Social Justice, Vineyard Columbus and "gay rights"

The Vineyard Church of Columbus, a the 7000 member mega-church pastored by Rich Nathan hosted a 3 day “Justice Revival” back in April. On the 2nd night attendees were scolded by Shane Claiborne because he said the church was perceived as being "anti-gay". Mr Claiborne ended in a high spirited proclamation that the Vineyard was going to show that they weren't “anti-gay, judgmental and hypocritical”. Mr Claiborne is one of several "friends” who writes blogs for Jim Wallis “God's Politics” blog (as does Rich Nathan). It should be noted that Jim Wallis, the featured speaker at the “Justice Revival” openly promotes homosexual rights as a “Social Justice” issue. Considering that only homosexuals were mentioned in Mr Claiborne's generous proclamation (and not generically extended to all the lost and fallen) serious Christians rightly question if Mr Claiborne was merely advancing a shared goal from the Vineyard Columbus pulpit.

During the”Justice Revival” Mr Wallis, who founded Sojourners repeatedly referred to evangelist Charles Finney who signed people up at his revivals to end slavery. About 3 weeks after the Justice Revival, Sojourners sent a “survey” to revival attendees which included an invitation for volunteers to work on a bounty of liberal political issues including “GLBTQ rights” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer "rights"). Will Vineyard members be helping homosexuals fight for same-sex-marriage and adoption "rights" during this election year cycle?

Several comments by Rich Nathan have made it into several openly gay news and blog sites including an Associated Press story is also being quoted in gay news sites. 365gay.com had an article “Evangelical Group Seeks To Move Away From Anti-Gay Focus”:

An evangelical group that wants to reshape the movement's political reputation for being focused on opposing abortion and same-sex marriage is hoping that a series of meetings stressing its roots in women's suffrage and abolition will help it break out of the mold.

"Lots of people feel that the evangelical label has been taken captive by a very narrow political program," said the Rev. Rich Nathan, senior pastor at The Vineyard Church of Columbus, which is hosting the revival. "Folks don't feel that that represents them. Many of the so-called evangelical leaders are saying, we didn't elect these people, they don't represent us. How did they become our spokespeople? How did this narrow agenda become our agenda?"

The Bible is very clear about what is sin and what is not. Rich Nathan may argue that he does not support gay rights or marriage but when he says such things and allows such things to happen in his church at a so called “Justice Revival” mature Christians may rightly raise questions.

Rich Nathan's hand is on the tiller of the Columbus Vineyard and he is responsible not only for what his guest speakers say but also where his guest speakers lead the sheep under his charge.

The Desperate Need To Learn Wisdom

In his May congregational email entitled “The Desperate Need To Learn Civility As A Church And As A Culture” Rich Nathan, a gifted public speaker, expressed dismay and scolded the uncivil language a number of people used when expressing how upset they were about the Justice Revival. But just last month Mr Nathan threw civility under the bus taking potshots at creationists and global warming skeptics from the pulpit. Nathan performed impersonations of creationists and global warming skeptics as 2 dimensional, Archie Bunker stereotypes at a service for teenagers and 20 somethings. Using creationists and global warming skeptics as object lessons of people who “were not the brightest or sharpest knife in the drawer” Nathan went so far as to imply that they were waging a “culture war against science”. The teenagers roared with laughter at Nathan's uncivil remarks but those of us with gray hair know that you have to watch what you say to the young-uns as they are not known for their discernment and will learn to mimic his contempt and unchrist like treatment of others (especially creationists).

As Paul's letters to Timothy point out; church leaders need to be held accountable to a high standard of conduct but when that involves a popular speaker like Nathan, bringing accountability becomes not only more difficult but also more important. Hero worship of a charismatic leader can lead to a feeling of invincibility in a pastor and the feeling that the pastor can say or do no wrong in the congregation. When combined with a Jesus as pacifist mentality in the congregation, holding a pastor accountable becomes even harder.

I hope that the parents of all those teenagers are merely unaware of Mr Nathan's bad behavior and not condoning it by their silence.

Peeling back the veil of Social Justice

Rich Nathan and Jim Wallis hosted a so called “Social Justice” revival back in April of 08 and Nathan continues to advocate "Social Justice" from the pulpit. Not being a biblical term, "Social Justice" is little more than a fuzzy buzz word to most people. If you asked 10 people what “Social Justice” was you would likely get 11 different answers (yes, I meant to say 11). What exactly is Social Justice?

Ever heard of Barack Obama's friend and political fund raiser (**) William (Bill) Ayers? Bill Ayers is a leading Social Justice advocate. He has written books on Social Justice including “Teaching for Social Justice” and as a tenured professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago is teaching “social justice” to your children's future teachers. Here us a link to one of his many “Social Justice” books:

William [ Bill ] Ayers - Teaching for Social Justice: A Democracy and Education Reader

Did you hear the joke... what do Barack Obama and Osama Bin Laden have in common??? They both have friends who bombed the nation's capitol. A few may recall that Bill Ayers is a 70's era domestic terrorist from a group called the "weathermen". The weathermen bombed about 2 dozen buildings across America (police stations, the Capitol and the Pentagon) to aid the Vietnamese communists during the Vietnam war. Bill Ayers published his book "Fugitive Days" on 9/11, 2001 and on this dark day in American history, as America was reeling from it's deadliest terrorist attack on American soil was quoted as saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough". Mr. Ayers, published a memoir celebrating his exploits, and once described himself as ''guilty as hell, free as a bird.''

You don't have to dig too deep to discover that Social Justice is just the modern buzz word for Marxism (which Ayers advocates). Here are a few quotes from Bill Ayers:

“We need to look beyond our isolated situations, to define our problems globally. We cannot be child advocates . . . in Chicago or New York and ignore the web that links us with the children of India or Palestine.”

“In a truly just society there would be a greater sharing of the burden, a fairer distribution of material and human resources.”

For another course, titled “Improving Learning Environments,” Ayers proposes that teachers “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.”

Here are 2 articles revealing some of the very disturbing things Ayers and friends are teaching our children's teachers about “Social Justice” such as "Math for Social Justice".

The Ed Schools’ Latest—and Worst—Humbug by Sol Stern

Obama's Little Red Schoolhouse

One of Ayers' descriptions for a course called "Improving Learning Environments" says a prospective K-12 teacher needs to "be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, teaching for social justice and liberation."

Rich Nathan may object saying that he is not advocating bombings (and he is not) but the very real and dangerous point, is the meaning of this very fuzzy, un-biblical term "Social Justice". As Bill Ayers is writing the leading educational text books on Social Justice. And he is teaching the teachers who will be in our classrooms and on our school boards, about Social Justice, I would say that Ayers has the last say on what "Social Justice" will or will not mean to the millions of school children who will be indoctrinated into what this unrepentant domestic terrorist has to say.

** Ayers and Obama served on the woods board together and Ayers hosted fund raiser parties for Obama at his house.

creationists and Global Warming skeptics mocked from the pulpit

--> --> -->

On 7/27/08 Rich Nathan, senior pastor of the Vineyard church of Columbus, crossed a line of ethical behavior while speaking to the Joshua house congregation (a service for hundreds of teenagers and 20 somethings). Mr Nathan, as a negative object lesson was implying that creationists and skeptics of global warming were ignorant Archie Bunker stereo types who were waging a culture war against the “reigning paradigm of science”.

Mr. Nathan suggests (quite wrongly) that we should just accept whatever dogma the "scientific"community currently happens to be peddling at the time without close scrutiny or debate. If Rich Nathan examined history a little more carefully he would be reminded of the "reigning scientific paradigm" in the days of Charles Darwin, which was that blacks and women were inferior. Please consider these quotes by evolutionists Charles Darwin and his bulldog Thomas Huxley and consider the consequences of just "accepting" the "reigning scientific paradigm" without debate.

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, "Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316")

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than the woman. Whether deep thought, reason, or imagination or merely the use of the senses and hands.....We may also infer.....The average mental power in man must be above that of woman."
(Charles Darwin, "The descent of Man, pg. 566")

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Thomas Huxley, Darwin's bulldog, 1871, Lay Sermons, addresses and reviews)

I am sure that Mr Nathan would not advocate Darwin's racist views but that is not the point. Would Jesus want you to just accept a "reigning scientific paradigm" without close scrutiny? Some scientific paradigms should be debated and as is is common knowledge that evolution is taught exclusively in the public schools Mr Nathan should realize that hearing two sides of a formerly one sided debate is balance, not a culture war.

-->

Regarding global warming, it is public knowledge that thousands of scientists reject 'global warming'. Sex may sell cloths and movies but in the grant driven scientific community, those who generate the most fear get the most funding.  Before the United States spends well in excess of a trillion dollars to stop the sky from falling, let us make sure we are not merely buying the emperor a new set of clothes by questioning reigning scientific paradigms considered too sacrosanct to be questioned.

-->

******************** E N D O F P O S T ****************

Text excerpts from a sermon Rich preached on July 27, 2008, at Joshua House, the occasion being Eric Pickerel’s last Sunday. The title of the sermon was: C.A.L.L.E.D. to be a Leader. This excerpt was from the outline - #4 “A leader is a life long learner.”

I have met 25 year olds who have become really old in their thinking. They’ve, at 25, become inflexible and intolerant of other ideas, and the cement is poured around their feet, and some kind of weird sort of loyalty to those who came before them. To some theology from the 16^th century or the 20^th century or historic Vineyard, and this is what we are going to be and they become old in their thinking.

and

I have met 60 year old Christians and 70 year old Christians who are amazing young in their thinking. They are open and flexible, and available to God, because they see the Christian life as this incredible adventure of pursuing Jesus. This exciting adventure that never gets old, I’m pursuing the Lord and even if the Lord is going to shake up old paradigms or He’s going to change and revise my thinking, I’m going to keep on the learning curve, I want to keep on being alive and excited about new discovers and fresh things.” Eric, Julia, Jonathan just stay young in your thinking. Stay open and flexible and just willing to test things, challenge existing paradigms and status quo.

I told you about the Jesuit before, last week, I read a book on leadership, about written by a former Jesuit Priest, it was called, “Heroic Leadership”, it was written by a guy name Chris Lowery. He was a Jesuit Priest; he went on to go into the business world. He worked for JP Morgan as a managing director. He tells the story in “Heroic Leadership” about this Jesuit Priest name Clavius. And Clavius believed that it was important for the priest not only to be experts in theology, but to be experts in astronomy and mathematics. And for 50 years he just taught astronomy and mathematics to would be Jesuit Priest in Rome. He believes that the Jesuits’ would have their greatest impact if people around the world said these guys are just the very best in science. That if you want to know science, go to the Jesuits.

Now, contrast that to the contemporary evangelicals. When the world looks at the evangelicals and said, if you want people who are just the (pause) not the brightness or sharpest – you know knife in the drawer – if you want folks who are anti-science, who, if there is something that scientist are agreeing too, like global warming – we are agin it (then made sounds like disgust) – evolution, forget about that!. You know, let me just say something to you guys. I mean, I do not know where you are at, but here’s where I’m at.

I believe in Jesus Christ, I believe in Jesus Christ. I don’t believe in science, I believe in Jesus Christ. But my view of science is that if there is a reigning paradigm in science, I just have to accept it. I don’t have a need to fight the reigning paradigms in science or declare culture war on science. I’ll just have to say “OK.” Now the paradigm may change in 40 years, it has in the past, it probably will in the future. But, if there is a reigning paradigm – you do not, as a young adult, have to fight it like your parents and grandparents. Don’t fight out war. You have enough wars of your own to fight. Don’t fight old battles, there losing battles.

Understanding Jim Wallis

In April of 2008 I attended what was called a “Justice Revival.” With my wife, we attended all three nights, plus the special workshop on justice on Friday. Before attending, I read Wallis’s book, “The Great Awakening” twice. I then began reading Wallis’s blog, as well as his other books. The following is my response to the “Revival” and Wallis’s theology.

There are a lot of us evangelicals who have found ourselves increasingly uncomfortable with the media’s selection of a few people of decidedly conservative politics who are regularly called our spokespeople. Whenever I hear this handful of people talk, I think: This person doesn’t speak for me…Don’t you hate it when someone’s views are 180 degrees out of sync with yours and yet they are called your spokesperson? You say, “When did I vote for them?” (The Great Awakening, Rich Nathan, Sr. Pastor of the Vineyard Church of Columbus)

I could not agree with him more. Yet, in April of 2008, The Columbus Vineyard, sponsored a conference called a, “Justice Revival”. The main speaker was Jim Wallis of the Sojourners Community. During the “Revival”, Bishop Timothy Clark is quoted as saying on two separate nights that Jim Wallis was a prophet.

The first night: “A theologian and I think the outspoken and I would even dare to say, the most powerful prophet for Justice in this nation.”

The third night: Bishop was comparing Wallis with John the Baptist in regards to Jesus’ word concerning John. Clark then said, “I don’t know what you came to this Justice Revival expecting, but there is no doubt in my mind we are in the presence of a prophet, a man of God, with a word from God.”

Who is Jim Wallis? What are his ideologies, and theologies? This writing will explore these questions. Then, you decide for yourself if Jim Wallis speaks for you? Is he a true prophetic voice for the church or does he speak just for himself?

This is the first installment regarding Jim Wallis and his theology. I do this due to the length of the theological questions involved as to get a better understanding of Wallis’s theology, and ideologies. I resourced quotes from Wallis’ recent book, “The Great Awakening”, his other books, his writings, and from “The Red Letter Christians”, by Tony Campolo. Other research will be quoted from additional sources in order to get a better understanding of Jim Wallis.

Who is Jim Wallis?

Jim Wallis’s bio as it appears on the Sojourners web site sates:

Jim Wallis is a bestselling author, public theologian, speaker, preacher, and international commentator on religion and public life, faith and politics. His latest book is The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post–Religious Right America (HarperOne, 2008). His previous book, God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It (Harper Collins, 2005), was on the New York Times bestseller list for 4 months. He is President and Chief Executive Officer of Sojourners; where he is editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine, whose combined print and electronic media have a readership of more than 250,000 people. Wallis speaks at more than 200 events a year and his columns appear in major newspapers, including The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and both Time and Newsweek online. He regularly appears on radio and television, including shows like Meet the Press, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the O'Reilly Factor, and is a frequent guest on the news programs of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and National Public Radio. He has taught at Harvard's Divinity School and Kennedy School of Government on "Faith, Politics, and Society." He has written eight books, including: Faith Works, The Soul of Politics, Who Speaks for God? and The Call to Conversion.

Jim Wallis was raised in a Midwest evangelical family. As a teenager, his questioning of the racial segregation in his church and community led him to the black churches and neighborhoods of inner-city Detroit. He spent his student years involved in the civil rights and antiwar movements at Michigan State University. While at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois, Jim and several other students started a small magazine and community with a Christian commitment to social justice, which has now grown into a national faith-based organization. In 1979, Time magazine named Wallis one of the "50 Faces for America's Future."

Jim lives in inner-city Washington, D.C. with his wife, Joy Carroll, one of the first women ordained in the Church of England and author of Beneath the Cassock: The Real-life Vicar of Dibley; and their sons, Luke (9) and Jack (4). He is a Little League baseball coach.

There is additional information regarding Wallis’ life that his bio failed to mention. Wallis protested the Vietnam War (no big deal, a lot of us baby boomers did, even me), but he did a lot more than just protest. In my opinion, Wallis became the “Jane Fonda” of the Christian Left.

After South Vietnam fell to the communist Wallis “criticized” those who were fleeing the country. He believed that those fleeing the new regime were “to support their consumer habits in other lands.” (www.traditionalvalues.org/print.php?sid=2664)

In addition, Traditional Values Coalition states:

In 1983, Joan Harris with Accuracy in Media published a lengthy book on the far-left policies of Sojourners and Jim Wallis.

In The Sojourners File, Harris took 53 political positions of Sojourners on such issues as the right of Israel to exist, human rights, terrorism, socialism, capitalism, etc., and compared those positions to the official positions of the Soviet Union.

In all 53 position statements, Sojourners’ views were in line with the positions of the Soviet Union.

This is an amazing discovery. Yet, it is not so surprising given Jim Wallis’ consistent support for socialism and against capitalism or the American way of life throughout his writings. In fact, in 1979, the journal Mission Tracks published an interview with Wallis. He told the reporter it was his hope that “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes.” (www.traditionalvalues.org/print.php?sid=2664)

Jan Harris, who wrote “The Sojourners File,” writes on page 43:

“Sojourners never criticizes a Marxist state. … The United States and the West are the only violators of human rights to Sojourners because they are the capitalists. Marxists, by Sojourners definition, cannot violate human rights.”

Discover the Networks web site reports that Wallis backed the Sandinista regime in Central America:

Wallis published bitter denunciations of the American government’s sponsorship of anti-Communist Contra rebels against Nicaragua’s Sandinista dictatorship. After visiting Nicaragua in 1983, in the company of the pro-Sandinista group Witness for Peace, Wallis and then-Sojourners associate editor Joyce Hollyday co-authored several articles in which they whitewashed the brutality of the Sandinista government while condemning the United States for waging an “undeclared war” against “the people of Nicaragua.” One representative issue of Sojourners from the time condemned the “suffering created by U.S. policy against Nicaragua,” and urged the “U.S. government to re-examine and change its policy toward Nicaragua, and establish a relationship of trust and friendship between the people of Nicaragua and the people of the United States.”

In keeping with his enthusiasm for Nicaragua’s Communist regime, Wallis also criticized conservative evangelical leaders such as Pat Robertson for siding with the rebel opposition. “To allow political ideology to overshadow human needs and fundamental issues of life and death is to go seriously astray,” Wallis self-righteously remarked in one such attack. (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/articles/jimwallisexpanded.html)

Wallis was also influenced by the writings of Karl Marx, the author of the Communist Manifesto, Che Guevara, Castro right hand man who went into the Congo and Bolivia to spread communism into these countries, and Ho Chi Minh, the communist leader of North Vietnam. These men influenced Wallis’s philosophies and beliefs for his life’s work as a social activist.

Additional information that his bio did not address:

He is the co-founder of the Red Letter Christians, along with Tony Campolo, a political action group who is dedicated to social activism to bring God’s Kingdom to the earth by influencing political action and social justice.

He is a follower of the Social Gospel based in Liberation Theology ideology. On liberationtheology.org web site, Sojourners has a direct link and is listed under Organizations and Advocates.

Wallis is also quoted as saying:

“As more Christians become influenced by liberation theology, finding themselves increasingly rejecting the values and institutions of capitalism, they will also be drawn to the Marxist analysis and praxis that is so central to the movement. That more Christians will come to view the world through Marist eyes is therefore predictable.” (Mission Trends No. 4, 1979, “Liberation Theologies in North America,” pp.54-55)

What movement is Wallis speaking about? Social Justice.

This list is far from being exhaustive. As you read this paper you will begin to understand that his values and beliefs are not only in conflict to Biblical concepts, but they are in direct conflict to the values and beliefs of the Vineyard Church.

The next part of this paper is exploring Wallis’s theologies. I will look at four areas, but this may expand to additional ones if needed. The first is the Kingdom of God. Second: Jubilee Year, the third: Christ’s Mission, and the fourth: Justice.

The Kingdom of God

The very first area I want to write about is the Kingdom of God. It is the very heart of the message of Christ. Plus, the Vineyard Church bases its foundation on the Kingdom of God theology as espoused by George Ladd.

What is definition of the Kingdom of God? It basically means the rule or reign of God. Jesus inaugurated it at His first coming, and will bring the kingdom to its fullness when He returns.

As Ladd and others have defined it is that Jesus is the king, and His kingdom is now here in Jesus. It is present with Him, but not fully realized, “The here but not yet,” kingdom. God’s kingdom is demonstrated in Jesus by His words and His power. In fact Jesus said, “The kingdom of God does not come with careful observation, nor will people say ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within (or among, or in your midst) you.” (Lk 17:20-21).

We will see the fullness of God’s Kingdom when Jesus comes again. In Revelation 11:15, “The kingdom of this world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ…”.

This kingdom is a kingdom that is not of this world. We can only experience God’s kingdom when He breaks into this world and reveals what His kingdom is, no sickness, pain, sorrow, and oppression of any kind. Until then we are to preach and demonstrate God’s kingdom with Jesus’ words and His power. This is not a political or social kingdom.

According to the New Dictionary of Theology,

“The kingdom proclaimed by Jesus is not an ideal moral order”

Wallis' view of the Kingdom of God is different.

“Jesus’ kingdom is not like the other kingdoms of the world, and that’s the point. It’s a different kind of kingdom than the worldly kingdoms based on money, power, violence, and sex. The Kingdom of God, which Jesus came to inaugurate, is meant to create an alternative reality in this world and, ultimately, to transform the kingdoms of this world.” (Page 56)

Also,

Wallis believes that Jesus had various political options to follow, but decided to inaugurate a political one himself.

“Jesus clearly rejected all the main political options of his time and inaugurated one that was completely new-called the kingdom of God, which brings a different kind of revolution, one of both love and justice.” (Great Awakening, page 58)

“In Mathew 5,6, and 7, Jesus offers the Sermon on the Mount, which serves as the manifesto of his new order, the Magna Carta of the new age, the constitution of the kingdom. It utterly reverses the logic of this world, all its earthly kingdoms, and its political options.” (Page 62)

Wallis continues:

“In the end, Jesus clearly rejected all the main political options of his time and inaugurated one that was completely new – called the kingdom of God, which brings a different kind of revolution, one of both love and justice.” (Page 58)

Campolo’s agrees with Wallis. From the “Red Letter Christians”:

“First-century Jews, to whom Jesus initially addressed His message of the Kingdom, had a firm grasp on what He was talking about…(Then he went into a quote from Isaiah), The Jews knew that it was not about some ‘”pie in the sky by and by”’ escape from the bad old world. Instead, the Kingdom was to be a new kind of society, wherein the effects of poverty and physical suffering would be no more.” (Pages 31-32) and

“The Kingdom of God is transformed people living in a transformed society, and when we preach this message to people in our day, we are preaching the gospel, the Good News. This hope for God’s Kingdom on earth has been, since Christ, in the process of being actualized.” (Page 33, emphasis mine)

God’s kingdom is not of this world. Jesus Himself proclaimed this at His trial:

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36)

If Jesus were trying to establish an earthly kingdom, as Wallis and Campolo state, why would Jesus say His kingdom is not from or of this world? After all the Jews were expecting a political kingdom. This is seen even after Jesus’ resurrection:

“… but we hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel…” (Luke 24:21a)

“So when they met together, they asked him, ‘”Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”’ (Acts 1:6)

The IVP Bible Background Commentary states,

“The idea that Jesus’ kingdom is not based on military or political force is repeated throughout the Gospel, but Jesus’ Jewish hearers never grasp the meaning in his words (after all, why call it a ‘”kingdom”’ if it was nonpolitical?).” (Page 309)

Then in New Testament Theology, by Donald Guthrie states:

“…it is advisable before considering the evidence to bear in mind that the term does not refer to the establishment of a messianic political kingdom on earth.” (Page 410)

Whatever Wallis, Campolo and Sojourners are preaching is not the true Gospel of Christ’s Kingdom, but the social gospel, and the social gospel is not what Jesus presented. It is all through his book, as well as Campolo’s book. But what is the social gospel?

“This is one point at which the social gospel differs from the traditional gospel of the New Testament. The social gospel concentrates not so much on individual salvation of one’s own soul, but rather on the “evangelization” and “conversion” of social structures and institutions to a “Christian” form, culminating in the promised kingdom of God.” (A Brief History of the Social Gospel, Dr. John Battle, Professor of NT and Theology, Western Reform Seminary)

“…Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918), whose major work was A Theology for the Social Gospel (1919). He claimed that all theology must stem from the central idea of the kingdom of God, believing that when Jesus spoke about the kingdom this meant, not the community of the redeemed, but the transformation of society on earth. It meant social and political action.” (Page 594, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity)

Historically, the social gospel is a much-weakened movement. Those churches and/or denominations that embrace this theology have seen a marked decline in membership.

“Since the 1930s the Social Gospel has disappeared as a movement in its own right, but its influence remains, both in the more liberal, mainline denominations and in the renewed social concern displayed by American evangelicals since the 1960s.” (New Dictionary of Theology, Page 647, 2^nd column)

Finally, pastor, preacher, and theologian D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, from his study, “Studies in the Sermon on the Mount”, which is Jim Wallis motivation for social justice.

There was once the so-called ‘social gospel’ view of the Sermon on the Mount. What it comes to is this, that the Sermon is in reality the only thing that matters in the New Testament, that there, in it, is the basis of the so-called social gospel. The principles, it was said, were there laid down as to how life should be lived by men, and all we have to do is to apply the Sermon on the Mount. We can thereby produce the kingdom of God on earth, war will be banished and all our troubles will be ended. That is the typical social gospel view, but we do not need to waste time with it. It has already become outmoded; it is found only amongst certain people whom I can describe as remnants and relics of the mentality of thirty years ago (that would be around 1929 when this was written). The two world wars have shaken that view to its very foundation. Critical as we may be in many respects of the Barthian movement in theology, let us pay it this tribute: it has once and for ever made the social gospel look utterly ridiculous. (Page 9)

In summary, the Kingdom of God according to Jim Wallis is a social/political kingdom. Wallis’s view of God kingdom, is a new order or “an alternative reality in this world and, ultimately, to transform the kingdoms of this world.” Wallis believes that Jesus rejected all other political options and set up a new political force of His own, God’s Kingdom. The scriptures fully demonstrate that God’s Kingdom is not a political kingdom, but a spiritual one. It is the here and not yet, to be fully entered into when Jesus comes again. According to the scriptures God’s kingdom is not of this world, but one-day God’s Kingdom will be manifested when God’s proclaims it so, not man.

Submitted by Colen

Jim Wallis and Sojourners

We strongly encourage you to look into it as we did but as this can very time consuming we hope to shorten the time that you could spend wading through the sea of literature to help you get at the truth about Jim Wallis and Sojourners. But before you begin, please remember that you are responsible before The Lord for that which you know about. The servant who knows his masters will and does not do it will be beaten with many blows. We strongly encourage you to look into it because the Columbus Vineyard is being changed into another political organ for liberal politics rather than the beautiful bride of Christ. You just have to ask yourself the question "does it matter to you"?

A number of us began doing research and asking questions about Jim Wallis and Sojourners when our home church the Vineyard Church of Columbus (VCC) hosted a so called "Justice Revival" in April of 2008. During my own research, the more I looked into it the more sick to my stomach I became. Jim Wallis is far more interested in partisan politics than in advancing the kingdom of The Lord. His "God's Politics" blogs are best described as a pound of partisan liberal politics and an optional teaspoon of Christianity. It seems many have just been willing to drink the koolaid that Jim Wallis and Rich Nathan served up, sweeping aside deep concerns by many mature Christians that Jim Wallis is not another Billy Graham.

Does it matter to you that Jim Wallis and Sojourners consider homosexual rights as a "Social Justice" issue they are fighting to advance?

Does it matter to you that the 150 "new converts" at the Justice Revival were given (as their discipleship materials) a Sojourners booklet called "Hungry for Justice" telling new converts to "Join the movement; 10 ways you can put your faith into action at Sojo.net". Prayer team members, at the revival, saw the discipleship materials that Sojourners distributed to new believers and obtained a copy. As I recall from the June 5th meeting, Rich Nathan insisted that Sojourners would not have given new believers this material. The discipleship materials consisted of 10 steps, 9 steps regarded becoming involved in Sojourner political issues; such as:

• Read the "God's Politics" blog

• Apply to become a Sojourners intern

• make a donation and invest in the movement for justice

• find out how to start a local social justice group (remember, this was given to a brand new baby Christian)

• subscribe to Sojourners magazine

• Sign up for Sojo Mail, a free weekly ezine

Only one step mentioned anything potentially nurturing to a baby Christian; which was using Sojo.net to "search for a church near you". Curious as to what churches Sojourners was recommending, I went to sojo.net, specified a search radius of 40 miles (centered on my Columbus area zip code) and was given the names of only 3 churches. In a circle 80 miles across and covering all of Columbus, Sojourners only found 3 churches worth recommending. What is so special about those churches? What kind of kool-aid do they serve?

Does it matter to you that Jim Wallis was introduced at the Justice Revival as "the most powerful prophet for justice in this nation". I am deeply disturbed at the abusive application of the title "prophet" to a deeply partisan political operative.

Does it matter to you that the literature on the Sojourners table at the Justice Revival contained advertisements for conferences like:

• Introduction to Buddhism, Teaching, discussion, instruction and experience in Tibetan Buddhist Meditation?

• Art making and the "Divine Feminine" (participants develop their understanding of the Sacred Feminine)?

One article in a Sojourner magazine (at the revival) had in extra large print, a title and tag line that read:

"The Green Gospel; we firmly believe that addressing the degradation of God's sacred earth is the moral assignment of our time, comparable to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s."

I don't recall Jesus preaching or teaching anything even remotely like this in the sermon on the mount, nor in his 3 1/2 year ministry, nor do I recall the apostles ever placing any importance on this topic. I considered the title and tag line so absurd (the moral assignment of our time) that I read them to Rich at the June 5th meeting. Rather than find it offensive, I was taken back when Rich said that he could not disagree with it.

Does it matter to you that Sojourners were given the names and email addresses of those who attended the Justice Revival; who were then solicited by Sojourners to work on political issues such as "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Issues"?

Does it matter to you that Rich Nathan knows these things, but does not regret inviting Jim Wallis to speak and is fully open to having him back in the future?

Does it matter to you that Rich Nathan spoke at a “Vote Your Values” Rally the Thursday night before the Ohio Nov. elections 2006, with Wallis and Sojourners and laid out his own political stances – giving the appearance that VCC supports these same causes? Rich definitely does not speak for me.

Does it matter to you that Rich Nathan spoke at a Sojourners conference called "Pentecost 2007". The name sounds Christian but it was actually a partisan political rally promoting only the Democrat presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards (all who support unrestricted abortion and "gay rights")? I am very bothered by the fact that they showed no fear of God when they prostituded the name of a sacred biblical holiday to Christianize a partisan political rally.

Sojourners even gets funding from staunchly anti-Christian billionaire Atheist George Soros. Sojourners received funding and donations in the name of fighting poverty but they give no gifts to the poor (as do Samaritans Purse and World Vision). They believe their political activism is their service to the poor as stated in this letter from Sojourners.

Hi, ________. Thanks for your note. Sojourners is an advocacy organization, so our work to overcome poverty is largely through media, messaging, policy, and mobilizing. Through Jim Wallis’s ministry of preaching and teaching across the country (and the world), as well as our resources, we call people to a faith that does justice, especially as it relates to overcoming poverty. This year we are engaged in a Vote Out Poverty campaign, to get poverty on the agenda of the 2008 elections. We deal with many justice issues, and we find that almost all of them have some connection to poor people.

As you may know, Sojourners has been rooted in the Southern Columbia Heights neighborhood of Washington, D.C., since we arrived here. Over the years, we have also run a tenants union, daycare center, and neighborhood center. Changes in the neighborhood have caused us to close those ministries, and we have since focused on our particular mission to advocate for change. We partner with groups who provide a variety of direct services, with the goal of expanding both our work and that of our partners.

I hope this helps to explain our work. Please let me know if you have further questions. –Blessings, Karen

Karen L. Lattea
Chief Administrative Officer
Sojourners
(202) 745-4605
3333 14^th St. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20010
www.sojo.net

Jim Wallis claims to be non-partisan but after having read his deeply partisan "God's Politics" blogs for many hours, I was hard pressed to find one bad thing he had to say about Democrat politicians (like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Ted Kennedy). I was equally hard pressed to find one good thing he had to say about Republican politicians like George Bush.