 |
| |
| |
|
God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It
|
|
|
Average Rating:  out of 220 Reviews
|
Price: $14.95
|
|
Sale: $7.00
|
| |
|
Manufacturer: HarperOne
|
|
EAN (European Article Number): 9780060834470
|
|
Number of Items: 1
|
| |
|
|
|
Binding: Paperback
|
|
Author: Jim Wallis
|
|
Publisher: HarperOne
|
|
Dewey Decimal Number: 261.70973
|
|
Publication Date: 2006-09-01
|
|
Reading Level: 432
|
|
|
| |
|
Description: Secular liberals and religious conservatives will find things to both comfort and alarm them in Jim Wallis's God's Politics. That combination is actually reason enough to recommend the book in a time when the national political and theological discourse is dominated by blanket descriptions and shortsightedness. But Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine, offers more than just a book that's hard to categorize. What Wallis sees as the true mission of Christianity--righting social ills, working for peace--is in tune with the values of liberals who so often run screaming from the idea of religion. Meanwhile, in his estimation, religious vocabulary is co-opted by conservatives who use it to polarize. Wallis proposes a new sort of politics, the name of which serves as the title of the book, wherein these disparities are reconciled and progressive causes are paired with spiritual guidance for the betterment of society. Wallis is at his most compelling when he puts this theory into action himself, letting his own beliefs guide him through stinging criticisms of the war in Iraq. In his view, George W. Bush's flaw lies in the assumption that the United States was an unprecedented force of goodness in a fight against enemies characterized as "evil." Indeed, although both the right and left are criticized here, the idea is that the liberals, if they would get religion, are the more redeemable lot. Wallis's line between religion and public policy may be drawn a little differently than most liberals might feel comfortable with, and while he pays some lip service to other faiths most of his prescription for America seems to come from the Bible. Still, for a party having just lost a presidential election where "moral issues" are said to have factored heavily, God's Politics is a sermon worth listening to. --John Moe
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Customer Reviews
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Review Summary: A Missed Opportunity |
Date: 2008-02-21 |
|
| |
Details: I should have liked this book. I am what might be called a hesitantly blue evangelical (I'm not a very good democrat but was a worse republican) and mostly agree with him point by point. So when Wallis talked in his introduction about what I would call a 4th quadrant option (my terminology) that is not liberal, conservative or libertarian but passionate about life, justice and peace, I was pretty hopeful. But I did not enjoy this book and upon reflection came up with 3 reasons that, while the target audience, the book missed its mark with me:
1. It is really dry. Maybe it is because I had my MP3 player switching between chapters of Klosterman, Gladwell and Wallis, so the latter withered in comparison, but this book could have easily been a pamphlet. There are not many anecdotes (aside from occasional name dropping) or historical allusions to make the text move. Just repetitive exposition on a range of positions. `Budgets are moral documents' is a true and borderline insightful statement the first or even the second time for emphasis, but not the fifth.
2. It is not that insightful. Here is my problem. I could have written this book. There is little analysis, be it economic or exegetical, just repeated sweeping claims. Wallis does not reside enough in either the world of complex economic/political theory or in the world of the Biblical text to bring either insightfully to bear on the complex issue of a Christian's role in a democratic super power. Dubious economic and political theories were stated boldly without empirical support and the scriptures were used for selective proof texting (despite his decrial of the practice).
3. It is not what it claims to be. In his introduction Wallis bemoans the fact that since he isn't in the religious right he is automatically dubbed the religious left because the media lacks other categories. I agree that most lack the necessary categories to describe the needed fourth quadrant position that he describes. I just don't think that he holds it. I think Wallis is firmly in the religious left. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but please don't patronize us with the illusion or claim of a new way so desperately needed. You simply can not write a book that hopes to unite people of faith in a tent big enough for evangelicals by devoting just a couple pages to abortion and concluding that Clinton had it right all along (while, in fairness, suggesting `the left is far more dogmatic on this issue than the right'). Now abortion is a complex issue loaded with conflicting goods and evils that gets to the core of very important issues like personhood, personal autonomy, gender interests, economic justice, protection of innocents and many others. I get that it is not easy and probably should not be the centerpiece of a religious political theory. But that is why it deserved an entire chapter. The quest to restore a love of peace, justice and the poor in red evangelicals is road blocked by the religious left's indifference on this issue. Whether that makes sense to Wallis and those like him or not, it is the reality. If you are not going to talk about the things that make conservatives conservative than you are just preaching to the proverbial choir, congratulating yourself on your righteous stances and selling books.
So I guess I was mostly disappointed that this text was a missed opportunity on a very important thesis. I love Wallis' idea that the Church should refuse to be co-opted by any political artifice and should speak prophetically to all parties. I just don't think he represents this idea.
Post Script: Several of my conservative friends have accused me of leaning left because of a simple desire to be liked. Holding liberal positions is a low cost way to acceptance by a large number of people and avoiding the scorn generally heaped upon those who genuinely believe that the hope for the poor is in markets, industries and innovations. This critique has given me pause more than once and after watching Wallis' interviews with Jon Stewart (who I really enjoy), I fear might benefit him as well. A prophet does not try that hard to be liked.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Waste of Time |
Date: 2008-01-21 |
|
| |
Details: While mildly thought provoking, this book is a waste of time. You could get a better idea of what this guy was trying to convey by reading the beatitudes from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
Instead of outlining what the auther thinks God's politics would be, he constantly harps on the errors of the two major polictal parties. The auther does not offer any viable solutions.
I cannot recommend this book to anyone.
To get a better idea of God's politics, open your Bible and put God's words to action. |
| |
|
Review Summary: God's politics-----a man's bias |
Date: 2008-01-12 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: This is the most one-sided, leftist reflection of current events masquerading as religions thought I have ever read in my life. There is some real helpful insight in these pages. But, it is so obscured by partisan rhetoric, that even a thoughtful individual would have great difficulty reading it. My Sunday School class has been struggling to discuss the chapters. Even the liberals are turned-off by the slant. His use of scripture is generally good, but the bias gets in the way of almost every point. |
| |
|
Review Summary: A message of hope for those used by both parties |
Date: 2007-11-19 |
|
| |
Details: "God's Politics" is one of those rare political works that seeks not to divide (by highlighting the faults of the other guy) but to heal and unite. Jim Wallis does this not by attempting to split the difference between the positions of the Democrats and Republicans, but by measuring the planks of both against the prophetic witness of the Hebrew prophets and of Jesus Christ.
Wallis covers quite a number of politicized topics -- war, capitol punishment, abortion, gay rights and family values. Over and above these, however, is the great granddaddy of them all -- compassion to the poor. Wallis tells of an incident in his early seminary days in which a classmate literally snipped out of the Old and New Testaments all the passages that could be construed as advocating compassion for the poor and the disadvantaged. The Bible that remained was a tattered and decrepit thing. Wallis's message is that any party that declares war on the poor cannot also call itself a friend of God.
Wallis champions an approach that has been called a "consistent ethic of life," or (by Catholics) the "seamless garment." One cannot be claim rightness with God when one supports death for some. Interestingly, the Reps and Dems have split the voting public, with Dems supporting some life issues and Reps others. Wallis would call both sides to prophetic account.
Wallis also seeks to find middle ground between the parties, seeking the common human experience that lies behind the platform speeches. Liberals may be offended by conservative denial of rights to gays and marginalizing of non-nuclear households, but most could agree that strengthening families is an important goal that benefits children. The two sides may argue over the existence of gay marriage, but the common ground of civil rights for all couples (the right, for instance, to visit one's partner in the hospital) should be seen as a compassion issue that all could agree on.
Political party workers should listen carefully to Wallis, for he provides examples of where the votes lay, and where the parties turn off their voters. Strong proponents of choice on abortion could learn how their stance creates an insuperable barrier to many pro-life voters -- who are not unreachable and not crazy. And pro-family proponents who advocate only for traditional family structures (like their own) could hear how their exclusivity turns off many who otherwise agree with them.
At the bottom of "God's Politics" however is a message of hope. Religious people, of every denomination and faith, have the opportunity to work together on the many issues that they do agree on. In a sense, the desire of political parties to attract voters by dividing the electorate on wedge issues is a great, unnecessary and harmful feature of our current American political landscape. Wallis shines a light on this divisiveness, and offers a way out of the dark room of political infighting and out into the sunshine, where believers of the right and the left can find common ground, common purpose and common vision to alleviate poverty and hatred, and to bring more peace and justice into a dangerous world. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Sometimes right, but mostly Left |
Date: 2007-10-13 |
|
|
| |
Details: If you are interested in finding a book centered in core Christian belief and balanced politically between the Right and the Left, keep looking. Mr. Wallis claims to be that reasonable voice, but his left-leaning ideology, penchant for political activism and pride in his own accomplishments leaves him short of his stated goals.
It is true that God is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, God is personal but never private, alternative ideas are better than mere protests, and the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution provides for freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. Yes, there is a big difference between fundamentalism and theocracy. And, of course, terrorism is primarily about political empire-building, not religion -- religion is its recruiting tool.
But, surrounding these nuggets of truth is misguided, naïve and flat-out wrong ranting presented without basis in fact or footnote. Does Mr. Wallis really believe the U.N. was effective in its dealings with Iraq? Which national media was he tuned to that was "for this war"? Can anyone seriously think we can be safe from terrorism by first addressing global poverty? Or, should we look to ourselves and our policies to see how we have contributed to the grievances and injustice that breed terrorism rather than seeking to protect ourselves? This kind of thinking is akin to saying we cannot protect women from rapists until we first eliminate misogyny and stop women from dressing so provocatively in the first place.
Compounding my disappointment in a book whose hype promised so much was the author's repetitive, verbose and self-congratulatory style. Did he really need to tell me what the book was about nine different ways in the first 36 pages? Was it necessary to reprint all his letters to Presidents, Prime Ministers and national newspapers after he already repeated their content in his text? Why write nearly 200 pages to say you're opposed to the war in Iraq when 20 would suffice?
We should continue to expand the debate over religion and politics, but let's give Mr. Wallis a page-limit.
|
| |
|
| |
Similar Products
|
|
|
| |
This Product is similar to and may be found in the Following Categories:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
