Jim Wallis, Best wishes for success in this effort to encourage poverty assistance by our US government. Hand in glove with that, I think we should all consider redirecting some greater portion of our budgets for charity to poverty programs, directly.

Posted by: Mike Hayes | May 31, 2007 10:34 PM

Interfering with the free-market economy spells disaster. You should instead be working to shore up families by opposing abortion and homosexuality, and by converting people to Jesus. If Sojourners were truly composed of evangelicals, that's what you'd be doing --not engaging in failed Marxist rhetoric. Instead, you buy into almost every liberal lie there is, including the junk-science of global warming.

Posted by: John G. Pierce | May 31, 2007 11:04 PM

We are hosting a viewing party. How do we get our "guide"?

Posted by: Carolyn Bourland | May 31, 2007 11:27 PM

Jim Wallis, I also admire your tenacity and spirit, but continued efforts to eradicate poverty by doling out massive sums of money didn't work with the "Great Society," and it won't work in Africa or anywhere else. This is largely for two reasons (1) the kleptocrat governments steal most money sent and (2)whatever gets to the people makes them dependent on, and demanding of, more handouts like the huge cohort of AFDC welfare mothers that developed starting in the 1960s. It has taken years to partially wean them off the government largess.

Posted by: Jsens | June 1, 2007 12:11 AM

You should instead be working to shore up families by opposing abortion and homosexuality, and by converting people to Jesus. If Sojourners were truly composed of evangelicals, that's what you'd be doing -- not engaging in failed Marxist rhetoric. Instead, you buy into almost every liberal lie there is, including the junk-science of global warming. That kind of rhetoric is precisely what Jim is trying to avoid because it's, frankly, divisive. Need I remind you that the Bible says far, far more about helping the poor than about those two items (in fact, it says nothing at all about abortion). And it's not about simply giving the poor funds; it's about changing structures so that they can make their own way. That's entirely Biblical, but conservatives don't read those parts of the Scriptures.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 1, 2007 1:09 AM

John G. Pierce: "If Sojourners were truly composed of evangelicals, that's what you'd be doing --not engaging in failed Marxist rhetoric." Expressing concern over poverty is a Marxist thing? Hmmmmm.

Posted by: Carl Copas | June 1, 2007 1:40 AM

If you really want to talk to candidates about reducing or eliminating poverty why was New Mexico governor, and presidential candidate Bill Richardson not invited? In the 5 years he has been governor New Mexico has risen to sixth in the nation for personal income growth. He has dramatically increased funding for public education and insisted it go into classrooms, not administration. Members of Congress can make all the pretty speeches and promise the moon but Bill Richardason is already delivering the goods. Last fall he was reelcted by 69% of the voters, including over 40% of Republicans. I can't understand why Sojourners insists on ignoring this highly qualified candidate unless it is because he "isn't a rock star".

Posted by: Joy | June 1, 2007 3:01 AM

"You should instead be working to shore up families by opposing abortion and homosexuality, and by converting people to Jesus." John G Pierce In the New Testament I read, Jesus didn't have much to say about the impact of abortion and/or homosexuality on families. What he did have A LOT TO SAY ABOUT was: the limited relevance of family (irrelevant in eternity) as well as the role family plays in keeping people from following and obeying him. Oh, and Jesus DID have a lot to say about practical compassion for the poor.

Posted by: HASH(0x117c7d08) | June 1, 2007 4:49 AM

Support for programs to assist persons in poverty is truly admirable. But is support for government sponsored programs our best use of our powers of persuasion? I think all of us who see the value of support for persons less fortunate than ourselves should do more than that. What might be at least as effective? I think we should divert more and more of our charitable contributions from support for expenses for church buildings to real charities... like Oxfam and Heifer International and Second Harvest and shelters for homeless persons.

Posted by: Mike Hayes | June 1, 2007 6:34 AM

Oops. CPC, not CDC. My bad.

Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa DuBray | June 1, 2007 6:52 AM

Rick Stated
Need I remind you that the Bible says far more about helping the poor than about those two items (in fact, it says nothing at all about abortion).
Rick remember the Ten Commandments ? Something in there about taking innocent life ?
Taking money from a person to give to another with out their permission is theft , not charity .
Does not giving provide a blessing for the giver and the receiver. Did the use of tax software this year provide any blessings for you , were you trying to give more tax to help people or pay less? Be honest now .

I suggest doing so because the government made you does much less for the giver and the receiver . Obviously from the results of government programs provide some proof of that.
.

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | June 1, 2007 7:04 AM

I believe that it has been on the agenda several times. The US collects more than 4 times the amount of money to give every person on welfare (legit or fraud) $10,000.00 a year. That means a family of four could receive $40,000.00 a year not counting other benefits that they get - and WE STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM! Moderatelad Please cite to your source. I used to work for legal services with the welfare population and a single mom and kid would be lucky if they received $4000 a year on a welfare grant in expensive northern Jersey- one tenth of the figure you cited. It is precisely the misinformation that you're giving that de-sensitizes people to the plight of the poor. What was that rule about "bearing false witness?" Gotta love that "compassionate conservativism." Hmmm.

Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 1, 2007 11:41 AM

While the desire to eradicate poverty is laudable, Americans have become increasingly mean-spirited when it comes to actually helping out the poor in our country. We seem to have returned to the Calvinistic belief that the poor deserve to be poor and are undeserving of help. Consider the welfare reforms that have increasingly placed poor children and adults in jeopardy. When did it become a crime to be poor? What happened to the teachings of Christ to love our fellow man? While politicians regularly spout rhetoric about the future of our nation being in the hands of our children, it has become apparent that the children they are speaking of are those from wealthy families that can buy Ivy League educations, not the children of the poor or working classes. With the widening gap between those at the top income brackets and the rest of us, does anyone really believe that there will be a redistribution of money to raise the income levels of the poor? Our national philosophy is not "we are in this together," rather, it has become "what is in it for me?"

Posted by: Liz Hornbaker | June 1, 2007 2:02 PM

Remember, conservatives love to blame the government for everything. Then they run for office, get elected, become in charge of the government, and only made it bigger and more in the red! Don't forget, the Republicans were in charge of ALL branches of government for quite some time and the cost of living went up for everyone except the top 2% of income because they got the lion's share of the tax reductions. Even corruption went up!
So let's get back to reducing abortions. The top reason for women wanting abortions is they don't have enough money to raise a family alone. That's called poverty. Reduce poverty to reduce abortion! It seems like some of you who want to stop abortion have no game. Hot air but not really addressing the root causes.

Posted by: Steven Riggs | June 1, 2007 3:38 PM

I forgot to mention: put me in the camp that believes it is not fair to exclude Governor Bill Richardson a Democratic candidate for President, from the event. Should I take a pass on the event if this legitimate candidate is cast aside by Sojourners?

Posted by: Steven Riggs | June 1, 2007 3:51 PM

If we are Christians, we worship Almighty God and get our sustenance, solutions and solace from Him. Why go, then, to government, whose only tool is coercive force (that is, to steal, kill and destroy) in order to solve society's problems? No one was forced in the early church to give. They simply gave. The operation was 100% voluntary. Why take ourselves beneath that and coerce non-Christians to provide for the poor, when the Church could do it all on its own if people simply tithed voluntarily?

Posted by: Ben | June 1, 2007 4:47 PM

Why take ourselves beneath that and coerce non-Christians to provide for the poor, when the Church could do it all on its own if people simply tithed voluntarily? Because that's not the only issue. Sometimes laws do need to be changed and customs addressed for the poor to be helped. The real issue is that people want to hang on to their power of self-determination -- that is, WE want to make those decisions when it's convenient for us -- and that doesn't usually work. Take the civil-rights movement, for example (which wasn't strictly about the poor). Now, the conservative approach was "in due time" but "not [necessarily] now." But Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The time is always right to do what is right." And another thing: God's intent, with ancient Israel then and the church today, always was to show the world how things are to be done. We need to model that in all our relationships, not just "giving to the poor" but changing some fundamental structures so that the poor not only are not exploited but so that they can lift themselves out of poverty. Resentment toward the poor and their advocates -- and let's call it by its name -- does nothing to glorify God.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 1, 2007 5:10 PM

In Houston I see tons of homeless people, usually (not always) drinking a beer or smoking cigarettes, which are now over $5 a pack). It is tempting to give them money when they ask, and I often do. I don't know whether it is out of guilt or compassion. Then there are the illegal Mexicans. They are poor too. They hang out on street corners but are not usually smoking or drinking. They flock to any van that slows down, not to sell crack, but to ask for a JOB. When they get one they often are very hard workers. They work 7 days a week and live 12 to a house. We can't seem to find a way to craft a policy for providing these folks with a means of legal entry to the US. But we want to spend Billions on indigenous poor who have no desire to work or educate themselves to improve their condition. I am mainly addressing able-bodied men, not single mothers, widows, orphans, the sick and the elderly. All the money in the world will not solve this problem because the problem is spiritual.

Posted by: Peter | June 1, 2007 5:18 PM

Thanks for the link, Rob. I second that canucklehead. Sarasotakid said: "Yep, that sola scriptura thing doesn't work out well for either side does it? Could it be "gasp" that the Bible doesn't address every single issue in modern day life and that God left it to us to reason some things out based on biblical principles, the movement of the Spirit and even,"gasp", human reason?"
Well said Sarasotakid. This is the kind of infantile vigilance we can do without in the course of constructive debate. Just pull out the pocket Bible and voila, there's the evidence, the whole truth. The conservative psyche, not to mention the religiously conservative mind, is very interesting.

Posted by: Tom | June 1, 2007 6:07 PM

But we want to spend Billions on indigenous poor who have no desire to work or educate themselves to improve their condition. I am mainly addressing able-bodied men, not single mothers, widows, orphans, the sick and the elderly. All the money in the world will not solve this problem because the problem is spiritual. True, because those people need hope for the future before anything else. A lot of them have been told all of their lives that they're criminals (and many of them were), no good, shiftless etc., and when that's all you hear you internalize it; we see that all the time at my church. They need encouragement to change, that the LORD intended so much more for them. I don't see that worked out very convincingly in reality. I stick with the Church because I am part of it by birth (new Birth). I try do do my part to evoke change within my spiritual family. But honestly, I experience more authentic and effective community at Burning Man than I do in most Churches. I can't at all argue with that, and part of the reason is that "church" is institutionalized in American society -- going to the local house of worship is no longer viewed as a subversive act the way it was when the church was founded. We need to get that back somehow.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 1, 2007 7:00 PM

Not if our if the sola scriptura you are using is the gospels. However, several books of the Bible speak to the question of homosexuality. But not in the way most people think. In every Scriptural reference to homoseuxual conduct, the context is that it is something that God's people are to abstain from because it reflects the "world" -- in other words, it demonstrates outright rebellion against God, but of course you don't need to be gay to do that. For pro-life advocates, an embryo constitutes a human being. As such, it is an ethical question, as the scriptural question of whether it is acceptable to kill a human being is settled. The only way to argue the pro-choice side is to argue that the embryo is not a person. But that opens another can of worms which most "pro-life" people I know don't want to address, how men and women treat each other. Ultimately, it's an issue of community, not just one of ethics.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 1, 2007 7:25 PM

Kevin, follow closely, b/c this is complicated: 1) in the context of responding to an article on Sojo's plans, Mr. Pierce said:
"Interfering with the free-market economy spells disaster. You should instead be working to shore up families by opposing abortion and homosexuality, and by converting people to Jesus. If Sojourners were truly composed of evangelicals, that's what you'd be doing --not engaging in failed Marxist rhetoric.
IMPLICATION: You're not evangelical unless you're banging the drum re abortion and homosexuality - talk about economics/money is Marxist. Thot: Since Mr. Pierce identifies homosexuality/abortion as the "be all/end all" definition of what it means to be evangelical and "converting people to Jesus," how does he account for Christ's comparative silence on the topics HE suggests constitute orthodoxy for evangelicals vs. CHRIST'S comparative voluminous commentary on what he labels MARXISM? Agreed; noting Christ's silence on homosexuality/abortion is not the SOLE argument that some want to make of it in terms of the Christian view on those matters My point was to simply challenge Mr. Pierce's implication that homosexuality/abortion are at the heart of the "evangel" (gospel)that Jesus introduced whereas talk re poverty/money is purely "Marxist" in orientation.
Not so! Accordingly, Kevin: a) may the Pistons lose the series with the Cavs and may that d'vpment bring heretofore unknown grief into your life b) may your lawnmower run out of gas several times this weekend and the corner station reject your credit card c) may your BBQ malfunction and scorch your T-bones into OT sacrificial material d) may your car stall late at night in St. Louis Park thereby giving you a opportunity to share the Four Spiritual Flaws w/ local ruffians cruisin' the 'hood e) may your car stall on the Interstate en route to worship this weekend confining you to 4 hours of leading your children in "The Joy of the Lord is my strength" and other associated ditties as you wait for the tow truck Love, in Christ,
5)

Posted by: canucklehead | June 1, 2007 7:53 PM

Sounds good to me Rick, but my point was that you wouldn't give it to the government. Nobody would, because the government doesn't do social change very well. Yet for some reason we continue to expect it to and people advocate for more money for the government to change the situation of poverty.

Posted by: Ross | June 1, 2007 9:42 PM

it won't work in Africa or anywhere else. This is largely for two reasons (1) the kleptocrat governments steal most money sent and (2)whatever gets to the people makes them dependent on, and demanding of, more handouts Jsens 05.31.07 - 6:16 pm That sounds like a straw man argument or an unfounded opinion to me what s your source? Peace!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | June 1, 2007 11:01 PM

The causes of poverty are many and complex, so it's rather simplistic to think such a problem can be ended by throwing money or votes at it. Absolutely true, all of it -- the answer, really, is to build voluntary community so that people can be accountable to each other, and this is where churches can shine (but often get caught up in ideological malaise). Government can do some things but only so much; building relationships is the key.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 1, 2007 11:54 PM

INDIGENOUS POOR not working because they're criminals!!!!! What?????? After Diana Butler Bass's op about that freak show of a pageant, I think this "progressive" website is more racist and alienating than any conservative rant I've read and rolled my eyes at. You have got to be kidding me. These comments always end up back to homosexuality and abortion--what about the racial stereotypes you people throw around so easily. Colonialism is alive and well today folks, all you should hop off your freaking high horses and mingle with the natives for awhile.

Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa DuBray | June 2, 2007 1:05 AM

I don't admire Jim Wallis' passion, because these days it seems to be a passion to be the establishment's preacher and to be a shill for politicians whose lives and policies are in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is Wallis so deluded that he actually thinks we can "vote out poverty" by voting for one of the rich candidates of the monied special interests he is hosting? Does he really think that when the poor are being starved because over half of the controllable portion of the U.S. budget goes for the instruments of death, we are going to solve the problem by voting for a candidate who wants to increase the size of the military and the amount going to the machinery of death (a position of Clinton, Obama and Edwards)? Does he think the answer to poverty is aborting poor children, as all his favored candidates favor abortion under all circumstances? Perhaps killing them directly is the answer, as all his favored candidates favor the death penalty, used almost exclusively against the poor? Christ appeared to have thought that the greatest real enemies of the gospel were religious leaders who were self righteous and allied with those in worldly power. People like today's Jim Wallis. Lovers of the Gospel of Christ must work against Wallis and his ilk.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | June 2, 2007 2:17 AM

Much of that got cut under Reagan, BTW, because wealthier, better-educated people tend to vote and the conservatives knew they wouldn't get those votes, thus the excuse of "welfare." ------------------------------------- Interesting , since the incomes of minorities , especially African Americans went up during those years . You can have your opinion Rick , but you can't have your facts . To assume liberalism is more concerned for the poor then a conservative is just a basis for ending an intellelectual exchange .
I suggest you stop reading minds and motives to make them appear less then noble to support your opinions . Your opinions should have enough basis to stand on their own ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | June 2, 2007 4:58 AM

A typo -- I meant to say "you'd have a lot more black Republicans and conservatives than you actually do."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 2, 2007 5:23 AM

You don't blame the liberal welfare system either? No, I don't -- it was always a stopgap measure, as much of the economic vitality within cities was already being compromised. If I was a racist, that would be a government program I would support. Until the Clinton years, the majority of "welfare" recipients were white. This is a fact -- look it up. I assume you know what I mean if ask you if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? I did that 28 years ago last month. I do know African American Conservatives, and because they don't believe government is the answer does not make their opinion less valuable or important. Except that they were actually bought, basically to sell poison to the black community, and most blacks understand this. That's why not one conservative of any race has any serious pull in the black community. I'm not even a conservative and I was considered a pariah for challenging black "orthodoxy."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 2, 2007 2:20 PM

Rick, The comment made in response to another post was thus, " 'But we want to spend Billions on indigenous poor who have no desire to work or educate themselves to improve their condition. I am mainly addressing able-bodied men, not single mothers, widows, orphans, the sick and the elderly. All the money in the world will not solve this problem because the problem is spiritual.' True, because those people need hope for the future before anything else. A lot of them have been told all of their lives that they're criminals (and many of them were), no good, shiftless etc., and when that's all you hear you internalize it; we see that all the time at my church. They need encouragement to change, that the LORD intended so much more for them." It is true this is a stereotype of black men, but the commment was about "indigenous". (Unless the person that made the comment was just trying to talk about America's poor not people of other countries. If so, try the county I was born in--Shannon County, South Dakota. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation overlaps it. Google it.) If you want to say all that about black men as a black man, I guess go for it, but it just gives too many people too much amo against minorities. Why give them an inch when all they'll do is take a couple yards and hang all of us with it. As for people on welfare being the highest percentage white, you are correct. People need to do the research. As for Mick,
"The fact it actually rewarded Mothers without a male in the house with income ? It promoted a system where more money was given even if the person was on welfare to start with based on children and no male in the house . If I was a racist , that would be a government program I would support .. " Rewarding women who don't have a "male" in the home? Couple of issues with this statement: "Male"???? What, because you consider most people on welfare programs to be a minority (which, Rick, most people think black so we'll just go with that for now, though what I'm saying would apply for American Indians as well)you don't even use the word "man"? If he's black he's not a "man," he's a "male." Sounds like you're talking about an animal. Freudian slip? Looks like the Civil Rights movement didn't make it to your doorstep. And so what if a woman who accidently gets pregnant and ends up on welfare ends up having another baby, or 10??? If you're conservative then you're probably pro-life. SHE GAVE BIRTH TO THAT CHILD; GIVE HER A BREAK. She could have had an abortion, but she didn't and now she needs assistance. Who are you to judge that? And don't tell me she shouldn't be having sex--even God doesn't punish those who are fornicators (since the worst punishment would be infertility. Check your Bible--all through the OT God gave babies to women (Leah, Tamar, Hagar) especially when the men they were with were hateful or spiteful to them. It's God way of passing the love around).

Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa DuBray | June 2, 2007 7:26 PM

That sounds like a straw man argument or an unfounded opinion to me what s your source? Peace! neuro_nurse
The governments in Africa are quite corrupt . America has given over three trillon dollars to Africa . The money has not been used effectively .
I have a child I sponsor , he planeted a tree with my name on it a few years ago. Brought a tear to my eye ,talk about doing something small but yet changing the life of another human being and helping that person so much to have a better life . Praise God !
He is 18 now , his education has been part of a organizations outside of government . I could not give you percentages , but I believe if you investigated the poverty over there , and what has happened in the past . You would be wanting accountability for the help we give .
The countries need their own people equiped to teach their own people . I think thats the name of the game . Whats your plan ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | June 2, 2007 9:52 PM

Mick, I don't know what it's like to be poor like people in Africa. I don't know poor like people in India or another third-world country. But here? Try scrolling up and reading my story--it's the nice version, you might be able to handle it. I didn't add the part where I started working in 7th grade mopping up urine and soiled clothes at the local nursing home to pay for my own school supplies (when I wasn't getting up at 4:30 a.m. to work at a local donut shop), because my mom could only afford the basics, which in society is not enough, I would have been ostracized. I learned that early, probably the first day of Kindergarten. I know what's it like to be judged for simply being poor (not to mention for my nationality). Also, I don't care what color you are, your conservative bent makes you scary. As for thinking I have all the answers, I never said I did. You did with your butchering of welfare programs meant to help people who need it because of your focus on the ones who worked the system.
I don't plan on being poor forever, in fact I refuse to think of myself as poor, just broke. But the harder I struggle, leaning on God, the more I realize how hard it is, and the more I realize I better be helping those who don't know to trust in God or even though they do they just don't have it in them to do what I'm doing. Jesus said the poor will always be with us; we need to stop condemning them and start helping them practically. I'm wide open for suggestions on how to do that. As for a few ideas, (I never said I had all the answers) scroll up and read the ones I gave. As for the only poor people are those who only know poor people? I'm sure this is sometimes true, but there are plenty of us whose families do not help practically even though they could and our churches don't either. It proves why the government needs to be ready to step up for people when all else fails. In fact in a democracy I think it is important that the government doesn't force the poor on their own families and religions--it protects our equality with others (the little we have left) to let walk into a government office and request some help, instead of making us beggers at the street corners or at our family's front step or at pastor's door. As for me using racist jargon, I was simply answering what others had put out there.
I do agree with you that the white establishment would like to see minorities begging forever, because it would mean they had the control. I don't know how to get around that except to make the government as balanced as possible (meaning getting different nationalities as workers and elected officials in government), and get programs so people can lift themselves up. That is the goal. But there is also always going to be the segment of the population that will always be poor. Do we judge them? Or love them? I know what Jesus would do. Thank you for spelling my name right, I know it must have been hard since you don't think I have any ideas of my own though I supposedly think I have all the answers. And you think my comments close conversations?

Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa DuBray | June 2, 2007 10:41 PM

I was talking about people in my church Rick, who have no political concerns at all, like most of the people in the church I go to. They are not used by either side. Gathering from you said, I can see why being in politics would be a drag from either side. Based on what you said, you don't really know how blacks in your congregation vote (I bet they're mostly Democrats). In fact, almost every African-American, myself included, has those same concerns, but that doesn't make us doctrinaire conservatives. I was hoping we could reach somewhere beyond this, but you do have a very strong belief here. I do see things differently scripturely also, most likely stemming from our different perceptions. Then it is up to you to learn about those perceptions and the history behind them, which in my experience conservatives have never wanted to do. You see, we know how conservatives think -- heck, in the 1980s that view was practically in every evangelical church in this country and still dominates most Christian media -- and now it's time for another view.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 2, 2007 11:18 PM

Jim Wallis, I applaud everything Sojourners is trying to accomplish with getting poverty into the public square and having people work together to bring comfort to those afflicted. What about better higher education programs?? What do you think about that?

Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa DuBray | June 2, 2007 11:28 PM

Payshun "Most of our monies to africa have been thru loans which work to impoverish the continent and I can back that up. " Thanks, that was one of the points Graham Hancock made in The Lords of Poverty. Many of those programs benefited industries in the donor countries, while wreaking environmental havoc on the recipients. The recipients have to use the monies that were loaned to buy materials and services from the donor countries. The classic example is hydroelectric dams. Sounds like a great idea, right? Except that people living by the rivers that were dammed had to be relocated, and the lakes created by the dams became breeding grounds for secondary hosts of vector borne diseases and schistosomiasis (mosquitoes and snails). Meanwhile, the electricity generated by the dam is transmitted to cities miles away with no benefit to the people whose lives were disrupted by this brilliant idea. Oh yes, then the recipient country spends decades just trying to keep up with the interest payment on the loan. Peace!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | June 3, 2007 1:07 AM

The root problem of mankind is sin, not poverty. While I apologize for doubting that Mr. Wallis and company are truly evangelicals, my own thought is that the first task of an evangelical is to fulfill the Great Commission, not to eradicate poverty. And the spreading of the Gospel has enormous side-benefits, including economic.
The family may have negligible value in Eternity, but we're not there yet. Both the Torah and the Apostle Paul had plenty to say about homosexuality. Jesus never addressed the issue because it didn't exist in Israel. That's why this so-called "Red Letter Christianity" doesn't work. Jesus addressed Israel; Paul and the other Apostles wrote directly for the Church. In any event, it's all still the Word of God, which needs to be "rightly divided."

Posted by: John G. Pierce | June 3, 2007 3:19 AM

The root problem of mankind is sin, not poverty. While I apologize for doubting that Mr. Wallis and company are truly evangelicals, my own thought is that the first task of an evangelical is to fulfill the Great Commission, not to eradicate poverty. And the spreading of the Gospel has enormous side-benefits, including economic. You just contradicted yourself. I would agree with your premise that sin is the problem, but as my pastor often says, "God is a good provider but man is a poor divider." Anyway, did you ever read the book "God's Politics"? In it Wallis tells about a reconciliation with the late Bill Bright, who founded Campus Crusade, and Bright -- who always considered himself a "Great Commission guy" -- confessed to Wallis that "caring for the poor" is part of said Great Commission and for that reason he supported Sojourners. You see, Jesus told them to teach "everything I have commanded you," and it wasn't just, or even primarily, about getting people "saved."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 3, 2007 4:26 AM

Jim - I just wonder how you square ending poverty with your own trans-Atlantic flights and what looks to me like significant personal weight gain over the past decade? Looks to me like you're using up a lot of the world's vanashing resources.

Posted by: 3D | June 3, 2007 2:38 PM

Psalm 82: 3 Give justice to the poor and the orphan;
uphold the rights of the oppressed and the destitute. 4 Rescue the poor and helpless;
deliver them from the grasp of evil people. Isaiah 1 16 Wash yourselves and be clean!
Get your sins out of my sight.
Give up your evil ways. 17 Learn to do good.
Seek justice.
Help the oppressed.
Defend the cause of orphans.
Fight for the rights of widows.

Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa DuBray | June 3, 2007 5:10 PM

Hi neuro_nurse
I really don't have a source of money spent on proping up dictators in Africa, but is that not just you adding to my view about how government is less accountable and efficient . The the trillion I received in a newspaper article , was it wrong ? I do see your point of giving aid to Africa on a large scale , they are in dire need over there .
I have heard problems with the Red Cross and the 9/11 families also . So charities are not always as efficient , but I do not see government being more then a tempory solution for those in need .
Wow Eithopia , that is where I sponsor a child . I commend you on your dedication . Our church has many Missionaries throughout Africa. Also Africa is starting to send Missionaries here. Its where I really miss out on this fear of the religious right , politically they are basically stuck in their own group , you are pro life or your not , and all the moral so called laws they push get repealed or really have no effect on our culture . In fact from living in the state of Washington , a very left leaning state , I see little difference from who is in power . Not that civic duty is not important.
We have near friends who daughter went to Africa to help a village , it was tragic in this case , she got what was thought the flu, the second day it was obvious it was getting much wrose , the third day they flew her out to get to a hospital and she died that day . Three days after getting a slight fever . Her parents were one of the first people I met when I accepted Jesus Christ in my life . That is a conversation I never want to have with the Lord .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | June 3, 2007 8:39 PM

You see, we know how conservatives think -- heck, in the 1980s that view was practically in every evangelical church in this country and still dominates most Christian media -- and now it's time for another view. Rick Nowlin | 06.02.07 - 5:23 pm
Thats a little humorous from my view . Me taking the views of the Council of Churches and all the wars and programs that 40 years of democrat control caused and failed since FDR , putting those programs in a negative light , then saying I know how you think .
Rick that view of socialism being the cure all has never gone away , nor will it .
You go to a Bible believing church . It it not basically the Bible all about families , our dysfunctional families , reaching out to God or running away from Him . Then examples of Israel doing it from a community perspective . . If your understanding of the Bible teaches that closeness to God is what it is all about , that honoring commitments , covenants to God , wife , children to Fathers , Fathers to children , wife to husband , men to treat their wives like Jesus served the Church , etc , the social aspects of the programs being pushed by governemnt will always be the issue among many of us . Why would you expect them to go away ? What you need is to convince me that those programs will do more good then harm .. Thats what politics is about . True , what I need to do is try to understand better , which is why I am writing you . I vote republican almost always , I am also aware that the corporations care less about this country then those who march for moveon.org . I just happen to disagree with the moveon.org tactics and politics. Corporations care about the dollar ,
The kids at my school learned about flavored condoms , anal , vaginal and oral sex all in a healthy commitment relationship , marriage was never mentioned . If I complained , what would you bet some person would not blast me for being against scientifically based learning for the kids . Told me to go back to my prehistoric flat earth , put me in a box as you have tried , and I bet you as dad and me having a cup of coffee and I shared you those brochures and about the school class I sat in on you would just be shocked . Our kids do not not look at things as you and I do Rick , and you I do not even get close it appears to understanding each other . The Political Christian right did not effect our culture positively . As does this religious left organization . But I see bigger control to your democratic party as more government programs that promote flavored condoms mentality . I belong to a Union , and receive a decent wage . I guess lower middle class , blended family . When our kids were younger and all in our home , we qualified for the free lunch food program at school , then as my wages went up somehwt it was put on a percentage. I never thought we were poor , weird , maybe because got a good deal on our home .
I guess that justs crazy to you ? Or does that make any sense . You see I think the left dangles their bait before minorities just like the corporations dangle their family value stuff before the right .
Separates us , I believe God wants one church , yes different styles of worship and such , but one church . .
Politically I think you and I see may be more in tuned then to see things the same way , of course differences , but based on our indivudality , not on our race .
Minorities would be helped at a greater level . Maybe too idealistic I guess. But the church needs unity ,
Just think a block in America calling for School Choice in the Urban Areas , and say programs where Mortgages were affordable and interest rates low for married couples in certain areas. Instead of corporate welfare , we would have real care , instead of government schools , we would have public education ; Just a thought .. Would you be appossed to that ?
Here are some stats . Here are some stats , is this un important to you ? And do you see the left politics dealing with it . Maybe explain it to me because I see the left not even concerned with it .
The poverty rate for all children in married-couple families is 8.2 percent. By contrast, the poverty rate for all children in single-parent families is four times higher at 35.2 percent.3
Even a swedish surveysaid children in single homes are more likely to kill themselves by three times .Increase in the proportion of female-headed households in the community was associated with high rates of violent crime and drug trafficking, welfare dependency, infant mortality, high-school dropouts, and unemployment among young adults. To me this a major problem that effects all of us . I guess I don;t undertand why you do not consider this a major problem that effects all of us .
Non-Hispanic White 23%
Black or African American 65%
American Indian 49%
Asian and Pacific Islander 17%
Hispanic or Latino 36%
Total 32%

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | June 3, 2007 10:10 PM

Mick Sheldon,
The [3] trillion I received in a newspaper article , was it wrong ?
I don t know. A lot of people throw numbers and alleged facts around on here without citing a source. I ll take your word for it that it came out of the paper. The Lord gave each of us different gifts understanding economics and finances is NOT one of mine. The Lord gave me a different set of skills and the passion to use them for His glory. The U.S. census bureau is probably the best source of data on poverty in this country. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html I scanned some of the data on poverty on the census website, and it doesn t really contradict some of the statements made on this thread. I m not accusing anyone here of implying this, but I reject the notion of blaming the poor for being poor. Perhaps I m even more sensitive about that issue when it comes to Africa. There are social issues other than personal responsibility that keep people in poverty. I live in New Orleans, where after white-flight in the 1960 s, the school system deteriorated, and the African-American children coming out of those schools became a steady supply of poorly educated, unskilled laborers. ( Desire Street, Jed Horne, 2005) For all I know, I m preaching to the choir, but in general, most Africans do not have access to the resources that we do in the industrialized nations. It is very true that there have been many despotic African rulers, but keep in mind that in comparison to most European countries, most African governments are relatively young. The current government of Ethiopia is less than a decade old. The borders of modern-day African countries have nothing to do with the ethnicity of people living there or historic African nations the borders of African countries were drawn by the Belgians, British, French, Germans, and Portuguese. Most African countries did not gain independence until the 1950 s & 60 s and in many cases the colonist left those countries in utter chaos. In terms of health care, Africa has historically been ignored, which has proved to be not only an embarrassing legacy, but disastrous as well. The health of the rest of the world is directly linked to the health of Africa. Compared to other wealthy industrialized countries, the U.S. is near the bottom in government aid, but near the top in private donations. http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2006/Apr/11-160471.html http://gpr.hudson.org/ I don t conclude from that that the U.S. government should get out of the aid business, or that non-governmental organizations are more effective than government programs. I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the efficacy and accountability of aid programs, but I reject the notion of futility; that Africa is a lost cause that is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy and not what I consider to be a Christian attitude. Again, I m not implying that this is your attitude, but I ve heard it from people in my own family when the subject of my working in Africa comes up. So, where does your sponsored child live (kebele, region)? My wife and I moved to New Orleans from Seattle in December. She s Northwest born and raised, the daughter of a Baptist pastor. I ve heard plenty about the un-churched Northwest.
I m very sorry to hear about your friend s daughter. It sounds like she died from falciparum malaria, but that s complete speculation on my part. I ve had it, it nearly killed me, but there are plenty of pathogens endemic to Africa that can kill non-immunes very quickly. Do you know where she was? Peace!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | June 4, 2007 12:29 AM

Mick Sheldon, I think you and I share some common concerns. I do not trust our government, no matter who is in the Oval Office. I believe our government is paralyzed by politics, partisan politics to be sure, but the politics of staying in office as well. I don t deny that I have very harsh feelings regarding our current president, but the question is, what am I going to do about it? (I feel that same way about matters of faith you can talk the talk all you like, but what are you doing?) I don t have a lot of hope for the 2008 presidential election either. I haven t been following it as closely as I probably should, but I have not been impressed with anyone regardless of party affiliation. I agree that there is a lot of airtime, paper, and bandwidth wasted on partisanship and finger pointing. Some of the people who post on this blog at both ends of the political spectrum are guilty of it. I can understand that people, myself included, feel very passionate about those things that they perceive as injustices. There is a middle ground with plenty of room for dialog. I entered into this discussion with you with an aggressive stance, but have found that you are open to dialog. There are some people who post here with whom I have very strong disagreements, but frequently find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with something they have written. Paul tells us that we each have different gifts, that we are all part of one body, and that we need each other. I m not advocating a wishy-washy watered down version of Christianity at all. I think some of those who are most outspoken about the lack of morality of others have the dirtiest laundry of all and should examine their own hearts before they point their fingers at other people. Matthew 5:21-32 Christians are just as sinful as everyone else as far as I can see. Some on the left demonize the right and some on the right demonize the left, in the meantime, we get nowhere. The Lord has shown me many things in my life that have given me a perspective that is probably uncommon among my peers. Saying that there were very good reasons for the revolution in Iran that overthrew the Shah is not very popular in this country, but I was there and I heard the other side of the story. At the time, I could not tell you why I saved up my money and spent 10 months hitch hiking around Africa, but in retrospect, it makes perfect sense to me now. (I also see that the Lord protected me and kept me from harm while I was traveling) I am a liberal because of the things the Lord has shown me. I don t tow the party line completely, just as I doubt most conservatives agree completely with the agenda of the Republican Party. I resent being lumped into the godless, new age, anything-goes stereotype that some conservatives have of people who identify themselves as liberals, just as conservatives resent being stereotyped. That reduces people to labels, robs them of individuality, and is completely counterproductive. I may not agree with you all the time, but perhaps that s because God has not shown me the things that He has shown you. Matthew 7:15-20. I do think however, there are a lot of people out there who call themselves Christians but are producing bad fruit (present company excluded). We all know of one person who posts here who repeatedly points his finger at liberals as the source of all evil in the world, but where is the fruit in his life? My wife says, your morality determines your theology. Isn t it funny how God always takes our side even when we re wrong? Peace!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | June 4, 2007 3:21 AM

Unless you are suggesting that this scholar, writer and filmmaker has earned a living solely by being conservative, which is an absurd position. Most do. That's a little humorous from my view. Me taking the views of the Council of Churches and all the wars and programs that 40 years of democrat control caused and failed since FDR, putting those programs in a negative light, then saying I know how you think. Except that there was indeed a conservative campaign beginning in the 1950s, conceived by some intellectuals and funded by some multi-millionaires (one of which in lives in my city) to subvert the political process in this country; it founded think tanks, media and student groups to spread propaganda. There have been several books and articles written about this campaign. Knowing how conservatives think, if you do the research, is pretty easy to figure out. There is no such "liberal" network. If your understanding of the Bible teaches that closeness to God is what it is all about, that honoring commitments, covenants to God, wife, children to Fathers, Fathers to children, wife to husband, men to treat their wives like Jesus served the Church, etc, the social aspects of the programs being pushed by governemnt will always be the issue among many of us. Why would you expect them to go away? What you need is to convince me that those programs will do more good then harm. The issue is not so much social programs but access to the power and authority, which is what really left with "white flight." Going further, I attend an interracial, multicultural yet Bible-believing church that belongs to an extremely conservative denomination. But you would be very uncomfortable if you came here because you will not hear right-wing ideology preached from the pulpit -- at times you might think that our pastor is a socialist! (And people have left our church because of that.) You see, since we're right in the middle of the inner city we know precisely what the problems are, and that's why we say that, when it comes to problems of poverty, the right wing doesn't know squat.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 4, 2007 5:15 AM