My Personal 'Faith Priorities' for this Election

In 2004, several conservative Catholic Bishops and a few megachurch pastors like Rick Warren issued their list of "non-negotiables," which were intended to be a voter guide for their followers. All of them were relatively the same list of issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. None of them even included the word "poverty," only one example of the missing issues which are found quite clearly in the Bible. All of them were also relatively the same as official Republican Party Web sites of "non-negotiables." The political connections and commitments of the religious non-negotiable writers were quite clear.

I want to suggest a different approach this year and share my personal list of "faith priorities" that will guide me in making the imperfect choices that always confront us in any election year -- and suggest that each of you come up with your own list of "faith" or "moral" priorities for this election year and take them into the polling place with you.

After the last election, I wrote a book titled God's Politics.  I was criticized by some for presuming to speak for God, but that wasn't the point.  I was trying to explore what issues might be closest to the heart of God and how they may be quite different from what many strident religious voices were then saying.  I was also saying that "God's Politics" will often turn our partisan politics upside down, transcend our ideological categories of Left and Right, and challenge the core values and priorities of our political culture. I was also trying to say that there is certainly no easy jump from God's politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither. In any election, we face imperfect choices, but our choices should reflect the things we believe God cares about if we are people of faith, and our own moral sensibilities if we are not people of faith. Therefore, people of faith, and all of us, should be "values voters" but vote all our values, not just a few that can be easily manipulated for the benefit of one party or another.

In 2008, the kingdom of God is not on the ballot in any of the 50 states as far as I can see. So we can't vote for that this year. But there are important choices in this year's election -- very important choices -- which will dramatically impact what many in the religious community and outside of it call "the common good," and the outcome could be very important, perhaps even more so than in many recent electoral contests.

I am in no position to tell anyone what is "non-negotiable," and neither is any Bishop or megachurch pastor, but let me tell you the "faith priorities" and values I will be voting on this year:

1. With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith.
2. From the biblical prophets to Jesus, there is, at least, a biblical presumption against war and the hope of beating our swords into instruments of peace. So I will choose the candidates who will be least likely to lead us into more disastrous wars and find better ways to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world and make us all safer. I will choose the candidates who seem to best understand that our security depends upon other people's security (everyone having "their own vine and fig tree, so no one can make them afraid," as the prophets say) more than upon how high we can build walls or a stockpile of weapons. Christians should never expect a pacifist president, but we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed, and never as a preferred or habitual response to conflict.
3. "Choosing life" is a constant biblical theme, so I will choose candidates who have the most consistent ethic of life, addressing all the threats to human life and dignity that we face -- not just one. 30,000 children dying globally each day of preventable hunger and disease is a life issue. The genocide in Darfur is a life issue. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. The death penalty is a life issue. And on abortion, I will choose candidates who have the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarized legal debates and "pro-choice" and "pro-life" mantras from either side. 
4. God's fragile creation is clearly under assault, and I will choose the candidates who will likely be most faithful in our care of the environment. In particular, I will choose the candidates who will most clearly take on the growing threat of climate change, and who have the strongest commitment to the conversion of our economy and way of life to a cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy future. And that choice could accomplish other key moral priorities like the redemption of a dangerous foreign policy built on Middle East oil dependence, and the great prospects of job creation and economic renewal from a new "green" economy built on more spiritual values of conservation, stewardship, sustainability, respect, responsibility, co-dependence, modesty, and even humility.
5. Every human being is made in the image of God, so I will choose the candidates who are most likely to protect human rights and human dignity. Sexual and economic slavery is on the rise around the world, and an end to human trafficking must become a top priority. As many religious leaders have now said, torture  is completely morally unacceptable, under any circumstances, and I will choose the candidates who are most committed to reversing American policy on the treatment of prisoners. And I will choose the candidates who understand that the immigration system is totally broken and needs comprehensive reform, but must be changed in ways that are compassionate, fair, just, and consistent with the biblical command to "welcome the stranger."
6. Healthy families are the foundation of our community life, and nothing is more important than how we are raising up the next generation. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the values our leaders model in the midst of the cultural degeneracy assaulting our children. Which candidates will best exemplify and articulate strong family values, using the White House and other offices as bully pulpits to speak of sexual restraint and integrity, marital fidelity, strong parenting, and putting family values over economic values? And I will choose the candidates who promise to really deal with the enormous economic and cultural pressures that have made parenting such a "countercultural activity" in America today, rather than those who merely scapegoat gay people for the serious problems of heterosexual family breakdown.

That is my list of personal "faith priorities" for the election year of 2008, but they are not "non-negotiables" for anyone else. It's time for each of us to make up our own list in these next 12 days. Make your list and send this on to your friends and family members, inviting them to do the same thing.

Comments

[overseasvoter2]

I am a Buddhist. I've lived overseas (in Thailand) for 20 years and worked most of that time in Asian countries as an environmental specialist. For someone who has had his values refined in this practical context, I find them amazingly consistent with Mr. Wallis's. If I had anything to add, it is that Americans need to understand their responsibility to the world, due to their relationship to it as immigrants that hailed from these places that now appear in our news, and work that into the policies that guide our country. Some might think that Iraq, other locations of war and confrontation, is is a way to acknowledge these responsibilities. These rather, in my mind, are America drawing in on itself in fear and isolation, which is not what the world now needs.

I would add the term governance. America can (but does not always) demonstrate good governance, and the world is in dire need of it. What is the proper role of government? What are the services that a modern society relies on its government to provide? We should expect them, know them and look toward other countries to follow suit.

So thank you Jim Wallis.

[ajnabi]

Jim,
I've been a fan of yours for years. Ever since I discovered Sojourners Magazine in the early 80s and found it to be an oasis in the spiritual desert. I no longer actively practice any faith (which I regret) but have a soft spot in my heart for progressive Christians. I come from an evangelical background and though my lovely parents would find cause to endorse McCain in line with your 'priorities', I will definitely be rooting for Obama. I live outside the USA now and am finding it hard to get a ballot but if I do he's got my vote. Thaks for speaking some sanity from the evangelical fold.

[Chip W]

I don't understand faith-based belief or the thinking (or not) behind it. One of my favorite topics of thought is the psychology of faith-base belief, which just leaves me misanthropic. But you are one of the people I'd like to have a conversion with (Bill Moyers is another) to explain what you mean by faith, and maybe point out what it is I'm not seeing.

[maryhaze]

Mr. Wallis, i'm not christian, i'm a witch. but i find my definition of "faith priorities" is much the same as yours. as long as there are real humans suffering on this planet, we need to work together. anti-choice (so-called pro lifers) don't seem to be as concerned about that life once the cord has been cut. because i've asked a lot of them & not one has adopted or fostered a child in need. i've got 2 adopted sons (so far) & one foster. & i spend most of my money running an animal rescue. i really believe that what a person does matters more than what they worship. thanks for a great article.

[christopherflynn]

Dear Mr. Wallis,
I am an atheist and proud of it, and I would like to thank you for pointing out values that I feel have been neglected or relegated to secondary importance by religious institutions. The world is full of diverse people and there is a place for all of them to coexist peacefully with one another. It's the only earth we'll ever have...

[macohmz]

I think its laughable that the republican party is pro-life. They party of selling-out thinks life is "precious". Now that's a hoot. The only thing precious in their eyes (and actions) are the whims and desires of the very rich and they would sacrifice the world for them. They do absolutely nothing for ordinary Americans. It is not without cause that I hate the republican party.

[sandyjones]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daoud-kuttab/evangelical-palin-violati_b_132410.html#comments

[vhhsawb]

As a mininster of a "conservative church" I would be labeled with "evangelicals. But I find your list of imperatives very intriging and thoughtful and I share them. I am deeply disgusted by the ideology of "christian" leaders who seem to have no shame about what their candidates say. I am going to find a way to share this article with friends. Thank you.

[Car84]

Roe v. Wade IS anti-abortion - to a point. What has been lost in the debate is that Roe v. Wade does allow states to pass anti-abortion laws for the third trimester. The Supreme Court clearly says the individual states have an interest in the matter during that time. The exception to that part of the ruling involves the health of the mother.

The cases that pro-lifers should REALLY focus on are those that came later - the ones that took that part of Roe v. Wade and basically used the health of the mother exception as a total nullifier of the individual states' rights. The states' rights portion of the decision needs, at some point, to be given its due. It wasn't put in there for no reason.

A person with pro-life beliefs can agree with Roe v. Wade.

[kbeth]

Thanks for summing up my beliefs so well, I consider ethical standards as the best guide for a candidate, ethics to me imply a sense of right and wrong, morals are for the judgmental, critical and narrow minded.

[ccprof]

As a former born again who is trying to find some path to God that doesn't involve zealots who preach hate and intolerance, I have to say that Mr. Wallis and his posts are just about all I encounter that push me God's way. Too bad I had to read the diatribe from Dobson's Focus on the Family this morning--their vision of post Obama America with those damn homosexuals taking over everything, not to mention increasing abortions and taxes and nuclear holocaust.

Seriously, Mr. Wallis. Thank you. God bless your courage--I know you must get a lot of hate in return for your stances.

[brynn6]

Dobson's organization and every "church" associated with this filth must have it's tax-exempt status revoked immediately and all of their business interests investigated. Hit them in the pocketbook where it really hurts them. Acquisition of money and power from their followers is all they are really interested in anyway. They really aren't interested in outlawing abortion, take away the abortion issue and they've got nothing much to rant about to produce adrenaline rushes, mistaken for holy spirit, in their followers.

What we really need is a good Rapture. Maybe then we could get something done.

[learntopronouncenuclear]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Beautiful and eloquent. Will pass it along.

[Jenoah2008]

Agreed. Amen.
And, after all, the model of the Creator we invoke under different names, and have yet to perfect, is loving kindness, forgiveness and tolerance in realization of or private indiscretions, and, therefore, peace with all. Only thus have our warlike selfishness and self-righteousness not caused our removal from the plant after all these centuries.

[BlueZoo]

I want all religion out of politics and out of government! It doesn't matter how masterlfully you state your argument, there should be no discussion of religion in this, or any, election. Evangelicals are increasing their attacks on Obama as of today and our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. Religion is a private right in this country and it should remain as such. I certainly do not want to read about it on HuffPo or anywhere else when it comes to this election! Obama-Biden '08

[brynn6]

The religious invocation at the beginning of each session of both houses of congress need to stop to. I watch C-Span and find this very irritating way for a supposedly secular government to begin each day. The seats are mostly empty anyway, if the reps. and senators really think this is necessary, why aren't they there?

[Dave4ObamaSinceDay1]

Mr Wallis,

I almost stopped reading your post because in the first sentence alone you mentioned: "Catholic Bishops", "megachurches", and "Rick Warren" - three of the biggest turn offs in recent memory but I kept reading only because your post is on this site. I guess that is the reason for this comment.

I realize that because you wanted your book to appeal to the widest possible audience, you say: "...there is certainly no easy jump from God's politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither.", but it is clear that if anyone voted based on the six criteria you mentioned, one would be hard pressed to vote Republican. It is clear that your post is an attempt to make a rational faith-based argument for voting for Barrack Obama but you should just come out and make your case in the open given that this is the Huffington Post and you're preaching to the converted, so to speak. I will say it for you: Jesus is a Democrat.

[gisellestwocents]

McCain/Palin are wishy washy on the Anti-choice issue anyway. They both said that they want Roe v. Wade overturned, but they didn't say that the high court should ban abortion. Instead they want the states to decide the matter individually. So there will be choice states, no choice states--not very far from Barack's pro-choice position at all; but just throwing confusion and unequal protection into the mix.

Not a very sound basis for using abortion as a wedge issue to advise followers that they must ignore their economic well being and that of others by voting for the Repub ticket. All of these religious leaders should remember Matthew 25.