Canned Compassion (by Jim Wallis)
Thanksgiving is the time of year when American generosity is clearly visible. We make donations to our local food banks and homeless shelters and volunteer in soup kitchens. But do we really believe that is the solution to hunger?
Mark Winne, former director of Connecticut's Hartford Food System, answered the question in yesterday's Washington Post. In a piece titled "Canned Compassion," he describes how what was originally intended as a temporary way of dealing with emergencies has become a multi-billion dollar industry, and how that shows the limits of charity and the importance of justice.
Winne writes:
Food banks are a dominant institution in this country, and they assert their power at the local and state levels by commanding the attention of people of good will who want to address hunger. Their ability to attract volunteers and to raise money approaches that of major hospitals and universities. While none of this is inherently wrong, it does distract the public and policymakers from the task of harnessing the political will needed to end hunger in the United States.
The risk is that the multibillion-dollar system of food banking has become such a pervasive force in the anti-hunger world, and so tied to its donors and its volunteers, that it cannot step back and ask if this is the best way to end hunger, food insecurity, and their root cause, poverty.
During my tenure in Hartford, I often wondered what would happen if the collective energy that went into soliciting and distributing food were put into ending hunger and poverty instead. Surely it would have a sizable impact if 3,000 Hartford-area volunteers, led by some of Connecticut's most privileged and respected citizens, showed up one day at the state legislature, demanding enough resources to end hunger and poverty. Multiply those volunteers by three or four - the number of volunteers in the state's other food banks and hundreds of emergency food sites - and you would have enough people to dismantle the Connecticut state capitol brick by brick. Put all the emergency food volunteers and staff and board members from across the country on buses to Washington to tell Congress to mandate a living wage, health care for all, and adequate employment and child-care programs, and you would have a convoy that might stretch from New York City to our nation's capital.
This Thanksgiving, by all means make a donation to a food bank or volunteer in a soup kitchen. And then resolve to become an advocate for policy changes that can alleviate the need for them. Wouldn't it be better if low-income families had a living wage so they could buy their food in a supermarket like the rest of us? As Winne concludes
We know hunger's cause - poverty. We know its solution - end poverty. Let this Thanksgiving remind us of that task.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
And instead of healing the sick, Jesus' time would have been better spent lobbying the Roman Empire to come to their aid.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 19, 2007 2:11 PM
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." Luke 12:33
Posted by: Eric | November 19, 2007 2:11 PM
And instead of healing the sick, Jesus' time would have been better spent lobbying the Roman Empire to come to their aid.
Posted by: kevin s.
Kevin this really makes sense to me what Wallis said . The problem here also is the methods and the divisive Divide these kind of organizaions like Soujorners create .
If my idea of helping the poor is promoting a culture that promotes opportunity , better education , it is met with contempt by someone who sees their ideas as better . In fact when you lock into a political party , you now own that baggage also .
Wallis conveniently forgets that after Thanksgiving his editorialists will go back to pointing out strawman contempt and ad homiem attacks of other beliefs , as sometimes you point out .
.But be careful not to do the same .
I like the idea of it being Christmas or Thanks giving every day .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 19, 2007 2:26 PM
Liberals in MN have no insentive to end poverty as they are the voters the count on to keep them in office. If they did - then liberals would loose their argument that they need to tax the rich.
I have talked about a 'sliding scale' to get people from total dependance on the Gov't to self reliance. No one has engaged that conversation. I have proposed that the gov't will pay for one child to a single Mom and not two. Few have engaged that one and others have talk about it
being heartless. I believe that it is immoral for the gov't to underwrite illegitamacy in the US.
But I will ammend my idea. I believe that we can underwrite the first child. If there is a second child and the mother is not employed and no father is named so that we can collect from them. If the woman will agree to a steralization - the Gov't will add to her assistance for the second child. We have to stop the increase of children being born into poverty if we want to win the war on poverty.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 19, 2007 2:29 PM
Conservatives have no incentive to end wars as warmongers are the voters they count on to keep them in office. If they did - then conservatives would lose their argument and the need to spend trillions on wars.
Posted by: | November 19, 2007 2:51 PM
"If my idea of helping the poor is promoting a culture that promotes opportunity , better education , it is met with contempt by someone who sees their ideas as better ."
My idea of the government helping the poor is similar, but I would never contend that more could be done if people left food banks and campaigned for conservative causes.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 19, 2007 2:53 PM
Suppose we did exactly what Mark Winne suggests: we march on the legislature and pass a law. Wanna guess what happens next?
The legislature cannot create food by fiat, let alone distribute it to those that need it. (We've tried. It didn't work) Odds are very good that the very next day those same people are going to have to go right back to what we have today: gathering up food in food banks.
So: what not just skip the legislature and keep going with the program that we have, seeing as how it actually does manage to get food into the hands of the folks who need it?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 19, 2007 3:04 PM
I don't think Wallis was sharing this in hopes that people would leave the food banks and go campaign.
In fact, he actually says, "by all means make a donation to a food bank or volunteer in a soup kitchen." AND THEN, he says, go be an advocate.
Stop setting your heart on proving him wrong. You don't have to agree with everything he says to see the point he makes in this post.
Posted by: CJH | November 19, 2007 3:08 PM
Posted by: | November 19, 2007 2:51 PM
Unless you are willing to put a 'name' to you post - no comment.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 19, 2007 3:32 PM
"but I would never contend that more could be done if people left food banks and campaigned for conservative causes. "
Posted by: kevin s.
Oh I would not either , but I would say both would help .
I have talked about a 'sliding scale' to get people from total dependance on the Gov't to self reliance. No one has engaged that conversation
Posted by: Moderatelad
In our state we had welfare reform when in the brief 90s we actually had a majority of Gop in our state legislature . Welfare roles went down . I know Clinton was treated in disdain for signing it into legislation by his core , but interestingly he campaigned on it and now takes credit for it . There will always be examples of how and why it does not work in some cases .
Legislation of this sort always is hard to figure , because say no support for the second child on welfare may be incentive not to have more children born into poverty , but what about the second child id it is born . What about the abortions it encourgages , you actually have government now encourgagig reasons for abortion . Sliding scales have good points ,don't misunderstand me but I know a person who actually quit their second job so as not to loose their benefits for their children .
I think the problem lies in the transition from no self support to starting the path of self reliance . Already having a familymakes that transition quite difficult. I know when I found myself with a couple of kidlings and a few mouths to feed , I took measures like not eating a couple of meals to make ends meet . I was brought up with that Judeo Christian ethnic that use to be supported in our culture .
It has nothing to do with gays , polygamous or bi sexual relationships .
When the Boy Scouts went from a fun organization that promoted basic coutesy and other virtues to a right wing organization , our culture took a loony tune shift .
Certain basic views now are held in contempt by a growing secualar liberal theology . I guess we now call it the culture wars . Many of the views here that use the Bible to support their views here are similiar to views in my secualr Seattle area bastion of liberalism , but here they mock the Christian Faith as fairy tale land , etc . Quite intersting to see views here using the Bible to say it is right , then listen to liberals here say the Bible has no merit in public discourse and those scriptures are baloney .
But if half the people in this country are saying Marriage and staying together is unimportant , the war is over . The other side won , but they sure don't sound like it .Values presented as equal to the majority of us , will always have the generation pick the easist in their minds to follow . Its our nature .
If its easier to allow government make up for lack of your own planning , it will be used by the majority of us eventually . .
Interesting my family are basically all lefties , but the desire to take care of our families is a Heritage from our Mom and Dad that I believe promotes in the war against poverty . You can't give that to people who think its not important .
Or make them understand you view is anything but imposing your beliefs on them .
Liberalism to me has the highest regard for people , and the worse methods for imposing policies . A self proclaiming mission , care for the poor , follow liberal policies and you will see a steady diet of people in increasing numbers needing that care .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 19, 2007 3:58 PM
Normally, I find myself agreeing with Wallis, but this one leaves me scratching my head. I'm not suggesting that the government has no place in deciding how to end poverty, but I'm not at all sure that, even if people did the campaigning he suggests, that much would change. Let's assume that the minimum wage WERE increased, in addition to the other factors he suggests. There would STILL be the same problem about getting food to people who need it. Perhaps the exact "whos" and "wheres" and "how manys" would shift around a bit. But I have no illusion that government is even CAPABLE of "ending poverty," even if they did everything RIGHT!
Posted by: B-W | November 19, 2007 4:13 PM
I have to agree with the conservatives on this one. Like it or not, there is NO magic bullet that can end poverty. As another poster noted, government cannot create food by fiat. What it CAN do is give people opportunities to improve their lot. Unfortunately, not all people will take the opportunities given them. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately - my cynical side speaking... we'll always need someone to do the "menial" tasks), there will always be an underclass. They exist because of a variety of reasons such as lack of ambition, lack of opportunity, lack of intelligence, etc. etc. Yes, they shouldn't go hungry, and should still have the BASICS like affordable health care. But no more. Government can provide opportunities (decent public education is the biggie here). But it shouldn't go beyond that, because like it or not, people need an incentive to be more productive, and the "free rider" problem needs to be addressed. The temptation to be lazy needs to be kept in check. Programs like Habitat provide a hand-up, rather than a handout, and they have generally worked much better because they instill the self-respect in people needed to turn their lives around.
Posted by: Ngchen | November 19, 2007 6:05 PM
Dear Sojourners -
We are the tools of God's grace on this earth.
Jesus gave and he healed, but he also taught and he certainly advocated for the disenfranchised any time he encountered them. We must all do what we can for those in our midst. If you see someone in need, find a way.
I'm new to posting comments (or even reading them), but are we always so sharp in our comments? Is it liberal or conservative to see need and want to help? What on earth does a discussion on feeding the poor through advocacy or direct aid have to do with abortion?
God is love and we are God's hands. Even if it's just for Thanksgiving, let's please try to feed each other with God's good words and share the bounty that those of us who have time to read and write blogs surely have.
Peace,
NWB
Posted by: NWB | November 19, 2007 6:18 PM
I am the Volunteer Coordinator at a Canadian inner-city agency that serves meals, has a clothing bank, runs a food depot, and has a daily drop-in (among other services) and I strongly agree with Wallis. With Christmas coming, our phones and email accounts have been overwhelmed with people wanting to volunteer. While I commend this, and am extremely grateful to all of these groups and individuals, our agency does not simply want to keep gathering more and more volunteers (and continue to deal with the "feast or famine" - lots of volunteers at Christmas, very few in the new year). Instead, we also make a point of focusing on "education" - by education we mean to increase the discussion around the issues of poverty, which hopefully means helping volunteers and others understand that agencies like ours are, in the long run, providing more band-aids than long term solutions. I believe that if you talk to almost anyone who works with the community we do, they will echo Wallis in saying that what we need are not simply people who will call a few times a year to donate or volunteer, but people who will advocate the needs of our commmunity to the broader public and yes, the government. Without long-term solutions and people who will take the cause of, for example, affordable housing to those "higher-up", we will simply continue to apply band-aids to an ever-growing wound.
Posted by: DJ | November 19, 2007 6:19 PM
I am surprised by some of the heartless remarks by Sojourners readers. Jim Wallis goes in the right direction trying to solve the problem of hunger in a wealthy land, not just paper it over.
Food banks are fine as a temporary measure. However, charity often has a double edge. It makes those who dispense it feel very virtuous and gives them permission to ignore the ongoing daily realities.
This is not a dry dusty land lacking in arable soil. We are so blessed. We have food and the potential to completely end hunger.
Having been poor and often hungry as a child, I think that handouts are both unreliable and humiliating. Poverty, food and nutrition are worthy arenas for public policy. It is not easy to figure out how to end hunger and poverty, nor will a single approach suffice. But here are some ideas:
>Divert some funds from killing to producing a variety of good foods, to supporting local family farms so decent produce could more easily get to poorer neighborhoods.
>Subsidize healthful foods the way we subsidize roads. Food stamps are a good idea. WIC works. School nutrition programs, if well managed, are a fairly reliable way to help children.
>Educate people about the food dollar - give fatty junk food and food filled with antibiotics, hormones, additives, high fructose corn syrup the bad press they deserve.
>Create honest work if necessary. Lots of things are filthy and falling apart. Lines are long at Post Office, airports and other places where service could be offered. Workers could be employed doing useful things. We would all benefit.
>Make work pay enough to live on. Protect the right of all people including "illegal aliens" to organize for decent wages so they can afford to buy food. If they cannot organize, if they are in constant fear of deportation, it depresses pay for everyone. If you are overly afraid of immigrants (and that is your problem that you should think about, unless you are a Native American), we could at least start with our Mexican neighbors.
>Help people who are sick and disabled with enough benefits to live on. That goes double for veterans.
>Go after deadbeat Dads who are able to help support their children and choose not to.
>Encourage girls and women to postpone childbearing until after they are educated.
So much more could be done.
Posted by: Sonia Collins | November 19, 2007 6:31 PM
Thank you Sonia, for offering some solutions and suggestions. Talk about a breath of fresh air.
NWB,
I wish I could say things were better than the observations you made. Often, many here would rather point out flaws in opposing ideologies rather than search for solutions. I hope you stick with us and continue to be one who offers solutions.
Posted by: squeaky | November 19, 2007 7:04 PM
Moderatelad: "But I will ammend my idea. I believe that we can underwrite the first child. If there is a second child and the mother is not employed and no father is named so that we can collect from them. If the woman will agree to a steralization - the Gov't will add to her assistance for the second child. We have to stop the increase of children being born into poverty if we want to win the war on poverty."
An interesting idea. Are you familiar with the group Negative Population Growth (http://www.npg.org/)? This sounds like something they would be willing to support.
Tell me...are you also interested in cutting the tax subsidy for the rest of the children being brought into this world...the income tax deduction? After all, if it is bad policy to support children born to poor mothers, isn't it worse policy to support children born to parents who are quite capable of caring for them without government support?
Posted by: ds0490 | November 19, 2007 7:38 PM
I tried to retire in 2005, but found myself with a part-time job cutting meat in a market here in rural Indiana. The market is owned by a corporation, is one of about 20 such markets here, and I quickly learned, to my horror, that when perfectly good beef, pork, or chicken "dated out" (that is, reached the date mandated by the USDA as unsaleable) the market threw the meat into the dumpster behind the store!!
I was able to negotiate a deal whereby the store where I worked would freeze the "dated" meat and I am now able to buy it, in quantities of 100-200 lbs at a time, for less than 30% of its original price on the shelf. I donate it to the local food bank; as of last week, 55 families per week are able to eat meat once a day or so, because of it.
I AM NOT tooting my own horn here!! Many, many people do this, and much more, every day. But I would like to urge us to remember - - we can march on legislatures all week long, we can carry signs and write letters to a government which, generally speaking, has an attention span of about ten seconds. In the meantime, people are hungry NOW. And the food banks of the country do a good thing. By all means, write the letters. But, in the meantime, buy a can of beans or two and give them to someone who needs them. That may be all their kids get to eat on that particular day - - and God will not forget you.
Posted by: joekc | November 19, 2007 7:46 PM
Good article, and a few good, constructive comments. I am not a Christian - I am a Deist - but I find Wallis interesting, as he walks the talk, unlike so many Evangelicals.
I find it disheartening that a people that name themselves after Jesus pay so little heed to his teachings. Nowhere did Jesus preach "prosperity" for believers. Quite the opposite.
All of us, but especially those who name themselves Christians, need to be working to address poverty and its root causes. As long as there is an elite that believes it is so "blessed", and somehow those others are not - they must be bad people - nothing will ever change.
Posted by: Phat Khat | November 19, 2007 8:03 PM
Why is it the governments job to end poverty?? Anything the government gets their hands on is a complete disaster and they only make things worse. We should not rely on the government to solve our problems. We should rely on ourselves. What about the poor people? How come they can't help themselves. We need to start empowering people to take charge of their lives and make it better for themselves because they want to. Not because we have an agenda and we pick them as our cause to feel like we're doing our part.
Posted by: anon | November 19, 2007 8:41 PM
But, in the meantime, buy a can of beans or two and give them to someone who needs them. That may be all their kids get to eat on that particular day - - and God will not forget you.
Posted by: joekc
Well said and something we all should follow . That was fresh air , and something easily followed that will make a difference .
Great story of someone doing something out of their normal routines and helping so many people because of it . God Bless you !
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 19, 2007 8:44 PM
This same topic is the subject of Anna Quindlen's latest column in Newsweek.
Posted by: Michelle | November 19, 2007 9:27 PM
This article was a great Thanksgiving reminder to give! I know for myself donating what I can fiscially afford has been rewarding. Helps me to be more thankful for the things in my own life when I give. And I know this is what Jesus desires of me - give to those in need. There is no gift to little (or large) if the intention of the heart if right. Thank you for article.
LOVE and PEACE
Posted by: Victoria | November 19, 2007 9:45 PM
"I was able to negotiate a deal whereby the store where I worked would freeze the "dated" meat and I am now able to buy it, in quantities of 100-200 lbs at a time, for less than 30% of its original price on the shelf. I donate it to the local food bank; as of last week, 55 families per week are able to eat meat once a day or so, because of it."
That's great. I think food waste is a major issue in this country. I understand the stores reasoning for tossing it (they'll get sued if they sell it to consumers), but it seems like we could put two and two together here.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 19, 2007 10:00 PM
There was a story on the local news station the other day about the increased demand at local food banks. They cite the cause as the increase in the cost of oil. The cost of heating and the cost of gas force the lower income bracket (and recently the lower middle class as well) to make hard choices about how to spend their increasingly limited income.
This is not something that food banks alone can help. The government has to help, whether it's making it so wages are sustainable, helping with the cost of heating bills, supporting alternative energy research or any of the suggestions above.
Yes, Jesus said give to the poor, but Jesus comes from the Old Testament tradition of the prophets who advocated on behalf of the poor, and as we have also inherited this tradition we should listen to the words of Amos as well.
Posted by: Lydia-Ann | November 19, 2007 11:06 PM
Government is inefficient. (I presume that we can all at least agree on that.) So why would anyone advocate government as a vehicle for helping the poor? The answer is clear: Power.
Posted by: Bradley | November 19, 2007 11:18 PM
As one who has been called to ministry to those Jesus called 'the least of these.' I find the tone of the rhetoric here somewhat less than uplifting towards a group of saints Jesus clearly loves and in fact died for, just as he did for you and I.
I am blessed everyday to see the quiet dignity, in so many of these image-bearers, and to see the hand of the Lord at work in their lives.
I am reminded that Jesus's first act of adult ministry, as recorded in Luke 4 was going into the temple and proclaiming the fullfillment of this passage of the scroll of Isaiah:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
We need to remember, whatever we say, whatever we do, if it is not good news to the poor it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Some Bibles call Matthew 25:31 Judgement of the Nations, others call it Goat & Sheep. It clearly sets out what Jesus will judge the nations for:
41-43"Then he will turn to the 'goats,' the ones on his left, and say, 'Get out, worthless goats! You're good for nothing but the fires of hell. And why? Because—
I was hungry and you gave me no meal,
I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
I was homeless and you gave me no bed,
I was shivering and you gave me no clothes,
Sick and in prison, and you never visited.'
44"Then those 'goats' are going to say, 'Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or homeless or shivering or sick or in prison and didn't help?'
And he tells them...the nations, that when they failed to do unto the least of these, you failed to do it unto Jesus himself.
Caring for the Lord's poor is clearly not optional behavior. It is a topic our Lord is deadly serious about. Jesus does not frequently or casualy throw around eternal punishment.
Lord, I pray you would give us more of You, and less of us, and that you would help us strive to conform to the image of your Son.
Posted by: Alan Clapsaddle | November 19, 2007 11:52 PM
Both approaches are needed.
One is short-range. The other is long-range.
Short-range - people need their stomachs filled before they can think about finding jobs or getting training. Many of these people have been through a living hell. It's going to take time for them to heal - and meanwhile, while they're healing, they are going to need food.
Long-range - these people need medical help, job-training, counseling, help in finding housing - all of which the government would be wise to fund- because it's cheaper in the long run to help people get on their feet.
And yes, this takes political action and citizen involvement.
But...even though Jesus knew people were once again going to be hungry the following day, He still fed them. Even though Jesus know people would get sick again, He healed them.
Bandaids have their place.
Jewish people didn't have much say in what the Roman Government did. If they'd been too vocal, they would have been sent to prison or executed.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | November 20, 2007 12:47 AM
For anon:
Why don't poor people help themselves? Well, some of them are lazy, yes.
Others were genetically born with a pre-disposition to mental illness. They are schizophrenic or have bipolar disorder or they are depressed.
Remember those honored "American heroes" who fought our wars? Well, some of them came back with severe injuries. Others came back with post traumatic stress disorder. And it left them unable to cope with the daily stresses of life.
Some teenagers grew up in homes where they hardly got a square meal. Mommy and daddy were doing drugs and physically abusing the kids - or maybe Mommy's boyfriend was sexually abusing the kids. And so, when the kids couldn't take another moment of it all, they hit the streets.
What life skills do you think these kids learned? They probably were never encouraged to attend school regularly, much less come home and get serious about doing their homework. Do you honestly think these kids were taught the necessary skills of being responsible....or of perservering through hardship...or of getting along with others...or delaying immediate gratification to attain future rewards?
What was modeled? Meeting frustration with one's fists? Cranking up when life got too hard?
Help themselves...with what?
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza, dear Liza.
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza - a hole.
"Then fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry.
Then fix it, dear Henry - FIX IT!
With what shall I fix it, dear Liza, dear Liza, dear Liza.
With what shall I fix it, dear Liza, with WHAT?
And on the old folk song goes...in circles and in circles and in circules...repeating in an infinite loop.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | November 20, 2007 1:01 AM
"America gives a better life to the ordinary guy than does any other country. Let’s be honest: rich people live well everywhere. America’s greatness is that it has extended the benefits of affluence, traditionally available to the very few, to a large segment in society. We live in a nation where “poor” people have TV sets and microwave ovens, where construction workers cheerfully spend $4 on a nonfat latte, where maids drive very nice cars, where plumbers take their families on vacation to the Caribbean. Recently I asked an acquaintance in Bombay why he has been trying so hard to relocate to America. He replied, “I really want to move to a country where the poor people are fat.”
~Dinesh D'Souza, "What's So Great About America?"
Poverty is really relative. There will always be poor, but American poor are the richest in the world.
Posted by: Dinesh | November 20, 2007 2:12 AM
Jim,
thanks for your well-thought words on trying to provide more thoughtful ways for us to love our neighbor!
and to Dinesh, Mike Sheldon, Moderatelad, and Kevin S,
i wish you were all just joking about this stuff...
but i think you are serious.
and that worries me.
i work for a "Christian" NGO, and sometimes our C.E.O. says things i dissagree with passionately. But i try not to just cut him down, in attempts to remember to always put love first.
even if he is passionately against me, i try to talk like brothers, and not fight like enemies.
and i remember Jesus' words:
"whoever is not against us, is for us."
and Mr. Kevin S,
don't you think of Jesus lived in a Democractic Republic like Americans do today, he would have done all he could to show love toward the poor? (even calling out the leadership of his people to show love to the poor? like he did his direct political authorities, the religous leaders.)
And don't you think his life of sacrafice and stories of love and courageous effort (like the "parable of the talents") reflect a Jesus who would be quite proud of Mr. Wallis' attempts here?
i would love to read one of Wallis' blogs without watching him be stoned-via-responses by his own brothers and sisters.
let's follow Wallis' lead and be more thougthful!
slow to speak, quick to listen!
and always trying to show and embody love.
Posted by: andy | November 20, 2007 3:07 AM
Yes. Yes. and Yes!
Twenty-eight years ago I grew a beard, telling myself I would keep the beard until I had ordered my life in a way in a way consistent with 'doing unto the least of these' as Jesus instructed. I kept my beard for about seven years. I am so happy the Lord kept that question in front of me for that period; and so saddened at my fickle heart for so often conducting the affairs of my life with a 'mindlessness.'
Maybe it would help all of us to see food shelves as an 'entry point' into the issue. They touch immediate hunger/cash issues of households in need. And give an access point for persons with a heart to engage to do so.
There is a Minnesota-wide five-year initiative to end hunger in Minnesota that was launched (I understand) by 300 food shelves. It joins a similar push to 'end poverty.' A critical factor in taking on a broader framework and goal was reaching a critical mass/organization of the people engaged with food shelves.
I understand the utopian sound to the goals. But I do not believe we can look at the assets, institutions, productive-capacity, educational capacity, etc. of this nation along with the moral imperatives of our faith, plus the Spirit of the Loving Jesus and NOT issue a call to end hunger/poverty.
Government and churches play very different, but mutually important roles.
My church is shifting gears to build its response around entrepreneurship--helping persons see thier lives through the grid of how we invest the gifts of our lives into productive activity to care for our needs and advance Jesus' purposes.
Significant numbers of those who are hungry/poor do not stay there for long periods. But there are also many that are there due to deep, complex brokenness. They fundamentally need a community (e.g. church) in which they can be loved and love--a community that will provide multiple supports over a period of years.
Blessings to all who in your own ways, according to your own callings, incarnate the love of Jesus.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 20, 2007 9:06 AM
Kevin, your reference to "wasted food" in our country is perceptive and well-taken. I saw, at the rather small volume market where I was cutting meat, boxes of excellent bananas, dozens of loaves of bread, heads of lettuce, boxes of tomatoes, and on and on, discarded because they had reached "the magic date" set by the governmental agency as the throwaway date. When I asked my store manager if I could have those things, he smilingly (but seriously) told me: "If you take them, I will be required to fire you, and prosecute you for theft."
You are right, of course - - the store has a liability problem. But I firmly believe that, if that little store is representative of the grocery stores of our land, then we throw away, daily, enough to feed every citizen of this country, and maybe another country or two as well. It was a source of great angst for me as I worked there. We need to figure something out.
Posted by: joekc | November 20, 2007 9:11 AM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 20, 2007 9:06 AM
There is a Minnesota-wide five-year initiative to end hunger in Minnesota that was launched (I understand) by 300 food shelves.
As a fellow MN. Do you have a link to this organization? I would like to let the person in our church that deals with our food shelf know aboutr this.
If we are to end hunger and poverty in MN - we have to do something about the 'cause'.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 20, 2007 9:33 AM
Instead of only feeding them, why not actually ask the poor how to help them not be poor?
Hmm ... I wonder what they will tell us? And will we then accept what they have to say?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 20, 2007 10:32 AM
OK so I have read these blogs for sometime and not joined in but on this one I thought I'll take my hits...
I work with the poor, alot. We help with food, housing, utilities. I spend time talking to them. Most are working poor. Most, at least here, are single mothers with multiple children from multiple partners. That's just the way it is here.
Food banks and handouts are great in the sense that a Band-Aid is great to stop the bleeding. But they do not change anything. For many times is simply helps get them to the next crisis. No matter how large or sustained the handout, if nothing happens within the person - nothing happens.
The biggest thing they need is to understand, truly and deeply, that God loves them. Most, when you get past the bluster, suffer from self-hate. They think the only thing they deserve is what they get from spreading their legs for a few minutes. They don't deserve a committed relationship and until they understand their value in God's eye they never will. They live life in the now without regard to the consequences - making them easy prey for predatory loan agencies, men, drugs, etc. My recipe for Jesus first may sound simplistic but until they have true self worth the cycle is endless. Then the climb out can start with responsible relationships and a focus on working their way out, with the Holy Spirit and a loving church body, of their situation.
I see a lot of discussion about how we, as Christians, need to show compassion. I agree. We also need to understand that the poor are held just as accountable. Remember the parable of the talents? It has always been interesting to me that Jesus pointedly used the poorest (the one given the least) as the example of the person who does nothing. He is called wicked and lazy. Not how we would have written it but there it is. When I work with poor here or in Guatemala I remind myself that they have a responsibility to use what they have been given - no matter how little. It's like Jesus says He knows the world is not fair but that is not an excuse for each person not using what they have - spiritually and physically.
Also, while I am setting myself up for blasting. Christians need to be mindful of government. Jesus seemed to say laws matter little. We can no more effectively legislate compassion than morality. Jesus attacked compassionless, rules-based and hard-heart religion. He did not try to bend the laws of Rome to bring about the kingdom. Governments = power = abuse; left or right history proves the point.
I'll duck now.
Posted by: Corbey | November 20, 2007 11:16 AM
I think Jesus summed it up the best.
Matthew 25: 31-45
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Given that this follows the parable of the talents, I think that the message of this chapter is not meant for the poor to be more responsible with what they are given. I think it is to the church to be more generous with what it has been given.
Now, can someone show me a command of God that says to churches to build larger sanctuaries, spend money lobbying the government, or paying ministers six and seven figure salaries?
Posted by: ds0490 | November 20, 2007 1:30 PM
Corbey -- I understand what you're saying, but it's far more complcated than that. What you see in the 'hood is a function of an economically-devastated community which had its vitality move out with the wealthier folks who left for greener pastures long ago -- and then those that left have the audacity to tell the folks left behind how they ought to live! We're talking families fractured generations ago in large part because of poverty and where the hope for a better, more solid future can hardly be found.
Jesus seemed to say laws matter little. We can no more effectively legislate compassion than morality. Jesus attacked compassionless, rules-based and hard-heart religion. He did not try to bend the laws of Rome to bring about the kingdom. Governments = power = abuse; left or right history proves the point.
That does not mean, however, that laws shouldn't be changed -- and, in fact, even in Rome laws were changed when it became clear that the Christians had a "better idea." Today, things like pederasty are legal nowhere in the world, and that was due partly to Christian influence. Institutionalized racism was overthrown both here and in South Africa because Christians wouldn't accept it as righteous and good. The danger comes when we try to make the state into our slave, as certain Calvinists (my theological heritage) believe.
That said, while it should shy away from direct political invovement, the church should always speak up for the dispossessed, and according to Isaiah 1:17, to do so in the political arena. As someone on another thread said months ago, it's not enough to rescue people from the river; it's also necessary to find out who's throwing them in.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 20, 2007 2:05 PM
Also, while I am setting myself up for blasting. Christians need to be mindful of government. Jesus seemed to say laws matter little. We can no more effectively legislate compassion than morality. Jesus attacked compassionless, rules-based and hard-heart religion. He did not try to bend the laws of Rome to bring about the kingdom. Governments = power = abuse; left or right history proves the point.
Posted By Corbey
No reason to duck Corbey , you showed respect for differing opinions , and had experience to speak from .
Well written also . Even those for laws for supporting their views see how government buracracies fail to deliver what Christ does .
An example is just when I was on the food program that allowed my kids to get discounted meals at public schools . I never thought to thank my next door neigbors or people on the street for helping to feed my children , even though all tax payers were .
But if you came over the house and helped feed my kids , there would be an exchange of love and re newed commitment by be , humbleness , and perhaps even a more thank full Heart for the Blessings from above . I would be encourgaged by your love and concern . And you the giver would receive a blessing form the Lord I believe , I am a terrivle writer but you would know God was involved in your helping ways . There is none of that exchange when government helps people . In fact , people are often ridiculed for not wanting to help more , or ridiculed for wanting to help too much .
Government can help , but will never take the place of Christ , compassion and morality in each of our homes . Well said !
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 20, 2007 2:39 PM
Couple of comments for clarity as I have time coming into Thanksgiving.
My issue with Christian involvement in politics does not mean I advocate uninvolvement. Certainly we need to speak up against abuse and press for justice - I am a frequesnt writer to my representatives and every citizen should be. My point, probably not well put, is that as Christians our main focus must not be on government for most of what is wrong with our society. Our society reflects what is wrong with people on the inside. If our society is selfish, materialistic and violent, it is not because of our laws - it is because of us. Rich or poor, regardless of race, or even the country I have been in - unless people are encountering Jesus is a real way...well we get what we get. In Guatemala a man shoots another for robbing his daughter, in Romania a man slaps a Roma child for begging, in America, etc. etc. Yea, yea CIA, KGB and all that stuff but the facts is that there are always plenty of people willing to do whatever it takes to lord power of others. Since no man-led government has ever - I mean ever - pulled of a just society we should be dubious of one anytime soon.
I believe the Christian left is going to find itself in the same position as the Christian right - doing back flips to maintain its position at the children's table of the parties of power. ex: Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy.
Also my point on the parable of the talents is not that I am saying the poor need to be more responsible. My point is that Jesus is saying everyone is responsible for justly using what they have. If I had written that parable it would have been the guy who got the most who was lazy and just enjoyed what he had. The one with only one talent whould have righteously used the gift. But Jesus always shakes us up. Jesus' point is that we all (rich and poor) will have to make an account of what we did in this life. Did we lay on the sofa and wash down crackers with birth-year vintage reds, did we sit on the curb and complain about what we do not have, or did we try to build His kingdom with what time, talents and treasure we had? There's not much else we can do with that teaching.
Love God and Love others,
Corbey
Posted by: Corbey | November 20, 2007 3:33 PM
My point, probably not well put, is that as Christians our main focus must not be on government for most of what is wrong with our society. Our society reflects what is wrong with people on the inside.
Agreed. That said, we do that best by treating everyone with equity and justice, which is just what this blog is about. However, too many Christians still think they're "entitled" to authority simply because we are Christians, looking down on people not like themselves. Look at the way evangelical "liberals" are denounced, even on this blog.
I believe the Christian left is going to find itself in the same position as the Christian right - doing back flips to maintain its position at the children's table of the parties of power. ex: Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy.
Not likely. The right, whether secular or religious, even in 1980 already was building a powerful infrastructure and in many cases was directly connected to Republican candidates, if not the party itself. The "left," if you will (not everyone who isn't right is left, BTW), has always been more grass-roots and doesn't have celebrity pastors, political connections or any of that stuff the right does.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 20, 2007 4:38 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 20, 2007 4:38 PM
'...has always been more grass-roots and doesn't have celebrity pastors, political connections...'
The 'Contract with America' was the best grass roots idea that has ever been done.
celebrity pastors - so what is the Rev. Jackson then? There are not too many as 'celeb' as him. Then again he is the pastor who has never held a pulpit.
connections - most dem. canidates are so connected to any number of little splinter groups than most rep. canidates are.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 20, 2007 4:59 PM
Beautiful. Wallis calls for sustained efforts, grounded on a mix of public and private initiatives, to attack hunger and poverty.
kevin s, Moderatelad, joekc, Mick Sheldon, Wolverine, Donny, Bradley, and Dinesh all agree heartily with Jim. Then follows a conversation among them in which they brainstorm the best ways that Christians can work to alleviate poverty and hunger in the United States. Once again, the generosity and Christian spirit displayed by these guys is inspirational.
Posted by: carl copas | November 20, 2007 5:20 PM
The 'Contract with America' was the best grass roots idea that has ever been done.
Yeah, and my name is Newt Gingrich. Seriously, that came directly from Ross Perot.
celebrity pastors - so what is the Rev. Jackson then? There are not too many as 'celeb' as him. Then again he is the pastor who has never held a pulpit.
Even at that, Jackson is way too much of an independent operator even for the "left," which is important because African-Americans as a rule trust neither side.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 20, 2007 5:48 PM
moderatelad;m how will minnesota know when they have eliminated hunger in minnesota?
Posted by: jerry | November 20, 2007 6:10 PM
moderatelad;m how will minnesota know when they have eliminated hunger in minnesota?
Posted by: jerry
An increase in illegal immigration ?
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 20, 2007 8:58 PM
Posted by: carl copas | November 20, 2007 5:20 PM
'...among them in which they brainstorm the best ways that Christians can work to alleviate poverty and hunger...'
How do eliminate the problem if you don't deal with the cause(s)?
You can't just keep throwing more money or in this case more food at it. It is like telling a person they have a drinking problem all the while you keep buying them drinks.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 20, 2007 11:28 PM
Posted by: jerry | November 20, 2007 6:10 PM
moderatelad;m how will minnesota know when they have eliminated hunger in minnesota?
Maybe when we see the number of food shelves decrease. When we see a decrease in the number of children born into poverty homes. When the state stops underwriting illegitmacy in the US. When parents will be parents to there children regardless of the marriage status. When 'sperm donors' will be heald accountable for the children they produce and not be allowed to run away.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 20, 2007 11:35 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 20, 2007 5:48 PM
You know Rick I was born at night - but not last night.
Ross P. had nothing to do with contract with America. He was a rich nut that tried to buy his way into the White House.
Jackson has been nothing but a mouth piece for the Dem Party. He has done more to deliver the black vote to the Dems than anyone in history.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 20, 2007 11:41 PM
Reading this column makes me I wonder why America hates its poor so much? Too much social Darwinism? I hope I have misread the tone of some of the comments.
The old proverb "that you give a man a fish and his eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for life" comes to mind considering this problem.
I hear much talk of lazy persons, I also hear much about the undeserving poor, I also hear about (am I right?) not supporting more than one child. Children are the future so they should be looked after, where is your next generation to come from?
I have worked with food banks, but as some have said in this column, deal with the underlying causes of poverty and the long term problems can be reduced. Some times it is getting good medical care, other times it is dealing with mental health problems. Often help is needed to point out how to access support. A good caring church helps. I often consider that a result of Christianity is to get people into the respectible middle class. Teach to fish not give a fish.
Why so many poor? Perhaps the working poor have not had their wages maintained in line with the cost of living? Perhaps the lack of a medical system which prevents the descent into poverty through unplanned illness? Many causes, and it is difficult to extrapolate from culture to culture and times to times.
Yes drugs - all types, legal and illegal contribute, Yes, poor family structures don't help, but some of these things are symptoms as much as causes of the problem.
Perhaps the lack of good accessible fairly uniform education for all children where ever they live helps to create a underclass. We are loosing that here too.
I would suggest more teaching to fish is needed as is in this country.
Here (Australia) is was estimated that spending $5 on free community infant health nurses to work with ALL new mothers saved $25 in future jail costs along with all of the normal benefits such as less illness (kids and mums), good vaccination rates, better child raising and early education, and lower child mortality. As a cost cutting measure we stoped that, and the estimates were verified.
The tremendous antagonism against any sort of wealth transfer other than by direct personal giving, expressed by many is surprising to me. However it was one of your Presidents who said something like that ‘Government was of the people, by the people, for the people’. Not to use the fabric of society to care for the Widows and Fatherless would seem to be a dereliction of duty.
The suggestion to look at the causes of poverty by asking the representatives of the people to review things is a good one. It will even save the community money in surprising ways, and not just in lower insurance premiums.(How many possible nobel prize winners just need a start with afordable education?)
We need similar initiatives here, come the election on saturday.
Posted by: jeh | November 21, 2007 8:08 AM
I agree that love is something we all hunger for as much as food. It is hard to feel love when our acts are done at a distance via government. And we often do not trust government to handle our money honestly or well.
So I give personally in various ways to people I know and admire who are struggling. That eliminates the middleman. In return I get communion and the satisfaction of seeing good people gain strength.
I am far from rich. I just work. Even if I gave my entire salary every week, it would not make a dent in poverty. We would all have to chip in.
We do not live in small close communities anymore. It is difficult to know who is in need. Just as we have the intellect to build these huge cities, we are creatures who are able to understand abstract things, such as: Even if I do not see that hungry child right how, he or she exists. So I think that personal giving is a necessary but not a sufficient response to poverty.
Actually, when I see my Social Security taxes taken out of my paycheck, I feel like I am taking care of my own grandmother. I wish my taxes went to taking care of the poor.
I have puzzled for years about the meaning of two of Jesus' economic statements: The one about Caesar and the one about the workers in the vineyard. What do you think was the underlying situation and the intent of those remarks? I would like to hear some thoughts about how they translate into today's realities. Are they compatible with pushing for compassion in public policy?
Thanks for listening and Happy Thanksgiving.
Posted by: Sonia Collins | November 21, 2007 9:21 AM
Our "don't feed the pigeons" strategy toward social services has caused tremendous suffering. As a people, we decided to restrict aid to the "truly deserving" poor, and then concluded that the fact of being poor was proof of being "undeserving". In short, we found an excuse that lets us turn our backs on neighbors in need, without feeling guilty about it.
Charities (food banks, etc.) are an essential element in the equation, but are not able to accomplish what can only be done via government programs. Rural food pantries are not only unable to meet the need, but millions of rural poor simply don't have access to the nearest food bank. Those who do have access have limits ranging from one visit per month to one per every six months.
If (like many of the rural poor, and especially single parents and the elderly)you don't have a car, you might be able to walk to the nearest food pantry, but not able to carry the food back home. Etc.
Modern nations require a legitimate welfare system to be able to provide even the most minimal aid to the poor. This is the only way to ensure that the poor are actually reached, and provided with basic humanitarian aid in a way that they can use. It is the only way to ensure the fair distribution of resources. Tragically, America became so afraid that someone might exploit the system, and so caught up in the "don't feed the pigeons" line of reasoning, that we allowed government to raid the public funds that provided basic aid to our poor.
Posted by: DHFabian | November 21, 2007 10:06 AM
If I may add a comment about the causes of poverty---We will remain stuck with increasing poverty until we get over the hurdle of laying blame. To do this, we need to recognize that the reason we lay blame is to justify our own greed. We blame women when families break up, ignoring that single parent families are almost always the result of a man refusing the accept his responsibilities and a woman who is doing the best she possibly can to accept hers. When a man abandons his own child, we punish the woman and child, apparently because a man has determined that they were unworthy of him (and are therefore unworthy of our help)!
More importantly (and forgetting all about "judge not lest ye be judged"), we condemn the poor on the notion that poverty is proof of "bad behavior"/bad choices. Sometimes it is. By reasoning this way, we can justify our decision to turn our backs on those in need. It's a simple excuse. But more often, poverty is the result of factors ranging from serious health problems to general economic circumstances. Lives can be tremendously complex, and most who are poor are not to blame for their poverty.
Posted by: DHFabian | November 21, 2007 10:27 AM
You know Rick I was born at night -- but not last night.
That doesn't make you right. (BTW, I was born at night.)
Ross P. had nothing to do with contract with America. He was a rich nut that tried to buy his way into the White House.
The Contract originally came from him. I stand by that.
Jackson has been nothing but a mouthpiece for the Dem Party. He has done more to deliver the black vote to the Dems than anyone in history.
Categorically false; the right wing did that all by itself when it took over the GOP. That blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic has absolutely nothing to do with Jackson -- remember that the party, on the orders of Ron Brown (who was also black) distanced itself from him in 1992 when Clinton was running? Think that was a coincidence?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 10:47 AM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 10:47 AM
Ross talked about being for the 'people' but then again - don't all political people running for office. I don't remember Ross standing on the steps of the capital with Newt and all presenting the contract.
The 'Rev' has been in support of anything and everything Dem. since way before Clinton. I don't think he has endorsed much less talked about a conservative running for office anywhere in the US - even 'dog-catcher'.
Have a great Thanks Giving!
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 21, 2007 11:33 AM
I don't remember Ross standing on the steps of the capital with Newt and all presenting the contract.
Didn't matter -- that's where the GOP got it from. (And, if I remember correctly, Perot originally was a Republican.)
I don't think he has endorsed much less talked about a conservative running for office anywhere in the US - even 'dog-catcher'.
And if he did -- trust me on this -- blacks would disavow him in a second. Conservatives don't realize how deeply blacks reject their agenda and have no respect or regard for it, which is why their sales pitches to the black community always go flat. BTW, that has nothing to do with party, only ideology.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 11:46 AM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 11:46 AM
Little confused - are you saying that Jackson is a Rep? That what he has said in the past has been in support of conservative ideas and that is why blacks reject conservatives?
Are we talking about the same Rev Jackson who counseled Pres Clinton about his infidelity even though Jackson had a 'love child' that no one knew about?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 21, 2007 12:15 PM
Little confused - are you saying that Jackson is a Rep? That what he has said in the past has been in support of conservative ideas and that is why blacks reject conservatives?
Not at all, although he has always supported "self-help" and things like that. What I said is that if Jackson were to embrace conservative ideology and/or the Republican Party he is completely finished as a "race man."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 12:33 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 12:33 PM
I would never use Jackson and Self Help in the same sentence. Jackson has been one of the biggest supporters of the Nanny State because he has said for years that the 'American Dream is Over'. There is nothing conservative or remotely Republican about the Rev Jackson. If in fact a conservative ran their organizations like he does his - they would be in court in a heart beat.
I believe that we will see the end of strife in the world before we see Jackson ever looking at all like a conservative.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 21, 2007 1:48 PM
Carl Copas is right. I just find it a pity that what was intended as a conversation starter for Christians to talk about food banks and their effectiveness in addressing poverty once again resulted in a few anti-government conservatives pushing their agenda and the rest of us rushing in to try to reason with them. I doubt that the Free Republic blog would ever let me hijack their conversations in this way.
(As an aside, I find it amazing that someone would credit J. Jackson with having "done more to deliver the black vote to the Dems than anyone in history." Sorry, that distinction belongs to the likes of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Ronald "states'-rights" Reagan.)
Posted by: I and I | November 21, 2007 2:39 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 2:19 PM
I have heard and listened to Jackson - one can not help but to hear him as he is the darling of ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN. He has done more to seperate various people groups than most. He wants to develope the Nanny State more than Wallis. Wasn't he one of the first to condem the Duke Lacross players and I do not remember him making a retraction. Now, he might have but any newspaper that had Jackson on page one condeming them would have the retraction in section D, page 13, below the fold. The big four would have made mention of the retraction as a bump-out to commercial.
Jackson is the mouth piece for liberals and histroically delivered the black vote. Not sure how effective he will be in the next election. If there is another issue of white on black in OCT-08, he will get on prime time news and make book on it.
Have a great Thank Giving -
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 21, 2007 2:48 PM
Posted by: I and I | November 21, 2007 2:39 PM
Let us not forget Robert 'KKK' Byrd. (oh wait - not sure how that one works...it's a mystery)
Point taken but I was not the one that made the first move to make it political. I did take the rope and run with it though. Will try to stay on track in the future. (now I said it - oh brother)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 21, 2007 2:56 PM
I just find it a pity that what was intended as a conversation starter for Christians to talk about food banks and their effectiveness in addressing poverty once again resulted in a few anti-government conservatives pushing their agenda and the rest of us rushing in to try to reason with them.
Well, that's reality for ya. Because the anti-government conservatives you're referring to have always deeply resented anyone having any authority over them and thus want to call the shots. That's why they don't want to face any responsibility for people being poor, as mentioned on another thread -- they will tell you that poverty and crime are based primarily on personal choices rather than lack of choices and opportunities to "do the right thing." Nor are they willing to sacrifice so that others may have.
I have heard and listened to Jackson - one can not help but to hear him as he is the darling of ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN.
I don't mean the soundbites -- I mean his actual speeches and commentaries in their context. I have myself heard and read some of them and there's very little you would disagree with.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 3:11 PM
We blame women when families break up, ignoring that single parent families are almost always the result of a man refusing the accept his responsibilities and a woman who is doing the best she possibly can to accept hers.
Actually, in more cases than you might believe the man is actually thrown out of the house or the woman actually leaves the relationship because, for some reason, he can't or won't carry his own weight. That's what's happened to my 20-year-old niece, who had a baby out of wedlock earlier this year -- she actually lived with the father for a time but recently moved out. Years ago I worked with a single mother who simply refused to marry the father of her children -- her justification was, "I don't want to take care of another child."
The real way to deal with poverty in the 'hood is easy: Get good jobs for the men. Once that happens things will turn around, and fairly quickly at that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 3:28 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 3:11 PM
What are you talking about - his speeches are sound bites.
Hey hey - Ho ho - Westren Civ has got to go!
For the record - I have no problem with people having authority over me. Ultimately God will be calling the final shots. I survived Carter and the double degit inflation. I survived Clinton and his desire to tax the dead - etc. Bring on '08! As B. Davis said in All About Eve. 'Fasten your seatbelts boys - it's going to be a bumpy ride'.
Can't wait -
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 21, 2007 3:34 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 3:28 PM
Get good jobs for the men. Once that happens things will turn around, and fairly quickly at that.
I hope, no pray that what you say would work. In MN there are many jobs available. Less than 15% make the classifieds and there are many that are 'un-skilled'. But who wants to get a job in MN when wellfare is about $22,000.00 a year to sit on your back-side? Find a woman who wants your 'service' and throw a few bucks at her for food or rent and you can live with no cares in the world.
Sliding scale for people that can work.
Stop underwriting illegitmacy
Hold people accountable for their actions
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 21, 2007 3:43 PM
What are you talking about - his speeches are sound bites.
Exactly the ignorance I called you on. I've actually read his stuff, and it's legit.
I survived Carter and the double degit inflation. I survived Clinton and his desire to tax the dead - etc.
Well, I survived the political and economic regression of Ronald Reagan -- do I get credit for that?
But you miss the point. Whenever someone calls for a political solution to solving probably someone jumps up and yells, "Big government!". Well, I've got news for you -- in this country government, especially the feds, often is held hostage by private individuals and organizations (known as "lobbyists") who care only about feathering their own nests at the expense of the rest of us. They're often the ones complaining about "big government" the loudest, using government all the while. (Last year at this time their hypocrisy was exposed for all to see.)
Thus, if laws need to be changed and resources need to be reallocated so that folks have the opportunity to run their own lives and take care of their families, I'm all for it. (That's called justice, which is better than mere charity.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 3:52 PM
I hope, no pray that what you say would work. In MN there are many jobs available. Less than 15% make the classifieds and there are many that are 'un-skilled'.
Questions: Where are they located, and can you get to them using public transit? What kind of qualifications are required? And for the over 85 percent of jobs that aren't even advertised, what kind of contacts do you need to get them? You see why it's not as simple as finding a job -- probably most of the people need help in doing so.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 3:57 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 3:57 PM
Most of the un-skilled jobs are on file with the State Employment Agency and that is a free service.
Many of the job are available by taking public transportation and there is car-pooling supported by the state. They day we run out of jobs in MN - something would have frozen over. But I ask the question...when you can get about $22,000.00 plus to sit on your back side. Who want to get a job that pays the same and you have to be responsible and show up and work?
As for Jackson's speaches - they are legit to some. I will match the wit and wisdom of a Bill Cosby to a Jesse Jackson anyday of the week.
Jackson has said and is still saying that the American Dream is over. IF that is the case - will someone please inform the Asias.
You can have credit for anything you want.
Have a blessed Thanks Giving
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 21, 2007 6:55 PM
Most of the un-skilled jobs are on file with the State Employment Agency and that is a free service.
And how much do those jobs pay? If you can't feed a family with what they pay they might decide they're better off on welfare, especially with the cost of child care.
As for Jackson's speaches - they are legit to some. I will match the wit and wisdom of a Bill Cosby to a Jesse Jackson anyday of the week.
Knowing what I do, they probably speak the same language. They just have different roles, that's all. (BTW, Cos cannot stand Clarence Thomas.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 9:37 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 9:37 PM
And how much do those jobs pay?
Most of them pay the same as what they get on welfare. So why work when you can get the same for sitting on you backside. But the job can pay overtime. But then again you might miss your favorite Soap or Oprah.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 21, 2007 10:48 PM
Most of them pay the same as what they get on welfare. So why work when you can get the same for sitting on you backside. But the job can pay overtime. But then again you might miss your favorite Soap or Oprah.
Yeah -- part-time, few if any health benefits, no sick time, ridiculous hours, abuse from bosses, no chance to advance.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 11:23 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 11:23 PM
Yeah -- part-time, few if any health benefits, no sick time, ridiculous hours, abuse from bosses, no chance to advance.
I am talking FT - benefits...some. Hours - all three shifts. Abuse - you find that anywhere - even in public education. Advance - once employed - easier to get another job.
You know - I agree with you. Let's not try to do anything and let Jackson have something to bitch about. Unskilled is unskilled but you will never get a skill sitting and watching TV.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 22, 2007 1:12 PM
Knowing what I do, they probably speak the same language. They just have different roles, that's all. (BTW, Cos cannot stand Clarence Thomas.)
I did not know that. What's he think of Ward?
p
Posted by: payshun | November 22, 2007 2:34 PM
I am talking FT - benefits...some. Hours - all three shifts. Abuse - you find that anywhere - even in public education. Advance - once employed - easier to get another job.
Not if you don't know the right people. I was part of the "working poor" for 12 years before I got my present job, and I wouldn't have gotten that had I not finished college.
I did not know that. What's he think of Ward?
Probably the same thing -- Cosby commented specifically that Thomas helped nobody advance. See, Cosby's words in 2004 were popular with conservatives but he's been directly involved in the "struggle" for decades, so they had weight. Even Al Sharpton said, "Bill's right."
That said, the problem with conservatives (as I see it) is that they say publicly that hard work and "keeping your nose clean" will eventually reward you. Deep down they now know that it's false so they try to blame someone else for their own failures, and they still think they're entitled to define the issues. That's why they don't want to hear anything about an "income gap" -- it makes them somewhat responsible.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 22, 2007 10:28 PM
Dear Fellas,
I have been watching the conversation about hunger and see many sincere and constructive thoughts and ideas, and lots of honest debate. But increasingly the tone has deteriorated into the same old same old I have been hearing for years.
Every time there is an issue of poverty, we white people get sidetracked into the stereotype of the welfare queen, the promiscuous girl and minorities that do not work. When WE are unemployed, it is bad circumstance. When THEY are unemployed, it is pretty much their fault. This attitude and this conversation wastes time and sidetracks us from finding solutions to economic problems that affect all of us. I mean when the Great Depression hit, was it because all of a sudden people's morals went down all over the country? Besides, most poor people are still white and employed.
In the NYC subway I see thousands of black and other minority people going to work early every single day. I see / know minority mothers who budget every penny to make sure that their children eat, get school supplies, look clean and decent. I see fathers who are tender and attentive to their children, guide, them, work hard for them despite whatever the conditions of work.
I also see more and more companies laying off people, forcing those who are left to do double work at no extra pay, and giving huge bonuses to top management for cutting costs. I think this is the trend.
As a former high tech worker, I can tell you that black people who did everything by the book were very often, if not always, given a hard time at work. Many supervisors told people not to talk to them, gave them all lousy reviews etc. Because I was a little bit friendly, quite a few people showed me their reviews and I was shocked to see the same wording for every single black person regardless of performance "slow worker, low level of knowledge" I could go on. Similar attitudes applied to women. The playing field is not completely even.
Still, people have to be responsible - and usually are. Where they are not I do not believe in rewarding or glorifying their lifestyles. Kids need to see that work pays and work is honorable. BTW, they will see it more clearly if it is true. The desire to own every new gadget regardless of cost has to go. The gangster mentality has to go. Sometimes you have to kick some butt when raising kids. Raising children is not for the faint hearted.
Obviously, it is a mistake to have children when you are not ready to care for them, but please let us not be so harsh we propel young women to have abortions. The children are innocent. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a job that is clearly the responsibility of both man and woman. Worldwide, when women are more educated and have better job opportunities, they then take control of when they have families. This is a demonstrated fact.
Anyway, that's all for now and let's keep talking.
I don't have to wish you blessings - since obviously all of us are able to think, we care enough to write about problems, we are rich enough to own computers, we are still in a free country where we can express what we think and have the free time to do so - we are already so blessed. But I wish you blessings anyway.
Posted by: Sonia Collins | November 25, 2007 10:01 PM
If I, or any other food bank volunteer, had the power to miraculously eliminate hunger either for one meal or permanently, Kevin would be right in his implication that we (Jesus working in us) would be better off conducting that miracle.
On the other hand, I and the other food bank volunteers are citizens in a country with public policy, policy which obviously has an effect on the existence of hunger(Witness less affluent societies which have no need of food banks as in most other developed nations.) Ignoring or despising our ability to affect public policy through voting, petitioning, contacting our elected officials is the same as burying our talents. We need not agree on what the policy should be to insist that Christian voters (Don't we say every Fourth of July that having a representative form of government is a gift of God?) must use that gift to carry out God's mission.
What is wrong with us that the mark of the early Church was, "See how they love one another?" and the mark of the nation that claims to be Christian is, "See how they love themselves"?
Posted by: Sarah Caldwell | November 27, 2007 6:16 PM
Dear Moderatelad,
Please do not sign your comments with "Blessings" when you are really cursing. Truth goes a long way.
Posted by: LF | November 30, 2007 3:59 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?