What else are observers to make of the statements of Jim Wallis and his supporters, given the conflicting statements of organizers of yesterdays protest rally in Washington.

Jim Wallis makes it clear that the rally is based upon their religious faith, to protest a budget that their understanding of Christianity views as immoral.

The group's founder, Jim Wallis, called the event "a revival," adding that, "We're here because of Jesus, because of our faith." The group complained that the federal budget is "immoral" because it cuts spending on social programs.

Not, of course, that they are willing to come out and honestly admit that they want the budget to reflect their religious values.

But when asked by Cybercast News Service whether he was urging the government to promote Judeo-Christian values, Rivera said he was not. "What we're saying is that ... whether you have a religious tradition like many people here do, or just come out of a human tradition, we don't think the country should balance its budget on the back of its most vulnerable citizens."

Rivera said his group believes that "budgets reflect your priorities and church people from all over the country ... are here with their leadership asking that this budget not be passed."

He said tax cuts should be rolled back and that spending billions of dollars on the war in Iraq "while cutting food stamps ... doesn't really reflect moral priorities."

So when it comes down to it, they are not willing to admit that what they want is THEIR interpretation of Scripture codified in the budget. After all, that would be (in the current parlance of the Left) the establishment of a theocracy – so they have to deny their religious motivations.

I think that is called “bearing false witness”.

UPDATE: Bob Ellis of Dakota Voice has a great piece on this issue.

UPDATE 2: I hadnÂ’t seen this article about the different issues taken up by the religious right and religious left. It makes me question the Christian witness of Jim Wallis even more.

"It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important," said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. "But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that."

Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders "have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees," he said. "They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical."

What Wallis misses, though, is that it is the very conservative Christians he is bashing who do a great deal of the “leg-work” to help the poor through private programs. One can legitimately question the balance of public vs. private involvement in helping the poor without being unbiblical. Indeed, I would argue that it is more biblical to support charitable private action on behalf of the poor than it is to call for mandated involuntary giving through increased taxes, spending, and transfer payments. Indeed, Wallis and his ilk are calling upon government to replace and assume the role of the Church – on the very theocratic model of Old Testament Israel that the Left in this country claims to reject.

Indeed, Wallis has to come up with his own personal translation of Isaiah 10:1-2 in order to even find a biblical leg to stand on.

"Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan."

The verses are more commonly translated differently – and the closest thing I could find is the following from the New American Bible.

1 Woe to those who enact unjust statutes and who write oppressive decrees,

2 Depriving the needy of judgment and robbing my people's poor of their rights, Making widows their plunder, and orphans their prey!

But even if you accept the Wallis translation, you would first have to determine that the statutes are “unjust” (does one have, as a matter of justice, a right to the fruits of the labor of others?). Furthermore, you would have to get around the niggling little detail that the second verse is, based upon the original source, dealing with issues of failing to protect the rights of the poor, widows, and orphans in courts, not in terms of legislation. Wallis, I daresay, is clearly reading in to the text what he wants there rather than reading out of it what is there – a clear failure for one who wants to be taken seriously as a judge of what views are “unbiblical”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 837 words, total size 5 kb.