Colson v. Wallis

Phil Steiger at Every Though Captive alerted me to Chuck Colson's Breakpoint Commentary criticizing Jim Wallis.

Now, I respect Church Colson. I've read a number of his books. But in the last few years, I've come to realize that his slant on things are (a) very modern: he sees things only from a propositional/foundational point of view {see Brain McLaren's An Open Letter to Chuch Colson}, and (b) very politically conservative: his opinions usually line up with the Republican and/or Religious Right's positions.

In this commentary, Colson's argument seems to be: Abortion trumps all other issues--even the care for the poor. He writes, "Sorry, Jim Wallis, all issues are not morally equivalent. The first one, the right to life, is non-negotiable. It undergirds all others: Take it away, and the whole house of cards collapses." (Do you hear his foundational view of philosophy in that satement?)

He makes a false dichotomy: He implies that the Religious Right has it correct: Abortion is the foundational issue. The Religious Left has it wrong: Poverty is not a foundational issue. We must therefore choose who we will support based on this issue.

Colson even criticizes Mark Noll: "I was disappointed by his decision not to vote because he thought neither party was right about the issues that concerned him most, including poverty." Colson's point: You must vote, and you must vote conservative, because they have the foundational issue right.

Here's a few of the ways that this is a false dichotomy:
(a) Poverty is a Life issue. People's LIVES are at stake because of poverty.
(b) Jim Wallis is pro-life! He is as against abortion as Colson is. He is not advocating one issue over the other, but is saying that there must be more than one issue that is important to Christians.
(c) And that's the crux: Is there one issue that is the foundational issue? Are we really supposed to be ONE-ISSUE VOTERS? Colson says yes. Wallis says NO.

I tend to agree with Wallis. If Christians do not broaden their view of Life Issues to include poverty and hunger and HIV/AIDS and globalized economy and war, then we are simply being lazy in our ethics.

No, I don't think "all moral issues are equivilant," as Colson accuses Wallis of thinking. But that's not the point. Wallis is saying that the moral issues are more complicated than just saying "I'm against abortion," or "I'm pro-life." What causes abortions? What can we do about those root issues? Is not poverty part of those root issues?

Does not being "pro-life" also mean to be "pro-getting rid of poverty," "pro-feed the hungry," "pro-health," "pro-give everybody an equal chance at making it in this world," "pro-peace"?