Monday, May 31, 2010

BURN: How Christian Is Lying, Jim Wallis?

Jim Wallis is a prime adviser to Barack Hussain Obama.  Like Obama's previous spiritual surrogate daddy, The Wrong Rev. Wright, Wallis is a collectivist who parades in clerical vestments, preaching a gospel of envy, BIG GOVERNMENT, and compulsory conduct.

In a piece for the Huffin' Pros last week, Wallis managed to promulgate a pack of lies in support of his true religion (Collectivism), and derogation of the TEA Party movement...all in the name of Christianity.

First, he defined the TEA Party as essentially Libertarian.  That is false, as I am sure he knows.  The TEA Party movement is not homogeneous, and it has elements from across the political spectrum.  But Wallis had a purpose in labeling the TEA Party a bunch of Libertarians.

For his next trick, he defined...falsely...what Libertarians believe, and he did THAT with a purpose, as well.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual rights as its supreme value and considers government the major obstacle [to what???]. It tends to be liberal on cultural and moral issues and conservative on fiscal, economic, and foreign policy. This "just leave me alone and don't spend my money" option is growing quickly in American life, as we have seen in the Tea Party movement.
For his next lie, Wallis ties Rand Paul to his picture, and then begins the process of dishonestly depicting what Paul believes.  So, here Wallis has presented this formula; TEA Party = Libertarianism; Libertarianism = "just leave me alone and don't spend my money" + culturally and morally liberal (watch out, Fundamentalists); Libertarianism = Rand Paul; Rand Paul = what Jim Wallis says.

Having built this straw TEA Party, Wallis is ready to get down to work.
Is such a philosophy Christian? In several major aspects of biblical ethics, I would suggest that Libertarianism falls short.
1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition. The Christian answer to the question "Are we our brother's keeper?" is decidedly "Yes."
That was juicy, rich, and chock full 'o lies.  Where to begin...?!?!?  How about this; Libertarianism is, as Wallis told us in his piece, a POLITICAL philosophy.  As such, it does not displace RELIGION, especially Christianity ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...").  The two can co-exist happily in the same noggin, and often do

While not a (even pretended) man of God, I think it is manifestly clear that individual choice IS a pre-eminent Christian value.  It is also a pre-eminent Jewish value.  Volition is central to each.  Does Wallis suggest that God will force us to Heaven...that the Widow's mite would be an acceptable offering if compelled under the tax collector's lash?  That the re-dedication of Yom Kippur could happen under threat of violence?

But note the next formulation Wallis proffers: "individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good".  How does any rational person write a sentence like that?  Oh, I remember...Wallis is a collectivist!  So he is not rational!  Let's expand on that one level, though, just to show how corrupt is Wallis.  "Individual freedom of speech at the expense of others violates the common good."  You can see where that's going.  Just plug in your favorite Constitutional right.
2. An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical.[snip] But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se -- to see government as the central problem in society -- is simply not a biblical position.
Gee, you get the impression that Wallis would feel right at home in the court of a medieval king, arrayed in his priestly ermine robes, declaring it was God's will that us vassals subject ourselves to the king.  By Wallis' "thinking", the American Revolution was not "Biblical".

But also note the lie that says, "TEA Party people are opposed to government per se".  I know of nobody who thinks that.  We do believe that, "...a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice".  And we believe ...recognize...that we have such a government, and that is what Wallis advocates.
3. The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. [snip]  Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism - just as it is essential for the government. And God's priorities should determine ours, not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce.
In that passage (read the whole despicable thing), Wallis turns reality on its head, and reveals, yet again, his love for the collective and its reliance on force.  Note that FASCIST economics...which Obama practices every what gives us a corporatist collective, which is by definition totalitarian.

No conservative or Libertarian I know considers market capitalism perfect...just VASTLY superior to an economy directed by the likes of Jim Wallis, Andy Stearn, Rahm Emmanual, and Barack Hussain Obama.  We also understand that America has not seen a true market economy at work in our life-times.

One brilliant aspect of capitalism is that individuals are perfectly free to live according to "God's priorities... not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce".  Far out...Go for it...!  Capitalism will give you the means AND the choice to do that.  Wallis would take both from you.
4. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian. "Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money" is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage.
This perfidious crap is vintage collectivist doggerel.  There are metrics that show conservatives...and I suppose Libertarians, too...are WAY more charitable than are collectivists like Wallis.  Just ask yourself this: if you were POOR, in Kenya, who's half-brother would you rather be; Barack Hussain Obama's, or Rush Limbaugh's? 

And, as we've pointed out, POLITICS does not displace RELIGION.
5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white.
Um...can you say "NAACP", Jim?  But there IS something wrong with a national election where 95%+ of a racial segment votes for a man who has values OPPOSITE values that group expresses in polls.  There IS something wrong in a country where people who are conservative AND black are called Oreos, and made pariahs, and where going to a TEA Party has to be an act of enormous moral courage.

Jim Wallace is another wolf in sheep's clothing.  He is the anti-Christian facsimile...the hologram...the collective projects to dupe Christians with a perversion of their own doctrines and texts.  Kick his dust off your shoes.


  1. Take scripture out of context, and you can make it say whatever you like. The old illustration goes:

    The Bible says: "Judas went out and hanged himself"
    It also says: "Go ye now and do likewise"
    "And that which ye do, do quickly"

    Out of context interpretation carried to absurdity to illustrate the point. Wallis' exigesis is only slightly less warped.

    Wright's Black Liberation Theology is an extention of the tortured Biblical interpretations in Liberation Theology. Wallis soup has a mix of LT with a dash of gnosticism, antinomianism and the like.

    What the Bible does express ala Romans 13 etc is seperation of church and state - which the wrong rev doesn't seem to grasp. The state has its place and responsibility and the church another. Any preacher/priest spouting a socio-political agenda is not in line with Scripture.

  2. And what does he espouse BUT a theocratic government, according to his own ample work?

    Whatever happen to the infamous canard of the Left..."You can't legislate morality"? It is a stupid thing to say...virtually all criminal statutes are EXPRESSLY morality-based...but they used to chant it every time it suited their post-modern, post-moral vision.

    There is a line from an old hymn I learned; "He'll lead, direct, aright, remind, but God will never force the human mind; for this eternal truth is given; that God will force no man to Heaven".

    But Jim Wallis certainly would TRY...

  3. So I guess that whole separation of church and state concept goes out the window when you can twist it in your favor.

  4. Yeppers, John! The collective NEVER lets words get in their way. They only use them as clubs, never fetters for themselves.

    That would imply that words have definite meanings...very un- post-modern....

  5. After reading Wallis’s article, my blood was boiling. I felt like writing a reply, but, as you said, “Where to begin???” I never did sit to write a reply (as if Wallis would read it), but I did a little internet search to see what others had written in response, and that’s how I found your blog. Nice work! I did have a few additional comments:

    Only a Leftist could write the sentence, "There is something wrong with a political movement […] which is almost all white" and then, with not even a hint of self-awareness, go on to write in the same paragraph, "[R]acism -- overt, implied, or even subtle -- is not a Christian virtue." I would refute the allegation that the Tea Party movement is “almost all white”, but even if it were, Wallis’s conclusion from that fact alone that there must be “something wrong” with the movement speaks more about Wallis than it does about the Tea Parties.

    You did a good job of calling Wallis out for his lies. However, as far as his propensity to misrepresent the beliefs and political philosophy of his proponents, you do not go far enough. This is more than “lying”; it is bearing false witness.

    Wallis is indeed a wolf in sheep’s clothing; you do well to tell others to kick his dust off their shoes.

  6. Oops... I meant to say his "opponents", not his "proponents". :-)

  7. Thank you, Vicki. I hope you'll find time to stop by often, and comment freely.