Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Where Jim Wallis Stands | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Jim Wallis is a voice in the Evangelical Christian community that has stood against the Religious Right long before it was cool. In this article, Wallis takes a position on abortion, gay marriage, the war in Iraq and how these issues are used as vote getters and litmus tests rather than true moral issues that politicians car about.

That's his take anyway. What's yours?

Below is just one question asked and answered. You'll have to click over to Christianity Today's website to read the rest of the piece.

You have been one of the most outspoken evangelical critics of the Iraq war. Has the surge changed your opinion?

I haven't changed my view at all. The war in Iraq was not a just war. It didn't conform to the standards at all. And that's the view of the vast majority of evangelicals around the world. I think it was the worst mistake in American foreign-policy history, with the exception of Vietnam.

Did the surge make security gains? Yes. Is that a lasting solution? No. There's still very little movement on the political front. Is the surge working to reduce the violence? Yes. Does that mean the war in Iraq was a good idea after all? No. But I'm not calling for immediate withdrawal. Now that we've gone in there and made such a mess of it, there has to be a responsible transition, saving and protecting as many lives as possible, and an internationalizing of the security problem.

Read the entire article here: Where Jim Wallis Stands | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Technorati Tags: ,


Kat said...

A true man of God with some compassion, reason, and a willingness to admit he doesn't have all the answers. Perhaps there is hope after all. Perhaps one day soon, some of my friends will be welcomed back in to evangelical churches....perhaps. One can hope.

Anonymous said...

I am having a problem with these last few blogs about politcal views i think it is awful how men and women of God can stand so liberal on these subjects that are so clearly spoken in the Bible. Yes we love the people, but we need to be people who stands on God's word and vote in those who fear God and believe and depend on his word. not get so caught up in our wordly thinking that goes against God's word. We need to protect the innocent. They dont have to keep the babies there are many parents in this world who would love to adopt. I see how people are so being led stray from God's word they do not use the whole cousel of God they pick some verses and make a stand on that. it reminds me of the corintian church how paul came and told them where they were off. i am not writing this to be condeming just to share and trust that God would open our eyes to see the deception we so easily fall for that lead us away from the truth. I am not talking to unbelievers i'm speaking to those who call Jesus Lord.

Anonymous said...

I was not prepared to say this, before I read the entire article, but he makes some sense. He's also the first person who has been quoted in print--that I've seen, so take some salt with this--who has acknowledged that there is a Religious Left.

More important, I think, are his more realistic statements about the end to abortion in this country, and his calls for dialogue on that issue, gay marriage/civil unions, and other issues that divide the Church of Jesus Christ. I would love to see an end to abortion, but this country has always had abortion, and I think he's right; it always will. Is it more loving to leave a girl or young woman to the back alley "service providers" than to allow her to get an abortion in a safer environment, with presumably trained doctors?

But what is needed, in addition to his suggested focus on reducing abortion in this country, is for every girl or woman seeking an abortion to first watch an ultrasound of a fetus en utero. The first time I saw one, I was sure that most gals would change their minds, if they saw one. And, in my opinion, no minor should be able to get an abortion without parental consent, unless there is solid, documented reason to be she will be seriously harmed--more than having to listen to some angry parents, for a while.

Another thing that is needed is for Planned (Un)Parenthood to stop lying about that "piece of tissue" and to start providing solid information about what really happens, what the emotional toll will be on the woman, and to start showing an ultrasound. Start letting girls and women make truly informed decisions.

Well, Bryon, I didn't intend to take over your blog. I don't like that Wallis is right about some of these things; I wish the issues were less muddied and answers were easier. But this constant argument over rights, instead of what is right, often leads us off the right path.