The Wallis-Bryant School of Debate Tactics

During my some dozens of years, the overwhelming majority of my friends and acquaintances have been liberals. That is partly a product of my having grown up in the highly secular northeast and partly a product of my chosen profession -- law. However, my liberal surrounds have seldom proven a handicap to civility. I have seldom had any trouble discussing religious, ideological, or political matters with my liberal friends in a civil manner. And when tempers have flared, we have nearly always been reconciled before the sun set.

The exception to this general rule comes in the form of devotees of Jim Wallis, a group of highly-educated, energetic evangelicals I call the Accomodators. (They call themselves the Sojourners.) Unlike nearly all my other liberal acquaintances, the Accomodators I know have proven incapable of engaging in rational, civil debate. Instead of arguments they communicate slanders. Their concept of debate entails making outlandish assertions predicated upon incediary presuppositions. So, for example, a colleague of mine whose bookshelves are despoiled by Wallis' screed frequently drops verbal hand grenades such as, "Conservatives are disappointed with Chief Justice Roberts because he's not sufficiently activist for conservative causes." When challenged on this point, of course, he failed to name a conservative who actually communicated such disappointment in the Chief's judicial restraint. This same colleague in a discussion immediately after the Iowa caucuses insisted that white Iowans have no history of perpetrating racial violence only because there are so few blacks in the State.

Accomodators are not the only liberals to substitute slanders for arguments. In fact, this is a common debate tactic among our neighbors on the Left. However, in the case of the Accomodators this practice is aggravated by an additional vice. When I have in conversations with my thoughtful liberal friends called attention to their ad hominem, they have usually repented. "I'm sorry, I never realized that's how it might come across," and "It never occurred to me that the conservative position was more nuanced than I had assumed," are common responses.

Not so with the Accomodators. When I have called out Acccomodators for their slanderous presuppositions they have invariably gone on the offensive. "You're misrepresenting what I said," and "How could you question my motives?" are common responses. In this way they behave much like Kobe Bryant after committing a hard foul. "This isn't fair! I can't believe I'm being victimized like this!"

For example, some time ago I suggested to an administrator of a prominent Christian college that Jim Wallis' chosen means of questioning the justness of the Iraq War -- slandering the military as baby-killers, calling supporters of the Bush administration "theocrats" -- was less than thoughtful and unbecoming a Christian leader. The administrator did not respond to my argument. Instead, he attacked me, accusing me of "truncating" the relevance of the gospel (whatever that means) and disparaging my knowledge of just war theory.

Similarly, when I pointed out to my colleague that he had slandered the entire white population of the State of Iowa, he accused me of putting words in his mouth. He had a pure, pure heart, he assured me.

I have a working hypothesis to try to explain my experience with Accomodators. It is this: as they absorb Wallis' arguments, Accomodators also learn his vicious debate tactics. And just as they insulate their policy proposals from criticism by covering them with Christ's mantle -- "Universal health care is a moral issue!" -- they also avoid taking responsibility for their irresponsible rhetoric by convincing themselves they are doing the true work of Christ.

That is my hypothesis. Unfortunately, none of the Accomodators with whom I am acquainted has yet disproven it.