This review by Elizabeth A. Castelli
on Slate has a much better grasp of what Wallis is about. Her criticism is that Wallis is too “Christian” oriented, to which I say “How else would he express this? From what underlying belief about life does Wallis even care to write such a book? From the perpective of an evangelical Christian who does not like seeing his faith distorted and compromised by nationalism, greed, and deceit.
The best summary of Castelli’s admirable grasp of Wallis’ view is summed up in this:
Wallis presents “God’s politics” as a politically nonaligned and non-ideological third way.
Where Castelli finds fault is expressed here:
God’s Politics consistently engages in rhetorical slippages that will certainly be troubling to people outside of Wallis’ Christian frame. “Religion,” “spirituality,” and “faith” are used throughout the book generically, but also synonymously with “gospel faith,” “prophetic religion,” and “Christianity.” There are occasional token references to Jews (specifically Abraham Joshua Heschel, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and Michael Lerner), Islam (whose adherents are sometimes “Moslems” and sometimes “Muslims”), and a vague confraternity of “religious seekers.”
And here I say, again, WHY NOT? This is, after all, Wallis’ framework. His audience is, in fact, a Christian audience (he couldn’t get this book published in very many “Christian” publishers, and the ones that would do not have the impact of a Harper. I also feel that there are “seekers” and “people sympathetic to an authentically compassionate activism that this book would do a good job of articulating a more accurate “Biblical Christianity”.
Casteli continues to complain about Wallis “tendency” to couch social justice and activism in terms of Christian language:
Wallis states again and again his overarching perspective: “The real question is not whether religious faith should influence a society and its politics, but how.” Religious faith is no generic category here; it means biblical religion.
Well, yeah. He does. And yeah, it DOES mean Biblical religion. And the left or even non-Christians have nothing to fear from “Biblical religion” as Wallis articulates it (and LIVES it, a nd expresses it politically). Castelli seems to be slipping into that trap of associating “Biblical” with the smug, arrogant, narrow, authoritarian fundamentalism that so many loud voices in the Chrsitian Right have expressed. But this one of Wallis’s major purposes for the book; to provide a sound apologetic for “Biblical Faith”, and he does not attack the argument about other faiths, and how they relate to this “Christian stream of consciousness” concerning social justice. I happen to believe there are many common threads of similar nature across all religions which make a case for integration into life, and dialogue with the culture.
But what is more troubling is the degree to which Wallis frames “religion” as the sole source of a legitimate political vision for social change in the United States. Throughout the book, he argues that “vision” only emerges from religious conviction and that everything else is either cynicism or complaint. One result of this framing is that he cannot describe the current regime’s program as being grounded in a “vision,” though clearly the neocons who are running the show possess quite a thoroughgoing one. (It may be a revolutionary, even fascist vision—but it is a vision.)
I think it is rather obvious that when Wallis talks about “vision” , he speaks of authentic vision, and that he acknowledges that God is sdource of vision. Castelli suggests a linguistic distinction, and says the neocon vision may be extreme, but it is till a vision. One might as well say that is it is also a “philosophy” and a “religion”, too (which I believe it is as well.) But it is common theological practice to speak of “Biblical” with no qualifiers, assuming that the defense one is putting forward is THE Biblical approach. This is not an exercise in philosophy ONLY, but a theological case that Wallis is making, and he is employing theological language to defend it. Apparently, Wallis misses with some of the more secular readers. But I say to them, you have nothing to fear from Wallis. He wants to point the way to a better way, and I believe it IS Biblical and it IS a Biblical vision that is faithful to the intent of the creator.
One other cautionary question raised by Wallis’ book: Where are the women? All the religious leaders named in the book are men.
Castelli here asks something which Wallis desn’t really address in this book. Wallis is one of the best friends the women’s movement has in organized Christianity, so this criticism is completely unnneccesary.
It seems that Katha Pollitt (whose review I punced upon in the previous post) surely read this review, for she raises almost the identical points, albeit much more viciously. Castelli sin’t vicious at all. A much better review, given that she recognizes the value in authentic, faith-based calls for peace and justice.