"What Would Jesus Do?"

For a time in the '90s -- and probably still en vogue today -- wristbands with "WWJD?" could be found on many a Christian's wrist. What was originally supposed to be a subtle reminder to the wearer instead became a somewhat ostentatious display of religiosity.

I've said repeatedly that preachers shouldn't be using their pulpit for political activism, not because the Constitution requires it, but because it's not the best thing for the church to entangle itself with partisan politics.

This is not to say that religious people should keep their beliefs out of their political activism, or that they should fall silent when in the public square. Instead, I think that it would behoove members of the clergy, if they really desire to represent God here on Earth, not take sides when it comes to political figures. Otherwise, WWJD? becomes WDITJWDTJWMPB? -- What Do I Think Jesus Would Do That Jives With My Political Beliefs?

I say this in the wake of last week's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani by Pat Robertson. I think it told us far more about Robertson than it does about Giuliani's fitness for high office.

I also say this in the wake of this posting by "God's Politics" author Jim Wallis over at Beliefnet which Peter Wehner rightly takes to task over at National Review Online.

From Wehner's article:

Beyond all this, though, is a larger point: There is an immense double standard that exists in American life, and especially in the American media. The “Religious Right” is often accused — and sometimes fairly accused — of being intemperate, uncivil, staggeringly simplistic, and uninformed when they speak out on matters of public policy. Yet this is precisely what Jim Wallis — whose rantings will garner far less attention than those of Pat Robertson or, when he was alive, Jerry Falwell — is doing. Wallis’s words could easily emerge from the fever swamps of the Left.

I have written before about how the politicization of religious faith can lead to its corruption. That is sometimes true of the “Religious Right;” as Jim Wallis has reminded us, it is also sometimes true of the religious Left.

The thing is, this isn't just about the foot soldiers of the religious left or right. I'm all for churchgoers of either stripe lobbying the government or taking sides in the political debates of our time. (Which should be, but too often isn't, done in a loving, respectful way -- see Wallis' piece.) It's Christ's church, when dragged into these debates by various reverands or self-styled prophets, that ends up getting sullied.

Wallis updated his little rant with a quasi apology, but that can't erase the ugliness that was his original piece. Wallis isn't perfect; no one is. But his blog post demonstrates that he's got serious heart-issues that he needs to get right.