God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It Book

Not a Christian myself, I was nevertheless attracted by the title. Having long been fed up by my perception over the years of the increased failure by politicians to make moral decisions when legislating, my "to be read" shelves are becoming populated with political commentary. This is one of the first I chose to read.

The main thrust of the book is that
-- Christ advocated the use of government to address social issues, such as poverty;
-- the Religious Right has allied itself with the party least likely to offer serious relief of either the symptoms or causes of poverty;
-- both Democrats and Republicans are coalitions of certain groups, and neither party exhibits a consistent moral philosophy;
-- Christian ministers should discuss and promote political actions consistent with Jesus' ministry, as they have been a primary source for change in the past (witness the civil rights movement, and other church-based activity in our history).

Unfortunately, there was little to offer a non-Christian. The author acknowledges that Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, however the basis of each of his arguments is in Christian scripture, and he fails to discuss any other moral or spiritual justifications for those arguments. My biggest problem with the book is that it offers no solutions the average citizen can take to bring God or morality into politics. This lengthy sermon seems aimed at other Christian ministers. Even for them, it is weak on concrete action points.

Additional failures are:
1) The author does come off as too prideful. This book is a great testament to all he has done to further his causes.

2) Much of the power of what the author offers is diluted by the repetition throughout. Wallis states and restates many points time and time again. This book could have been much more concise and to the point (something that could be said about much of my own writing... hehe), maybe 1/3 or 1/4 the length.

3) He makes some seriously startling accusations about the balance of political power in this country. I think many of his accusations are plausible, but he fails to provide good evidence for them. He then proceeds directly to what is wrong with the behavior of those he has mentally tried and found guilty, and what the moral choice would have been.