On Rev. Jim Wallis

The LA Times had a nice piece on Rev. Jim Wallis, an Evangelical minister who seems to blend conservative values with progressive policy.

Stout and silver-haired, Wallis is a longtime social activist, author and executive director of Sojourners, a Washington-based Christian ministry best known for its monthly magazine on faith, politics and culture. He confounds stereotypes of evangelical Christians by arguing for conservative social morality but a dovish foreign policy and an economic agenda focused on helping the poor.

He's just published a new book, and has started offering advice to both Democratic and Republican senators. Some religious people, frustrated by the "religious right," find him appealing:

Martin Yuson, a 35-year-old Pasadena political independent and physical therapist, explained Wallis' appeal. "A lot of evangelicals and Catholic Christians are tired of the right-left dichotomy," Yuson said. "I myself can't seem to fit in either side. I'm anti-war but pro-life. Jim Wallis bridges that divide."

Doesn't the idea of the "bridge" still conjure up the "right-left dichotomy," if only to make the "bridge" possible?

Even though Wallis has attracted quite a following, I wonder how much this talk of "bridges," "left," and "right" just ends up drawing more attention to the political arena--at the expense of deemphasizing the religion in religious arguing. Now, it's not so much that I question the inclusion of religion in debate, I don't. Instead, I am unsettled by the close connections that Wallis seems to be developing with politicians and the political system. Granted, it could have been just the way the article was framed, but it seems that Wallis is becoming quite a mover, shaker, and a symbol-of-sorts for a new type of public religious leader. Such talk makes me wonder what it means to be "in the world" but "not of it." Jesus, after all, never went to Rome, and if he did, I doubt that he would have been welcomed in the Senate.

Skepticism aside, Wallis does offer some examples of how the left and the right could come together on public policy issues.

Wallis said he aims to reach all sides and promote practical solutions. On abortion, for instance, he argues that adoption reform or more financial and emotional safety nets for pregnant women could reduce abortions more significantly than arguing about the legal right to them. He supports restrictions on abortion — among them parental notification for most minors — but opposes criminalizing the procedure, in part for fear that it would force women into risky back-alley abortions.

Looking at this position, I wonder how likely Wallis will be able to attract the conservatives who might agree that it is vital to help pregnant women by providing financial safety nets but who still find it difficult to accept the idea that the government would permit or restrict abortions. Aren't there significant, symbolic, and principled reasons to allow or prohibit abortion? Doesn't this dedication to the pragmatic side of policy-making create something of a moral hole in the debate? Isn't it just a bit too nuanced for a prophetic voice? And, in trying to walk this delicate line between the left and the right, could it work? Some say no:

"I don't think it will succeed," argued Aaron Collins, 25, a youth pastor and graduate student at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena. "It will alienate both sides. The right won't want to raise taxes and the left won't outlaw abortion."

And in the process, will religion be muddled and muddied?