Jim Wallis: Rural Poverty on the Political Map
I heard this report on NPR this morning while getting ready for work and was inspired. I'm not only encouraged that poverty is finally getting on the national agenda; I also found this particular report to be almost poetic. At our candidates forum on CNN, John Edwards made a commitment to keep poverty on the political agenda in this presidential election, and he is following through on his commitment.
From today's NPR segment by Dee Davis, who directs the Center for Rural Strategies in Whitesburg, Kentucky:
This week, presidential candidate John Edwards is coming to retrace the RFK visit. I wish they were all coming. These things matter. It is not about party; it's about eyeballs. And there are sights that need seeing. ...People will tell you government doesn't work. But I've seen it work. It starts with somebody showing up and making an effort. I have also seen it fail. Mostly that happens when no one's paying attention.
Davis (who was a high school Republican when Bobby Kennedy came through Kentucky in 1968) is right—this isn't about party, it's about real people and places becoming part of our national political conversation.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
John Edwards made a commitment to keep poverty on the political agenda in this presidential election...
But he never said that it would be on the agenda if he made it to the Oval Office - big difference.
Just an observation -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 17, 2007 4:02 PM
Maybe it's a credit to this site that it's writers support varied and different causes. However, I'd love to hear what Shane Claiborne has to say about Wallis' political support of a man that lives in an 18k square foot mansion and receives $400 haircuts, then crosses the country in an attempt to bring attention to poverty. Is Wallis so deep into the political machine that he can't see the obvious contradiction?
Why didn't Wallis, et. al, ask Edwards about his seemingly opulent spending sprees? Would Jesus have raised the question? Or about accepting 40k to speak on poverty at universities?
Wallis is becoming a joke. Seriously.
Posted by: Blake | July 17, 2007 5:03 PM
Thanks, Jim. Don has me reading Walter Wink now, and I've learned something important. The parable of the sheep and the goats, in Matthew 25:31-46, is told in the second person plural: a fact that most English readers don't recognize. "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, he will gather the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you (plural) from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you (plural) gave me food,'" etc. The sheep and the goats are always collective "yous," indicating the entire population of a nation. At the beginning of the parable, however, nations - ethne - is neuter, but the phrase "he will separate them" uses the masculine pronoun autous. This indicates that God is separating not nations, but individuals, whom he will hold individually responsible for the collective failures of their nations to take care of the poor. Scary? It's meant to be.
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 17, 2007 5:06 PM
Blake:
Your complaint is argumentum ad hominem at it's best (or worst).
The issue of poverty, how we should deal with it, or what (if any) involvement government should have in trying to eliminate it, is independent of Edwards' lifestyle. You can call Edwards a hypocrite if it makes you feel better, but maybe Jim Wallis wants us to consider what he is saying.
What do you have to say in counter to what Edwards is saying? If you disagree with him, say so and give reasons. Don't base your wish to dismiss him on his lifestyle.
Further, as I've said before, the lavish lifestyles of politicians, celebreties, etc, implicate all of us. Wouldn't most of us want to live in a big house and draw big salaries, if we could? So when you point a finger at Edwards, don't forget that three of them are pointing back at you.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 17, 2007 5:20 PM
Thanks Don, good words.
To be quite honest, I'm not sure what the solution should look ike. I do know that one of the largest afflictions to those in poverty in the US is obesity, so I'm not sure what to do with that. And I am cautious of pols (on both sides) who wish to take others' money and redistribute it. I'm not sure that's the gov'ts responsibility, especially in light of said issue regarding obesity.
And with regards to Edwards, I just think it's responsible to consider the source. If Barry Bonds tells you we should start fighting sterioids in baseball, he may be right. But would we champion him?
Again, I'm not sure where I fall on all this stuff. But it's disappointing that Wallis is such a weiner when it comes to being critical of the left.
Blake
Posted by: Blake | July 17, 2007 5:33 PM
Government services in so many areas are in a state of bureaucratic confusion, backlog and incompetence. Programs that currently exist must be corrected and actually deliver real services before talking about spending even more. Or is this just rhetoric to buy votes by offering false hope? The question about Edwards' real commitment isn't spurious - so much of current culture is built upon deceit and sales pitches - outright manipulation. Government (people) can make a tremendous difference for good - if they are real. But the burden of proof is to become trusted where they are currently failing - and those who would be leaders need to show themselves really to be for truth.
Posted by: M North | July 17, 2007 5:37 PM
"This indicates that God is separating not nations, but individuals, whom he will hold individually responsible for the collective failures of their nations to take care of the poor. Scary? It's meant to be."
While I certainly believe that I have the responsibility to make faithful decisions regarding policies I support, the implication that Christians are going to be held accountable for the actions of the entire population of a country doesn't hold water.
We are to be different from society, setting ourselves apart (Ron Sider recently published a book decrying the fact that Christians don't do this enough). We cannot expect Christlike behavior from those who do not know Christ.
The other problem, of course, comes when people have differing views of how to help the poor at a policy level. Is someone going to be held accountable simply for ascribing to the wrong policy?
"You can call Edwards a hypocrite if it makes you feel better, but maybe Jim Wallis wants us to consider what he is saying."
Yeah. Politicians may do what they wish, which is why I shudder when I hear about politicians caring for the poor or budgets being moral documents. How politicians, who are largely unaffected by their own policies in any meaningful way, can be deemed generous for how the opt to spend other people's money is beyond me.
This, then, innoculates those who advocate for the poor at the political level, but don't care about them personally. It is also why I vote ideologically (in general) and not personally.
In this instance, then, Wallis expressing pleasure (justifiably) that an issue that is important to him is part of the platform of a viable presidential candidate. The purpose is not to tell us how great Edwards is.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 17, 2007 6:00 PM
One of the many great things about how Jesus lived is that he led by example. He literally showed us how to live. He showed us that to love God was to love others and that to love you had to put someone above yourself. So based on that, I would say that Edwards lifestyle seems to discredit his intentions, but that doesn't mean that the problem is any less serious.
On the flipside, poverty is something we as a nation must step up and do something about. But I do not believe that government is the answer. We, as everyday people have to learn from how Jesus lived and begin really loving people. Until we do that, until we are willing to get dirty and uncomfortable for someone that is hurting...the problem will never be solved.
Posted by: Jen | July 17, 2007 6:09 PM
"While I certainly believe that I have the responsibility to make faithful decisions regarding policies I support, the implication that Christians are going to be held accountable for the actions of the entire population of a country doesn't hold water."
It doesn't if you assume that "kolasin aionion" (literally "the punishment of the ages") means being sent individually to hell. The idea that the individual members of nations will be held responsible in the light of eternity by how well their countries have risen to the challenge of caring for the least of these makes perfect sense to me.
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 17, 2007 6:24 PM
"In this instance, then, Wallis expressing pleasure (justifiably) that an issue that is important to him is part of the platform of a viable presidential candidate. The purpose is not to tell us how great Edwards is."
This is a true and accurate analysis of Wallis' purpose here, IMO.
Blake, I do agree that we don't always get the ideal "champion" for our cause. Just look at Al Gore and his effort on behalf of global warming. It's just too easy for people to dismiss the problem itself simply because they don't like him.
What should we do? I too am wary of pouring tax money into poverty-alleviation programs. At the same time, I'm equally wary of the way the rich have been favored in much of our current tax policies. I don't have an answer to what government should do. But we need to have the debate.
Later,
Posted by: Don | July 17, 2007 7:14 PM
I started reading "God's Politics" today, and by the end of the introduction it was clear that, in his analysis of the 2004 election, Mr. Wallis overlooked the obvious social justice candidate, Ralph Nader. I pray that Mr. Nader runs in 2008 and that Mr. Wallis acts to support Mr. Nader, the most Christ-like candidate of our time.
Posted by: Thomas Diggins | July 17, 2007 7:25 PM
My Appalachian friends, when the subject comes up, tell me how much they resented the condescension of the Kennedy visit back in the sixties - 40 years later it still rankles. I wonder if they will see John Edwards' visit in the same light?
Posted by: Gordon | July 17, 2007 8:31 PM
Edwards made millions taking away money from companies by exagerating anothers sorrows .
Bush was the compassionate one when he ran for President . He was given his silverspoon .
I sometimes wish we had the kind of country that a man who spoke for the common man was actually really a common man. But then again , he would not have the millions of dollars it needs to convince he was really one of us .
Christ is enough for me , but you would think it would stop people from still looking for another one to save us .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 17, 2007 8:56 PM
Edwards says government succeeds when an individual takes initiative. This is an oxymoron. The government is the opposite of an individual. It is no-one. It is all. But all can’t see the small. It takes a much smaller set of eyes.
Presumably then, we ought to empower this particular set of eyes with the power of all.
Now, if this particular set of eyes has the resources within his self to care for the needy, why does all need to get involved?
I will once again quote Davy Crockett, “Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. When Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.”
It is the church’s responsibility to care for the least of these and we dare not shirk it upon the unbelieving public.
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2007 9:29 PM
What to do?
Here is an idea, how about the government, private sector and ordinary citizins and NGO's come together to solve the problem? The idea that the government should do nothing is unjust. The idea that the private citizen should do nothing is selfish. So why not combine forces? It doesn't need to adverserial does it?
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 17, 2007 9:36 PM
The combining forces idea is the root of the problem. Each is free to bring whatever resources he desires to the charity of their choice. Charities work together often, and often do so well. The only ethical caveat is when some are compelled to give against their desire. This is the state's means of collecting funds.
And the state doesn't collect funds to pay for programs, it creates programs as an excuse to tax.
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | July 17, 2007 9:44 PM
Capitalism is the "evil in the world" that Mr. Wallis writes of. If you want to eliminate poverty, eliminate unbridled capitalism (greed).
Posted by: Thomas Diggins | July 17, 2007 10:14 PM
The government is the opposite of an individual. It is no-one. It is all. But all can’t see the small. It takes a much smaller set of eyes.
There are sometimes situations where the "smaller set of eyes" refuses to see -- the civil-rights movement was one such instance. The South had to be forced into reform, and even William F. Buckley Jr. conceded that, when it came to breaking the back of legal segregation, "Federal intervention was necessary."
My Appalachian friends, when the subject comes up, tell me how much they resented the condescension of the Kennedy visit back in the sixties - 40 years later it still rankles. I wonder if they will see John Edwards' visit in the same light?
Doubt it -- it was more regional than anything else; Edwards, being a Southerner, will likely have more pull. Clinton, whatever his policies, always did well in that part of the country.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | July 17, 2007 10:37 PM
"The idea that the individual members of nations will be held responsible in the light of eternity by how well their countries have risen to the challenge of caring for the least of these makes perfect sense to me."
It might make perfect sense to you, but it doesn't gel with either the commandment to distinguish one's self from society or salvation by grace. If we really were held responsible for our sin, it would invariably result in eternal death.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 17, 2007 11:26 PM
"I sometimes wish we had the kind of country that a man who spoke for the common man was actually really a common man."
Could Jimmy Carter run again?
I do find it concerning that so many in power are making decisions on policies involving poverty and they themselves have never actually been poor. That statement is actually not true concerning Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and they at least understand what it means to go without. Few other policy makers have had such first hand experiences with true poverty. It'd be nice if they did. Maybe in order for any politician to serve, we need to require they live 6 months in a minimum wage job, barely able to make ends meet. While we're at making such requirements, maybe they should also all be required to serve in the armed forces during war time. At least then they may have a taste of what it means to be "a common man or woman."
Is John Edwards being disengenuous? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Many celebrities take up the cause of poverty and don't shun their wealth. Are they also disengenuous? Edwards heads a center on poverty and work studies at NCU, and I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is actually passionate about the subject. I agree that I would like to see those who are so passionate match their lifestyles to their passions, however.
Posted by: squeaky | July 18, 2007 12:05 AM
"If we really were held responsible for our sin, it would invariably result in eternal death."
On the contrary. Being held responsible increases our need for grace, both individually and collectively, thus validating grace as the crucial element in salvation.
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 18, 2007 12:19 AM
back when child factory labor,
and unsafe tenement housing were the norms
in america,
upton sinclair made america focus on these harsh realities,
through his press reports and book about it.
i'm sure most people who lived outside
these harsh realities tried to ignor
or justify child labor and substandard housing,
until,thru sinclair's efforts,
these unacceptable practices became undeniable.
Posted by: be free | July 18, 2007 12:34 AM
"On the contrary. Being held responsible increases our need for grace, both individually and collectively, thus validating grace as the crucial element in salvation."
I suppose. Do you think this passage, then, has nothing to do with punishment? Why, then, do you find Wink's interpretation of it to be scary?
"Is John Edwards being disengenuous? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Many celebrities take up the cause of poverty and don't shun their wealth. Are they also disengenuous?"
I think a lot of celebrities are absolutely being disingenuous. I do wonder if Sojo would be so forgiving of a wealthy lifestyle coming from a "compassionate conservative" who led an extravagant lifestyle.
Incidentally, John McCain spent quite some time learning what it was like to be a common man.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 18, 2007 10:58 AM
"I think a lot of celebrities are absolutely being disingenuous. I do wonder if Sojo would be so forgiving of a wealthy lifestyle coming from a "compassionate conservative" who led an extravagant lifestyle. "
Give me an example. Both of the person you describe, and if possible, Sojo's reaction to that person.
I like John McCain, always have. I hope his campaign hasn't gone down the tubes, however. Is he an example of someone you described above? If so, I don't think I have seen Sojo bash him, although they may have expressed concern over his thoughts on Iraq...
Bottom line is people hate hypocrisy no matter who it comes from. Jesse Ventura was elected in MN more than likely because you knew what you were getting with him because he refused to play politics (alternatively, he was elected because a bunch of college students got together and voted for him because they thought it would be funny--I was in MN at the time, and heard a few such voters...)
Posted by: squeaky | July 18, 2007 11:31 AM
"I suppose. Do you think this passage, then, has nothing to do with punishment? Why, then, do you find Wink's interpretation of it to be scary?"
I experience the punishment of the ages all the time when I think of the ways that my society oppresses the poor, pillages the environment and feeds the military machine. There seems to be nothing I can do about it, and that scares me to death. That's when I pray for grace, so that I can begin to get an inkling of God's response.
Saint Paul puts it well: "...Their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:15-16)
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 18, 2007 1:16 PM
"Give me an example. Both of the person you describe, and if possible, Sojo's reaction to that person"
Of a compassionate conservative? I would argue that Bush is one (to the extent that he is even all that conservative), but you would disagree, and that is not a discussion that is terribly relevant to the post at hand.
For a celebrity, well, just about all of them.
I actually think McCain is more fiscally conservative than Bush. I think he's got one more shot left at the presidency. I have maintained that you are either for or against Giuliani at this point. I don't think he can get above 30%, and I think he loses a two-man race.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 18, 2007 2:27 PM
Kevin:
It might make perfect sense to you, but it doesn't gel with either the commandment to distinguish one's self from society or salvation by grace. If we really were held responsible for our sin, it would invariably result in eternal death.
Me:
But your ideas don't gel w/ the call to care for the city where you live or for the broader call of caring for our nations and the poor inside their borders. You are absolutely right but if you think God is not going to judge nations on how they treat their own poor or the poor of the world then you would be wrong.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 18, 2007 2:45 PM
I think a lot of celebrities are absolutely being disingenuous. I do wonder if Sojo would be so forgiving of a wealthy lifestyle coming from a "compassionate conservative" who led an extravagant lifestyle.
Probably not, and I would hope not -- but not because of his/her wealth. After all, to my knowledge no "compassionate conservative" of any economic stripe has ever advocated voting, running for office or community activism for the poor, the things that really make a difference.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | July 18, 2007 3:06 PM
"But your ideas don't gel w/ the call to care for the city where you live or for the broader call of caring for our nations and the poor inside their borders. You are absolutely right but if you think God is not going to judge nations on how they treat their own poor or the poor of the world then you would be wrong."
We are certainly called to care for the poor (and for our neighbors in general, poor or no). To tie this to judgment, however, runs counter to what the Bible offers in terms of grace. To state further that we are accountable for how our country treats the poor doesn't gel with what the Bible teaches.
I am convinced that the Lord is disgusted by the fact that we permit the slaughter of 1.3 million unborn children each year. If given a choice, I will not support politicians who believe it should be legal. Some disagree. I am not accountable for their dissent, nor am I accountable for the actions of those who have an abortion.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 18, 2007 3:57 PM
Posted by: squeaky | July 18, 2007 11:31 AM
Jesse Ventura was elected in MN more than likely because you knew what you were getting with him because he refused to play politics...
Ventura's election was a joke to some - mandate to others. Once he got into office he showed his read colors as he forgot about the party that elected him and appointed members of the DFL to his admin. Living in the town that elected him mayor - he did some great work there - just lost his vision once he got to the Capital. Skippy was nowhere to be found the day after the election. Norm joked about getting more votes than Skippy and still not Gov of the state - class act.
You got to love MN politics - we are a strange bunch.
Have a great day
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 18, 2007 4:00 PM
"I am convinced that the Lord is disgusted by the fact that we permit the slaughter of 1.3 million unborn children each year. If given a choice, I will not support politicians who believe it should be legal. Some disagree. I am not accountable for their dissent, nor am I accountable for the actions of those who have an abortion."
Do you really think life can be so neatly compartmentalized? If you're wondering, the reason I didn't mention abortion in my list of societal evils above is that I believe it is a symptom, not a first cause. Sexual promiscuity results from rampant materialism, which desacralizes the sexual act and turns it into a commodity. Lack of societal commitment to take care of the poor causes them to have abortions in record numbers. If you are completely free from participation in society's materialism, you're doing much better than I am. Otherwise, please don't claim not to be accountable for the actions of those who have abortions. We are all accountable.
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 18, 2007 4:15 PM
We are certainly called to care for the poor (and for our neighbors in general, poor or no). To tie this to judgment, however, runs counter to what the Bible offers in terms of grace. To state further that we are accountable for how our country treats the poor doesn't gel with what the Bible teaches.
Me:
Umm no it doesn't. Grace is everywhere in it but that doesn't exclude judgement for not taking care of our responsibilities as a nation. Amos and the other prophets stand by their critiques of Israel (a monotheistic theocratic nation,) Egypt, Rome, Cush, (a polytheistic monarchy,) and others. If those critiques were true then they must hold water today. If they do today then that would mean that God would judge nations for what they recieve from him and not only that but Jesus even said the same thing. Jesus himself said the nations would be judged. That doesn't mean grace has no power but you can't ignore Christ's own words about judging entire nations.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 18, 2007 6:34 PM
Revelation 19:15
From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 18, 2007 6:46 PM
As John Edwards and anyone else walk the hollers of Appalachia they discover genuine people who can quickly smell those with agenda's other than genuine service for the common good.
Unfortunately, the "belt way" does not run through a holler, so politicians have to get off the highway and the jet-way to find some of the really great Americas!!!!
also, wonder what the pay is these days for those who monitor blogs today so they can smear great leaders like Jim Wallis?
Keep up the good work Jim!
Posted by: Max | July 18, 2007 7:27 PM
Some disagree. I am not accountable for their dissent, nor am I accountable for the actions of those who have an abortion.
Posted by: kevin s.
Kevin I think we are judged as a nation . Look at Israel , even though their was always a Remant of those who followed God's laws , it did not stop the nation at times from being taken control of by the Roamans or Babalonians .
But I think to say God is a republican or democrat is a stretch . Both parties have their issues that I believe would not fit in Bibically with how we are to live .
This organization seems obsessed with promoting democrats even with issues of justice being compromised at times. In fact almost all the time . To link that up with God's judgement voting republican or democrat is quite the stretch . To vote democrat you have to be willing to allow for organizations promoting sex out of marriage , aborting babies , etc. What this does to families is obvious .
To vote republican you have to realize you are voting for policies that allowed corporate welfare , and at times used methods politically to exploit the poor .
Just recently The homosexual-activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and MTV's gay cable network Logo announced they are sponsoring a presidential candidate forum focused on one topic: homosexuality. Now pandering to homosexual activists is what I would say the same candidates did a while ago with Soujorners . According to the Bible embracing homosexuality as a means to gain political power could be seen as something a nation could be judged on .
All major Democratic and Republican presidential candidates were invited. The list of those who have accepted: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.; former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska; Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 18, 2007 8:31 PM
Mick -- I don't think you can equate the United States with ancient Israel because the latter was the only civil society ever sanctioned (or better yet, created) by God. So to say that God will judge is a bit of a theological stretch, primarily because judgment always begins with His people -- that is, today the church.
The problem is, many of us Christians were so caught up in the "culture war" that we have forgotten that we need to preach and live the Good News of the Kingdom of God. So of course there will be an outcry that presidential candidates are "risking God's judgment" by appearing before gay advocacy groups.
That said, "culture warriors" have (and this is not widely known) the following problem: Many, many conservatives are actually themselves gay, and in fact I learned a few years ago about the Republican Unity Coalition, a group dedicated to recruiting gay-friendly conservative candidates which had some heavy GOP hitters behind it. GWB got about a quarter of the gay vote in 2000.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | July 18, 2007 10:09 PM
I see what you are saying Rick and it makes sense . But just the common sense of Bibical truths , Judeo Christian ethics , how we see right and wrong , has something to say how a nation prospers or does not . But you don't think a nation that has so many cultural vices and policies that hurt those specfically that can;t do anything about it will be judged in any way by God ? What about the prayers of those who seek God's help to stop it from occuring , are they useless ?
I use to have this quote on my locker at work . I cleaned toilets and such as part of my job description , I remember telling my kids that and they were shocked . This generation is spoiled , don't get me started . Anyway why I liked King was he could put Bibical truth out there without anyone getting offended , or most people anyway .
“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
Anyway , this attitude of doing your best ,even when the job sucks is why I believe nations prosper and some do not also . My biggest concern with your views at times , is it will cause people not to rely on themselves as much as their Government . Now if we all had this culture of doing our best , I would tend to believe liberalism would work . I just have not seen evidence of that in my life experiences .
I have met some gay republicans , but I would not say gays were more conservative then say Irishmen .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 18, 2007 11:18 PM
Rick P.S
We have gay republicans Rick , I use to be very involved politically and supported gay republicans being involved in the political process. That percentage you quote I suggest is way off however , from my experience . In this state it is becomming acceptable for legislators to state you are bigoted if you are against gay marriage . I was surprised when I first heard the term in the mainstream media go unchallenged , but thats where we are in the Seattle area .
The Culture War is pretty much over from my position in regards to where I live . Gay politicians have a better chance of being elected then a person spouting some kind of moral superiority because of their brand of religion .
I think you under estimate the results of loosing the culture war , I think the number one scripture now that is used in the mainstream media is Judge Not , lest you be judged .
How often have we all tried to teach our kids to make right decisions , only to have them learn that all decisions are basically equal .
Perhaps your a better parent then I , but I have seen the results in my own kids .
What this generation just accepts as normal in their culture makes it unjust to my thinking .
I could have used your support in that war , I hope you have success in yours.
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 18, 2007 11:36 PM
But you don't think a nation that has so many cultural vices and policies that hurt those specfically that can't do anything about it will be judged in any way by God? What about the prayers of those who seek God's help to stop it from occuring, are they useless?
You could say that about every country in Earth. Besides, fighting culture wars is not the Christian's first calling; I think one reason we have such moral rot here is because we haven't truly lived out the Gospel. Getting somewhat back on topic, part of that is doing right by the poor and powerless, many of which are in Appalachia.
Anyway why I liked King was he could put Bibical truth out there without anyone getting offended, or most people anyway.
King also argued against materialism and Communism, which should have endeared him to "traditionalists." But in his day he was actually hated, especially by white Southerners, and the modern political right had no use for him, either.
In this state it is becomming acceptable for legislators to state you are bigoted if you are against gay marriage. I was surprised when I first heard the term in the mainstream media go unchallenged, but that's where we are in the Seattle area.
That's directly due to the Christian legacy of homophobia, which made a lot of people a lot of money back in the day. Even my conservative pastor understands this -- two years ago he mentioned a petition that was going around the church opposing gay rights, but he refused to sanction it because the rhetoric was too inflammatory. Besides, you live in a part of the country that, more so than anyplace in the U. S., is pretty much "live and let live" -- my roommate was born and raised in Oregon, so he understands that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | July 19, 2007 12:29 AM
Mick and a little bit of Rick,
If you really think that God will judge us for allowing people to choose their own lives then you really are ignoring things that he has shown grace to. During the supposedly pure and pristine puritan era prostitution was very normal. This nation allowed it's rich white men to keep mistresses and live double lives. Rich southern white men helped to father an entire subculture in New Orleans called the Gen De Color Libre, the freed men of color. I could keep listing all sorts of sexual sins and yet God has shown mercy including homosexual rape of young boys and men from both sides of the revolutionary war. There were young boys that were called cabin boys that British soldiers and some Americans used for sex practices because women were not available. Yet the nation came into being.
I look at Rome and how many centuries did it last? It was the most decadent culture in world history. If you think homosexuality caused Rome's downfall then you would have to ignore every other vice Rome had. Yet it lasted for over a 1000 years in some form or another. This nation will not be destroyed because of homosexual practices. This nation will die because of the corruption and destruction it reaps on the poor and it's church being turned from the path of discipleship to the consumer driven weak version of Christianity that is all the rage now. Even that will take a few centuries.
God will judge but if we have shown mercy and kindness to the broken then he will show mercy. That's the truth. We need to really see that mercy, kindness and allowing people to choose their own lives shows that we have faith in God to protect his people.
I keep thinking of Abraham interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah and right now there are many still righteous (some because of faith, some because of action, some because of both) and I think God will continue to show mercy.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 19, 2007 1:41 AM
Rick said
King also argued against materialism and Communism, which should have endeared him to "traditionalists." But in his day he was actually hated, especially by white Southerners, and the modern political right
Well Rick I have coservatism in my toe jam . I came out this way . Your definition does not fit . Also your excuse for Liberal democrat legislators in my area calling Christians bigots because they suport marriage between a man and a women is bizzare to be polite . Amazing you have no concern about about your political supporters, you don't even blink at the consequences of the culture or the principles and morality that supports a family unit . You blame homophoebia on concern about anal sex being taught as an EQUAL SEXUAL choice in many our public schools . You go to church you said ?
I would find myself in awe if I ever got a chance to meet King or Reagan . Yes I know people who when I speak of Human Rights , Civil Rights , and even when I put out my King Birthday E Mail letter from my internet newsletter I have gotten flak from the stereotypes you promote , But I also notice the Sharpton's and Jackson' are highlighted in liberal sectors , so excuse me for not paying much attention to your concerns . The NAACP put down the Promise Keepers , what we lack are leaders , not issues . Liberal folks who see limited government as a sneaky sort of racism see my supprt of Reagan as racist .
Payshun,
I really think you need to consider some other aspects of your viewpoint . The relatives of those who allowed prositution , those rich white men's children and grandchildren , not to mention those of us who still suffer from those "sins" slavery as an example , it caused how many lives ?
Your view those sins went un punished on this nation or without a horrible consequence is not historically accurate .
How many continued sufferings ? The rebellion of Native Americans toward God , and their fondness of their superstitions and rituals that have been glamorized by the liberal romantics of this age ? Ever consider the downfall of that culture was a rebellion based against God , instead of European promoted genocide ? I guess you have to listen to some Native American Ministries that would enligheten you of their lives . Children were killed if they born in twin births as of less then 100 years ago in the tribes around here .
Being in the Northwest and open to God's people I have that luxury of learning much through the culture of those people that God loves and supports .
Amazing that when you open up to the word of God , no race , no culture is without the need of a Savior and Lord . Your politics don't supprt that belief from my understanding . You seem to think some races and some cultures need a savior and Lord more then others . I find that in the way you express your opinions anyway .
Listening to people who fled so they could keep their language in the 20 century wilderness a valuuable lesson P . , and yet reveal their understanding of Christ , his mercies , is a valuable arrow in your quiver of understanding the scope of Grace . Indians in this nation lived in the stone age , and very few of them lived lives that even paid attention to nature or to support it . .
Why do you think that is glamoritized in liberal circles , because the notion of Christianity , Jesus Christ is considered less then an option , it is considered on the bottom rung of liberal politics , because it reveals truth . Rick states , because of Christian homophoebia liberal politicians call Christians bigots . I wonder what name I could call some one that is excused ?
From my understaning of scripture or parental teaching , their is NONE .
On Republican politics , Christianity is considered on the top rung , because of truth , hardly , because of votes . How sad is that . Pick your posin .
As for me , I am hanging on to The Christ . Your Justice and politics has nothing to do with it .
Homosexuality had little to do with Rome's downfall from what I have understood . Homosexuals get much blame and way to much credit for cultural changes in my opinion .
Your commitment to loving people who are different is God Given , your allowance for sin is Un Bibical . Abraham interceded for Sodom ,
the rest f the story is it was destroyed because of sin . Sound bites do not get you very far with God , mayvbe on blogs and your belief of superior contact with our Maker .
Just some advice , God really has a peculiar way of picking his chosen ones , we really don't deserve his grace , I already know he likes me . I would be more polite to Rick and me if I were you .
.
I
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 19, 2007 4:03 AM
Also your excuse for Liberal democrat legislators in my area calling Christians bigots because they suport marriage between a man and a women is bizzare to be polite.
Irrelevant -- the "traditionalists" did the attacking first, in the 1970s (remember Anita Bryant?) and that's where the "bigotry" started.
The NAACP put down the Promise Keepers, what we lack are leaders, not issues. Liberal folks who see limited government as a sneaky sort of racism see my supprt of Reagan as racist.
If the former is true (and I have not heard this), it's because white conservative evangelicalism has a long, well-earned reputation for racial bigotry and many blacks wouldn't trust it -- and in fact, ironically, PK has taken a hit for promoting racial reconciliation because a lot of white men didn't want to hear it. Second, Reagan despised King and went along with the conservativee idea that he was a Communist; he even hinted at that as he signed the bill making King's birthday a federal holiday. Besides, government action, including laws, programs and court desicions, broke the back of racial segregation down South and uplifted the black race in this country -- in that context, supporting "limited government" in that context can indeed be construed as racist.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | July 19, 2007 8:47 AM
"Do you really think life can be so neatly compartmentalized?"
This isn't what I said.
"If you're wondering, the reason I didn't mention abortion in my list of societal evils above is that I believe it is a symptom, not a first cause."
Everything is a symptom of sin.
"Sexual promiscuity results from rampant materialism"
Can you unpack this a little? You say that rampant materialism causes sexual promiscuity, but then claim that poverty causes abortion. I disagree with both arguments, but I also find them contradictory.
"If you are completely free from participation in society's materialism, you're doing much better than I am."
I endeavor to live within my means and make sound decisions with my finances, but I again don't see whether my purchase of, say, a boat, contributes to abortion.
"Otherwise, please don't claim not to be accountable for the actions of those who have abortions. We are all accountable."
Again, I disagree. I pursued a sexual relationship within the context of marriage. As such, I did not get a woman pregnant. As such, I am not accountable for an abortion.
Even if I cede your (seemingly contradictory) argument about the tie between my purchasing habits and abortion, I don't see a scriptural basis for your butterfly-effect notion of accountability.
Otherwise, we are all accountable for all sin ever. In a certain sense this is true, insofar as man is fallen. However, it doesn't get you any closer to your point about individual accountability for the sins of a nation.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 19, 2007 3:41 PM
Kevin -
I think we've both staked out our individual positions on this, and I don't see much common ground. I agree that we disagree. Let's leave it at that.
Posted by: Another nonymous | July 19, 2007 4:42 PM
You said:
How many continued sufferings ? The rebellion of Native Americans toward God , and their fondness of their superstitions and rituals that have been glamorized by the liberal romantics of this age ? Ever consider the downfall of that culture was a rebellion based against God , instead of European promoted genocide ? I guess you have to listen to some Native American Ministries that would enligheten you of their lives . Children were killed if they born in twin births as of less then 100 years ago in the tribes around here .
Me:
This is ridiculous. In case you did not know and you did not so I won't bother getting annoyed at your ignorance. I grew up and spent a lot of time on reservations. I ate a lot of fry bread, danced in the drum circles, hung out w/ medicine men and others. So I know a lot about many of the nations that live around here. As a matter of fact where I live has the largest concentration of Indian nations in the country. But you would not know that so now I am telling you.
2000 years ago Jews used to tie up children and leave them out in the wilderness to die if they were too burdensome. In China today little girls are still drowned in rivers because they are born girls. What's your point?
There superstitions were wrong there but there is much of their spirituality that is right, like the belief in the great spirit (I would call him the Holy Spirit) and the connection of all living things. they understand that the land is not ours but we are one w/ it, caretakers and protectors of it, and it's servant. So I would not ridicule their beliefs too much. It sounds like you might have much to learn from them.
yah I can see your point. Some of them were sinful baby killers so God sent the white man to show them something much worse. Is that what you are saying? I would almost laugh at that if it was not so ridiculous. There is an amazing movie you really should watch called Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Watch it and then tell me what you think.
You mentioned that they "rebelled" against God. I would argue that Christians rebelled against God. They brainwashed them, gave them Christian names and taught them to hate themselves. How can you ignore that?
You:
Your commitment to loving people who are different is God Given , your allowance for sin is Un Bibical . Abraham interceded for Sodom ,
the rest f the story is it was destroyed because of sin .
Me:
You are right Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of sin but I think you miss some details. God would have spared the city had he found 10 righteous people. He did not and the city was destroyed. It sounds to me that God was looking for a way to ignore sin, like he did in the story of Jonah. (That's called mercy.) the repentance of Nineveh was a joke but despite how much of a joke it was, God saw it and had mercy. God also ignored all the sin David was doing w/ his multiple wives and God would have allowed him to do more had he not killed Uriah and stole his wife.
2'nd Samuel 12:7-8
7Nathan then said to David, "You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul.
8'I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!
Sounds like God was ignoring the polygamous customs of a king whose culture different then the kings lifestyle.
You said:
Sound bites do not get you very far with God , mayvbe on blogs and your belief of superior contact with our Maker .
I don't need sound bites to get closer to God. Your condescending reminder or rebuke or whatever was not really needed.
Superior contact, no deeper yah but my beliefs don't make me better than you, just different.
You:
Just some advice , God really has a peculiar way of picking his chosen ones , we really don't deserve his grace , I already know he likes me . I would be more polite to Rick and me if I were you .
Me:
LOL!!!
What would happen to me if I was not? No seriously, you are a friend of God, I am a friend of God. Do you really think he is going to cause me harm if I don't approach you the way you like?
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 19, 2007 8:04 PM
Why believe a rich man who says that he will work to help the poor in this country? Let's get real here. It takes significant wealth to have a serious political career. It takes huge amounts of money just to become a viable candidate. Whoever runs for office is rich. Period. But don't lose sight of the fact that our greatest social policies---those that both reduced severe poverty and suffering in America and provided people with the means to work their way out of poverty---came from rich people in office, most notably Franklin D. Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, all with "activist" wives. Even President Nixon accomplished much to enable the very poor to achieve the financial stability essential to enabling them to work their way out of poverty (via education and REAL job skills training). Economic disparites were significantly reduced, thereby reducing costs in health care, prisons, etc. The message was always clear to the poor: We will help you stay alive, but the only way out of poverty is to take the intiative to work hard toward that goal. We'll give you the tools, but you are the one who must do the work.
I think Edwards does "get it", as does Kucinich. Both began addressing poverty before the public (much less, the media) was even willing to think about it. After so many years of anti-poor/anti-welfare rhetoric in the media and from our politicians, both Edwards and Kucinich show a LOT of courage and personal integrity by restored a measure of reality to the public discussion of poverty.
In America today, many do suffer and die as a direct result of poverty. One doesn't need to be poor to "get it". Poverty is not a "lifestyle choice", and neither was welfare. With the exception of a brief period during the '70's, when welfare benefits were raised up to the poverty line, welfare aid remained far below the poverty line. Some 80% of welfare recipients needed aid for well under five years, and spending on welfare used under 6% of the federal budget.
The Reagan administration invented the mythical "welfare queen" to promote the plan to raid public funds. The Clinton administration's welfare "reform" policies have been a disaster, both for the poor and for taxpayers. The sound-bite solutions of welfare "reform" have dramatically increased our economic disparities, and the number of Americans in poverty. The reasons an individual/family falls into poverty are as complex as life itself, and those reasons need to be addressed realistically. I think that Edwards and Kucinich both understand this.
Posted by: DHFabian | August 12, 2007 1:03 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?