SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search
« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Thursday, November 12, 2009, 1:45 PM

From Salon: “A source close to the Faith Table, a gathering of ostensibly progressive Christians helmed by evangelical leader Jim Wallis, notes that the group has been agitating for Stupak-Pitts for months, with Wallis declaring Stupak-Pitts the most important vote of the year.” I’ve expressed a lot of skepticism of Jim Wallis’ and Sojourners commitment to pro-life issues in general and on health care reform in particular (here, here and here with a nice summary of the entire issue here).

Friends and acquaintances who are more inclined to give Brother Jim and other “progressive evangelicals” the benefit of the doubt would like to know whether this would rate him at least one cheer. Short answer: No.

While I’d be delighted to offer up a cheer or two for Wallis and Sojourners, I’m afraid I just can’t do it. For one thing, I simply can’t find any unambiguous support for Stupak-Pitts over at Sojourners from Brother Jim or anyone else. Nothing! I know where they stand on Afghanistan (unilateral military withdrawal) but on health care and abortion ambiguity (at best) seems to be the watchword. Nothing “prophetic” being offered up on that front.

However, maybe Brother Jim has been stealthily lobbying for Stupak-Pitts behind the scenes. Maybe he is, as the pro-abortion left would have it, really a stalking horse for the Catholic Bishops and the religious right. Maybe he did it without the knowledge of anyone in either Representative Stupak’s or Representative Pitts’ office. Stupak and Pitts’ staff has assured me that they know nothing of such lobbying efforts or support for the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Wallis has simply not been in the picture.

Some might think it would be uncharitable not to give Wallis, Brian McLaren, David Gushee and the rest of the progressive evangelicals the benefit of the doubt. But we’re way past the point where Wallis can continue to play this game. But lest I be accused of being uncharitable, here’s a chance for Wallis and the rest of the Sojourners crowd to clear the air. Jim (and Brian and David) do you support Stupak-Pitts or don’t you? Will you insist that the senate bill includes Stupak-Pitts language or not? Will you support health care legislation if Stupak-Pitts language is dropped from the final bill?

Absent such clear and unambiguous statement on the issue a lot of pro-life Christians might think Wallis, Sojourners and other progressive evangelicals are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on the question of health care and abortion. Time to fish or cut bait!

3 Comments

    Joe DeVet
    November 12th, 2009 | 8:05 pm

    I think it’s important to reject socialized medicine on many Christian principles. First, abortion (regardless of the amendment) will become more encouraged and supported with either federal funds or forced insurance premium payments by all of us. Second, we oldsters will be encouraged, or worse, to check out before we break the federal bank. Third, the principle of subsidiarity is so roundly violated by such a plan that we will be ensured universally bad health care.

    Jesse
    November 13th, 2009 | 12:21 am

    McLaren pretty much implicitly rejected the Stupak amendment in his column at Sojourners today, saying:

    “That faulty diagnosis seems to be shared in recent speculation that the Stupak amendment — which went beyond the abortion neutrality called for by all the Christian progressives I’m aware of — was added to the House health-care bill as part of a long-standing plan by progressive religious forces. Those speculations are undermined by the fact that the amendment was added to bring some hesitant conservative Democrats on board, but it took Christian progressives by surprise as much as anyone.”

    He is saying basically that none of the progressive Christians (including him and Wallis and the Sojo crowd, presumably) supported the Stupak amendment. Is there any other way to read it?

    McLaren Answers the Stupak Question » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog
    November 13th, 2009 | 8:01 am

    [...] after my post “Where do ProgressiveEvangelicals Stand on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment?”, I got an blast email from the folks over at Sojourners calling attention to a Sojourners article [...]

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact