Tag Archives: Jim Wallis

Domestic Terrorism

On February 5, I quoted from a blog by Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners (written November 17, 2017, after a church shooting in Texas). Today, I’d like to quote further from that blog. Wallis begins by defining terrorism.

“Terrorism: the purposeful violence against civilians, non-combatants, with the intent to create and foster social fear. One gun violence massacre after another has certainly created the fear that our families and children are not safe in their schools, our theatres, our concerts, and even in our churches.”

But we can react in different ways to this fear, Wallis points out. Our fear can be stoked toward buying even more guns. In that case, more guns are available for disturbed young men like the shooter in Parkland, Florida, as well as for use in domestic disturbances or in suicides.

Or we can follow other examples. “Australia came to this conclusion after 35 people were killed in a mass shooting. Conservative Prime Minister John Howard and his party banned semiautomatic and automatic guns and implemented a buyback program, slashing the country’s arsenal by 20 percent and dramatically reducing gun deaths.”

Wallis also discusses ill-conceived interpretations of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides Americans with the right to own guns, ostensibly to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannous government. But it is absolutely ridiculous to extend that to any weapon that is available, any military weapon a government has. Should every American have the right to own a bazooka, a tank, a rocket launcher, a weaponized drone — how about a nuke?”

Finally, he quoted Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, affected greatly by the Newtown massacre of children in his state: “My heart sunk to the pit of my stomach, once again, when I heard of today’s shooting in Texas. My heart dropped further when I thought about the growing macabre club of families in Las Vegas and Orlando and Charleston and Newtown, who have to relive their own day of horror every time another mass killing occurs.”

Now add families and friends of those killed at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

Rescuing Evangelical

 

I can remember growing up in the South during the Civil Rights movement. Some white churches thought that the mixing of the races was a sin. They said they didn’t believe in mistreating blacks, but that God meant for the races to be separate like he had created them.

Most members of those churches considered themselves “evangelicals.” One of the legacies of that time is the narrow view of evangelicals by the media and general public which endures to this day. Evangelicals often are considered bigoted individuals. News analyses during the last presidential election constantly examined the “evangelical” vote and attempted to tie it to the Republican party.

In fact, evangelicals voted for both parties. We might consider a new definition of evangelical that excludes a political designation.

Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners, suggests that many of those voting for Obama were, in fact, evangelicals. Just not white evangelicals. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Obama, but many in these groups consider themselves evangelical.

Evangelical, he says, is not a political term, as we have tried to make it. It’s a theological commitment that places Christ at its center.

Maybe those of us who designate ourselves evangelicals should question whether we have been serving Caesar rather than Christ.