Jesus Politics points to a Robert Parham piece on a “Separation-Fundamentalist”, Bary Lynn, lumping Jim Wallis with James Dobson, as if both constitute an equal threat to the public discourse. I think not.

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

Lynn said, “Elected officials should make decisions based on the public good, not private religious belief.”

After a slight tip of his hat to the role of religious debate in the public square, Lynn said, “Our nation’s laws must be rooted in constitutional values and reasoned analysis, not someone’s personal take on Scripture.”

While both Dobson, a religious-right leader, and Wallis, a religious-left leader, do take their faith into the public square, that’s where their similarities end. In fact, they differ at two distinct points.

First, Wallis reads a big Bible that speaks to him about both personal morality and social issues. Dobson has a small Bible that serves as a proof-text to speak mostly against gays and abortion.

Second, Wallis gives a Christian witness in the public square to values and directions that shape public policy. Dobson seeks control of the Republican Party in order to run the state and implement his theocratic goals. The former wants to influence; the latter wants to control.

Lumping Wallis and Dobson together is misleading.

The Republican “morality police” hold forth a personal preference Bible, that makes very little , if ANY demands on the authors. Wallis holds forth a prophetic Bible which lets noone off the hook. It is equally confrontive to people in power of either major party, or any other party.

Parham sums up nicely:

Thoughtful Christians know that a straight line does not exist between the Bible and public policy. The Bible offers no blueprint for economic, domestic and foreign policy.

Biblical values can shape public policy, however. Justice, human rights, kindness, honesty and fairness are a few of the many values found in the big Bible that find expression in constitutional values and public policy.

Lynn regrettably reflects a more secular left perspective than a religious one.

Baptist heritage first advanced the idea of the separation of church and state without placing faith in the ghetto of private concerns. The best of the Baptist tradition maintains a wall of separation and yet gives witness to biblical values in the public square.

The fundamnetalist stance is almost all “straight line”; the Bible for them is one that contains items that we rail against, rather than a set of concerns about the treatment of ALL PERSONS, particularly those who have been trampled over by the system. And there IS a SYSTEM. It has been upheld and protected with the sword all throughout history, with no exceptions in our good ol’ US of A. Democrats, in fact, once held the dubiuous distinction of being the party of the ruling elites, while the Republicans were perceived as a civil rights party. It all depends upon who the supporters are, and where the party thinks their distinguishing and popular voting points lie. The major, driving feature of BOth parties, however, has been how to set up a “buffer” between the interests of the elites and the the lower classes, and so the enlistment of Education, Media, and Religion sees the battle lines drawn.

Much of this I’ve been seeing and of which I am becoming ever more convinced: that the Church truly does have a radical call to incarnate, and it involves “confronting the powers” and speaking the truth to power. This was the prime self-perception of the Church at the beginning, and along the line, like with the adoption of Christianity as the “official religion” of the Roman Empire, the battle lines between “subservient” Church and the , well, NON-swubservient; the “independent”; dare I say “progressive”?