While the categories Wallis uses can be/are contested I think his quote highlights the "sociological" character of religion and theology.

We don't have to agree with Wallis to at least admit we need to be aware of our social location and how that location forms/affects our perspectives.

It's important to problematize our own location because it helps keep us humble and open to hearing about the blind spots that come with any particular perspective.

captcha: eyes sauciest

And where, sheerakahn, do you think the white middle class has disappeared to? Are there millions of Americans giving up air conditioning and cable TV just to put food on the table? Not to belittle the current economic situation, but I think you've missed the point here (or perhaps you represent the case in point).

Nathan - Welfare folks have air conditioning and cable TV on the tax payers dime.

The status quo for Wallis is that he needs to keep subscription rolls up for his magazine for the segment of the population he is pandering to. He needs to make claims that will keep them happy, even if they are not true. His argumentation is often very dishonest.

Is the household of faith in need of change? Absolutely, but not in keeping with his ideas.

Tim, what makes you think this has anything to do with welfare? How many people in the world are without running water, basic sanitation, or sufficient food? How many people are living as slaves in the 21st century? How many hundred million orphans are there in the world?

Nathan,

It has to do with welfare because Jim Wallis has entered the national political arena, not necessarily as someone running for office, but as someone directly involved with the administration of our country. The call for "social justice" within our current political arena is echoed in Sojourners regularly and the current definition of social justice in the American context includes welfare, health-care, racial awareness, and ecological awareness. It's a matter of context.

I agree, the disparity between rich and poor is a global thing. But "middle class" in the US looks a LOT different than "middle class" in Uganda or even in some European nations. Context is the key, as always.

So, it would probably be best to address back to Wallis what is the context from which he is speaking? Is he speaking from a global humanity context or is he speaking from a US context? Without the context, we don't know anything.

As to reply directly to Wallis, the general impression I get from folks who are political activists for social justice is that, if I'm not for "sweeping reform" in our nation and its programs where, through tax payer funding, we supply food, housing, and other necessities, then somehow I'm in favor of the status quo.

For me, this is far from the truth. My emphasis, though, is that the responsibility for the social justice issues should be within the realm of the Church, by which I mean the organism of the Body of Christ, not the institutionalized religious bodies. Governments come and go, nations rise and fall, but the Kingdom goes on forever. Personally, I prefer to spend my time, effort, and resource within that Kingdom and not invest it in the temporary of the secular government.

This is not to say that secular government does not do good things on occasion, nor is it to cast judgment or condemnation on those who prefer that route. It is simply me stating my position and defending folks like me. I'm not for the status quo. I want to see the world change so that children are not dying for lack of life necessities. The means by which I do so are in the realm of personal involvement (such as working in the laundry of the refugee centers after Katrina), relationship (as in the single mother who visited our church where we gave her the furnishings she lacked for her new apartment), sacrifice (such as giving up my "hurry up" lifestyle to stop and help a woman, another single mom, get her car out of a busy intersection and spending an hour of my time sitting with her as her battery charges). These are the ways in which I try and change the world and shift away from the status quo. My thought is always: what if EVERY person who claimed to follow Christ and work for the Kingdom did this kind of thing daily? Would we even need government programs any more?

As I said, and I'll say it again, simply because people have a tendency to misconstrue people of my position, I want to change the status quo. I prefer doing it in the means that John Howard Yoder mentions: "Let the Church be the Church".

One thing I have learned is that there is virtually no one - on the right or left - who is satisfied with a generalized "status quo". This is a red herring if there ever was one. Nor is there anyone who summarily rejects the idea of "social change". There are, however, varying ideas of what kind of "change" is best or most appropriate.

The phrase "status quo", as it turns out, is one of the best indicators of a politicized agenda. Mr. Wallis would like us to believe that if someone does not subscribe to his agenda then they must be complacent with the current evils of the world.

Obviously, there is little truth to that. The options, of course, are not between Wallis's leftist view of the world and complacency with social ills. Even Mr. Wallis's biggest nemesis, Glenn Beck, wants radical "change". He wants the scope of government reduced, and he believes the best overall social outcomes come about through economic freedom and civil liberties. And these two views are just the opposite ends of the spectrum - there are countless more moderate views in between.

In the end, both Wallis and Beck are mostly political figures, although they both talk a great deal about God. As for me, I unfortunately do not trust that either of them view reconciling all peoples to God through the death and resurrection of Christ as their highest priority for social change.

Just so people know...there's 2 "Nathan's" on this thread. I'm the first Nathan to post, but all other posts subsequent to my comment about the sociological character of religion are someone different.

Not that it matters...just say'n.

I left an evangelical church because they were all white middle class folks who really didn't want to know about the poverty, malaria, sex trafficking, aids in the world. they just wanted a beautiful church with great worship music, disneyland type childrens ministry etc... I am now at a church of great diversity both economically and racially. The church tithes 12% to local and foreign missions, we serve at a local homeless shelter and we are intinsically involved in the disenfranchised. We will never have a fancy building and we will never have a surplus but this church is focused on the biblical call to social justice all the while having folks come to Christ every week. Amen to Jim Wallis. You are right on, my friend.

No Christian should ever support taxation that results in redistribution of wealth. That is welfare, which is a clear violation of the 10th commandment.

Jesus was very much a free market capitalist. This is why He blessed America over other nations. This is why "profit" and "prophet" are basically the same word. A system which produces the maximum profit is pleasing to God.

If you want a park, then buy one.

Christian “social change” comes from individual changed hearts not the oppressive point of the collective government sword. If Christ intended us to use government force perhaps he should have appeared to Pilate on Easter rather than the rag tag band of disciples. Rome was a very efficient government – why wait - heaven on earth by Roman sword?

"Redistribution of wealth" is a fast-and-loose phrase that can mean whatever we want. And, please, show me the Scripture that says that God is pleased with maximum profit. If anything, the Scriptures as a whole indicate that profit is (or ought to be) a result of both our diligence and God's blessing--not to get all Word of Faith here. But the Scriptures as a whole also make it clear that wealth more likely than not turns a person's (and a nation's) heart(s) from God (see especially Deuteronomy 8). If we are blessed, let us be thankful and ask God how we should spend each dollar--keeping in mind James 2:

[5] Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?
[6] But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?
[7] Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
[8] If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, you are doing well.
[9] But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (ESV, from Xiphos Bible Guide)

When someone irritates people as much as Wallis seems capable of, it usually means they're on to something. You may disagree with some of Wallis' solutions to systemic social ills, but that does not mean that systemic social ills (and evils) do not exist, nor does it mean that we should not seek ways of confronting them.

Unfortunately, what happens is demonization (Glen Beck's approach) and Scripture twisting off the other end ("Jesus was a free-market capitalist"). None of this ideological screeching advances the kingdom of God.

If God were not pleased with capitalism and profit, He would not have chosen it for the economic system for His favored nation.

We have no social ills that could not be quickly cured with a good dose of Ayn Rand. For those of us who are not subject to those ills, there is absolutely no need to change the status quo, except to lower our taxes.

If you want the unemployed to get jobs, stop paying them unemployment.

If you to solve the problem of hunger, then stop feeding poor people so they will start to work for a living.

If you are concerned with children whose parents cannot afford health insurance, then consider that those parents perhaps should get higher paying jobs with better benefits.

Real Christians realize that we best love our neighbor when we force them to take care of themselves.

Hey, I'm a white-class guy, and I'm against the status quo... The status quo being an ever-expanding federal government that treats its citizens as pawns and tries to control more and more of our lives and other institutions on this country everyday.

I'll never understand why Wallis and others on the Christian left are so quick to trust the same powers that the book of Revelation refers to as the Beast. The same hand that gives can take away, and reliance on the government for "social justice" seems to lessen our responsibility to declare Jesus as Lord above all other entities that set themselves against Him.

Judy
"The church tithes 12% to local and foreign missions.."

12-14% is the average amount that goes out the church door for any church with a special building and even 1 hired expert. The institutional form of church requires the consumption of around 84 - 88% to make make church life happen. On this basis your church is no less self- consuming than another. There is a way for believers to do church where 100% of the giving goes beyond the giver - no pooling. It's not a popular form because wealthy Americans like outsourcing spiritual responsibilities to hired experts in perpetual dependency mode. God has bigger plans for his people then perpetual dependency on clergy. Progressives, like Wallis, have not figured this one out because they like the institutionalized system like all the rest.

@anon:

All you've given is the very opposite of what the Jerusalem church lived out, and was commended for. It's the opposite of what Paul commanded the Corinthians. If you'd rather take advice from an atheist in an open marriage (that would be Ayn Rand) than from the Word of God, then go ahead; but don't fool yourself that one is the other. BTW, my comment wasn't on "capitalism"--private ownership of the means of production, which I think is right and moral; it was on "maximum profit," which is most easily achieved by lying, stealing, and cheating. You don't need to be godly to get maximum profit.

@anon,

Not to turn this into a flame war, but all things (including capital) exist for God's glory and purpose. Capital for the sake of maximum profit is simply greed. Now you decide: Do you serve God or Mammon?

Without each business seeking to maximize profit, capitalism collapses.

This is why government regulation of business is inherently wrong, for it restricts capitalism, which God ordained as our economic system.

I don't want to move too close to cultural interpretation, but in ancient Israel you could not serve both Mammon and God for the economic systems were not fully developed.

With money, just as with slavery, our understanding of the Bible's message has grown over time. Now we see that it is indeed possible to serve both God and Mammon with our fully-evolved capitalistic system.

And from that we derive our Christian duty to oppose any governmental limitations on capitalism at both the corporate and individual levels.

Let me give you a specific example: Had there been no regulation on BP, BP would have had to take responsibility for its own actions, and we would not have had this spill.

Governmental intrusion on BP's right to maximize profit is the root cause of this disaster. And I don't think God is happy that our government has despoiled Creation by persecuting the oil companies.

Wow, sometimes I have to wonder if anon is just jerking people's chain. It's hard for me to believe a Christ follower would believe such things.

Wealth distribution: Based on a 2006 report by the Fed, from 1989 to 2004, the top 5% wealthiest families increased their percentage of the wealth by 2%. This is also born out by a shift in the difference between the mean and median incomes in those time frames. There has been a redistribution of wealth at the same time as we have seen a decrease in regulation and regulatory enforcement, but it is in an upward direction. Therefore, I assume that anon must not be in favor of deregulation since it appears to have a causal relationship with the redistribution of wealth. But this is not the case.

Saying that government regulation is inherently wrong implies that the invisible hand of the market will take on the roles for which the dynamics of power inherent in wealth make impossible. Proper regulation (and note that not all need be proper) places a check on these dynamics and allow markets to function efficiently. People make money off of inefficiencies, e.g. not knowing if a product is safe, or if they are really paying a fair price for something.

The underlying assumption is that capitalism, when it seeks the highest maximum profit of capital, is moral or at worst, amoral. However, the uninhibited pursuit of wealth that capitalism promotes and therefore depends on puts it at odds with numerous biblical injunctions against greed and the exploitation of people. Therefore, capitalism, if God is consistent in his revealed nature, can not be ordained by God since it is opposed to some fundamental demands of the God who makes himself known through Jesus as portrayed in the Bible.

Captcha: Wiesel prank

I don't know that I would outright say that seeking to maximize profit is immoral or amoral. If you are a business owner with employees, maximizing profit ensures that you will be able to keep those employees in the long run. In fact if you don't maximize profit while it is available, you may find yourself in a bad position in the future.

That isn't to say there are immoral ways of making a profit - certainly, there are immoral ways to do practically anything. But making a profit in a legal way and with integrity is good - in fact, I'd say that it can be God-honoring. Of course money can become an idol, and it has ensnared many people. Personally, I'd rather have a system that allows the occasional abuse than one that stifles growth and risk-taking.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's property" establishes capitalism and the principle of private ownership of the means of production.

When government taxes me, it covets my property. Ergo, taxation is against God's law.

And we all know that reducing taxes increases government revenues, again showing God's wisdom. If taxes were totally eliminated, our budget deficit would disappear.

To the extent we need taxes, the rates should be inverted so that lower income people pay higher rates, creating an incentive for them to get better jobs, just as we do with health care. This is the Christian approach that "teaches a man to fish"

"But making a profit in a legal way and with integrity is good - in fact, I'd say that it can be God-honoring."

EXACTLY! It is why our American health care system is the most Godly in the world.

People who whine about health insurance companies, for example, should move to Canada, where the quality of care you receive isn't based on your income or the profit you represent. It is hard to conceive of something more at odds with God's capitalism.

"Wow, sometimes I have to wonder if anon is just jerking people's chain. It's hard for me to believe a Christ follower would believe such things."

I don't think you have to wonder anymore. He (or she) is pretty much just in full troll mode now.

I don't know any white (or other) middle-class Americans who think the world is working just fine. I challenge Jim Wallis to show me a few.

Sheerahkahn, you make a very good point about Jim Wallis and James Dobson being opposite sides of the same coin.

In summary, I guess it's us against them according to the pundits in Leadership magazine. God is an afterthought. Blame must be ascribed to a general group of middle class white people for injustice in the world. Who really has the power today to oppress? Never mind the real Enemy. "Leadership" should be renamed "dribble." Real leadership does not hide in the shadows of bi-partisanship. Leadership takes a stand. Blame & guilt is all the journal has to offer...All the while bulking up the credentialist-career track ministry emphasis. Publishing credits sure do look good on a resume, regardless of the content. (Sorry, too cynical perhaps.) And the poor will always be with us. Personal responsibility is an allergy to the addicted, regardless of the substance. The issue of need from thirst was well addressed by Jesus with a Samaritan woman afraid to go to the well when everyone else was there. With the truth in hand, she went straight away to her own people. It was no-one's fault, the truth made her free.

You are jerking our chains! Unfortunately, I know people who say all the things you were advocating (except the God and Mammon one) and truly believe it. If you read Luther closely, however, you can see that he integrated feudal thinking into his theology just as closely, or more closely, than many today do with Capitalism. In essence, this thinking will be with us, regardless of the "system".