Well, there's never a "need for government welfare," except in a few cases as a TEMPORARY safety net. Government welfare hurts the poor, and unemployment has gone down since welfare was reformed in the 90's. The "need" for the poor is for more businesses and a successful economic structure that creates jobs. What's better for a poor person? A meal on Christmas, or a job and good education? And who does the hiring in this country? Wealthy or middle class people owning businesses that are encouraged to innovate, grow, and prosper.

Now when you're talking about the extreme poor (the homeless who go to the Salvation Army for meals), there are obviously a lot more nuanced issues that go into those situations, and solutions aren't easy. I do know that any homeless person in America can find a Christian shelter or charity and get help if desired; could evangelicals be more aggressive in "taking it to the streets," rounding up some of the extreme poor and figuring out a way to solve this nationwide issue? Perhaps.

I don't know about some of the larger evangelical churches you're describing. Some of them probably have their own programs. It's Christians who started the Salvation Army, it's Christians who fund and operate 99% of the private homeless and jobless shelters and charities in our country, and it's Christians who are doing more charitiable giving than any other people group. These large churches (including the mega-church I attended in Louisville) have dozens of programs for single mothers, the jobless, those struggling with addictions, etc. I can't think of a single problem a poor person has that couldn't be addressed seriously at a program at the mega-church I attended. So maybe those churches were focusing their resources there instead of an outside program's Christmas meal, I don't know.

We're not going to come to political agreements in a short blog like this. My primary interest is in dispelling the notion that the Republican perspective is less compassionate or considerate of the needs of the "least of these." It seems like the main point being made here is that Christians are contradictory because they claim the teachings of Jesus while not believing in more governmental intervention for the needy. I'm offering the possibility that maybe it's because we believe that private works better than public when it comes to truly being effective. The evidence backs it up. Private social programs work so much better than public social programs it's not even close, and the vast majority of private social programs for the needy are Christian. So why is there a "need for more?" Maybe it's because non-Christians aren't doing enough.

Posted by: Dallas Jenkins | October 29, 2007 9:51 PM

Dallas Jenkins seems a little too ready to equate non-evangelical attempts to address poverty as "government intervention." A re-reading of my earlier post would elucidate his error. Communism/socialism is only one way of addressing that problem (notice my inclusion of anarchism, engaged buddhism, humanism) in my list of responses.

However, it does seem a uniquely american-evangelical mistake, though having sat through sermon after sermon on god's unique blessing of america in the mega-church i grew up in (Oliver North was a guest speaker, as were Charles Colson and James Dobson during our fourth-of-july worship services), i will not pretend that jenkins' et. al.'s equation with american free-market policies and god's plan is merely co-incidental.

You have money. Mega-churches have lots of money (the weekly budget for my ex-church was 40,000 dollars in 1995, the last time i attended), and they rely heavily on the wealth-accumulation of members in order to run those "charitable programs." of course there will be no criticism of an economic climate that allows such generous contributions, particularly with pastors of such churches making in excess of 100,000 dollars/year (the salary of Hayes Wicker, First Baptist Naples in 1995, for example).

We approach things differently, of course. I, having never made more than 15,000 dollars a year in my 16 years of working (and half of those years less than 8000 dollars), probably am not living in god's blessing, and maybe i suffer from the envy so common among those who have lived on the street (i have slept in bushes in city parks). Certainly i am not privy to the great calculations of largesse plaguing christian charities and churches, nor the comfort of knowing how best to use all that money, resting easy in the belief that christian=free-market principles are right for the world.

And fortunately for evangelicals, because of my low income, i have no power to change this. Rest easy, christian soldiers. those who notice that the hand which feeds them is connected to the hand that holds the reins of power are too hungry, under-clothed, or in prison to put up any real fight.

Posted by: rhyd | October 29, 2007 10:52 PM

Mr, Jenkins does not want to be lumped in with Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and others like that (including the neocons who took over the Bush white house) who proclaim, in the vernacular, "my way or the highway [to hell]." He also asks if Democrats ever have factions, or feel embarrased by sonmeone who makes a bonehead statement. The simple answer, from a lifelong Democrat is, of course! Because we are people, we will disagree and say dumb things.

The difference between Democrats and right-wing Republicans is, Democrats do not usually throw God in to the mix. We do not say somthing like: "My position is right, because God says so, and therefore all who oppose my position are not only wrong, but anti-God and hellbound sinners." As long as the Republican party endorses this sort of thing, there will be people who lump all conservatives into the same barrel.

Maybe, if Mr. Jenkins is tired of the scorn heaped on Republicans, he should work to bring them back to the party of Barry Goldwater, not the party of Ronald Reagan. Goldwater was conservative, and stridently so, but he NEVER resorted to using religion to base his politics. He would tell Democrats they were wrong, and they would tell him he was wrong, but nobody then said "you are a hellbound sinning anti-American traitor for believing what you believe." That sort of thing came in with Reagan, and has poisoned Republicanism ever since.

Posted by: PurpleKU77 | April 20, 2008 9:39 AM