I have had some debate with one of the PCBN members (or a couple of them) , Chris Tessone and Van, about their critiques of Wallis’ “God’s Politics” and the statements they have been questioning. They are critical of Wallis’ approach.

For example:
Chris , in Progressive Protestant � Pollitt on Wallis:

So I don’t get the sense that Pollitt is against progressive Christians leading conservative ones out of the wilderness on some of these issues—she’s just saying that Christians have a responsibility to their non-Christian fellow citizens and to America to be more pluralistic in their political discourse.

Politics really is becoming a subfield of theology as a result of the Right’s co-opting of religious rhetoric, and I don’t see Wallis fighting that. He’s fighting the content, not the methodology.”

My question abot that is: Isn’t the content of their claims (the Religious Right) a rather ripe topic, deserving of some “clarification” by those whose faith is NOT reflected in a pro-war, pro-rich, pro-corporation (without realizing it), pro-bigtotry and intolerance platform?

Neither do I see an inherent problem in Politics “becoming a subfield of theology as a result of the Right’s co-opting of religious rhetoric”. Hauerwas would say that one’s theology IS their politics. I cannot pull them apart. I support certain political policies BECAUSE of my faith. Wallis says: “Faith is personal, but never private.” Politics is where the efforts of human insititution attempt to shape a community at some level. Christians who have a sense for the kind of justice issues the Bible talks about will have interests in garnering support that will result in funded, cooperative efforts to alleviate somethng which oppresses.

“she[Pollitt] is just saying that Christians have a responsibility to their non-Christian fellow citizens and to America to be more pluralistic in their political discourse.”

Actually, I find myself asking myself “Why isn’t Wallis more “Christ-centric” in his language when he speaks?” It is precisely BECAUSE of his audience, which is more national and “non-religious” now than it ever has been, that he is doing PRECISELY that. He is speaking a language that many Progressives can identify with (apparently not ALL).

In fact, I know for a fact that there is a group of extremely influential people revered by the liberal secular and academic circles that have become extremely active engaged by Wallis’ conversations. I know becuase I worked with an organization on a contract basis to set up some blogging tools for these folks to talke with one another.

I also know that Wallis had an apparently deep effect on Jon Stewart of The Daily Show (Stewart read the entire book), and is in constant contact with Wallis since Wallis appeared on The Daily Show in February of this year.

I know that Jeffrey Stout has a book that has been getting discussed a lot lately (Democracy and Tradition) that I want to check out. He (Stout) and Hauerwas critique each other in several articles and books, and so, with my interest in Hauerwas’ work lately, this will become a “must read next” or “must read soon”.

This is really a long, multi-faceted debate. It’s not that I don’t see the concerns of these Progressive Christians who are concerned about the “theoplogical tint” and “tilt” of the public conversation. But I say “go with it”. More “would-be Christians” need to see a Christianity that cares about justice and peace and the common good, instead of the narrow, two-issued force that many Churches are hammering these days. And of the ones who ARE progressive, but afraid to “speak up”, these do the “seekers” no good because they will never know that there are those in the Churches who are deeply concerned about the Bush administration’s covert hijacking of the political process and shifting of all power to the ones at the top.

There needs to be a house cleaning in the American Church. There needs to be a “cleansing of the temple”, Jesus style (now what that would mean is another debate)