Jim Wallis says a shutdown of the government is unbiblical. Of course, the entire government has not shut down. Wallis, like so many liberals, has to exaggerate (lie?) in order to advance his agenda.
Shutting down entire agencies of our present government wouldn’t be unbiblical since many (most?) are unconstitutional. This means that any elected official who advocates and votes for legislative powers not granted by the Constitution is acting in an unbiblical way. He is violating his oath that he took before God to uphold the Constitution.
Printing money out of thin air is also unbiblical. It violates the biblical command of guaranteeing “just weights and measures” (Lev. 19:36; Deut. 25:13–15; Prov. 20:10). Where is Wallis’s condemnations of this very unbiblical practice?
Who is Jim Wallis? He’s a socialist masquerading as a compassionate Christian. It’s easy to be compassionate with other people’s money. Prior to the 2000 election, I debated Wallis. He claimed that there are a multitude of verses that address the issue of poverty. I agreed. But I then asked him to show me one verse that describes the modern-day welfare State. He couldn’t because there isn’t one.
The solution that socialists like Jim Wallis always give is to make more governmental authority available to confiscate wealth and redistribute to those in need, an always growing group because of corrupt government policies. As Gary North writes, liberal “values are about sticking a gun into a successful person’s belly, taking his wallet, removing an unstated percentage of the money, and handing the wallet back. ‘See you at the next election.’”
The Left wants it both ways: Deny Bible-believing Christians the moral high ground by separating religion and politics when it comes to the life and death issue of abortion and the nation-judgment practice of homosexuality (Rom. 1:18-32) while allowing the religious and political Left freedom to mix religion and politics so civil government can confiscate wealth in the name of “social justice.”
Wallis is an extremist in a number of ways, first, in his portrayal of his opponents. He uses a typical straw man argument. They are “‘political extremists … who want to shutdown the government’ . . . because they are, essentially, anarchists, opposed to government altogether.”
I’ve being dealing with topics like this for more than 40 years, and I have rarely heard anybody argue for opposing government altogether. I wrote a three-volume series in the 1980s titled God and Government. Wallis could never read those books and claim that I believe in the opposition of all government.
I know a lot of Tea Party folks, and I’ve never heard or read a word from any of them who said that they oppose all government.
A return to the original intent of the Constitution is not anarchy.
Wallis makes his second straw man “argument” by claiming that people who support a partial shutdown of the federal government are against poor people, because anyone who is hostile to government is hostile to the poor.
You can see how one false premise leads to a secondary false premise. Conservatives are not hostile to the poor. We believe there is a better way to help the poor than government programs that keep people in poverty and make them dependent on the State.
In his short video, “Wallis encouraged politicians who ‘want to shut down the government’ to read their Bibles. In particular, he mentioned Romans 13, and what ‘Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the prophets say about the role of government.’” There is a general denouncement of governments in the way they treat the poor. But it’s not because they failed to tax people and redistribute their wealth.
Anarchists aren’t storming Congress with weapons forcing a shutdown. Elected officials are involved in the shut down. What if elected officials during Nero’s reign wanted to stop the Emperor from persecuting Christians? Would this have been anarchy?
Wallis and his liberal colleagues believe that once a law is passed any opposition to that law is anarchy and a violation of Romans 13. How is this possible given the fact that the First Amendment states clearly that we can “petition the government for a redress of grievances”?
Why do we have separation powers and two houses of Congress, one of which is in the hands of the opposition party, if it’s wrong to question the legitimacy of certain legislative acts?
Jim Wallis believes that more government is the answer. He’s made the State an idol. It’s his view that’s unbiblical.