An Evangelical Who Doesn’t Like Sarah Palin ~ Jim Wallace

[mzmolly]

I was doing a workout anyway, so I decided to watch Sarah Palin’s farewell address while pumping away on the elliptical machine. The first thing I heard was CNN’s senior political correspondent Candy Crowley say that “evangelicals” just love Sarah Palin, even though most other groups (even her own Republicans) have steadily soured on the now-former Governor of Alaska. Crowley is a good political analyst who normally has intelligent things to say; but I am tired of the stereotype.

There are a lot of evangelicals, like me (and especially younger evangelicals), who are just embarrassed by Sarah Palin.

The speech was vintage Palin—absolutely awful. After some frenzied patriotism, that the United States was the BESTGREATESTEVER country in the history of the world, and that those who have any questions about any of that are just, you know, the absolutely wrong kind of people, she went on to an endless extolling of OUR MILITARY. Now, I feel a lot of pain and respect for the kids who have been put in harm’s way by the stupid decisions of the last administration, and are still there trying to fight their way out of their leader’s mistakes, but again, blind allegiance to the military and all their wars has not been one of our best national characteristics.

...

And finally, she got into some theology, which I guess is what Candy Crowley thinks warms evangelical hearts. She spoke of “God’s grace helping those who help themselves.” And once again, the vice-presidential candidate who continually startled Americans with an amazing lack of intellectual grasp on so many issues showed that she is also biblically illiterate. God’s “grace” is for “those who help themselves?” I wonder where Sarah thinks that text is found in the Bible. Actually, Sarah, the special love of God seems to be for those who have the hardest time helping themselves—hence they need some help from those of us who can help ourselves. In Sarah’s version of Mathew 25 it must say, “As you have done to those who can best help themselves, you have done to me.”

More at > http://blog.sojo.net/2009/07/27/an-evangelical-who-doesn%E2%80%99t-like-sarah-palin/">BLOG.SOJO.NET

[CNHander]

1. Educated theology does not mix with politics well

Yeah, not everyone is in love with Palin, thankfully. Truthfully, though, I wouldn't expect ANY politician to be able to discuss anything related to theology well, so Palin's failure is nothing notable. The problem is that "political evangelical" usually means that one is good at pandering to the uneducated religious, of which there are many, rather than to the educated religious, of which there are relatively few.

[mzmolly]

3. Welcome.

:hi:

[BolivarianHero]

2. Not all evangelicals are White conservatives...

Some, such as MLK, are Black liberals.

The NDP/CCF here in Canada has had three prominent leaders who were left-leaning White evangelicals, namely J.S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas, and Alexa McDonnough (Layton's predecessor).

Switzerland's Evangelical People's Party is a social democratic and Protestant party.

[bobbolink]

18. Jim Wallis is white. Most especially his hair.

His eyebrows, however, are dark.

:hi:

[gratuitous]

4. I don't always agree with Jim Wallis

But he usually succeeds in making me think. And his response to Mrs. Palin's idiotic platitude about God's grace being reserved for those who help themselves is golden. Does Mrs. Palin think that crooked stockbrokers acting on inside information, stockbrokers who are indeed "helping themselves," are at the head of the line for God's grace?

I saw some excerpts of Mrs. Palin's vale on The Today Show. I have no idea what she was talking about, but the reporters and anchors were furiously spinning, trying to wrestle some sense out of her words. They were failing, of course, but the effort was near heroic.

[laconicsax]

5. Doesn't Matthew 25:29 say something very much like that?

"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."

I'm sure the context (something about usury) is important, but when taken out of context, it sure screams Republican values.

[mrs_p]

7. that a major problem i have with repubs

they believe "god's grace" translates into their personal wealth

[mzmolly]

8. Here's a translation of sorts:

http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/1391

"Q: In Matthew 25:29, Jesus says that from him who does not have, even what he has shall be taken away. How unjust!

A: Its not unjust; its a parable-riddle. The quantities under discussion are abilities and opportunities for the service of God. In Judgment, when an individual is judged who had performed no service despite having been given ability and opportunity, this is an indictment of the nature of his faith. The result is that the things which he thought he had will turn out to be illusions. The abilities and opportunities which he once possessed (but which he did not use) will be taken from him.

The SAB-objection erroneously makes it appear as if Jesus statement is some sort of policy against helping the needy. But that is not what it means at all."

;)

[laconicsax]

9. Like I said, context matters.

[mzmolly]

11. Yes

indeedy.

[bobbolink]

19. "As you do unto the least of these, so you do unto me."

[TlalocW]

6. There are so many Biblical verses that republicans

Either purposely misinterpret or misinterpret because they're not smart enough to see it's an allegory or a parable.

God helps those that helps themselves is of course not in the Bible, but it sure sounds like Capitalist Jesus would have said it.

I read somewhere where W's favorite parable of Jesus was the one of the 3 Stewards because he read it as a command to build up wealth instead of a warning against wasting one's resources and talents.

And the parable of the laborers is used to justify how the rich should be able to pay whatever they want for work done instead of how it doesn't matter when in a person's life someone accepts Christ, as their reward will be the same as the people who accepted before and after he did.

TlalocW

[burning rain]

10. Wallace is a good guy.

Somewhat tedious on issues of sexual morality (especially young people's), but always mindful of the centrality to the Bible of solidarity with the poor and just treatment of workers, something that conservoChristians ignore in their weird and corrupt theology.

[mzmolly]

12. He's pro-choice

from what I understand as well?

Given religion has such influence in our society, I am glad to have a "Christian" voice that opposes the lunacy of the RW fanatics.

[burning rain]

13. That, I'm not sure of.

I've read a good bit of Wallis and he shows deep misgivings about abortion, but no enthusiasm to ban it. He very definitely wants to reduce it via pregnancy prevention, support of pregnant women, and aid to needy families. He hedges, from what I've seen. At any rate it seems a perfectly decent agenda to me, though I'm wary of his moralizing about teens having sex possibly abetting the failed abstinence only, or almost only, agenda. For my part, I'm strongly pro-choice and an atheist, so I'm going to be doubly wary there. But obviously, I'm living in an overwhelmingly religious country and it pays to be realistic.

[mzmolly]

17. He appears to be pro "safe/legal/rare"

which I consider ultimately pro-choice. I've also read assertions that lead me to believe he's in favor of sex ed, especially as it relates to a reduction in abortion? Though admittedly, I've not studied his stance in great depth.

:hi:

[Ocracoker16]

14. No, he is not pro-choice

He has moral objections to abortion, but he approaches the issue differently when he is out in the world working with others. He focuses on abortion reduction, but unlike many others in that movement he doesn't restrict his efforts to promoting abstinence education and decreasing access to abortion. He is very concerned about economic issues that make it impossible for women to afford to raise a child.

[mzmolly]

16. What I have read is that he supports

a reduction in the abortion rate and he maintains that abortion should remain a legal procedure.

[Ocracoker16]

20. Yes he does. However, he refuses to take either label.

He explains this well in his most recent book "The Great Awakening". He feels that those labels are polarizing and are a part of a political litmus test. He seeks to reconcile both sides to each other by asserting that abortion reduction is something both sides can get behind. It is a sort of common ground that they can share. Some people cringe when they hear abortion reduction, because they think it is a nice way of putting the term pro-life. Jim supports abortion being legal, because he doesn't want to put women's health at harm by forcing women to get illegal abortions from people that don't know how to do it correctly.

[mzmolly]

21. Thanks so much for the additional

information. :hi:

[undeterred]

15. Sarah Palin is no evangelical.