Amen.

p

Posted by: Payshun | October 1, 2007 3:26 PM

Moral to whom I may ask?

It is not 'moral' for an Asian Indian to eat beef, but it is certainly "moral" for a Texan.

The Stange title gives some insight into your "moral" convictions.

Posted by: Kervin | October 1, 2007 4:50 PM

Mick,
The issue at hand is health care for children. Perhaps it would be less of an issue if more people with children were married. But those problems will not be fixed overnight, and poor children need help now. They can't wait for the heart of a nation to change.

Posted by: squeaky | October 1, 2007 5:50 PM

I fail to see how either this point:
"They said it would cover children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year."

or this point:

"They said it would take children off private health insurance and move then to "government-run" health care. Wrong again. About 2/3 of the approximately 10 million children who would be covered now have no health insurance whatsoever."

are refuted by any facts Jim is presenting here. Jim acknowledges that many of the 1/3 who would be covered are already on private health insurance. He also acknowledges that people with incomes of up $83k would be covered by this plan.

He's acknowledging the validity of the criticisms leveled against this bill. It seems like the appropriate response, then, would be to present a more modest bill that addresses these criticisms, right?

Posted by: jesse | October 1, 2007 6:08 PM

Jesse said,
"He's acknowledging the validity of the criticisms leveled against this bill. It seems like the appropriate response, then, would be to present a more modest bill that addresses these criticisms, right?"
Amen
That is exactly what the President did. For this he is judged by Jim Wallis as not caring for kids.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | October 1, 2007 6:25 PM

Wow...10th ammendment bars the federal govt from paying for healthcare??? Guess the VA, medicare, & medicaid are all unconstitutional.
While I have never been to law school I did take 2 semesters of Con law as an undergrad.

Can you tell me what cases give precedent to this revelation???
and futhermore, how is our govt healthcare programs that we currently have not in violation of the constitution.

Maria

Posted by: marialynn | October 1, 2007 8:34 PM

Of course, you won't see this on the pages of the Washington Post, which essentially acts as a clearinghouse for Democratic party press releases.

Yeah, right. I read the Post on a consistent basis and wouldn't be surprised if your concerns were eventually addressed.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 1, 2007 11:06 PM

Maria: Can you tell me what cases give precedent to this revelation???

Paul: I actually give very little creedence to precedent. In some cases it is good, and helpful, however giving case precedent much attenion seems, well, lazy, at best, on the part of the Supreme Court. THe lower courts have some measure of responsibility to adhere to Supreme Court rulings, but the Supreme Court should not be relying so much on precedent, and should be looking at the Constitution for their decisions.

Maria: and futhermore, how is our govt healthcare programs that we currently have not in violation of the constitution.

Paul: They do violate the Constitution. The Constitution is primarily a limiting document on the federal government It limits the powers that each of our 3 branches have. Also, it enumerates the specific powers that each branch actually has, so as not to overstep the other branches. The 10th ammendment is a final limiting on the whole federal government, so as to keep it from over stepping the individual states. Specifically, the 10th ammendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." It's pretty clear. And for the most part, the Constitution is not that difficult to understand. Bottom line, the federal government should not be involved in welfare. The Constitution prohibits it. Welfare is left to the states, not the federal government. And some states constitutions bar those states from getting involved in welfare. In those instances, it is then left to individual citizens. Before the court examines precedent, perhaps they could consult the Federalist Papers, which give a more inside view into what the framers intended, far more than precedent does.

Besides, if the government is involved, the church gets lazy, and ignores it's calling. And the government iver steps its calling.

As to the VA, that is a military function, and part of the compensation for those who serve in the military.

Paul C. Quillman

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 2, 2007 12:28 AM

when the church has proven over and over again that when it believes the Gospel, miricles happen, (consider Thomas Chalmers in Scotland, CH Spurgeon in London, and Abraham Kuyper in the Netherlands).

All of which countries provide free healthcare for all children under 18 funded by the state. Presumably they worked out that the church is not the most reliable means of providing healthcare.

Posted by: Cushy Butterfield | October 2, 2007 4:04 AM

How many of you folks posting responses on this thread DON'T have health insurance? How many of your children are not insured? I'm genuinely interested to hear about the profile of the people that have opinions on this issue...

Posted by: dave p. | October 2, 2007 7:48 AM

If Wallis is going to call out Fox News, I'm going to call out the Post.

No comparison. The Post will not knowingly lie to you, while Fox News will.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 2, 2007 8:00 AM

Thank you Jim Wallis for having the conviction of your faith to hold this President's hypocrisy up to the light. I lament that many Christians hide behind him and allow him to blaspheme Christ through his pro-torture, pro-corporate and pro-wealth at the expense of others stance. His threat to veto this provision for the care of our children is no surprise and certainly should not go unexposed. Thank you for speaking the truth and asking the tough questions.

Posted by: Stacey | October 2, 2007 9:15 AM

jim; using morals as a tool to promote your agenda seems like personal attack on those who do not agree with you. and looking to fox news for answers is a joke. the immoral part of this problem is that many folks don't opt for insurance for their kids and many parents don't take their kids for medical treatment. the income levels cited for poor are rising to a point of being immoral. but a lot of the problem lies in the choices that parents make in using their income. the heart of america that needs to change has to do with parenting, spirituality, and personal responsibility. as stated above, the program is available but many do not sign up for it. maybe you should mobilize your ecumenical crowd and start a campaign to sign up all eligible children who are eligible for schip. please stop obsessing over bush's administration, stop looking for the government to solve everyones problems and start looking at the reality of human behavior. no matter what the gov't does there will be poor people, healthcare problems, wars, etc. etc. etc. remember, jim, there is an evil one lurking around.

Posted by: jerry | October 2, 2007 9:24 AM

How many of you folks posting responses on this thread DON'T have health insurance?

Well I don't, but then I'm from the UK. I am biased because I used to work for the NHS, but I really have a complete comprehension failure that any country as rich as the US can fail to provide healthcare for all its citizens.

Posted by: Cushy Butterfield | October 2, 2007 10:05 AM

A couple of things did happen. One was the prevasive humanism that swept Europe around the turn of the century, in the form of communism, and eugenicism. Add to that two devistating world wars, and any society would be demoralized.

And do you know how and why that happened? The church, whether Catholic or Protestant, completely lost its moral authority because it had and sought temporal, political authority but did not use it to serve the people. Gradually, especially considering the religious wars that took place in the 17th and 18th centuries among the nobility and with the rise of the mercantile class, the people said, "A pox on all your houses!" and abandoned the church in droves.

Thus, saying that the church should take care of the sick just doesn't go far enough -- it ought to encourage government "[t]o act justly [and] love mercy" (Micah 6:8). You see, the issue isn't simply "diaconal" -- we need to work toward a society where the poor can make their own way, and I see nothing in the Scripture that contradicts that. As someone said aptly on another thread, we shouldn't just pull people out of the river; we need to find out what or who is throwing them in from the outset.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 2, 2007 10:18 AM

Health care is not a right, but it is the responsibility of the Church to care for the poor, and the church is made up of individual Christians. It is the responsibility of you and I to are for the poor. Letting the government do it takes the responsibility away from us, and that is a hidious sin.

My opinion is that healthcare is a right. Relying on churches for inconsistent and arbitary charity strikes me as being a particularly inefficient way of providing care for the poor (or anyone). I'm from the UK and there is an intense sense of ownership of the NHS among the people. It's our system, we pay for it and it's our responsibility to vote in a government that will take care of it. And if the government doesn't we change them. That's not being flippant - healthcare is a huge political and election issue in the UK.

Posted by: Cushy Butterfield | October 2, 2007 10:38 AM

Rick,

Okay, we get the idea that you have no respect whatsoever for Fox News. I think you're being quite unfair, but that's your decision and we can work around it.

How about Sebastian Mallaby's Washington Post column, which concedes that families with an income as high as $83,000 will be eligible for the proposed SCHIP? Or the US Census, which shows that $83,000 is higher than the median income for any US state?

Do you trust the Washington Post or the US Census? Or are they just branches of the vast right-wing Fox News media conspiracy?

Assuming they aren't, what do you make of the fact that, while most SCHIP recipients will be from low-income families, families with above-average incomes will be eligible?

While you think that through, consider the following: the US is a pretty wealthy nation; anyone in the US with an income even close to average would be considered wealthy in many parts of the world. From the perspective of a supposedly global church that should be above national interests is it really so critical that the children of wealthy Americans have access to government-provided health care?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | October 2, 2007 11:55 AM

From the perspective of a supposedly global church that should be above national interests is it really so critical that the children of wealthy Americans have access to government-provided health care?

Well I'm not in any church, global or otherwise, and it's no skin off my nose what healthcare the US provides. However, faced with the fact that the US government is even discussing whether it should guarantee (by whatever means) healthcare to all its childre, I can only regard the country with bemusement and a certain amount of scorn.

Posted by: Cushy Butterfield | October 2, 2007 12:28 PM

John said:
Health care is not a right, but it is the responsibility of the Church to care for the poor, and the church is made up of individual Christians. It is the responsibility of you and I to are for the poor. Letting the government do it takes the responsibility away from us, and that is a hidious sin.

Me:
I could be nice about this but I am not. That's just crap. Our ability to care for the poor is not hindered by the government taking some of that. We can and do care for the poor when it is often convenient for us. As a matter of fact the poor will always be w/ us. Jesus said that and he meant it. healthcare is just one aspect of caring for the poor, there is also helping addicts (another healthcare issue,) moving them into your home and providing job training... Your right we should take care of the poor but we can do that through the government and have it be in our name. As a matter of fact that's not sinful. It's holy. It says in a concrete way w/o any religion, color or class difference that we care for our fellow man. God holds all people to that most basic standard and it's shame that you are so stuck on the church doing all of it when it really is about all of us. Study the parable of the good samaritan and it will show you what I am telling you.

p

Posted by: Payshun | October 2, 2007 1:12 PM

As for the question about the global perspective, how is that an unfair question? The church is global, isn't it? The US is a wealthy nation isn't it? So are you saying it's unfair to ask what the church's priorities ought to be?

It was unfair in the way you asked it -- you buried the real issue by mentioning an income dollar amount. Even many of the "rich" don't think of themselves as such and thus want some of what they think of as an "entitlement," in part because they overspend on themselves. Not only that, but there's also a deep resentment of the poor because they are poor -- perhaps the result of some guilt because they don't want to consider any responsibility of their own for that.

BTW, when Jesus said "The poor will always be with you," He also said, in effect, "But you will not always have Me." He was thus saying, "You can help them anytime you want," not that we shouldn't do anything the change their state.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 2, 2007 1:43 PM

"Health care is not a right, but it is the responsibility of the Church to care for the poor... It is the responsibility of you and I to care for the poor. Letting the government do it takes the responsibility away from us..."

A central theme (or disagreement) in so many threads is the proper role of Christians with respect to government.

Some folks consistently argue that the Church's role should be limited to charity, with no attempt to change the underlying institutions.

I submit that that this same reasoning would leave Saddam Hussein in power and merely attempt to relieve the suffering of his victims, or leave Khartoum to do its worst and just try to provide charity to the refugees.

NO.

It is proper for Christians to be involved in holding governments (ours and others around the world) accountable to morality.

[Whose morality? Our morality. Christian morality. It's the only one we can use. To avoid making judgements is to get stuck in a quagmire of relativism that will paralize us.]

It's a long way from trying to stop genocide in Sudan to supporting children's health care in the U.S. Or is it? At a deeper level the Domination System working in both governments has the same goal -- protection of unbounded priviledge for a few, regardless of the cost in human suffering. Jesus was in the business of opposing this system (to the "point of shedding blood") and His followers ought to be also.

Posted by: steve | October 2, 2007 2:20 PM

"How many of you folks posting responses on this thread DON'T have health insurance? How many of your children are not insured? I'm genuinely interested to hear about the profile of the people that have opinions on this issue..."

I went without it for a long time, but I have it now through work.

"Your point is made...but we both know there's a huge difference between making sure all children go to the doctor when they have the flu and making sure all children have an xbox."

Sure, and I'd rather children have both. But the profit incentive is not ruining those industries. People aren't starving because grocery stores make a profit. Rather, the profit allows grocery stores to bring food to more communities. The point is that the argument for nationalized health care must go beyond simply a fear of Wall St.

"Let's stick to the topic, please, and have some consideration for others who would like an intelligent discussion."

Dude, did you read your own post?

"If the church were doing her job, poverty wounldn't even be an issue in this the most affluent nation in the world."

I can't agree with this. Many Americans have no interest in the church, tything, serving the poor, or fulfilling any of God's requirements.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 2, 2007 3:04 PM

If a family is making $62,000 then they should not be relying on the government to pay for their healthcare. Where do we draw the line between the government helping those in need and people just living off the government? We have to encourage personal responsibility instead of relying on the government. We have seen how the government handles things and they do not need any more responsibility in my opinion. Government dependency goe against what this country is all about.

Posted by: Russell | October 2, 2007 3:42 PM

Once, a man spoke to a crowd on a hillside. The day wore on, and some of the man's friends suggested that the crowd be summarily dismissed, so they could go and get some food, before they began to grow faint. The man looked at them, and said: "You feed them."
I would submit that, if there are children without health care, it is, to this day, the primary responsibility of the friends of "that man" to see to it that the problem is fixed. It was not the Roman government's responsibility on that day with hungry crowd on the hillside, and it is not the government's responsibility now. It is yours. It is mine. And it is ours alone.
Time to stop the buck-passing.

Posted by: Joekc | October 2, 2007 4:51 PM

Jim,
I signed your email and sent it to the president. At the time, I had no idea that 1/3 of the people covered already had insurance, nor was I aware that $83,000 families would be covered. I have to say that this is a bit of a setback for me. I might be less likely to trust your next call to action. Framers of this bill have left too many holes for people to legitimately criticise.
The moral issue is crucial and that's why i supported the bill. However, the moral issue has not been skewed by conservative spin, but by a sloppy bill. A viable alternative should be the answer, but it will be tough to garner the support. The President isn't obligated to provide an alternative. His job isn't to write laws. Congress should make quick adjustments, which deal with these serious concerns and get a bill back on his desk, before the children lose out from a bad bill.
Please provide more details next time before inviting me to sign on based on rhetoric.

Dr. Timothy Stidham
Dyer, IN

Posted by: Tim Stidham | October 2, 2007 5:12 PM

"Many Americans have no interest in the church, tything, serving the poor, or fulfilling any of God's requirements. "

I'm not talking about those Americans. I'm talking about the Church. What do they have to do with whether or not the church is doing her job?

Posted by: squeaky | October 2, 2007 6:33 PM

A strong economy, with good-paying jobs that offer benefits like health insurance, was something that worked well before globalisation.

To compete, companies are moving jobs to countries where it costs them less. That can be in a location that offers its cheap workers no benefits at all or in a location where there is an alternative to an insurance company-based system. The result is the same for American families, though - insurance that takes more from family income as a percentage, and every single day, thousands more without health insurance.

We cannot say that a system that is shrinking in the number of people covered is succeeding.

The strategy for those whom for either ideological reasons or personal financial ones do not want to see an alternative system, is to scare those who still have health insurance while ignoring the fast-growing minority (>20%) who have none and postpone a reckoning as long as possible.

That somehow the billions needed to finance health care for a whole nation can somehow be done by church collection plate donations is either naive to absurdity, disqualifying such a proponent from contributing to serious discussions, or completely cynical manipulation in service of uncompassionate conservatism - that is, protecting the status quo beneficiaries.

Market failures are a well-known phenomenon. As an understandable example, take the Monopoly board game. The failure of the market is when one person ends up owning everything and drives opponents into bankruptcy. This is why anti-trust laws are needed and why other laws constrain the ability to turn wealth into power without limit.

Greed is not a viable basis for a humane existence in which sharing takes place.

Some people believe that any form of sharing that's coerced is no different than big-C Communism.

Such purists are dreaming of a world that never was and never will be.

There are costs and benefits to any arrangement. Under some circumstances, sharing health care costs will be a minor burden compared to the benefits.

The problem we have right now is that a family premium of $1500 per month covers the family only as long as the breadwinner is working at a job that can pay that. If the job is lost, as soon as the premium payment stops, all health care coverage that's not bankrupting is lost, regardless of how many tens of thousands that family has paid in.
Any severe emergency results is bankruptcy and poverty regardless of the savings of a lifetime.

I am skeptical as to how the family making $30,000 affords the private insurance that's about half the gross income and is paid for privately, after taxation. I don't understand how there can be much left for rent, food and clothing, let alone transportation.

What I seem to detect is the Calvinist, seriously judgmental attitude that regards misfortune as the just desserts for an immoral life. That sure is self-serving for the well-off, they can decline to love their neighbor, not be their brother's keeper - let alone loving their enemy (which I understand to conservative theologians is completely beyond the pale.)

It's no crime to be poor, but I guess to some Victorian-era thinkers it might as well be.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 2, 2007 7:19 PM

Squeaky,
In your original post, you remarked that it was a shame that poverty is even an issue in our country. I said that the assumptions behind this statement and others like it (often made by Edwards, Wallis et al.) is that a) sin can be eradicated; b) poor people can be "fixed"; and c) the War on Poverty (a miserable failure) never happened.

I agreed with you that the church should be doing things to help reduce poverty. Mentoring, discipleship, urban ministry, job training, and parenting classes are definitely a start. None of these things, however, can reduce poverty like having a job.

Posted by: jesse | October 2, 2007 8:11 PM

Squeakysaid
Do illigitimacy and dropping out of school cause poverty, or does poverty cause illigitimacy and school dropouts? I don't think it is either or, but more of a complex feedback loop

Well it is complicated I agree . But there is astatistical association that shows both are linked .
Squeaky why is it that you feel that the emphasis on family and the importance to
put on it lack substance ? Its logical, Bibical and spirtual truth , Christ talked about it being important , and attacked divorce . I don't think he did so to point fingers at us , I think He stood up for marriage because its the way we were designed , it was an ingredient to people living better lives .

A liberal writer wrote a very good essay " Dan Quayle" was right , if you are interested I can try and dig it up on the web .
The same message , but from a liberal dialogue . When conservatives say it I guess it sounds offensive ?

In our denomination we always have a debate every few years because Pastors can not be remarried , and I think divorced . And In our own church Deacons can not be re married , but the Trustees can . These days it can be hard to find a qualified Deacon !So it effects the requirement of Church leadership . many people make great logical points , so a Pastor can cheat on wife and still be Pastor , is it not better to divorce her . Etc etc , people make excuses for divores with strawman arguements like abuse and such .
Christ was NOT
talking to that , and we all down deep know it .
We are selfish , are we not . Commitment to marriage and the kids we bring into the world takes sacrifice , dedicatiion , and sometimes the little jerks and our spouses are just plain intolerable. It takes a cultural norm to support that , western civilization had that cultural belief . Liberals do not support it in great numbers I notice , interestingly in their personal lives they often do . I often wonder why they think the happiness and positive results from their own lives are not reasons to want that for others ?

The Promise Keepers addressed that , and received critisicm from the left for doing so , and within the Conservative Christian community because they reached out to all denominations and were seen as compromising the truth . We seem to be able to make so many excuses why we can turn the other way .

I am divorced and always support our strict qualifications at our church . The fewer sexual partners our kids have the better , don't all of us agree on that ?

I even make excuses of bringing children into the world without a stable family structre . I can play blame too . But man I wish I was more in tuned to that stuff , or at least having more sexual partners that were .

I see Bibical standards a way
to promote abundent Christian lives . I don't see it as a punishment or a condemnation , I see it as the Lord's planfor us being better equiped to handle what comes our way in forms of troubles , including poverty if that happens .

During the depression I assume we saw drop out rates increase ,crime increase , etc . So poverty has something to do with it sure . Temptaion to rationalize and steal is greater when you are without basics .

But from what I have read it appears many kids went to work to help support their families also . They were not abandoned by their families to the degrees we do now , and in those times poor made many of our poor appear middle class.
You often hear condemnation of that generation for some of their bigoted views , true is a more enlightened view now I agree . But did we have to loose the main aspect of those generations , what because of the 60s enlightened views on other subjects . After all we were kids , just perhaps we were wrong on some of the issues ? Like family commitment .

Posted by: | October 2, 2007 8:28 PM

The truth is that the War on Poverty came and went and had no net effect on reducing poverty. There is strong evidence indicating that it actually increased poverty by rewarding laziness and illegitimacy. Clinton and other Democrats eventually came to this realization when they voted for welfare reform.

That is categorically false. In fact, part of the "War on Poverty" was giving job-training and grants for college to those with financial issues, and you actually had an entire class of people who have made it because of -- horrors! -- government programs. But if this were the case, then why were such programs that worked actually cut under Reagan? The truth is, people who benefited from these programs generally don't vote conservative.

Mentoring, discipleship, urban ministry, job training, and parenting classes are definitely a start. None of these things, however, can reduce poverty like having a job.

My church does all these things. But the jobs have to come to that neighborhood, and that isn't happening right now.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 2, 2007 10:11 PM

Rick Nowlin: Thus, saying that the church should take care of the sick just doesn't go far enough -- it ought to encourage government "[t]o act justly [and] love mercy" (Micah 6:8). You see, the ; issue isn't simply "diaconal"

Paul:
Poverty is a spiritual issue, as well as a physical one. To deal with the physical, without dealing with the spiritual issues is to leave the poor in poverty. Welfare has created a cycle of dependance that is terribly difficult to get out of, if someone even wants to get out of it.

Rick Nowlin: -- we need to work toward a society where the poor can make their own way, and I see nothing in the Scripture that contradicts that.

Paul: At face value, I agree with this statement. Let me add that there are things that the civil magistrate can do, and should do. There are also things that the church can and should do. The Constitution prohibits the state from handing out welfare, and if you read the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, you will find that the framers of the Constitution never intendedfor the state to handle welfare. They did, however, recognize that the church had the responsibility to extend the Gospel, by caring for the poor.

Rick Nowlin: As someone said aptly on another thread, we shouldn't just pull people out of the river; we need to find out what or who is throwing them in from the outset.

Paul: The blame rests in the church failing to believe the Gospel. And the state could not let the poor go uncared for. The church can't take back its role overnight, but it can start.

Peter: I want to ask you, what are you doing to provide health care for the poor that is more efffective than the government addressing this problem? This is not a rhetorical question, nor a personal attack. You said you (and your church) can do a better job, and I want to hear how you do it.

Paul:
I take my kids to a childrens clinics that was started bny a doctor and one of the pastors at my church. They offer income based services, and accept donations to cover the costs. They also see children that do have insurance, that also helps cover costs. Also, many of the churches in the area support the clinic. I own a house cleaning business, and am just recently able to afford insurance for my kids. I do not have any for my wife or myself, due to the opressive tax policies, and overburdening state regulations I am required to submit to. I also tell everyone I know about the clinic I take my kids to. AIt's not much, but it is what I can do now. I am one person. I wonder what the Body of Christ can do, if we all do what we can?

Peter: This SCHIP issue affects millions of children in a very concrete way, and we can't be cavalier about rejecting it just because it doesn't fit our religious or political theories.

Paul: Let me clear something up on this SCHIP bill. This bill does NOT provide health care for anyone. Hospitals do that. All this does is shift the burden of payment from patients to taxpayers. ER's are required to provide care regardless of the ability of the patient to pay. Most larger hospital systems will eventually settle the accounts for far less than they originally charge. My sister in law was able to pay off a large medical bill after the hospital offered a settlement far less than what she owed, and it never hit her credit report.

The only thing this SCHIP does is shift payment burden, and raise our already too high taxes. That takes more food off of my table, and makes it that much harder to live generously.

Cushy:
My opinion is that healthcare is a right.

Paul:
Thats fine, but where in the Constitution do you find a basis for that opinion?

Cushy:
Relying on churches for inconsistent and arbitary charity strikes me as being a particularly inefficient way of providing care for the poor (or anyone).

Paul:
Arbitrary? How so? Charity brings dignity, as opposed to racially charged welfare, which offers no dignity. I have seen the welfare system make it harder for someone who is in the racial majority to recieve help than those in the racial minority. How is that not arbitrary?

Cushy:
I'm from the UK and there is an intense sense of ownership of the NHS among the people. It's our system, we pay for it and it's our responsibility to vote in a government that will take care of it. And if the government doesn't we change them. That's not being flippant - healthcare is a huge political and election issue in the UK.

Paul:
And many in your country have come to the US for better quality care. There also have been people who have died waiting for a chance to be seen by doctors, who might have lived longer if they had been able to see the doctor sooner. Keep your system on your side of the ocean, I like mine just fine.

Payshun:
I could be nice about this but I am not. That's just crap. Our ability to care for the poor is not hindered by the government taking some of that. We can and do care for the poor when it is often convenient for us. As a matter of fact the poor will always be w/ us. Jesus said that and he meant it. healthcare is just one aspect of caring for the poor, there is also helping addicts (another healthcare issue,) moving them into your home and providing job training... Your right we should take care of the poor but we can do that through the government and have it be in our name. As a matter of fact that's not sinful. It's holy. It says in a concrete way w/o any religion, color or class difference that we care for our fellow man. God holds all people to that most basic standard and it's shame that you are so stuck on the church doing all of it when it really is about all of us. Study the parable of the good samaritan and it will show you what I am telling you.

Paul:
The good samaritan extended charity, not because the government forced him to, but becasue he had compassion. Scripture gives the Church responsibility to care for the poor, and the state the responsibility to handle civil issues. Part of the reason is that poverty is a spiritual problem as well as a physical problem, and the state is in no way equiped to deal with the spiritual issues. Why would you want the state to get involved in the work of the church?

Payshun:
Oh and one more thing the government is us. Our tax dollars go to that so that means that we are doing the work God has ordained. It may come through someone else but it also comes from our work as some of us must work to live.

Paul:
Nice try, but you are just trying to justfy laziness. The rich do not need to be overtaxed so that someone else can hand out welfare to the poor on the behalf of the rich. The rich need to be the ones extending charity to the poor themselves. Taxing the rich, and doling out welfare does two things:
1) Creates classism, and
2) Gives the rich a pass on really engaging the poor.

On the other hand, believing the Gospel, and extending charity, causes us to think differently, live differently, give differently, and actually engage the poor.

Paul C. Quillman

Posted by: | October 2, 2007 11:21 PM

Paul:
On the other hand, believing the Gospel, and extending charity, causes us to think differently, live differently, give differently, and actually engage the poor.

Me:
You are living in a myth Paul. Rich Christians won't and have rarely engaged the poor in the way you mentioned. It just doesn't happen that way. Hell the average Christian doesn't.

P:
Nice try, but you are just trying to justfy laziness. The rich do not need to be overtaxed so that someone else can hand out welfare to the poor on the behalf of the rich. The rich need to be the ones extending charity to the poor themselves. Taxing the rich, and doling out welfare does two things:
1) Creates classism, and
2) Gives the rich a pass on really engaging the poor.

Me:
I am not justifying laziness at all but I have to extend the same thing to you. Good try. Governments should be about doing good regardless if there is a spiritual dimension or not. Oh and most Christian institutions suck at the spiritual stuff too.

Are you blind?

Classism is not created by government welfare. It's created by exploitation of the poor by the rich. Welfare can (when used rightly) help to get someone back on their feet or on a program to help w/ becoming clean.

The rich don't need a pass to ignore the poor. They do that by culture and exclusivity. They live in areas where they do not see the poor so instead of Lazurus laying at their doorstep he's a few miles away from their gated communities and their highrises.

You:
The good samaritan extended charity, not because the government forced him to, but becasue he had compassion. Scripture gives the Church responsibility to care for the poor, and the state the responsibility to handle civil issues. Part of the reason is that poverty is a spiritual problem as well as a physical problem, and the state is in no way equiped to deal with the spiritual issues. Why would you want the state to get involved in the work of the church?

Me:
Well to be fair the government does God's work when God deems the government as tool to do good. That's not for you to decide, it's really his decision. We agree on this point. I don't want the government in the process of evangelism but then I am not an evangelical so my values for the spreading the gospel in that way may be a little different than yours. (if you are an evangelical.)

That said God uses force all the time to do right. When Kings make decisions in the OT Force was used. When he died on the cross force was used. When he saved mankind he did not seek mankind's permission. He just did it. My point is that God uses force all the time. His point in the parable is not about choice but the brotherhood of all man and man's role in looking out for all mankind.

p

Posted by: Payshun | October 3, 2007 12:24 AM

assuming, of course, and BIG assumption here from some of what I read here, assuming, of course, that the Bible and not the U.S. Constitution is the supreme guide for life and faith to American believers

Posted by: canucklehead | October 3, 2007 1:02 AM

I fail to see what the SCHIP bill has to do with the foibles of unwed motherhood, since the bill will fund children from families where the parents WORK but still do not have health insurance, regardless of marital status. In spite of what neocon ideology tells us, the truth is that not all single-parent families are headed by irresponsible welfare rats who brought those children into the world just to get on the public dole (in which case they wouldn't be eligible for SCHIP anyhow).

SCHIP is NOT welfare. SCHIP is about helping working parents and their children who are still unable to help themselves adequately -- and there are more and more of them. SCHIP is about keeping families together. And SCHIP has everything to do with affirming that the lives of children are just as sacred and just as deserving of protection *AFTER* they're born.

Posted by: sys | October 3, 2007 6:37 AM

Jesse,

"Mentoring, discipleship, urban ministry, job training, and parenting classes are definitely a start. None of these things, however, can reduce poverty like having a job. "

All of those can lead to a job. For some people, especially people who don't see a lot of hope around them, you can't have the latter without the former.

I said it was shameful poverty is an issue because it is a sign that the church is failing in its Christ-given mandate. My point is if people are going to argue that it is the church's job to take care of poverty, not the government's, then the church better get to work. The government wouldn't feel the need to step in, if the work is already being done.

Posted by: squeaky | October 3, 2007 8:18 AM

Payshun:
You are living in a myth Paul. Rich Christians won't and have rarely engaged the poor in the way you mentioned. It just doesn't happen that way. Hell the average Christian doesn't.

Paul:
Actually it worked in Scotland. Thomas Chalmbers faithfully preached the Gospel. The Gospel so transformed the poor and rih alike, that at one point the city of Edinburgh defunded its soial services. Why? Because the church took care of it. THe church took the Gospel seriously and made provision for the poor.

It is also working, in smaller pockets now. Bit by bit, the Gospel is being faithfully preached, and people are begining to act like the Gospel is true. This idea that the government should be providing welfare is , I pray, a short lived historical abberation.

Me:
I am not justifying laziness at all but I have to extend the same thing to you. Good try. Governments should be about doing good regardless if there is a spiritual dimension or not. Oh and most Christian institutions suck at the spiritual stuff too.

Paul: It does justify laziness. Ever heard someone ask, "Don't we pay taxes to take care of (fill in the blank with whatever welfare program you want)?" Don't know about you, but I have heard it quite a bit, and it drives me insane. I have a difficult time holding back my tongue. My impulse is to grab the person that said it and scream at them for thier laziness and disregard for those in need.

Payshun: Classism is not created by government welfare.

Paul:
Then why did my wife get told that she probably not qualify for government welfare when we needed it years ago? Our need was no less than anyone elses in the room. We didn't fit the ethnic makeup of the room at all, but we were in as much need as everyone else. Maybe it wasn't classism, perhaps racism. BTW, it was through my experience of government welfare that I started to believe that the church, not the government was the best place to go for need.

Payshun: It's created by exploitation of the poor by the rich. Welfare can (when used rightly) help to get someone back on their feet or on a program to help w/ becoming clean.

Paul: That is rare. Classism is partly created by exploitation, but it is also created by the welfare system. How many rich people do you know that resent being taxed above everyone else? How many rich people do you know that are frustrated with the abusive welfare system that costs way more than it should, and is abused to the tune of billions of dollars? I know quite a few. The abuse breeds resentment, and grows into classism.

Payshun: The rich don't need a pass to ignore the poor. They do that by culture and exclusivity. They live in areas where they do not see the poor so instead of Lazurus laying at their doorstep he's a few miles away from their gated communities and their highrises.

Paul: Then preach the Gospel. They may not move out of the gated communities, but they will certainly go out to the poor. I have seen it over and over again.

Payshun::
Well to be fair the government does God's work when God deems the government as tool to do good.

Paul: Only when the government is fulfilling its calling, and not overstepping into matters that belong to the church.

Payshun: That's not for you to decide, it's really his decision. We agree on this point.

Paul: It is for Scripture to decide. It is also for the foundational laws of the country to decide.

Payshun: I don't want the government in the process of evangelism but then I am not an evangelical so my values for the spreading the gospel in that way may be a little different than yours. (if you are an evangelical.)

Paul: I am a lassical evangelical, not a neo-evangelical.

Payshun: That said God uses force all the time to do right. When Kings make decisions in the OT Force was used. When he died on the cross force was used. When he saved mankind he did not seek mankind's permission. He just did it. My point is that God uses force all the time. His point in the parable is not about choice but the brotherhood of all man and man's role in looking out for all mankind.

Paul: There is a time to use force, and a time to not use force. As to the brotherhood, that is nowhere in Scripture. We are all image bearers of God, and we were all enimies of God at one time in our lives. God has been pleased to call out to some of those of us that are His enimies, and make those chosen ones His friends.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 3, 2007 8:57 AM

Welfare has created a cycle of dependence that is terribly difficult to get out of, if someone even wants to get out of it.

Contrary to what you just said, welfare was never really the culprit. What happened -- and no one seems to address this -- is that, beginning in the 1950s, urban white folks with means moved out to suburbia and took their financial wherwithal with them. That is to say, the jobs that kept people in good shape financially also left. What you're seeing in the "inner city" would still be the case even without "welfare." (Oh, and BTW, when such programs were created, about two-thirds of recipients were white; only in the last decade did a majority become "people of color.")

The blame rests in the church failing to believe the Gospel. And the state could not let the poor go uncared for. The church can't take back its role overnight, but it can start.

You missed my point. If the government is doing evil by people the church ought to stand up for them and demand change. If the laws allow people to take from the poor and give to the rich, that's not acceptable no matter how you slice it and no amount of charity can ameliorate that injustice. The trouble is that, in too many cases, the church has too much power of its own and can't afford to "rock the boat." (I am speaking specifically about religious "conservatives.")

Then preach the Gospel. They may not move out of the gated communities, but they will certainly go out to the poor. I have seen it over and over again.

That depends on what you mean by the Gospel. If you're talking about only "fire insurance" and "personal moral reform" so that you can "get along," that's NOT it. Jesus calls us who are a part of His Body to become and demonstrate a whole new social order that the world cannot duplicate, ultimately to be a blessing to everyone, and were we to receive any temporal authority, which the early church never even sought, we are to act in the same way. However, we can't do that if we're seeking political and social power for its own sake (which is why I've disassociated myself from parts of my Reformed upbringing -- that's what it originally believed).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 3, 2007 12:26 PM

>>>I hear a lot of talk about how the church is supposed to step in and care for those in need.

Well, what are you waiting for? I mean YOU, sitting there reading this blog, what are YOU waiting for?

Put your money where your mouth is.

Seek peace and pursue it.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | October 3, 2007 12:34 PM

Sheesh, Neuro, (to cite the Greek term), are you implying blog participants need to actually DO something about what we believe? See, that's where yer wrong, pal.

To quote one participant here, "I am a lassical evangelical, not a neo-evangelical."

Ergo, I don't have to DO a dam ting, yust beleev!

Posted by: canucklehead | October 3, 2007 2:41 PM

Universal brotherhood is in scripture.

Actually, no, it isn't -- Paul is right in that regard; only fellow Christians (and that's very clear in the context of the Scripture) are to be considered "brothers." Non-believers, however, are referred to "neighbors." (Cue up Mr. Rogers ...)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 3, 2007 3:08 PM

Well, what are you waiting for? I mean YOU, sitting there reading this blog, what are YOU waiting for?

Put your money where your mouth is.

Ah it is so much more spirtual to make the bad rich people do it all .

Then we can say I did something about it ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 3, 2007 4:12 PM

I realize that the church is separate from the world. I don't disagree w/ that as the brotherhood of believers. But that still doesn't separate us from caring for all mankind or for mankind caring for us. God wants both.

I agree, but the delineation still stands. In fact, in Paul's letters he often refers to his fellow messengers' "love for the brethren," which insinuates that a Christian's second loyalty is to fellow believers. Doing works of mercy and service flow out of that dual relationship.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 3, 2007 4:45 PM

"I agree, but the delineation still stands. In fact, in Paul's letters he often refers to his fellow messengers' "love for the brethren," which insinuates that a Christian's second loyalty is to fellow believers. Doing works of mercy and service flow out of that dual relationship."

This is where my theology differs from yours. It doesn't just flow from that. It flows from us seeing all humanity as my flesh. All humanity bears God's image and as such I must treat all w/ that. I take the gospel at its face value and treat those that have not accepted Jesus as I would my brother in sister when it comes to treatment. I do not prioritize the Christian over the non-Christian. I go where my Father tells me to. It doesn't matter if they are believers or not what matters is that we love. My theology sees the distinctions btwn those of us as faith and those of us not as merely superficial.

p

Posted by: Payshun | October 3, 2007 5:49 PM