The Opposition…

God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It

Jim Wallis

Discussion: 2005-Jan-Feb-Mar

Why we're reading this: January 18, 2005
[close] January 18, 2005

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 3 topics — 3 comments total

2005-Jan-Feb-Mar

This topic has been closed to new comments.

* March 2005
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 6 views

last updated Feb 16, 2011 01:15AM

* February 2005
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 7 views

last updated Feb 15, 2011 06:36PM

What Members Thought

May 15, 2018 Letitia rated it it was ok

Shelves: 2018-to-read

My rating reflects a deep disappointment with this book. I did not realize that it was written primarily to Christians and is a Bible-based argumentation for social justice. However, it is not Wallis' fault that I was not his intended audience. It IS his fault for maintaining an academically weak argument and naive worldview in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts his deep conviction that the majority of Evangelical Christians, like him, care about social justice and bipartisan sol My rating reflects a deep disappointment with this book. I did not realize that it was written primarily to Christians and is a Bible-based argumentation for social justice. However, it is not Wallis' fault that I was not his intended audience. It IS his fault for maintaining an academically weak argument and naive worldview in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts his deep conviction that the majority of Evangelical Christians, like him, care about social justice and bipartisan solutions to economic inequality. No, they don't. Some do, for sure. But the 2016 election was irrefutable in its evidence that Christians, 80% of the white ones, will vote for anyone who doubles down on their politics of identity and promises to nominate pro-life justices. I did expect this book to be more intellectually robust, if nothing else.

That said, I cannot fault the STYLE of writing, as the ideas are clear, and the thesis is straightforward. I just don't think the thesis or subsequent arguments are backed up well at all. His strength lies in using scripture to justify his political positions, but throughout this narrative he remains convinced that the way to save America, and in fact the world, is by infusing policy with dogma. Not only does that run completely contrary to the intention of the Constitution, but it isn't a valid proposal. Christianity specifically, and religion in general, while it may have played roles in moments of progress (the Quakers advocating abolition or Black Christians propelling the Civil Rights movement), the overall history does not support an idea of religion that is progressive or that stands up for the oppressed. On the other side of the Civil Rights movement were white Christians preaching in church, and using scripture to justify their claims of supremacy, that Black people were inferior and should not be integrated into the dominant white culture.

It also rankled when he claimed liberals were fine with Black Christians because they were Black. What a tool. Liberals and most Black Christians share principles, and therefore agree on policy. His snide remark that race preference allows liberals to "get past" the religion thing illustrates the same kind of naivete of which he is accusing the Left in his very title.

In short, while I might agree with Wallis on some issues of policy and certainly concerning the war in Iraq, it is not because we share a base value system or a philosophy of government. I find his promotion of Christianity as the means of arbitrating morality ludicrous at best and damaging to democracy at worst. ...more

1 like · Like · see review