Jim Wallis is the man behind "Sojourners", a Christian-tinted left-leaning political activism group. He typically assails Republicans for almost everything, yet asserts a non-partisan status by occasionally also criticizing Democrats for either not pursuing their agenda with sufficient zeal, or tepidly (and toothlessly) mentioning that they have the wrong stance on abortion.

I suppose that's not a particularly glowing introduction (and certainly not an "unbiased" one — I make no pretensions of such) but I do claim it's a fair one, given the years I've watched him and read his materials.

How does he view the current situation?

A religious response to the financial crisis...

Wait — before we get going — what does "a religious response" even mean? It might mean "my personal, particular religious response", but given his coming implication that others, in order to be moral, must act similarly, it cannot be interpreted as merely his own personal take. He's implying his words will create a burden upon all ethically-minded "religious" individuals.

Yet the response he's about to outline is predicated on "grace", which is a classical Christian belief. (Indeed, being forgiven by another's sacrifice is where even modern Jews and Christians part company.) But perhaps it would be too "exclusive" to point to his own faith, so he terms his response "religious", as though Muslims, Shamans, Satanists, Baptists, and Jains must all agree.

One cold morning the week before Christmas, I found myself huddled with a group of homeowners and religious leaders on Pennsylvania Avenue, in the shadow of the White House and the Treasury building. The homeowners, who had all worked hard to buy their first homes, and most of whom had put enough money down to qualify for fixed-rate mortgages only to be persuaded into more exotic mortgages, were facing imminent foreclosure...

The question I'd have is how far were they from being able to afford their property, under any reasonable interest rate? This article in the NY Times, noting "Treasury officials appear to have concluded that growing numbers of delinquent borrowers simply lack enough income to afford their homes and must be eased out", appears to suggest otherwise: that it's not simply the interest rate, but rather that using an unnaturally low interest rate, people purchased homes above their otherwise affordable range.

Even so: Why is having to move one of the worst tragedies which can befall one? I lived for years in someone's basement, at times well below poverty-level income. Are these people of a higher caste than I, such that they are entitled to a fairly nice home no matter what? (And I, living in a basement, should have been supporting their considerably higher standard of living?)

Why don't I deserve a fairly nice home too (I still don't have one), even at someone else's expense?

The foreclosure crisis has become both a personal and a pastoral issue for us, and we are struggling to make sense of the fundamental unfairness that underlies it. The banks and other financial institutions whose behavior is most responsible for this crisis...

Wait another second. Whatever one feels about the "behavior" of banks, isn't it fairly obvious that banking is one of the most tightly-regulated industries in the United States? Even if we fully accept the main argument from the left — that Clinton-era deregulation allowed "greed" into the industry — then don't the regulators bear at least some responsibility, if not primarily so, given their alleged dereliction of duty? (Much less in the conserative scenario, where CRA and FM/FM and other Dem initiatives played a huge role in kick-starting the bubble in the first place...)

Yet in Jim Wallis's world, the government cannot be at fault, seemingly.

The banks and other financial institutions whose behavior is most responsible for this crisis have been saved from failure by the American taxpayers, while many of those least responsible are losing jobs and homes.

As I grapple with this contradiction, I keep coming back to the concept of grace. When the government tried to save the economy from meltdown, real grace was extended to the big banks -- but now the banks seem unwilling to extend grace to anyone else, including homeowners struggling to make mortgage payments. I am reminded of one of the parables of Jesus, wherein a master forgives the debt of one of his servants out of pity for his circumstances, but then that servant refuses to forgive the debt of another servant who owes him a little money. The master gets angry and throws the unforgiving debtor into prison. The money-changers in the temples of Wall Street would do well to take note.

Has Jim read the parable in question? The man begging for mercy was going to be sold into slavery, not being made to move to a smaller, more affordable dwelling. Given that he's not even bothering to outline some severe, unconscionable consequence, it seems that he's arguing, essentially, there should be no negative consequences, ever from bad financial judgment. How could you even sustain such a system, where every time a person asked to default a loan the answer was "yes"? How could banks exist to lend money for people to buy homes? Is that what he really wants? Or should the taxpayers just give everyone free homes?

(Liberals, it seems to me, do often ask themselves the "yes, but what comes next?" questions.)

I agree with the parable, BTW. But it's a call for mercy in extreme, dire circumstances, and a warning that we are all under God's judgment. (Wallis avoids highlighting salvific themes.) Mercy was granted by an individual, not compelled by Caesar. And even God's own legal code, given to Israel, ensured there would at least some penalties for unpaid debt.

Clearly, the financial crisis is a structural meltdown that calls for increased government regulation of banks and other financial players...

Wallis calls this a "religious" response, but his argument so far is almost entirely, aside from one (arguably misapplied) passing reference to a parable, based on his own economic and political filters. The crisis was caused by "greedy bankers", not a utopian desire (and corresponding policies) to get homes in the hands of those who couldn't afford them. Rescuing banks is presumably fine (I'd disagree) but we should also rescue every homeowner who isn't making payments.

Wallis offers far too little logic to make these policy demands a necessary outcome of his particular faith, much less all "religious" peoples, of any sort.

But at its core, this is also a spiritual crisis. More and more people are coming to understand that underlying the economic crisis is a values crisis, and that any economic recovery must be accompanied by a moral recovery.

Ah! A moral recovery! Who could be opposed to that?

We have been asking the wrong question: When will the financial crisis end? The right question is: How will it change us? This could be a moment to reexamine the ways we measure success, do business and live our lives; a time to renew spiritual values and practices such as simplicity, patience, modesty, family, friendship, rest and Sabbath.

Another good suggestion: we should take this opportunity to make individual changes. Yet our personal moral development is apparently but a means to a larger end...

Faith communities can help lead the way, challenging the idols of the market and reminding us who is God and who is not. "The Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world, and they that dwell therein," say both Christianity and Judaism; the Earth does not belong to the market. Human beings are stewards of God's creation and should preside over the market -- not the other way around.

So that's the end game. "Human beings should preside over the market." Well, what does he think "the market" is? A series of interactions initiated and carried out by plants, insects, and rocks? What he really means is that a few select individuals, called "the state" should control the behaviors of others; as he put it, "increased regulation" for what is already one of the most regulated areas of economic activity.

But if he never holds regulators accountable, and regulation so far hasn't prevented a crisis, and regulators are prone to being co-opted, then why is yet more regulation the answer? (In years of asking this simple question, I have yet to receive a clear, forthright answer.)

We must replace the market's false promise of limitless growth and consumption with an acknowledgment of human finitude, with a little more humility and with some moral limits. And the market's first commandment, "There is never enough," must be replaced by the dictums of God's economy -- namely, there is enough, if we share it.

In other words, those in government should decide how much is "enough", and should decide who gets what in that fixed pie. Imagine how we'd be living now if Wallis' argument had prevailed in the 1400s! Although I'm sure, unlike then, we are now at the end of economic progress. (Remember, this outlook calls itself "progressive"!)

Once again, this isn't a "religious" argument. Jim Wallis unwittingly acts here as an economic and historical expert. He knows that we're about to come to the end of our rope, in terms of improved standard of living, and thus socialism is now the appropriate response. If his religious perceptions seem questionable here, his economic and political expertise undoubtedly more so.

Many of our religious teachings, from our many traditions, offer useful correctives to the practices that brought us to this sad place. Jesus's Sermon on the Mount instructs us not to be "anxious" about material things, a notion that runs directly counter to the frenzied pressure of modern consumer culture.

Yes, he's right. But the flip side, which apparently hasn't occurred to him, is that he himself has just used anxiety for material things (a spectre of coming material scarcity) to argue for extreme government control over the distribution and production of wealth. This is a characteristic which pervades the left: modern environmentalism, for example, is, as it's core, nothing but the political embodiment of an extreme, almost crazed fear over material things. Yet, given his own scarcity-mongering, I'm not holding out hope the Right Reverend Wallis will soon produce an equally stinging rebuke to Greenpeace and Al Gore.

On a positive note, he closes the article with some nice descriptions of voluntary activities taken by individuals and small groups: charity, examining investments, transferring money, helping each other. I have no issue with that. Yet note that he's stated that this is a temporary, stopgap measure ("leading the way" before the state acts) — and his group, Sojourners, in nearly every call to action, demands that more governmental power be brought to bear.

I don't have any problem with people mixing their religious belief with politics: everyone does it, some are just more honest and self-aware than others. But I do have a problem with people who confuse their politics with their religion. My religious values teach me I should support policies which help the most people. But I turn to economics and history, as God intended, to discover which polices those are. (Or Jim could just read his bible, and discover that God didn't want the Israelites to live under a powerful state. But perhaps that's asking a bit much.) Those left of me seem to skip that analysis, immediately connecting some charitable urge they feel with whatever idea first pops into their mind — and condemning those who have done more homework, in that connecting phase, as immoral.

Done a few times, that's an understandable mistake. But over the long run, a steadfast refusal to examine the evidence and consider alternatives — while demanding such policies be forced on others, against their will — seems to move from being an intellectual or academic failing to a moral one.