Sunday, March 21, 2010

Has Glenn Beck Lost It or Is He Always This Ignorant?

I do not generally pay much attention to Glenn Beck. On the few occasions I have stumbled across his show, I have usually changed the channel within a minute or two, genuinely perplexed that anyone can take this man seriously. But a Glenn Beck expert I am not. Perhaps he occasionally voices a good idea; I have simply yet to hear one from him.

Beck recently told his listeners that they should leave their faith communities if their church website, or priest or pastor, mentions the word “social justice.” As I believe that churches should pay more, not less, attention to issues of justice, Beck’s statement caught my attention. Figuring there must be some mistake, I decided to see what he actually said. Here it is:
Social justice was the rallying cry – economic justice and social justice – the rallying cry on both the communist front and the fascist front. That is not an American idea. And if we don’t get off the social justice / economic justice bandwagon, if you are not aware of what this is, you are in grave danger. All of our faiths – my faith, your faith – whatever your church is, this is infecting all of them.
Beck added that to “preach social justice” is a “perversion of the gospel” and that if you find the words “social justice” or “economic justice” on a church website, “run as fast as you can. . . . they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

Not surprisingly, Beck’s statements offended the sensibilities of a very large number of people who consider themselves Christian – those aligned with the Catholic Church, the Mainline Protestant churches, the historically Black churches, and a growing number of Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, including many congregations with Asian-American and Hispanic majorities. All of these churches, at the leadership and congregational levels, consider social and economic justice essential components of biblical faith. Within just a few days of Beck’s comments, more than 30,000 Christian pastors and church members had written to Beck declaring themselves Christians who believe in social justice and asking Beck to reconsider his statements.

That social and economic justice are essential to the heart of the Christian faith is not really a debatable topic, however deficient individual Christians and churches often are in applying the concept. For example, a social statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) declared in 1991 in a document entitled, “The Church in Society: A Lutheran Perspective,” that: “In faithfulness to its calling, this church is committed to defend human dignity, to stand with poor and powerless people, to advocate justice, to work for peace, and to care for the earth in the processes and structures of contemporary society.” Consistent with this premise, the ELCA actively advocates before the U.S. Congress and other governmental bodies for the needs of the poor and the powerless, for increased foreign aid, and for human rights. So does the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Quakers (through the American Friends Service Committee), the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., the Church of the Brethren, the Episcopal Church U.S.A., and many other denominations as diverse in their theology as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals.

The Catholic Church, in particular, has been at the forefront in advancing the causes of economic and social justice. The 1986 pastoral letter on Economic Justice issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared that:

Society as a whole, acting through public and private institutions, has the moral responsibility to enhance human dignity and protect human rights. In addition to the clear responsibility of private institutions, government has an essential responsibility in this area. This does not mean that government has the primary or exclusive role, but it does have a positive moral responsibility in safeguarding human rights and ensuring that the minimum conditions of human dignity are met for all. In a democracy, government is a means by which we can act together to protect what is important to us and to promote our common values.
Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to which Beck belongs, has declared that “caring for the poor” is one of its four primary missions, on an equal footing with preaching the gospel. As noted by Mormons for Equality and Social Justice, the Book of Mormon teaches that “there should be an equality among all” (Mosiah 27:3) and calls its followers to stand against racism, gender inequity, and injustice on the principle that “black and white, bond and free, male and female...all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). It speaks harshly against inequity, exploitation, oppression, and violence (2 Nephi 20:1-2; 3 Nephi 24:5; D&C 38:26; Moses 8:28), and teaches that human beings are stewards of the earth and its resources, which should be used “with judgment, not to excess” (D&C 59:20). I am no Mormon, but this sounds pretty “social justicey” to me, Glenn.

Christians, of course, differ greatly among themselves about what social and economic justice mean when translated into political terms. But as liberal evangelical preacher Jim Wallis said in response to Beck’s ranting, “the Bible is clear: from the Mosaic law of Jubilee, to the Hebrew prophets, to Jesus Christ, social justice is an integral part of God’s plan for humanity.”
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, For the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; Defend the rights of the poor and needy.
Proverbs 31:8-9.
Although Beck apparently did not address his comments to the Jewish community, the primary branches of American Judaism also embrace – often more explicitly than many Christian denominations – the concept of social justice as essential to its tradition and faith. After all, most of the biblical mandates on justice stem from the words of the Hebrew prophets, found in the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Micah, among others; from the five books of the Torah; and from the books of Proverbs and Psalms. The concepts of tzedakah ("the religious obligation to perform charity and philanthropic acts"), chesed ("deeds of kindness"), and tikkun olam ("repairing the world"), place Judaism at the vanguard of religious social justice movements.

The ethic of Christian love and justice found in the New Testament Gospels is merely an extension and application of the justice portrayed and mandated in the Hebrew Scriptures and espoused by the Hebrew prophets. In Matthew 25, for example, Jesus speaks of the hungry, the homeless, the outcast, and the stranger and challenges his followers that, “As you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.” All four gospels instruct and demonstrate the clear, and sometimes radical, call for social and economic justice, for peace, for non-violence, for loving one’s neighbor, and welcoming the stranger.

Last week, in a respectful and well-stated letter, the Rev. Jim Wallis invited Beck to engage in an “open and public discussion on what social justice really means and how Christians are called to engage in the struggle for justice.” Wallis requested that they have “a civil dialogue and not engage in personal attacks on each other – which are never helpful in trying to sort out what is true.” Instead, he thought it important to sit down together and to “talk about the heart of the matter.” Beck, of course, would have none of it. He responded with threats, informing Wallis that “the hammer is coming, because little do you know, for eight weeks, we’ve been compiling information on you, your cute little organization, and all the other cute little people that are with you. And when the hammer comes, it’s going to be hammering hard and all through the night, over and over….”

Wallis reiterated that he will not engage in personal attacks on Beck, and he renewed his call for an honest and civil dialogue bereft of personal attacks. Beck again was unmoved and promised to devote an entire week of his program to exposing Wallis and the Christian “social justice” community as nothing but radical Marxists hell-bent on perverting the Bible.

Beck simply knows nothing about which he is talking. Having grown up the son of a Lutheran minister, I have personally known many Christian clergy, theologians, and committed church members, all of whom would agree that social, economic, and racial justice are integral to the message of Jesus; and not one of them is a Marxist. How anyone can read the scriptures or examine the life and teachings of Jesus and not sense that justice, mercy, and compassion – particularly to the vulnerable, poor, and marginalized – are essential to the Christian and Jewish faiths, is either ignorant, illiterate, or both.

The only people who should leave their churches or synagogues are those who believe that justice is not an integral part of their faith traditions. Justice is the very foundation of God’s creation. Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you. Psalm 89:14. Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. Isaiah 1:17. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8. To practice justice is to act with love for all of God’s creation. Any faith community that rejects this concept has no reason for being. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., declared, “A religion true to its nature must also be concerned about man’s social conditions. . . . Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men [and women] and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion. Such a religion is the kind the Marxists like to see – an opiate of the people.”

What Glenn Beck seems incapable of understanding – unless he is a complete fraud – is that, for people of faith, an essential component of bearing witness to God’s love – whether inspired by the Hebrew prophets or the life and teachings of Jesus – is working to advance the causes of peace and justice. God’s mandate, as expressed throughout the Bible, is helping those in need. Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever flowing stream. Amos 5:24. Often this is carried out by individual acts of charity. But while charity involves individual acts of justice, it does not amount to societal justice, which often requires a change in the social order. When the Church in its institutional capacity reaches out to help a person in need without acting to change the conditions which caused that need, it implies an acceptance of things as they are. The status quo is not acceptable, however, if there is a shortage of decent housing and medical care, if children are dying of starvation and disease, if innocent people in foreign lands are maimed or killed by landmines, or if the world is beset with war and violence. Christianity and Judaism command its followers to reject complacency and to do whatever one can to change conditions for the better. Sometimes this requires demanding more from our government and our large private institutions; if charity alone were sufficient, there would be no need for wider action.

Beck’s ignorance may be, in part, a reflection of the religious illiteracy of American society. I am often astonished at the lack of knowledge – on the right and the left – of the history, distinctions, diversity and complexity of American religious life. To equate social justice with Nazism or fascism, or to state that it has nothing to do with biblical faith, suggests only that Beck knows not of what he speaks. So, Mr. Beck, believe what you like and worship wherever you feel most comfortable. But when it comes to telling others what to do or believe, you may first wish to consult with the leadership and teachings of your faith tradition. You may even want to try reading the Bible sometime. But please do not expect anyone with a sound mind or a semblance of faith to listen to you.


  1. Mark,

    There is no need to defend Glenn Beck; he is quite capable of defending himself, and, regarding these charges, already has. If you missed his rebuttal, it likely occurred during the 19 hours and 58 minutes you don’t listen to him each week. It’s telling that you feel free to judge someone as ignorant and a fraud with so little exposure to his words and ideas. It is too early to tell if Beck is doing God’s work or not, but he is clearly doing the work of The New York Times, among others. If you just guffawed at that, Google “Acorn and the New York Times,” note the date of their earliest report on this amazing scandal, and then do the same with Acorn and Beck. The timeline will tell you want you need to know, and if not The Times’ Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, spells it out: “But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs.” Apparently The Times doesn’t need more investigative journalists, but a few retirees sitting in cubicles watching Fox News and listening to Glenn Beck ("Stop the presses! Grammy says Fox is reporting news!). If not for this commentator and news organization, those who limit themselves to The Times would be ignorant of Acorn criminality and Van Jones’ lunacy.

    Regarding your post, only those who want to fundamentally transform America and those who are ignorant of the meaning of words use a term like “social justice.” Those who understand the founding of this country know there is no such thing as “social justice”; there is only justice. Likewise, there is no such thing as “minority rights” or “gay rights”; there are only rights.

    Ironically, you make this point without realizing it. Reread your sources and see if you can spot the words that aren’t there:

    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: “…to advocate justice…”

    The Catholic Church: “…protect human rights. . . safeguarding human rights…”

    The Bible: “…For the rights of all. . . Defend the rights of the poor.”

    Psalms: “Righteousness and justice…”

    Isaiah: “Seek justice…”

    Micah: “To act justly…”

    Jesus: “As you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.” This, of course refers to individuals exercising free will in whether or not to help the less fortunate. Jesus never advocated that Rome seize by force from the haves and give to the have nots. And since you had to drag Jesus into this, let’s remember the parable of the workers in the vineyard: The landowner makes individual deals with various men throughout the day to work in his vineyard. At the end of the day, he pays them all the same wage, regardless of how many hours they worked. The liberals, who had agreed on the terms, now thought it was unfair that they should be paid the same as those who did not work as long. The conservative landowner sets them straight: “Did you not agree with me for the usual wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? (the progressive field workers immediately unionize and petition Pontius Pilate to enact minimum-wage laws).”


  2. Progressives use “social justice” and “economic justice” and “racial justice” when they want to impose duties on one group of people to the benefit of another group; when they want to “spread the wealth around.” We’ve had this lesson before, but let us learn it again: No one has a right to a home; if they did, someone else would have a duty to provide it. That is why progressives use the words they use; to justify imposing their belief on others; to justify using the government to take from one man to give to another man (and none of them has ever contributed an extra dime at tax time or failed to take advantage of every possible deduction!).

    Beck’s point is that it never ends well for freedom when progressives succeed in using made-up phrases to create special rights. Social Security, to name one example, was created because people had the “right” to a comfortable retirement. That right is now threatening to bury our children in a mountain of debt before they get their first job.

    You should adopt a rule when writing your progressive posts: avoid using the word “government.” Instead write, “Sometimes this requires demanding more from Joe the Plumber and our large private institutions…” If Joe doesn’t work, try the name of any working stiff who could go on public assistance but refuses, only to find the government taking more through taxes – meaning by force – of what little he has.

    Now let’s address what’s becoming your modus operandi: the creating of straw men arguments. As someone who listens to Beck for more than two minutes at a time, I can tell you that he has never advocated against fighting for justice, defending human dignity, working for peace, caring for the earth, protecting human rights, caring for the poor, fighting racism, preventing oppression, stopping violence, performing charity, loving one’s neighbor, welcoming the stranger, encouraging the oppressed, defending the cause of the fatherless, pleading the case of the widow, loving mercy, walking humbly with God, working to advance the causes of peace and justice, helping those in need, committing individual acts of charity and rejecting complacency.

    As far as Jim Wallis is concerned, you previously described him this way: “He does not approach economics from a left or right framework – he is neither a capitalist nor a monetarist nor a Marxist, neither a liberal nor a conservative – rather, he examines the American economy from the pulpit, as a progressive, socially conscious evangelical preacher with an activist bent.” To which I can only respond, “It’s spelled G-O-O-G-L-E!”

    From the New York Times: “Their (Democrats) prophet is Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian who has become almost synonymous with the religious left, a sort of Pat Robertson for liberals.”

    Beck has played an audio clip of who he claims is Wallis, in which Wallis is asked if he was “calling for the redistribution of wealth in society.” Wallis stated, “Absolutely, without any hesitation. That’s what the Gospel is all about.”

    When Beck does his expose on Wallis I will be listening. Will you? Will you make a promise to yourself to write a post afterwards, either proving his charges false or admitting to his accuracy?

    Rich R.

  3. Rich,

    Beck's biggest problem is his lack of civility. Rev. Wallis has invited him to sit down and together have a serious conversation about whether social and economic justice, or any other form of justice, are essential to the Gospel teachings of Jesus. Beck responds with threats to expose the "true Jim Wallis." What is Beck afraid of? If he truly believes that his view of the Bible and the Gospels provide support for his brand of conservative politics, then have a conversation. Maybe both men could learn something from the other. Wallis obviously feels confident that his knowledge of theology and the Bible provides ample justification for his progressive politics. This is a theological debate, more than a political or economic debate.

    My political values are influenced by my faith upbringing and love of Jesus. Budgets are moral, as well as economic documents. When and how we use military force are moral, as well as strategic decisions. How our government, and how we as a country, treat our poor, our sick, our homeless, our hungry, our outcasts (be they minorities, gays, women, elderly, immigrants) -- reflects whether we have come closer to achieving God's Kingdom here on earth. You may think God is all for gross disparities in wealth, for accumulating enough weapons of mass destruction to blow up the world thousands of times over, to exploit our natural resources and pollute our air and water -- in other words, you may lead yourself to believe that Jesus is a Capitalist -- you just won't find a whole lot of support for it in the Bible. That doesn't mean we won't, as individuals and as a society, find that capitalism is the best economic system at promoting productivity and advancing individual liberty and freedom -- let's just not fool ourselves into thinking it is fully sanctioned by Christ. Rev. Wallis, like the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Quakers, etc., are supposed to be moral voices for society, to at least give the country, or at least their members, some moral guidance in attempting to put faith into action. There may be no easy answers, and maybe the answers are not always obvious, but if Beck is a serious man, he should at least take Wallis at his word and sit down with him and dialogue. Right now, he looks really bad.

  4. Mark,

    So I'm guessing you missed Beck's show last night? (5 p.m. on Fox)

    Rich R.

  5. Rich,

    Since I work for a living, I am generally unable to watch GB at 5 pm. But I went ahead and checked out what he said. Absolute garbage.

    Beck falsely stated that Rev. Wallis was a "Marxist" who "claims the gospel of Jesus Christ is about a central government taking money from individuals and then distributing it." In the interview Beck selectively clipped, Wallis actually discussed individuals who "transformed" their lives to focus on charity, highlighting how Bill and Melinda Gates have been "doing a redistribution of wealth" through their philanthropy.

    Here is the actual words of Wallis in that interview:

    WALLIS: I think an affluent church in a world where half of God's children live on less than $2 a day is an affront to the Gospel. The Bible doesn't mind prosperity as long as it is shared. But what the Bible doesn't like is these tremendous gaps and chasms between the top and the bottom.

    FIEDLER: Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?

    WALLIS: Absolutely. Without any hesitation. That's what the Gospel is all about. It's about the rich moving into solidarity and a relationship with people who have been left out and left behind. The whole early church was those who were wealthy and those who were poor finding a new community. So, I see it all the time where people from middle-class backgrounds are having their lives transformed by their encounter with the poor in their neighborhoods or across the world and changing their lifestyle and their priorities because of that.

    Wallis used the philanthropy of Bill and Melinda Gates as an example of "a redistribution of wealth":

    WALLIS: I have a family, I have kids. I want them to be secure. I want them to have enough. And I want them to have all the good things of life. One of the things is a generous spirit. One of the things is to be in a relationship to people who have been left out. It changes us in all kinds of ways. On that cover of Time magazine also were Bill and Melinda Gates, who have made all this money and now are giving it away in very smart, strategic ways about world health and global poverty. So, Bill Gates has decided that he doesn't just want to give all his money to his children. For him, the good life now, for he and his wife, means being a part of a process of changing things in the world. So they're doing a redistribution of wealth.

    I still do not understand why Beck refuses to actually sit down with Wallis and discuss these issues. He is out of his element on this one.

  6. Mark,

    How about we try to get at the whole truth? Glenn Beck certainly quoted Wallis out of context, but then, so did you. What Beck didn’t get wrong was that Wallis believes in a government that should distribute the wealth and the Wallis interview he sampled proves the charge. Beck should have used more of the interview to make his point. Possibly you got your Wallis quotes from Media Matters, which basically did the same thing Beck did to “prove” the opposite point, that Wallis just wants rich people to spread their wealth voluntarily.

    If one listens to the entire Interfaith Voices interview from January 13, 2006 ( and manages to stay awake through a monotone voice that could put a first-time meth user into a deep slumber, one would see that neither side has the truth market cornered.

    The interview begins with Wallis discussing his arrest during the 2005 Christmas Holiday. He and a gaggle of religious activists had gone to Washington D.C., climbed over the wall separating church and state, and protested the evil Republican budget and those evil politicians who thought Americans should be able to reap the fruits of their hard labor by keeping more of their own money. Wallis thinks this concept is “scandalous” because the budget they were passing “cut taxes for the wealthiest and cut services for the poor and left our grandkids with more of a deficit (one wonders what he thinks of the deficit now?).” Wallis continued, “A budget is a moral document. This budget violates our religious sensibilities; it ignores the poor and rewards the rich.”

    “Rewards the rich.” Wallis thinks the government “rewards” people by allowing them to keep their own money. Beck should have used these quotes and showed Wallis and 115 others being arrested for demanding that Washington take money by force from those who earn and distribute it to those who don’t.

    Wallis then makes the statement that, “Poverty is the new slavery. It imprisons minds and hearts and bodies.” He adds that “half of God's children live on less than $2 a day.” Some would say that since slavery denied millions of blacks their right to live free and resulted in the murder of millions of blacks that abortion is the true modern version of slavery, especially when we factor in the fact that a disproportionate number of babies aborted are black. But even if we agree about poverty, Wallis doesn’t understand that it is governmental oppression that causes poverty; that what he advocates, governmental redistribution of wealth, is one of the causes of poverty.

    Wallis goes on to say that, “The Bible doesn’t mind prosperity as long as it is shared, but what the Bible doesn’t like is these tremendous gaps and chasms between the top and the bottom.” Wallis doesn’t give examples from the Bible to support this view and he is then asked the infamous question about “redistribution of wealth.”

    It is at this point that he makes the statement that Beck used and so we see that up until this statement Wallis had been talking about immoral government budgets that fail to properly redistribute the wealth, rewarding the rich and global poverty.

    Wallis begins to transition towards individuals making the choice to help the poor and he discusses what measurements to use when judging what constitutes the “good life.” Like a good progressive, his yardstick is old fashion class warfare: “How many yachts can you ski behind?”

    Admirably, he wants his kids to have a “generous spirit,” and in that context we finally get to Bill Gates.


  7. Wallis approves of Gates giving away his own money and fortunately also approves of the charities to which Gates contributes. Wallis adds, “So Bill Gates has decided that he doesn’t want to just give all his money to his children. For him, the good life now, for him and his wife, means being a part of a process of changing things in the world.” Left uncriticized is that Gates lives an opulent lifestyle that could be considered “morally unconscionable” (check out his house some time!) and if he just lived more modestly he could feed even more of the world’s starving people.

    Wallis incorrectly describes Gates philanthropy as a “redistribution of wealth.”

    This is the proper context in which to view Wallis’ comments and his own words support Beck’s concern.

    What is also troubling is what Wallis had to say about evil. He agreed with Richard Hayes, a Methodist theologian, who believes the Bush White House made decisions based on a “theology of war,” using a “language of righteous empire; a dangerous kind of bipolar ‘they’re evil and we are good.’” Wallis agrees with Hayes that Bush used war as the “principal instrument of U.S. Foreign policy.”

    Liberals, for some reason, have trouble acknowledging evil and viewing the United States as the good guys. Three thousand Americans are murdered, but viewing the terrorists as evil and our liberating use of force as good is simply jingoistic. There is a part of the thinking world that only has to hear that our enemies throw acid in the faces of young girls for the crime of wanting to learn to know that they are evil, while another part, apparently, has to actually see the skin melting off the skull. One group can understand instinctually that this evil must be confronted with overwhelming and deadly force, while another group calls for “proportionality,” which leads, like the Vietnam War, to never-ending violence.

    After calling Pat Robertson an embarrassment for, among other things, thinking in apocalyptic terms, Wallis’ naivety continues, “The sons and daughters of Abraham are trying to work out a way to stop killing each other in the Middle East and sharing the land in a way that brings Israelis and Palestinians security, self-determination and some way to live together in peace…”

    Again, those who accept evil know that since 1948, only one side of the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict” has wanted peace. That time and time again, the offer of a country of their own has been rejected because the goal is, after all, not land but the annihilation of a people.

    The interview ends with talk of torture, with both interviewer and interviewee accepting as fact that the United States has tortured, and with Wallis issuing the incredibly sophomoric rejoinder, “I wonder who would Jesus torture?”

    In context, this interview gives us reason to be concerned that President Obama has traded one spiritual advisor, who thinks this country should be eternally damned, with another advisor who thinks the Bible teaches forced wealth redistribution, that the achievers who create opportunity for others should not be rewarded, and that presidents who use force in defense of their country are practicing some type of war worship. What advice might Wallis give to our president regarding Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb, the detonation of which would make 9-11 look like a traffic accident? Considering that Iran’s president not only thinks in apocalyptic terms and has wet dreams about Armageddon, but sees himself as a means to make it a reality, what would Wallis’ advice be considering his moral equivalence between “us and them”?

    Rich R.

  8. Rich,

    The issue between Wallis and Beck is not to debate the merits of progressive taxation or redistributive policies vs. laissez faire capitalism, and the other issues you discuss (although you should know, if you do not, that Wallis is anti-abortion, consistent with the views of most evangelical Christians). It is merely that, like it or not, Wallis's views and politics are motivated by his Christian principles and beliefs, which is what causes him to use terms like "social justice" and "economic justice." I do not agree with everything Wallis says, and I would not put him in charge of our economic policies, but I do believe his views are far more reflective of Jesus's teachings. Beck is free to make his conservative arguments -- his problem, in my opinion, is attacking Christians who believe in social and economic justice, and who have pacifist tendencies, as if they have distorted the Gospels. I think these Christians have a much more accurate understanding of the Gospels than do most conservatives. That is separate from whose policies are more effective, or practicable, or workable. But as a moral voice of Christian justice, Wallis is one that should be listened to, even if you disagree with his policy prescriptions.