Skip to main content

It was bad enough when Mark I. Pinsky recently took to the op-ed page of USA Today to smear four Jewish writers who have had the temerity to write critically and well about dominionism and related matters -- comparing their work to historic anti-Semitic smears including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Then Rev. Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, chimed in charging unnamed liberal writers of maligning most if not all evangelicals. He added insult to injury by praising and endorsing Pinsky's essay.  Wallis used the occasion of the publication of several widely discussed articles about the prayer rally organized by Texas Gov. Rick Perry in August to conflate these articles with much other writing in the field.

Some of us who figured to be among the unnamed decided it was time to speak, perchance to be heard.  So we wrote an "Open Letter to Jim Wallis" asking that he please stop mischaracterizing our work and that he rethink and renounce his endorsement of Pinsky's outrageous smears.  

Our first concern was his claim that writers who are critical of dominionism and several related tendencies are making broad, unfair claims about "most or all evangelicals." That they are engaged in a dark conspiracy to "take over America."  This is just not so.  We all understand and try to reflect in our work the idea that some, but certainly not all evangelical Christians embrace or are influenced by these important movements.

We replied that none of us has ever thought or written such sweeping generalizations about evangelicals. We made clear that we know that not all evangelicals are conservatives, or even Republicans. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are evangelicals. So are some of the signers of the Open Letter.  But we insisted that certain "exclusionary Christian movements and tendencies are real, overlapping, and significant in evangelicalism specifically and in our political and electoral culture at large."

There is much, more. You can read the Open Letter for yourself below.

What is important here is this:  Those of us who work in this area of research and writing as reporters, scholars, and activists have made clear that we will not be shouted down or bullied into silence.  We will not go unnamed or fail to speak out while the integrity of our writing and those of our colleagues is smeared. No matter who does the smearing.

We invite anyone who is so inclined to join us by posting our Open Letter to Jim Wallis -- and the press release that summarizes the situation too if you like.  You can also join and widen the discussion that began almost immediately. Check out these posts by Greg Metzger, Rob Boston and  Alan Bean.  They are a good start.

October 6th, 2011

An Open Letter to Jim Wallis from Writers about American Religion and Politics

Dear Jim Wallis,

We are writing in response to your e-mail to the Sojourners list on September 29th, and your similar piece on The Huffington Post, in which you claim that "some liberal writers" -- whom you do not name -- are broad brushing evangelical Christians as "intellectually-flawed right-wing crazies with dangerous plans for the country."  You characterize unnamed writers -- writers like us -- as people who are "all too eager to discredit religion as part of their perennial habit and practice."  This charge is as unfair as it is unsubstantiated.

You may recognize some of us as people who have written in recent years about such tendencies in modern Christian evangelicalism as dominionism, apocalyptic demonization, Christian Reconstructionism, and the New Apostolic Reformation.  We see these forces as playing a significant role in our religious and political lives.  

We are concerned about your recent attacks for three main reasons.

Our first concern is your claim that writers who are critical of these tendencies are making broad, unfair claims about "most or all evangelicals."  This is just not so.  We understand and try to reflect in our work the idea that some, but certainly far from all, evangelical Christians embrace or are influenced by these important movements.

We agree with you that evangelicals are highly varied; are not all politically conservative; and that certainly not all are Republicans. None of us has ever thought or written that they are.  Indeed, some of us are evangelicals ourselves.  We know that former Democratic presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are evangelical Christians.  And some of us have written about how elements of the above-mentioned movements and tendencies are also involved in the Democratic Party.  

We understand that there are complexities in life, religion, and politics.  We take seriously the need for and the extraordinary privilege of constantly learning.  As writers, we are quite varied among ourselves.  We are religious and non-religious; Christian and non-Christian.  We have different histories and emphases in writing about religion, theology, and politics.  We do not always agree with one another.  But we all do agree on this much:  These exclusionary Christian movements and tendencies are real, overlapping, and significant in evangelicalism specifically and in our political and electoral culture at large.  We invite our readers to consider that there are aspects to these movements and tendencies that are profoundly problematic, and we invite you to consider that as well.

Second, we are concerned that you have endorsed the essay by Mark I. Pinsky that appeared recently in USA Today.  That piece attacked some of us by name and all of us by implication.  Pinsky's is but the latest in a series of prominently published smears against those of us who write about these subjects and their ties to powerful political interests.  We are disturbed that you would cheer on these ad hominem attacks.

Finally, Pinsky tries to blame much of the published criticism of these elements of evangelicalism on left-wing Jews.  We, including the majority of us who are not Jews, view this as a transparent effort to intimidate Jewish writers.  We are shocked that you are endorsing and promoting Pinsky's attack on these writers, whose work is well-sourced and painstakingly researched.

We are also shocked that you equate these Jewish writers with “secular fundamentalists” whom you say “want to prove that evangelicals are stupid and dangerous extremists.”  You do this by immediately following this claim by stating that Pinsky’s essay is one of “the best responses to the recent articles about evangelicals.”

We want to remind you that in his essay Pinsky goes so far as to compare the work of those four Jewish writers to some of the worst anti-Semitic smears in history, including false claims that Jews had "horns and tails, ate the blood of Christian children and poisoned the wells of Europe with plague... [and] conspired to rule the world through our Protocols."

Whatever one may think of any of our published work, the fact is that none of it is remotely analogous to the false claims in the various notorious anti-Semitic forgeries known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Pinsky 's equation of the work of the writers he names with the Protocols is despicable.

We would like to believe that despite our differences with you, you share with us a common desire for a just and peaceful world.  We value honest disagreement and debate, and hope that you value these as well.  Indeed, as writers we know how essential they are to clarifying and even resolving differences, correcting errors of fact -- and dare we say, perspective.  These are necessary ingredients for democracy itself.  We invite you take issue with any specific facts or characterizations in our work.  Then we will have something to talk about.  But we will not be silent in the face of smears and intimidation tactics -- which are so very far from the values of the faith traditions from which many of us hail, and the civic values of free speech and respect for religious pluralism that we all share.  

We call on you to stop making false characterizations of our work and stop promoting the false characterizations of others.  We also specifically ask that you rethink your support for Pinsky's smear and withdraw it.

Richard Bartholomew
Blogger, Bartholomew's Notes on Religion

Russ Bellant  
Journalist and author of The Religious Right in Michigan Politics

Chip Berlet
Journalist, blogger, co-author of Right–Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort

Bill Berkowitz  
Independent journalist.  Contributor to BuzzFlash, AlterNet, and Z Magazine

Rob Boston
Assistant Editor, Church & State Magazine
Columnist, The Humanist Magazine

Frederick Clarkson
Journalist, blogger, author of Eternal Hostility:  The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy; editor of Dispatches from the Religious Left: The Future of Faith and Politics in America

Joe Conn
Editor, Church & State Magazine

Barry W. Lynn

Publisher and Columnist, Church & State Magazine
Host, CultureShocks Radio Show

Greg Metzger
Independent journalist. Contributor to Christian Century, Commonweal, Books & Culture and Touchstone.

Rev. Dr. Bruce Prescott
Blogger at Mainstream Baptist
Host of Religious Talk radio show

Sara Robinson
Journalist, blogger, Senior Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future

Adele M. Stan
Washington Bureau Chief, AlterNet.  

Rachel Tabachnick

Researcher and featured writer, Talk to Action

Bruce Wilson
Co-founder and featured writer, Talk to Action

Originally posted to Frederick Clarkson on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 08:56 PM PDT.

Also republished by Street Prophets .

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site