith for politics at all -- mistakenly dismissing spirituality as irrelevant to social change.  I actually happen to be conservative on issues of personal responsibility, the sacredness of human life, the reality of evil in our world, and the critical importance of individual character, parenting and strong "family values."  But the popular presentations of religion in our time (especially in the media) almost completely ignore the biblical vision of social justice and, even worse, dismiss such concerns as merely "left wing."

It is indeed time to take back our faith.

Take back our faith from whom?  To be honest, the confusion comes from many sources.  From religious right-wingers who claim to know God's political views on every issue, then ignore the subjects that God seems to care about the most.  From pedophile priests and cover-up bishops who destroy lives and shame the church.  From television preachers whose extravagant lifestyles and crass fund-raising tactics embarrass more Christians than they know.  From liberal secularists who want to banish faith from public life and deny spiritual values to the soul of politics.  And even from liberal theologians whose cultural conformity and creedal modernity serve to erode the foundations of historic biblical faith.  From New Age philosophers who want to make Jesus into a nonthreatening spiritual guru.  And from politicians who love to say how religious they are but utterly fail to apply the values of faith to their public leadership and political policies...

...The media like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious Left."  No, not at all, and the very question is the problem.  Just because a religious Right has fashioned itself for political power in one utterly predictable ideological guise does not mean that those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart.  The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan.  To always raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left and right-wing governments the put power above principles.  Religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights" -- that place being the image of God in every human being.

I could go on but that might whet your appetite enough. I'm just getting started in the book. It's called God's Politics: Why The Right Is Wrong And The Left Doesn't Get It by Jim Wallis. I picked it up at the library. Might be fun if some others wanted to read and discuss, or chime in one what I wrote above.

205211[/snapback]

I haven't read it but I am a bit intrigued by it. I've seen Wallis on TV and he certainly seems to be not easily pegged. Jerry Falwell can't stand the guy.

[Tigermike 3,053]

I haven't read it but I am a bit intrigued by it.  I've seen Wallis on TV and he certainly seems to be not easily pegged.  Jerry Falwell can't stand the guy.

205330[/snapback]

That being said, it must be a pretty good book. Oh good gosh, does that mean I agree with Tex?

[DKW 86 7,440]

I think many on this board are shifting away from their old fall back positions. I know I am tired of the Spendthrift Republicans and I cant support them anymore. I cannot stand by and see Americans ripped off by Scrushy et al and not say something.

I also question those on the Left that declare themselves to be Christ-like in their compassion with the poor only to find out that they are only Passionate about getting re-elected. Dean talks about aligning Liberal politics and the church. Yet he does even know enough about the Bible to know that the Book of Job is in the OT.

Al and Tipper Gore are typical Libs to me. Preach compasiion everyday. Dont give a dime to charity. Someone once defined a Modern American Lberal as: "someone that wants to do Warm and Fuzzy things with everybody else's money."

Maybe the old folks are right, maybe all politicians are all alike.

My own Christianlity is growing much deeper and more personally inward.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

So Titan, how are you finding this book as you get more into it?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I'm liking it. He's still setting up a lot of his premise and arguments so as I get further in, I'll post more thoughts on it. But I haven't been able to do any reading the last couple of days.

It's challenging. And I don't mind having my notions challenged with reasonable arguments.

[BamaGrad03 0]

BG returns to the politically speaking board with a semi book report! Ive been reading this book and have found a recurring theme: Wallis is VERY liberal in his political views.

He is ALL for more government spending for bigger social programs. The book so far has read like an anti bush campaign piece. He slams the media for being biased towards the right. He says that the swift boat criticism of Kerry was very unjust and unfounded.

While the book is titled to make one think he is critical of both sides of the fence, his criticisms of the left are quite underwhelming. He goes on and on slamming republicans for an unjust war (he is a self admitted war protester), lack of concern for the poor, and putting all the 'faith' issues in the homosexual marriage and abortion basket. His criticisms of the left are more like rallying cries to get them mobile and motivated.

He CONSTANTLY stresses that the evil bush administration's tax cuts for the rich are unchristian. And he uses an example of a family of 4 making 26,000 dollars a year and how the taxes THEY pay are so rich people can take food off said families plate. He blatantly ignores the FACT that earned income credits gurantee that the family in question pays ZERO ZERO ZERO federal income taxes. Yet he says that people paying no income taxes should get more tax breaks.

He has yet to stress personal and social responsibility when it comes to issues with the poor. And has yet to acknowledge the vast opportunity that already exists for our nation's poor.

He's quite pedantic and overly verbose in his approach...repeats himself about 800 times.

As I told titan, the more i read the more transparent Wallis' views are becoming. I dont mind my views being challenged. But dont do so under the veil of equal opportunity criticism.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Thank you BG.

I think I will start a new political party soon.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

BG returns to the politically speaking board with a semi book report! Ive been reading this book and have found a recurring theme: Wallis is VERY liberal in his political views.

He is ALL for more government spending for bigger social programs. The book so far has read like an anti bush campaign piece. He slams the media for being biased towards the right. He says that the swift boat criticism of Kerry was very unjust and unfounded.

While the book is titled to make one think he is critical of both sides of the fence, his criticisms of the left are quite underwhelming. He goes on and on slamming republicans for an unjust war (he is a self admitted war protester), lack of concern for the poor, and putting all the 'faith' issues in the homosexual marriage and abortion basket. His criticisms of the left are more like rallying cries to get them mobile and motivated.

He CONSTANTLY stresses that the evil bush administration's tax cuts for the rich are unchristian. And he uses an example of a family of 4 making 26,000 dollars a year and how the taxes THEY pay are so rich people can take food off said families plate. He blatantly ignores the FACT that earned income credits gurantee that the family in question pays ZERO ZERO ZERO federal income taxes. Yet he says that people paying no income taxes should get more tax breaks.

He has yet to stress personal and social responsibility when it comes to issues with the poor. And has yet to acknowledge the vast opportunity that already exists for our nation's poor.

He's quite pedantic and overly verbose in his approach...repeats himself about 800 times.

As I told titan, the more i read the more transparent Wallis' views are becoming. I dont mind my views being challenged. But dont do so under the veil of equal opportunity criticism.

207347[/snapback]

Actually, the title of the book hardly suggests a dispassionate critique of the two parties. The title states that "The Right is Wrong." That is his position. The title also states his frustration with the Left, that he is a part of-- They don't "get it".

You disagree with his politics, but how about his theology?

We are not aware of Jesus ever condemning homosexuality, but he certainly spoke to how people treat the downtrodden. In fact, it appears to be the most fundamental distinction amongst those who will be saved and those who will not:

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Matthew 25: 31-46

[BamaGrad03 0]

Texas, I honestly think that if i said the sky was blue you'd say its purple.

The BIBLE has something to say about homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

But that is hardly the point. His views on homosexuality are not far from my own. His approach for helping the poor come straight from the socialist cookbook. I think the poor in our country and in this world are a grave problem. But his approach in this book was to focus on the poor and the war. And his critiques/solutions were nothing more than a regurgitation for what we have heard from the far left for years: ramp up social programs. give tax breaks to people who dont pay taxes. ignore personal responsibility. He never gives a solution for fighting terrorism and never indicates what constitutes a "just" war. He spends the whole time trying to make us feel guilty for voting for Bush.

Again, his example of a family of 4 shows how short sighted and under researched he is. To even suggest that I am taking money off a poor family's table by receiving a tax break is laughable. If you dont pay taxes, you dont get a tax break...why is that so tough to grasp for some people? Why does he constantly omit the need for personal responsibility?

When it comes to the poor and the church...its more the church's job to play a physical role...to be among the masses, get people to shelters, help people get off rock bottom. A blank check from the gov't aint the answer as he suggests.

Am I less of a Christian than he because I dont think we should spend MORE money on welfare programs? Because I expect people to excercise their freedom of "get up off your ass and take advantage of the vast opportunity in america"?

When I was born, my parents were poor. Dirt poor. They were on gov't assisted food and aid programs. But it was for such a short period of time. Because it was embarassing to them. They USED that aid to get on their feet. Now we have PC liberals who think that food stamps need to look more like credit cards so people arent embarassed at the checkout line. Crap like that is not Christian.

Jesus taught to have compassion and help the poor. He also taught personal responsibilty and accountability.

For you to interpret "God's politics - How the right gets it wrong and the left doesnt get it at all" as anything BUT a supposed level and equally critical book on god/politics is sheer stubborness. And in the book he SAYS that it is to be an equal/non partisan look at both parties woes.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Texas, I honestly think that if i said the sky was blue you'd say its purple.

The BIBLE has something to say about homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

But that is hardly the point. His views on homosexuality are not far from my own. His approach for helping the poor come straight from the socialist cookbook. I think the poor in our country and in this world are a grave problem. But his approach in this book was to focus on the poor and the war. And his critiques/solutions were nothing more than a regurgitation for what we have heard from the far left for years: ramp up social programs. give tax breaks to people who dont pay taxes. ignore personal responsibility. He never gives a solution for fighting terrorism and never indicates what constitutes a "just" war. He spends the whole time trying to make us feel guilty for voting for Bush.

Again, his example of a family of 4 shows how short sighted and under researched he is. To even suggest that I am taking money off a poor family's table by receiving a tax break is laughable. If you dont pay taxes, you dont get a tax break...why is that so tough to grasp for some people? Why does he constantly omit the need for personal responsibility?

When it comes to the poor and the church...its more the church's job to play a physical role...to be among the masses, get people to shelters, help people get off rock bottom. A blank check from the gov't aint the answer as he suggests.

Am I less of a Christian than he because I dont think we should spend MORE money on welfare programs? Because I expect people to excercise their freedom of "get up off your ass and take advantage of the vast opportunity in america"?

When I was born, my parents were poor. Dirt poor. They were on gov't assisted food and aid programs. But it was for such a short period of time. Because it was embarassing to them. They USED that aid to get on their feet. Now we have PC liberals who think that food stamps need to look more like credit cards so people arent embarassed at the checkout line. Crap like that is not Christian.

Jesus taught to have compassion and help the poor. He also taught personal responsibilty and accountability.

For you to interpret "God's politics - How the right gets it wrong and the left doesnt get it at all" as anything BUT a supposed level and equally critical book on god/politics is sheer stubborness. And in the book he SAYS that it is to be an equal/non partisan look at both parties woes.

207550[/snapback]

If the sky was purple when you said it was blue, yeah, I'd have to say it was purple. But I hardly slammed what you said. I simply pointed out a few things.

As I said, we have no record of Christ speaking on homosexuality. We have the Old Testament and we have Paul speaking on the subject. Give it the weight that you wish. I tend to think that Christ focused on the things that mattered most.

I suspect he does view his book as non-partisan. But it is obviously his book with his biases. The Right tends to evoke religion more so he has more to critique in that regard when he disagrees with them. The Left tends to shy away from the topic.

Am I less of a Christian than he because I dont think we should spend MORE money on welfare programs? Because I expect people to excercise their freedom of "get up off your ass and take advantage of the vast opportunity in america"?

I didn't say that. But understand although many on the right often try to justify their political views by referencing their religion, the two are not necessarily same. I recall years ago hearing Pat Robertson assert that supporting our military intervention in Latin America and funding for the B-1 bomber was somehow the Christian thing to do. Falwell and Robertson also supported invading Iraq. The Vatican did not. Much of the ideology of the Right is also based on an enthusiastic, and often wholly uncritical, embrace of capitalism. I don't see Christ as necessarily being against Capitalism in principle-- but I doubt he would describe himself as a Capitalist, either, and would take issue at the win-at-all-cost quality that tends to permeate much of the business world.

There is tremendous opportunity in America. There is also considerable poverty-- more so than much of the Western world. Exploring why that disparity exists is worthwhile. I don't think the answers are so easy.