Wallis article full of distortions

"Lies, damned lies and statistics." These three types of falsehoods, categorized by Benjamin Disraeli, can all be found in the recent editorial, "CLPs need to be balanced out."
The guest writer, Christopher Mills, wrote that Jim Wallis wants us to lose the war in Iraq-this is a lie. Mills also denied the preferential option for the poor contained within the pages of scripture-a damned lie. Finally, Mills ignored the lives of millions of people worldwide and expressed favoritism for American lives above all others-statistics. These three types of lies must be refuted.
The first statement Mills made is patently false. He stated that Wallis desired the United States to lose the Iraq War. Such a statement reads far more into Wallis's speech than was there. While Wallis did not support the war, nothing in his public remarks at Furman University or elsewhere indicated his desire for the U.S. to lose.
The quotation Mills used to illustrate his point was intentionally edited. The inclusion of an ellipsis between the words "won't" and "prevail" should alert any reader to the mendacity of the quoted words. The full text in Wallis's book deals with the eloquence of the Magnificat of Mary, found in Luke's gospel. Instead of expressing the desire to lose the war, Wallis wrote that the attempt to oppress others into a forced peace will fail.
As Mary states, "God has scattered the proud and arrogant of heart." Changing a direct quotation to make it say what one wants it to say is unprofessional and dishonest. If I wanted, I could do the same. For example, Revelation 21:8 states, "...Liars...[go to hell.]"
The second argument Mills made is also lacking in intellectual honesty. He accused Wallis of selectively citing Bible verses to prove a point, rather than exploring the whole realm of scripture for authority. Wallis can be forgiven for not citing specific scripture. When one has over 2,000 verses in the Bible that deal with helping the poor, it can become repetitive to cite them all. If Jim Wallis had begun, we would still be at the lecture.
However, Mills committed the error of selective Biblicism himself. He cited a single verse, Leviticus 19:15, as proof against Wallis's points. Despite this valiant effort, the verse Mills mentioned contains within it an admonition to show no "partiality to the great." Mills did not merely ignore half the Bible, he also ignored the second half of his own selected verse.
Leviticus 19:15 speaks of treating people with equality and dignity regardless of station. Using it in another way is inappropriate. As Proverbs 14:31 and 17:5 both state, each in a different way, "Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker."
If we are to take Matthew 25 seriously, then those politicians who vote to cut food stamps to the poor are voting to take food out of Jesus' own mouth. And Mills, by vindicating their oppression, is implicitly arguing for the oppression of Jesus himself.
Mills argued that the Bush tax cuts exhibit economic sense. Although this point is hotly debated among economists, at the very least it lacks Biblical wisdom. Proverbs 22:16 states, "Those who oppress the poor to increase their wealth and those who gives gifts to the rich-both come to poverty." Or perhaps Isaiah 3:14: "The Lord enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of his people: 'It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses.'" What of Amos 2:7, which says, "They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed." Or perhaps, since Mills talks about homosexuality, I'm sure he knows the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Let's examine Ezekiel 16:49: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
The final way in which Mills' article is shameful is his treatment of the HIV/AIDS question. Mills gave a figure on the number of abortions performed compared to the number of HIV/AIDS deaths. He argued that the greater number of abortions compared to the lesser number of HIV/AIDS deaths renders the abortion issue more important than the HIV/AIDS pandemic. However, his figure includes only American deaths. To forget to include more than 25 million people worldwide who have died of the disease (in addition to over 200 million who have died from hunger since 1973) is to imply that only American deaths matter.
Such a view is an egregious example of jingoistic nationalism. To imply that the only lives worth protecting are those of Americans is to deny the warning from Jesus: whatever we do to the least of his brothers and sisters, we do unto him. Failure to act in the face of worldwide disease is tantamount to leaving Jesus Christ to die in the gutter.
Christopher Mills treated Jim Wallis unfairly. Rather than listen to what he had to say and develop opinions accordingly, Mills approached the topic with an axe to grind. In order to prove that point of view, he was forced to put words in Wallis' mouth to validate his opinion and ignore much of the Bible. Editing direct quotations, misrepresenting the scriptural record on poverty and presenting American lives as the only ones worth protecting represent a significant failure on the part of his analysis.