politics & pop culture

human civilization is a mix of both the ugly and the sublime. and so we offer both reflections and rants on life sandwiched between Kingdom and Empire. ++ submit an article ++

word & image

“art is a collaboration between God and the artist.” poetry and prose and image and song peel back the veil into deeper realities unobservable to the naked mind. ++ submit an article ++

story & idea

we are a part of a complex story that streams from the mouth of GOD. so we delve into scriptures, history, and thick books to find our place in God’s story. ++ submit an article ++

practice & resistance

the way of jesus is meant to be practiced. usually with others. this often requires resistance to the powers that seek to enslave us. viva la revolution! ++ submit an article ++

wit & satire

often, the most serious response to the world’s brokenness is humor. wit strips away layers of deception to reveal that the emperor has no clothes. ++ submit an article ++

Home » politics & pop culture

Impacting the Winds of Change

Submitted by Kimberly Roth on May 15, 2008 – 5:00 amComments
Print This Post

sojournersJim Wallis can draw a pretty nice crowd for 4:00 p.m. on a Wednesday. Most guest speakers at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service can squeeze their audience into the school’s great hall, but if the ticket requests exceed capacity, more popular speakers are relocated to a room in Little Rock’s Statehouse Convention Center. Mr. Wallis was popular… demonstrably less popular than Richard Dawkins, with a less diverse audience, but enticing nonetheless.

I attended the lecture, promoting Wallis’ The Great Awakening, as both an admirer and a skeptic.

As a sociology and philosophy major at a Baptist university over ten years ago, I was introduced to the scandalous writings of John Perkins, Tony Campolo, Ron Sider and Jim Wallis. Their words helped to mold my social conscience. I had always been drawn to social activism but, when I became a Christian in high school, a wall was subtly built up between embracing Christ and engaging culture. These men took sledgehammers to that wall.

In 2006, I participated in the Emerging Leaders Track (just shy of the age limit) of the annual Sojourner’s Pentecost conference, lobbying congress for a budget that reflected a moral obligation to the poor. Already disenchanted with Washington and the political process in general, and despite the great speakers and new experiences, I left the conference feeling powerless.

In 2007, I chose instead to attend the Christian Community Development Association’s annual conference, and get a feel for the change agents at the grassroots level. I came home from that gathering with a head full of ideas and optimism, followed closely by attendance at LeadNow and a condition I have recently read described as “spiritual bulimia“.

2008 has been a year of allowing my soul to digest.

Unfortunately, 2008 is also an election year… a year for change… a year for action, and I am spent.

So it was with this spirit that I attended last night’s lecture, hoping to be refreshed or, at the very least, not overwhelmed by what I would hear.

I heard people think Christians ought to stand for the same things Jesus did (very weird).

I heard when politics fails to resolve, or even address, big issues in society, social movements rise up to change things.

I heard history suggests grassroots social movements change politicians more than politicians change history.

I heard politics is broken in America.

I breathed a sigh of relief.

In The Great Awakening, Jim Wallis is trying to make U.S. Americans aware that our political candidates can not bring about the changes needed in our world, that only movements pressing in from the outside can make an impact. Change is going to require revival and it is going to require commitment. Our revival can not be merely on the individual spiritual level, it must lead to change in society – or else it is not true revival. Getting past the individual transformation to societal transformation is going to require commitments on the personal, communal and public policy levels. All three commitments are necessary, and Mr. Wallis even went as far as to declare that if we can not make the changes on a personal level, then we need not dare lobby congress for changes on the policy level.

During the Compassion Forum last month, Senator Clinton was asked the following question:

Americans of all faiths and no faith at all genuinely believe in compassion and want to apply that in addressing global poverty and climate change. Can we do that without changing our standard of living?

She answered as any politician worthy of the title would:

Well, I believe there is so much we can do that we’re not doing that would not change our standard of living as an imposition from the outside, but which would inspire us to take action that would impact how we live. And I don’t think we would notice it demonstrably undermining our standard of living, but it would give us the opportunity to set an example and to be a model.

When the floor was opened up for questions, I took the opportunity to get Wallis’ take on the “lifestyle change” issue, asking him to expound upon what personal level commitments would look like. He reiterated that politicians respond to shifts in culture, rather than the belief that policy changes can create change in culture. He talked about changing people’s minds and hearts on a local level, and then went on to talk about many of the things we toss around here, like slow food and the monstrosity that is the Hummer. He recognized emerging generations as focusing on what impact our lifestyles will have on the world.

Finally, in response to an audience question about influences, Jim Wallis repeated something I heard him speak of back in 2006. A social activist can not be sustained for long unless they are also working to be a contemplative. He reminded us to take care of our faith, that if God wasn’t real to us personally, none of this would matter.

He laughed at me when I handed him my book for the book signing: Revive Us Again: A Sojourner’s Story, saying he hadn’t seen a copy of the book in a long time and was sure it was out-of-print. He asked me where I got it, and I explained that I’ve had it for ten years. Every now and then, I need a refresher in the lessons I have learned through it:

Those who pursue radical discipleship, however, face another problem. It is the tendency to seek justification in our life-style, our work, our protest, our causes, our movements, our actions, our prophetic identity, and our radical self image. It becomes an easy temptation to place our security in the things we stand for and in the things we do, instead of in what God has done. It is a temptation to depend on things other than God’s grace.

  • Wallis has really been shifting his position the last few books, and I think it is coming out of growing disillusionment with the games government plays. I used to be a big fan of Sojourners, but I got so fed up with their constant lobbying and email newsletters asking me to call my local representative for this and that. It seems that "The Great Awakening" is moving away from this type of action and more towards the grassroots religious level that he used to only occasionally comment about. If this is the case, Wallis and I are going to have to catch up with one another. :)

    "The Great Awakening"--I admit, I haven't read it. Has anyone else? I'd love to hear a brief summary. I'm wondering how much of his book goes back to the start (I use "start" loosely) of evangelicalism, the Great Awakenings of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles G. Finney, and others...
  • I'm sure this won't surprise anyone, but I'm still hugely skeptical. A shift from lobbying to direct religious engagement is largely the sort of move that catalyzed the religious right. I know this sounds cynical, but I think that this whole shift is mobilizing increasing numbers of young Christians into political engagement in a leftward direction, and I think Wallis knows this...I think Wallis expects this.
  • I work of out of a similar "hermeneutic of suspicion" when it comes to social justice gurus and their D.C. friends, but isn't this actually the exact opposite of the Religious Right's history? Not saying that this is any better (IF you are right in your critique), but didn't the RR move from religious engagement to lobbying rather than the other way around? I'm thinking especially on pro-life issues.
  • It depends upon how you look at it. You can see the rise of the religious right as what happens when church folk get involved with politics. OR you can see it like this:

    A handful of politically engaged Christians go to the churches and get them riled up about certain issues. These riled up Christians, following their American programming, begin to congeal as a voter block.

    Wallis is a life-long politico. He hasn't changed his views on what makes a better America. He hasn't changed his political stances. What has changed? I'm not sure that he is calling for direct action as much as he is calling for a change in the political landscape. This will largely result in the leftward shift of young Christian voters. The end result is an increased political engagement, not a diminished one. This seems more like a smart strategy than simply a shift towards direct action.
  • Josh
    "I'm not sure that he is calling for direct action as much as he is calling for a change in the political landscape. This will largely result in the leftward shift of young Christian voters."

    Is that necessarily a bad thing?

    Hell, according to Acts the first Christians were communists.
  • They practiced communalism, but they weren't exactly espousing Marxism.

    Yes, it is a bad thing...about as bad as the shift to the right was 20 years ago.
  • I love Jim Wallis cry - not right, not left, but a moral center.

    Unfortunately his moral center leans left. :)

    Love the words, but the actions, whether intended to or not, do feel to be guided an 'evangelical left', which has different poster children than the evangelical right, but all the same genetic disorders.
  • Josh
    "Love the words, but the actions, whether intended to or not, do feel to be guided an 'evangelical left', which has different poster children than the evangelical right, but all the same genetic disorders."

    Or, they seem more evangelically left only because they are constantly compared to the current domination of discourse by the evangelical right, when in fact they are located more squarely in the center. That's just my opinion, though.

    "They practiced communalism, but they weren't exactly espousing Marxism."

    They may not have worn red stars and murdered Anastasia, but the principles are quite similar. Communalism is simply a non-threatening synonym for communism, at least in its purest (non-Soviet) sense. These first Christians, the ones God apparently chose as an example of a possible church structure, chose to organize themselves in a way that would be called radically leftist if seen today. They definitely didn't choose to go with market capitalism.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that's how things should be. Those sections in Acts are certainly 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive'. What is true, however, is that whether we like it or not the teachings of Jesus and the actions of our spiritual ancestors lean quite a bit towards the political left rather than the political right. So when we see guys like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo skew liberal at times, there's a lot of biblical precedent for them to do so.
  • Ted
    I think Josh is right that taken by themselves, the political climate of the early church (as described) looks, by our standards, a lot like anarcho-communism. They don't compare well to Bakunin (or Marx) because they were defining themselves against the Roman Empire and not modern capitalism. But compare, for instance, the way Yoder describes the "rule of Paul" in Body Politics with David Graeber's description of communal decision-making among "the new anarchists" in an article by that name (a Google search should bring that up; if not, I can send a .pdf).

    An important difference, however, is that they were not arguing that the Roman state should proceed likewise. There was always an outside; membership was voluntary, and those who chose to could make their way in the big, bad world on their own (or those who became a threat to the integrity of the group could have it thrust upon them for a season -- what Paul calls being "handed over to Satan").

    I think it is difficult and dangerous to extrapolate national policy from this. It's a question that I don't think the NT addresses, and the OT can only be made to address it by making anachronistic assumptions about the place of any given nation in salvation history. We may have some unique opportunities to encourage our respective governments toward greater justice, and we should always seek to model such justice in our communities.

    I agree that Acts is descriptive rather than necessarily prescriptive, more example than mandate. But we also don't get a lot of competing or contrasting descriptions, so we do well to take that example seriously.
  • That was exactly why I stopped their email newsletters.
  • In all fairness to the skeptics (with which I still teeter), there is still a loud call from Wallis and Sojourners for change at the public policy level... there is just the accompanying admission that it will be fruitless without authentic change at the personal and communal levels. It still reeks of Washington, it just sounds a clearer call for personal responsibility than that of the politicians...
  • "and Mr. Wallis even went as far as to declare that if we can not make the changes on a personal level, then we need not dare lobby congress for changes on the policy level."

    This hits home for me. I am a bit of a zealot, and most of the time I haven't made the changes in my life that I speak out against. This makes us the worst type of hypocrites. Great post!
  • Agreed. I find myself trying to get other's to change so I don't have to. I know so much more than I put into practice. The political policy/ religious engagement thing is much like the chicken/egg conundrum. Change happens on both levels and they affect each other. Effective change is when both are in sync.
blog comments powered by Disqus