I honestly believed he was the most electable of the three Democratic possibilities.

And given the economic deterioration that's underway, by the time the elction rolled around he would have only been more so.

Given the makeup of the general electorate and not discounting Hillary's very significant negatives, the election, whichever of the remaining two prevail, will be very close.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 5:18 PM

The Bible says that a nation will be judged, more than anything else, by how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable.

Seeing as how Edwards proposed many things, all of which were along the lines of turning over the care of the poor to the kind and competent minstrations of Congress and the Federal Government ( the kindness of the IRS, the thrift of Military Spending, the responsiveness of the Postal Service, the personal service of the SSA), I'd say that anyone adhering to his vision should face harsh judgement.

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 5:35 PM

Where does the Bible say a "nation" will be judged for its treatment of the poor? I thought all of that was simply personal morality.

Read the Prophets sometime -- there are so many references to it they'll make your head swim.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 30, 2008 6:03 PM

Seeing as how Edwards proposed many things, all of which were along the lines of turning over the care of the poor to the kind and competent minstrations of Congress and the Federal Government ( the kindness of the IRS, the thrift of Military Spending, the responsiveness of the Postal Service, the personal service of the SSA), I'd say that anyone adhering to his vision should face harsh judgement.

9: And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
10: And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
11: And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
12: When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Posted by: bud duncan | January 30, 2008 6:18 PM

Please don't allow disruption of the conversations here by unbalanced individuals.

These people obviously aren't well and it's making it highly distracting for others, regardless of their perspectives.

It's a loss to see the gift of a generous forum sullied like this.

I think the best action, if it's practical, is to cursorily check each posting before it's made public, if that can be done in a short time frame.

I do think that the purpose of these postings, whether consciously intended or not, was to shut down the attempt to bring those holding differing perspectives together in a respectful and teachable way.

That always threatens some who want the status quo of unchanging conflict to continue.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 6:48 PM

"These people obviously aren't well and it's making it highly distracting for others, regardless of their perspectives."

Knock it off yourself , you got something to say about the mental capacity about someone , say it in love , or keep your self righterous two cents out of it .

Posted by: Mick | January 30, 2008 7:11 PM

Mark,
The substance of some of your posts has been very difficult for the left leaning members of this site to deal with. But your last post (if it was yours) does not help further the discussion.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | January 30, 2008 7:43 PM

Jeff,

It was not difficult for us on the left to deal w/ his posts. It was the substance of his arguments that were lacking.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 8:07 PM

something very wrong is going on.

My post above was changed AFTER I submitted post.

I have posted all over here, and I DO NOT use the kind of vulgar and crude language someone used and put my name to many posts back.

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 8:16 PM

So, I've said that unless you believe the federal government MUST be the one solving all the human needs, you will be labeled as "evil".

And here you prove me right again.

Can someone PLEASE explain this? Why is it that any discussion of why it's a really bad financial, social, and moral idea is forbidden and attacked as moral deficiency?

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 8:21 PM

What the Prophets spoke to their political leaders, still rings loud to those of today. Especially murdering the innocent.

It does? Israel was a THEOCRACY. Israel was NOT run by people, it was run by GOD.

We live in a nation run by people. Collectively, we use the least effective means of running anything, known as Congress. Self government works, but only so long as the people themselves self govern. That is, they take upon themselves the obligations of morality, charity, passing on thier values to thier children, and so on.

When the people decide that they are NOT responsible for thier neighbor, other than to just pass off the duty onto the most distant and unresponsive and unresponsible government they can find, then I'd say they have completely failed themselves, and each other.

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 8:31 PM

Well Mark , perhaps the moderator will come forward in this case . There are some quite beligerent folks on the side of left leaning politics that do no honor to Sorjouners . It would be in the best interest if indeed they were banned . Posing as another is also against the terms on this blog .

I apologize if I contributed to the rush to judgement . You are right , never have found your words abusive in that way before .

Posted by: Mick | January 30, 2008 8:48 PM

"Where does the Bible say a "nation" will be judged for its treatment of the poor?"

Actually, as I've pointed before, Matthew 25 says clearly that the nations (ethne, plural) will be gathered, and that God will separate them (autous, masculine singular) according to how they have treated the most needy. The only possible interpretation of this text is that God will hold each individual accountable for how his (or her) nation has treated the poor. (See Walter Wink, Unmasking the Powers, p. 96.)

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 30, 2008 8:58 PM

Another nonymous,
One of the more recent points one of my pastors has been making is that there may be more judgement on nations rather than distinct individuals than our interpretation of Scripture indicates. We live in an extremely individualistic society where we don't feel we are accountable to anyone but ourselves, and so the concept of national responsibility for sin is completely foreign to us. So, it's possible we may face judgement on an individual basis as well as part of a nation. Culturally, the idea is completely foreign to us, but the Bible was written in a culture where individuality was completely foreign. I suspect the community-driven interpretation is far more in line with the context of the Scriptures.

Posted by: squeaky | January 30, 2008 9:15 PM

Squeaky -

Absolutely - especially if you read the New Testament in the context of the Old, which I try to make a point of doing. I have also recently read John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus," which makes much the same point, backed up by impeccable scholarship and equally impeccable Christian conviction.

A case in point is Yoder's reading of the passage in II Corinthians which says, in most translations, that when a person is in Christ, he is a new creation. Yoder makes a plausible case that a better translation would be that when anyone is in Christ, creation is made new, and that this would have been obvious to anybody reading this text before the age of modern individualism.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 30, 2008 9:27 PM

Mark -

Wink's point is that "ethne" doesn't mean "people," it means "peoples." Not an insignificant distinction, if you think about it.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 30, 2008 9:29 PM

So, will you lose salvation because your neighbor votes wrong?

If not, then there is neither national judgement nor salvation.

If so, then you serve a tyrant.

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 9:41 PM

Wink's point is that "ethne" doesn't mean "people," it means "peoples." Not an insignificant distinction, if you think about it.

I don't know who Wink is.

But the notion of being judged by your neighbor's vote so flagrantly flies in the face of the Gospel, that this idea cannot possibly be valid.

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 9:44 PM

"So, will you lose salvation because your neighbor votes wrong?"

I think it is entirely possible that our nation will lose salvation (assuming we even have it, which is questionable) if we fail to deal with this problem.

"If not, then there is neither national judgement nor salvation."

I'm not sure I follow. Salvation certainly exists, as does national judgment.

"If so, then you serve a tyrant."

I serve a God whose main concern, desire and passion is to grant salvation, freely and unstintingly. The older I get, though, the less concerned I am about whether this applies to me as an individual, and the more concerned I am about its application to my society and my world.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 30, 2008 9:47 PM

Mark -

Wink is Walter Wink, a Lutheran theologian who is well worth reading. He is the source of the reading of Matthew 25 I cited above.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 30, 2008 9:49 PM

"So, will you lose salvation because your neighbor votes wrong?"

I think it is entirely possible that our nation will lose salvation (assuming we even have it, which is questionable) if we fail to deal with this problem.>/i>

Ok, you've wandered into something I simply cannot understand. You're going to have to explain it.

Christ died to grant the nation of Canada and all of it's citizens Heaven, assuming they vote right and the politicians make perfect policies?

That's beyond silly, so I can't imagine that's what you mean.

On the other hand, you wonder if we have "national salvation". How can the USA (or Canada) be 'saved'? Salvation is intrinsically linked to Heaven. Are you saying that public policy of the USA determines the eternal fate of everyone past and present within our borders? Or that you find Paradise and behold, you're an American? Not just a child of God?

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 9:54 PM

"Ok, you've wandered into something I simply cannot understand. You're going to have to explain it."

Mark -

I'm honestly not sure I can explain it, given the assumptions you're bringing to this conversation. Read Yoder, and then we'll talk.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 30, 2008 10:00 PM

"Seeing as how Edwards proposed many things, all of which were along the lines of turning over the care of the poor to the kind and competent minstrations of Congress and the Federal Government "

You crack me up Mark , but I tend to agree with you government has a poor record for helping the poor , unless you count helping more people to become poor .

"
He didn't say, go save as many individuals as possible. Sure, God cares about each of us individually, but he is also concerned with nations, cultures, and civilizations"

Wow becarefull here , we are saved by Grace , through Christ , one at a time . Some in a nation accept Christ , some don't . Many accept the politics promoted here to the t , yet many outside of this organization that may agree with those politics have no Knowledge of knowing Christ .

In fact I know you understand Don , I think you do ? That Christ meets us where we are in our own lives , not where a nation is . Hopefully though Christ , in His strength we can behave and promote the kinds of culture that glorifies him .
God will judge Nations I agree , just as we all suffer in the world for sin , some of us are saved from the direct results of sin through the Grace of God .

You realize how much greed, deceit, decadence , perversion , death , and even immorality is used by both political parties in this country to gain power .

If you do not know that , I suggest get involved more , because I am sick of it , and I would appreciate more Christians getting involved regardless of their politics myself .

Its not always the issues you support , its how you support them . Perhaps naive , but I believe its closer to what the Bible teaches then political philospies .

Big difference . Go to other nations and preach the Gospel was not a plan to promote a politcal party , Just as a persobn may turn the other cheek , that is a long way off from Knowing our Lord .

Posted by: Mick | January 30, 2008 10:01 PM

"I'm sorry, all of these are prophets living within a theocracy, a nation directly governed by God in all aspects, including justice, law, policy, military, etc."

Actually you are wrong about that. Ezekiel and Daniel lived in foriegn lands under pagan leadership. So the idea that you should ignore them is laughable at best and foolish at worst.

Ezekiel lived in Babylon by the river Tabor. It did not matter if Israel existed or not. God still judged the nations based off of their conduct. Read Revelation and you will see that Jesus says (in a vision to John) that the nations will be judged.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 10:08 PM

Even though we as Christians face no eternal condemnation the nation we are a part of faces condemnation (or not) depending on it's conduct. That condemnation may include plagues, disease, famine, destruction, financial ruin...

How long before someone uses this non-logic to claim they have the right to purify the nation of all those not in conformance, and issue orders to shoot all non-perfect people on sight?

Don't think it will happen? I'm not so sure.

You theocratic types really, REALLY worry me.

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 10:15 PM

But Israel did not exist at that time. God had rejected Israel at that time so again read the actual story and you will see that. So again your point is mute.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 10:16 PM

And how come no tribute to Rudi signing off the campaign trail . You would think this outfit is partsian sometimes .

Posted by: Mick | January 30, 2008 10:20 PM

One last thing.

The prinicples found in the prophets are timeless regardless of culture or theocratic background. So please learn them, study them and adopt them to your life. It will lay a strong foundation for Jesus and what he preached. You will come to see that the samartian woman is a continuation of Ezekiel's point that God is w/ the exiles. You will see where the Son of Man reference comes from and what it means. so read it and talk to a rabbi as you do. You will be a surprised by what you learn from such great men and women.

Oh yah and one more thing Isaiah may have lived in the southern kingdom but his last king was the corrupt Manassah. He did not worship God and during his time he rejected God as king. The same thing could be said for corrupt king Ahab too during the time of Elijah.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 10:27 PM

Major mistaken identity here. I am not a theocratic type. I'm about as far from that as you can get. This is not about purifying the nation of those not in conformance. Only a modern individualist would think that. It is about creating a nation in which everybody belongs, because they are all valued. The result would be the diametric opposite of what you describe.

You really think so?

My goodness, look at the claims of God's wrath on us over something as utterly secular as whether or not the federal government is the primary means of charity!

I did not accuse you of being theocratic... I said that your logic will be used by the theocratic types. They exist in ALL ideologies and parties, BTW.

Each claims the authority of God for what they want to do. And if they win, can easily justify ANY level of horror to enforce God's rules to restore favor.

Not really any different from the Taliban.

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 10:36 PM

payshun, you once claimed you were "completely liberal".

Can you explain to me why you think that you are, and what measuring stick is used to determine that?

Next question is why did you choose to be?

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 10:41 PM

*I* never said this was an issue of whether the federal government is the primary means of charity. Perhaps my logic will be used by the theocratic types - but they would use whatever logic they could find. If you don't think that God is angry at a country that doesn't take care of its poor, then I seriously question whether you have read much of the Bible. Whether the federal government does the job is *not* the issue.,/i>

You can't hold conflicting opinions and resolve this peacefully, friend.

If you're going to say that God judges us as a nation, then you're going to have to say He judges us on national policy.

Mind you, I do NOT subscribe to any of this thinking.

You cannot duck out of this... If the nation HAS to do x, y, or z, then the government of this nation has to do it.

Otherwise, you're requiring all individuals to force others to "behave correctly" to assure "salvation".

Frankly, I don't think God has any particular interest in our governments. If he did, I'm sure there's a few He would have eradicated post-haste. China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, and so on. I think He does intervene at times in the events of this world - the founding of the US, for instance, so that freedom of conscience would prevail and His Gospel truth could be rediscovered, after being corrupted by centuries of church-state incest all over Europe.

I want my government to have good policies, because IT MAKES SENSE. To have to deal with zealots proclaiming thier politics to be a mandate from God is a ticket for the return to the Dark Ages. Bad policies result in suffering for all of us.

Evil - bad weather, and other calamities are nothing more than a reminder that the this world is ruled by the Prince of Darkness for now.

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 10:56 PM

Actually no it did not. Let's look at what scripture says about the destruction of Jerusalum and the southern kingdom by babylon.

2n'd Kings 25
8Now on the seventh day of the (M)fifth month, which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.
9He burned the house of the LORD, (O)the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; even every great house he burned with fire.

10So all the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard (P)broke down the walls around Jerusalem.

11Then the rest of the people who were left in the city and the deserters who had deserted to the king of Babylon and the rest of the people, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away into exile.

So I have a question. If Israel existed then why is it destroyed in those verses?

Regarding the reason why Daniel was thrown into the Lions Den. Let's take a look what the bible says.

4Then the commissioners and satraps began trying to find a ground of accusation against Daniel in regard to government affairs; but they could find no ground of accusation or evidence of corruption, inasmuch as he was faithful, and no negligence or corruption was to be found in him.

5Then these men said, "We will not find any ground of accusation against this Daniel unless we find it against him with regard to the law of his God."

6Then these commissioners and satraps came by agreement to the king and spoke to him as follows: "King Darius, live forever!

7"All the commissioners of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the high officials and the governors have consulted together that the king should establish a statute and enforce an injunction that anyone who makes a petition to any god or man besides you, O king, for thirty days, shall be cast into the lions' den.

8"Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document so that it may not be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which may not be revoked."

9Therefore King Darius signed the document, that is, the injunction.

That's why Daniel was thrown into the lions den. It was a political trap by men that were jealous of the blessings and favor God and Cyrus were giving him.

Not only that but Israel was not rebuilt until Cyrus was dead. King Darius became king and Nehamiah and others went back to Jerusalem to rebuild the city. You really need to read the old testament more and talk to a few rabbis or something.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 11:52 PM

Ethnos, the Greek word for nations, means "ethnic groups." Heck, that's where we got the word into English. The modern idea of the nation-state (a "country" with more or less secure borders) is a relatively modern invention, dating from the sixteenth century or so. God isn't concerned so much with modern nation-states as he is with ethnos.

The OT prophets prophesied to nations for the most part. Yes, there are exceptions, such as Nathan's confronting of David. But for the most part, their prophecies were to people-groups. And not always the "theocracy" of Israel, either. Check out Isaiah especially, with its prophecies to Edom, Egypt, etc.--Israel's neighbors.

The notion that salvation is exclusively an individual thing is indeed foreign to the Bible and very modern, indeed peculiarly American.

The story of Jonah is an excellent example. Thanks, Payshun.

Finally, I highly recommend both Yoder and Wink.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 31, 2008 7:02 AM

Mark,

If someone else was forging your name then obviously that's a whole other matter. I hope that the moderator will look into this.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 31, 2008 9:15 AM

It is always interesting that Conservatives seem to think it fine for them to be rich but if someone like John Edwards is rich he must be a hypocrite.
Joekc how do you know what Mr Edwards has done on a personal level in regards to the poor?
Unless you are somehow personally aware of his life you have no argument, just assumptions.
I did not support his campaign and will most probably vote Republican as I have since first coming of the age to vote.
Mark
What is so difficult to understand about God holding us individually responsible for our nation. I would have no problem with saying that any individual who did not fight against a tyrant coming to power in their country, but by their sin of just standing by and letting him come to power
shared in the guilt of that tyrant.
That is the essence of American politics. If you don't do what you can to insure that justice is demonstrated in your nation, you might as well aid and abet injustice. When your nation is judged for its collective sin you as an individual will have no right to complain about it, nor to expect that your individual relationship with God as his child will exempt you from that judgment. You MAY still go to heaven but your nation WILL suffer, because God is just. Everything in scripture tells us to bank on that.

Posted by: wayne | January 31, 2008 9:21 AM

"God is neither a Republican or Democrat." I have never believed Jim Wallis seriously believed this, and now I am even more sure.

Apparently God wants universal health care, more entitlement programs, and for the government to end poverty...sounds like a Democrat.

If I hear one more person say Jesus is for universal health care I am going to snap. He may be, but we don't know!! And Jim is doing just what he loathed from the Religious Right, using God to prop up his political desires.

As a guy who has worked and lived in a homeless ministry, ran a kids homeless ministry when I was in high school, and have written a couple academic papers on social justice, let me say I am really tired of people assuming government is the answer to all our problems. Since Lyndon Johnson started the war on poverty, the impact has been virtually non-existent. Yet now we want to give our government more power through universal health care and more entitlement programs?

And moreover, Jim's reading of Scripture is essentially reading what he wants into the passage. And to say John Edwards sounds like a biblical prophet makes me want to scream!! I love Isaiah, am preaching through Daniel, and putting our small groups through Ezekiel. Mr. $400 haircut who lives in a multi-millionaire dollar estate sounds nothing like a biblical prophet.

When God's Politics came out I was hopeful there would be no more Religious Right. But now there is a Religious Left who wants me to give my money to the government because apparently they can spend it better than me. Oh well, I guess I'll inform my poor friend I"m helping through college, the homeless ministry I support, the kid I'm letting live with me since he can't afford a place to stay, and the countless people I have cut checks to in times of need that they will have to go to the government for their needs, because the government keeps taking more of my money to fight the war poverty...

Posted by: tim | January 31, 2008 10:53 AM

quotes from JamesMartin:
Political result: Don't talk about "justice" unless it serves my country's perceived nationalistic interest and then we will veil our acts under a mantle of Christianity.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense. I always marvel at the gall of the self-proclaimed psychics who come here to inform someone of what they believe, not ask and respond to it.

My view: I uncategorically reject this self-centered, egotistical, self-righteous way of viewing the world

Yeah, it's important taht you make up the worst possible image you can dream up, try to peg it on me, and hopefully, you'll convert less principled people into your "hate the other guy" camp.

I reject in its TOTALITY any claims you make to Christianity. I don't know what you believe, but nowwhere under the sun can I find ANYTHING in your words anywhere that supports a Christ centered view.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 11:12 AM

Apparently God wants universal health care, more entitlement programs, and for the government to end poverty...sounds like a Democrat.

It is my view of Revelation, that it is a prediction of an end time just before Christ's return where an unholy alliance between a false religion and state power comes to be and precipitates a world-wide spasm of horror and a fanatical drive to stamp out those who fail to conform.

The last time this happened, we tend to refer to as the Dark Ages, because "religious" doctrines and dogma of men came to be the rule of the state, and like all unaccountable states, the non-conformists were enemies of the state.

All you need to do is witness the postings about how 'national salvation' is at stake. In other words, to "save" us from calamity, we as a nation must conform to "God's Will", defined as a laundry list of politica and religious mandates.

This thinking will be used to justify coercion of the non-aligned when calamities strike, and the politicians/theologians sell this message to a desperate people looking for relief, and fall prey to the demagoguery, and turn with murderous rage on those who fail to conform.

We saw this in a racial sense in Germany, when alll the "problems" of Germany were blamed on a convenient scapegoat.

Don't think that desperate people without a dedication to freedom won't fall for it.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 11:23 AM

If I hear one more person say Jesus is for universal health care I am going to snap. He may be, but we don't know!! And Jim is doing just what he loathed from the Religious Right, using God to prop up his political desires.

Real conservatives believe in a limited government, and a dedication to freedom. Some of what I believe is based on Biblical princiles, as far as political ideology goes, but non of it has anything to do with requiring anyone to do anything, rather, it has to do with ensuring people's freedom of conscience.

The whole New Testament is one long narrative, to get across the point, that upon the death of Christ, the former order of things - the theocracy of Isreal, for instance - is no longer relevant. The old Testament is a long narrative of many centuries of a nation ruled by God, at times rejecting Him, at times worshiping and following Him. At Christ's death, that ended. Isreal as a nation was officially rejected by God. There is no longer a "chosen people" of any ethnicity or grouping. Salvation now is a matter of Christ's Sacrafice being accepted.

The entire message of the Gospel is one of personal redemption, salvation being FREE, because Christ's death paid for it, and you only have to accept it and allow God to work in your life.

Theocratic Isreal had God physically in its presence, in the Temple, in the Ark of the Covenant. At the rejection by Isreal of Christ himself, God in the form of man, God's presence left the Temple, never to illuminate it again. Instead, we are left with what Christ called "The Comforter", God's intangible, invisible, and PERSONAL presence. Most Christians refer to it as the Holy Spirit.

Look at the people here promoting the "salvation is not an individual thing" nonsense. What is it they want? Enforced righteousness by law, for "national salvation". Currently, they define it as "doing good", like "nationalized health care" and other feel-goodisms.

If calamity strikes and they blame rejection of God for our nation's tough times, how long before they turn to the force of law to compell "proper" behavior to restore "national salvation"?

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 11:38 AM

Mark -

Now you're starting to make a certain amount of sense; that's what a good night's sleep will do. However, evoking the threat of totalitarianism is a double-edged sword. Your statement that "Israel as a nation was officially rejected by God" is a case in point. This idea has been used to justify every anti-Semitic witch hunt of the last two millennia, including the Granddaddy of them all.

In short, be careful. Any position can be pushed to extremes and turn into its opposite. That doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. The greatest evil is a perversion of the greatest good.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 31, 2008 11:47 AM

The "War on Poverty" was far, far more comprehensive than doling out food stamps and cash -- part of that also went for things like job-training and college grants so that people could better themselves through education. A big part of the reason there is a growing black middle-class outside the South -- there always was one in the South -- was because those programs actually worked like a charm. Which is why conservatives wanted them cut; better-educated people tend to vote and they knew they wouldn't get those votes.

They "worked"?

Define "work". What is "success"? You define this in terms of race, but the "war on poverty" was never about race. Statistically, the transfer of TRILLIONS of dollars has not resulted in any signficant reduction in poverty rates.

"Community College" is mostly a joke now. "Job Training" is crapola. And it's harder now than it was in the 70's or the 60's to get a college education. Education at the elementary and high school level is far less effective than it was then, too.

By all objective measurement, the war on poverty has done nothing at all, except to subsidize poverty. To make it easier to stay in poverty.

All of the great social engineering ideas turned out be a bust. "The Projects" are still ghettos, if not torn down.

Why? Because the idea of redistribution of wealth as a means of causing people to become self sufficient is so irrational it's downright silly.

It DOES NOT WORK.

What works, is people making choices that work. 4 decades of social engineering, and our educational system leaves you less prepared than it did to make good decisions and succeed.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 11:52 AM

Now you're starting to make a certain amount of sense; that's what a good night's sleep will do. However, evoking the threat of totalitarianism is a double-edged sword. Your statement that "Israel as a nation was officially rejected by God" is a case in point. This idea has been used to justify every anti-Semitic witch hunt of the last two millennia, including the Granddaddy of them all.

I suppose it might, but I don't think in terms like that. And I'm not going to alter my view of Salvation or change how I describe what happened during Christ's life because some fanatical psychopath takes it to mean he or she should wipe out the "unchosen" people.

I don't REALLY understand how saying that Isreal is no longer a "chosen" nation should lead someone to wanting to kill them all.

NO nation is "God's Chosen People". That term is now simply defined as those who accept the Gospel - and with it, salvation.

Salvation is open to ALL, in that sense we have ALL become "God's Chosen People".

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 11:59 AM

Not at all true. What happened is that people with means often had left the cities for the suburbs and took their resources with them, causing -- and that's where the disparities come it. Contrary to what you said, poverty rates grew in the 1980s, after those programs were cut, and went down in the 1990s after some were reinstated and some political changes were made.

Seriously, I don't believe this for a moment.

If you really want to assert this, show me the statistics. And those statistics need to be built on CONSISTENT definition of "poverty".

You can't.

The poverty rate hasn't varied any significant amount since the days of LBJ.

There have been small changes, but certainly nothing that you could call a "solution" to poverty.

Again, after TRILLIONS spent, there is no end in sight, no real advancement, and no change in the basic reasons why people are in poverty.

I'm sorry, but REDISTRIBUTION is not the key.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 12:07 PM

There are two models of leadership: servant leadership, and command leadership.

Servant leadership leads more by example. The servant leader accepts a substantial portion of the risks and burdens of the task at hand. In the case of serving the poor, the servant leader contributes his own time and money to assist the less fortunate. In some cases, the servant leader accepts poverty himself. At a minimum the servant leader does not expect that others make sacrifices that he is not willing to make himself.

Command leadership seeks to use authority to compel others to act. Sometimes this authority consists of appeals to moral ideals, leaving others the option to follow or not. Sometimes this authority is direct, the use of governmental authority or raw force. In the example of service to the poor, the command leader may make charitable appeals for contributions while giving relatively little himself (think of the celebrity endorser) or the command leader may use political power to compel taxpayers to fund government programs that neither taxpayers nor the command leader would contribute to voluntarily.

Command leadership is not always wrong -- command and control structures are necessary part of government and private organizations, but it is generally less admirable and more prone to abuse than servant leadership.

By his example, especially in the construction of his lavish home, John Edwards indicated he was willing to make only limited sacrifices on his own to assist the poor, but he was eager to use tax power to compel others to pay for programs. This is the hallmark of the command leader, not a "good and faithful servant."

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 31, 2008 12:11 PM

"We have "national responsibilities" and they are defined in the Constitution. No preacher or minister or rabbi or priest or pope or any other such has any right to impose thier doctrinal view or dogma upon the nation."

That's a very Baptist thing to say - and I mean that as a compliment.

"period.

This completely refutes ANY notion of "national responsibility to God"."

Only if you regard the US constitution as holy writ - which no Baptist, or any other Christian, has any business doing.

Seriously: This is not a black and white issue, and I will resist any attempt to make it one. Someone who uses government as an excuse to evade personal responsibility is to be reproved. So is someone who uses personal responsibility as an excuse to evade collective responsibility.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 31, 2008 12:22 PM

"Where does the Bible say a "nation" will be judged for its treatment of the poor? I thought all of that was simply personal morality."

Ezekiel 16:49

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

...simply personal morality?

Posted by: johnk | January 31, 2008 12:25 PM

Quote:
====================================
This completely refutes ANY notion of "national responsibility to God"."

Only if you regard the US constitution as holy writ - which no Baptist, or any other Christian, has any business doing.

Seriously: This is not a black and white issue, and I will resist any attempt to make it one. Someone who uses government as an excuse to evade personal responsibility is to be reproved. So is someone who uses personal responsibility as an excuse to evade collective responsibility.
====================================

You confuse me.

I say that the "national responsibilities" are defined in the Constitution, and that no theologian has a right to impose any religious doctrine upon that.

To which you respond, only if the constitution were written by God.

Huh?

you lost me. I don't believe the Constitution to be Holy Writ. I believe it written by, thought up by, and alterable by... man.

And that any attempt to define a "national responsibiilty" to God is nothing more than a Dark Ages style of religion/political alliance, to make people feel more comfortable by forcing compliance around them.

In other words, the same type of darkness and evil that rules every Islamic country.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 12:31 PM

"We have "national responsibilities" and they are defined in the Constitution....This completely refutes ANY notion of "national responsibility to God"."

"I don't believe the Constitution to be Holy Writ. I believe it written by, thought up by, and alterable by... man."

Have you ever heard of "cognitive dissonance?"

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 31, 2008 12:38 PM

mark--

so what you are saying is that is abolutely impossible for there to be another interpretation of Scripture other than your own. I haven't been involved in this discussion of national responsibility because I have neither read the books they are referring to, nor have I read throught the Scriptures quoted within their historical and cultural context. I have nothing to add because I haven't studied it, and therefore I know I am ignorant about the issue. Instead, I've preferred to sit back and learn from the discussion. You seem to refuse to acknowledge there may be something to learn about this question. A good discussion can be had about this concept without politicizing it, but you insist on that. I don't think you know everything there is to know about Scripture, and I know you know that you don't. So wouldn't it be more interesting to spend time investigating this very deep question and perhaps learn something about God?

Posted by: squeaky | January 31, 2008 12:48 PM

Rick, if you look up the actual statistics, instead of parrotting people, you'll find that poverty FELL in the 80's and FELL after the GOP takeover in the 90's.

I did, and they say no such thing. The reality was that, during every Republican administration since Reagan, the poverty rate rose; during Clinton it fell (one stat I saw some years ago was that it was 19 percent under Reagan but fell to 13 under Clinton). More to the point, the disparity between rich and poor became greater when the GOP held the White House.

The point is that economic opportunity became greater during the Clinton years but went down during Reagan/Bush/Bush. The middle-class, which is also being hit hard financially, is finally learning that, which is why no Reaganite has any chance of becoming President today.

And "Another nonymous" has a good point -- being a Christian has responsibilities far beyond mere personal "soul-saving"' raising Godly families; supporting local churches, ministries and missionaries; and promoting "traditional morality." In fact, our primary task as the church is to demonstrate God's "alternative community," committed to "alternative values" that the world can only (at best) imitate, and He calls us to affect the world with them. That was His intention with ancient Israel (but that didn't work out).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 1:09 PM

did, and they say no such thing. The reality was that, during every Republican administration since Reagan, the poverty rate rose; during Clinton it fell (one stat I saw some years ago was that it was 19 percent under Reagan but fell to 13 under Clinton). More to the point, the disparity between rich and poor became greater when the GOP held the White House.

Dunno what you "looked up", but even Wikipedia disagrees with you.

What you find, rather than your completely absurd notion of "GOP causes poverty" nonsense is that poverty increases with economic recession, and then decreases following - with a small lag time.

In other words, the huge economic expansions starting around 82 and again, about 91, are the best reducers of poverty, from an economic perspective.

What you need to do is stop accepting what someone told you ( The GOP causes poverty ) and start observing fact for yourself. You'll find that government efforts to curb poverty have no significant effect overall.

And that individually, poverty is solved one person at a time, by learning how to NOT BE POOR.

It is JUST THAT SIMPLE.

There is NO policy, nor government action, which will eradicate poverty, nor make any signficant inroad into it.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:20 PM

hope you all have fun. I gotta go play network administrator and businessman for a while.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:22 PM

We don't believe the government can solve all of our problems quite the opposite.

This is so hilarious, payshun.

Name any significant obstacle in our daily lives you do NOT want the government to "help" us with.

There is none.

And now, you want govenrment to "help" us be "charitible, giving, and care for our neighbor".

So, now you even want the government to fulfill your spiritual and personal obligations.

{{ sigh }}

I'm sorry, I do not worship at the feet of government.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:27 PM

In other words, the huge economic expansions starting around 82 and again, about 91, are the best reducers of poverty, from an economic perspective.

Yeah, if you believe in the fairy-tale of "trickle-down" economics. In fact, the "economic expansion" you're talking about, even under Clinton, has always been connected almost exclusively to the performance of Wall Street, where you have to be well-off even to be a player in the first place.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 1:28 PM

While John Edwards might have decided that making the issues he did a priority was good politics, his statements about this being the cause of his life is ridiculous.

Here's what Senator Russ Feingold, one of the most prominent progressives in the Senate, had to say about Edwards:

"The one [candidate] that is the most problematic is Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war. . . . He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."

He also voted for No Child Left Behind and the Republican bankruptcy reform bill that favored credit card companies and big lenders over borrowers. He now says NCLB, the very law he voted for, needs to be radically overhauled.

He had six years in the Senate to make his mark on any of the issues he said he cares about. But what did he do when he was there?

There is really no explanation for any of this other than he's a complete phony who crafted a populist message in order to run for President. Give me Obama any day over this guy.

Posted by: Eric | January 31, 2008 1:33 PM

See the historical povery tables published by the Census Bureau here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html

You will see that the poverty rate, EVEN IN TIMES OF NATIONAL PROSPERITY, was consistently much higher prior to 1966, the year after most of the Great Society programs went into effect. The two times it reached 12 percent after that were for two years during the Reagan era and in 1993 before Clinton made his reforms.

Posted by: I and I | January 31, 2008 1:39 PM

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

We subsidize poverty, and wonder why people seem unmotivated to get out of it.

We teach politics, instead of reality, in school - and then wonder why they can't make good decisions in life.

We transferred TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS from the income producers to the not. In 1970, we had a poverty rate of about 12 percent. In 2000, ditto.

Not even ONE PERCENT CHANGE over 3 decades.

Is this "progress"? Not in the slightest. Libs, like payshun assume that observation must be ideological. Why?

I run a network. If 12 percent of my customers were offline, and what I was trying to fix it never changed the percentage, I would have to assume that what I was doing didn't work and I would have to make a fundamental change in approach.

This is simple, rational thought. We now have 4 decades of The Great Society efforts, and it isn't making any forward progress.

It's time to re-evaluate it. Not just demand ever MORE of it. It didn't work, try something else!

With this much history, and this much collected experience and information, you'd think that people would completely open to trying to find something that works.

I escaped poverty. I know how I did it. I know a bunch of people that have. I know how they did it.

Find me 20,000 people who have, and let's see what they did to get out.

Find me 20,000 who can't get out of poverty, and let's see what they're doing.

Just that alone should get us FANTASTICALLY better ideas.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:44 PM

You will see that the poverty rate, EVEN IN TIMES OF NATIONAL PROSPERITY, was consistently much higher prior to 1966, the year after most of the Great Society programs went into effect. The two times it reached 12 percent after that were for two years during the Reagan era and in 1993 before Clinton made his reforms.

The standard of poverty measurement we use now was standardized in 1965.

All measurements previous to that are based on different standards and different methods of measurement, and the numbers can't actually be compared.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Statistical averaging says that any graph like that will not reflect sudden changes, and will appear to be "trends".

So, please don't get caught in trivial nonsense like this, and discuss things initelligently.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:47 PM

I escaped poverty. I know how I did it. I know a bunch of people that have. I know how they did it.

So did I. But you know what? I had outside help -- lots of it. The state Job Corps help me get one job and the government-funded office of the local Urban League helped me get another, and the job I have now is directly connected to my relationship with a former churchmate -- who just happened to be on the editorial board of the newspaper I work for.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 1:51 PM

Sounds like you've got a cool job that let's you spend the day posting lots of long messages on God's Politics. I'll come work with you anytime.

Are you a network administrator who can multitask?

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:54 PM

I'm sorry, you think my ideas are wrong, for what reason?

You're committed to a viewpoint that is contradicted by the reality I live with on a daily basis and that I especially see on Sundays. In fact, our very ministry today is a repudiation of conservatism because, as I said, we "pick up the pieces" of those who were left behind due to economic "progress." In short, with all your grand postings, you have succeeded only in confirming that you don't know what you're talking about -- and, what's worse, because you say you did things you assume that others have the same opportunities that you did. (Which can be, and probably is, also just plain false, often depending on where you live.)

Because you said that you "escaped poverty," I would expect someone like you to be more sympathetic and work to afford other people the same opportunities, which is what we on the "left" are trying to do on a cultural level -- but apparently that concept hasn't "trickled down" to you just yet.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 2:04 PM

"Escaping poverty is all about changing the way a person thinks. Partly, it is about what a person thinks of themself, and partly, it is learning to understand how to find and then take... Opportunity."

Actually I share this belief. But I know for a lot of people it's not that simple. Let's take some of my former students. They had one really sick grandmother that required round the clock care and then their mother got sick as well. That left the father to work and pay for everything while they were school. But as soon as they got home they had a few siblings to take care of and homework and checking in on two really sick relatives.

All this talk of oportunity can't work in the midst of family turmoil like that. At that point it is purely about survival and making sure mom and grandma live to see to tomorrow. You would know that if you had seen that. They need help, whether it was from the community, or the government. Does it matter where the help comes from? Is it wrong to help out really sick families?

p

Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 2:06 PM

Nice non-judgemental, loving, liberal, Christian attitude, dude.

Jesus was not nice but your right it was loving, liberal and Christian.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 2:07 PM

Not only that but if you think the government doesn't have anything to say about ecology, environment, food and drug regulation then you are naive. You seem to ignore history. The reason why the FDA exists is because of the widespread food corruption and disgusting habits of non-regulation. When we let the nation's corporations run amok they tend to do evil things like knowingly grind human beings into cow meat, or allow bird and rat carcases into the meat or their feces. So again if you think we can handle keeping everything clean then you really have ignored American history.

Back to the old demonization routine again, are we? Debate over the merits of ideas isn't good enough, you gotta personally attack and discredit the person?

Just like the "conservatives may defend slavery" nonsense that someone wanted to imply?

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 2:09 PM

Mark,

I can't demonize a fact. That's what happened. There were people that would grind beef in really large grinders. Every once in a while someone would fall in and the supervisors would not turn off the machines. They would let it finish and those contaminated meat products were then sold all around the country. Read a book.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 2:12 PM

"Back to the old demonization routine again, are we? Debate over the merits of ideas isn't good enough, you gotta personally attack and discredit the person?"

Mark -

You're not debating ideas; you're digging in your heels and refusing to admit the possibility that anybody else could have a valid point. I'm signing off now.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 31, 2008 2:15 PM

You know nothing about "my viewpoint", which is my original contention - that libs have to make up an endless routine of demonization and straw men in order to advance thier thoughts and views.

Excuse me, but you've made your viewpoint very clear -- in fact, I've heard it so regularly over the past 20 years I almost know what you're going to say even before you actually do.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 2:21 PM

We'll have to agree to disagree, but when you find yourself one day arguing that force will be required to restore national salvation, because it is solely about politics, not theology at all, just remember...

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this is? I don't believe in using force to restore national salvation but it's obvious from reading revelation God does. He will use whatever force he deems necessary but I will not. I am about non-violence as Christ practiced while on earth. Sorry but please stop assuming you know the logical outcome of my belief system.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 2:23 PM

It takes fundamental re-thinking of how we approach solving poverty in the lives of those who are in it, before we become successful in ANY fashion.

So downplaying the role of disease is your way of solving the problem? Ofcourse short term thinking is part of it but when faced w/ really heavy obstacles like persistent illness and little money you would see that great society plans were never meant to solve everything. The truth is that medical issues are a huge problem in this country. I know I live w/ it every day. I have a few friends that are like that too. So again I am not making that the rule. You are.

I am saying that some of my students had to confront that. That's the real problem. How would you solve it?

p

Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 2:31 PM

So downplaying the role of disease is your way of solving the problem? Ofcourse short term thinking is part of it but when faced w/ really heavy obstacles like persistent illness and little money you would see that great society plans were never meant to solve everything. The truth is that medical issues are a huge problem in this country. I know I live w/ it every day. I have a few friends that are like that too. So again I am not making that the rule. You are.

Rule? wow, what an imagination.

"downplaying the role of disease"??

What on earth are you talking about?

you're off on some wild tangent again.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 2:37 PM

I am saying that some of my students had to confront that. That's the real problem. How would you solve it?

What makes you think anyone can magically "solve" it besides the person affected?

You have just threw everything into a huge pot, and demanded a single answer.

So, a child (student?) has an ill parent and ill grandparent in the home, or dependent upon them?

This causes financial hardship, I would assume.

So, you're asking me how ++ I ++ would solve thier problem. Which problem? I can count a whole pile of problems that could arise here, some of whiwch only affect the child short term, and some which may hamper his life long term.

Whom are we trying to deal with? A child? A young adult? A chronically ill mother? A chronically ill senior? A father under severe stress? Or none of the above? Or all of the above?

Each need is unique. Which ones can be helped? which ones can't?

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 2:44 PM

"I reject in its TOTALITY any claims you make to Christianity. I don't know what you believe, but nowwhere under the sun can I find ANYTHING in your words anywhere that supports a Christ centered view." Posted by: mark

Whether Mark considers me a Christian or not is of no relevance. But I would ask that people stop engaging his posts or responding to him any way as this type of attitude is totally uncalled for. I have not until now written to Beliefnet about proper sanctions to stop this but I will now.

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 31, 2008 2:50 PM

"No, the concept of "national" (our politicial structure) having some duty to God, defined and written by politicians, is so unholy and so outrageous to me that in NO way can I ever accept such an abomination. "

Except, this is not what I think is being presented. Again, you are politicizing, and as such, you are denying there may be more mystery to Scripture than our feeble minds can understand.

Posted by: squeaky | January 31, 2008 2:57 PM

Oh and I am still waiting for your scriptual support too. But I have a stinking suspicion that I will be waiting for a long time.

I've already posted my comments on the topic of theocratic Christianity. There is no further purpose in arguing, since you are a follower of someone on this other than the Bible. You have accepted someone else's premise and now interpret what you read through that lense.

I can't change that. I have no interest in clubbing you over the head endlessly with "proof texts" or other such stuff. You believe in creating a theocracy and I do not.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 3:00 PM

"Rule? wow, what an imagination."

No you accused me of saying that true story about a few of my students was the rule that set's up universal health care. Let's look at what you said:

"You point out the exception, and demand it be the rule."

I demanded nothing. I used words like "some" to make that point very clear. You were the one that turned that into a suggestion about socialized medicine. You ran off into your own little fantasy land believing that I was going to use that story to advocate for socialized medicine. I was not. I was using the story to illustrate a simple concept. That concept is that "LIFE IS NOT SIMPLE." Nowhere in any of your posts have you even alluded to the complexity of living every day. Not once and you have shown an ignorance about scripture that is quite allarming on top of that.

"downplaying the role of disease"??

Instead of dealing w/ the topic at hand you wanted me to include a more complex history about the family. I can tell you the reason why grandma came to this country but I can't trace it back any further. What about the child's mother? When there are sick people in the house things get complicated. Ask anyone that deals w/ cancer, severe asthma...

"What on earth are you talking about?"

I answered that already.

"you're off on some wild tangent again."

No I am not.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 3:06 PM

"You believe in creating a theocracy and I do not."

Your reading comprehension skills need work. I don't want to create a theocracy. I just want universal human values like justice and fairness to be laws.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 3:08 PM

"I also noted, that the poverty rate has only marginally changed over the last 3 decades - all of which are tied directly to economic conditions."

At least that's more respectable than your prior (false) claim of 12 percent from 1970 to 2007.

Wow, maybe we should start calling this blog "Mark's Politics." He sure does get the attention, doesn't he? My suggestion is folks ignore him for a while. He hasn't shown any interest in tempering his comments, but if he continues to hurl his insults with no response he'll soon get bored. As for me, I'm out of here for the time being, got work to do.

Posted by: I and I | January 31, 2008 3:09 PM

Instead of dealing w/ the topic at hand you wanted me to include a more complex history about the family. I can tell you the reason why grandma came to this country but I can't trace it back any further. What about the child's mother? When there are sick people in the house things get complicated. Ask anyone that deals w/ cancer, severe asthma...

No, I did not demand the history. I said that it was likely this situaiton wasn't one that suddenly befell someone not in poverty and then they remained stuck there. And I conjectured that it was likely a multi-generational problem before now. Sounds likely true.

My point was, entirely, that external forces can do the most good by helping the children and adults, separately, see beyond the present and the problems currently confronting them.

Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 3:13 PM

mark,

pretty much all you do on this site is put words in people's mouths. You are not interested in discussing anything. You are only interested in being right, no matter what the topic. You assume to know what everyone believes, and there is not convincing you otherwise even when it is clearly pointed out to you that you misunderstand something. This is my last post to you. I prefer to talk to people who are interested in discussion and exchange of ideas, and clearly, and sadly, you are not. It's a shame because you do have good perspectives, but you stubbornly refuse to consider any other perspectives but your own. You have the last word on everything, and you think you are right about everything, from Biblical interpretation to politics. The sad thing about being right all the time is you never learn anything new from other people and perspectives.

Posted by: squeaky | January 31, 2008 3:38 PM

Moderator--you removed my post, when Payshun said pretty much the same thing, but you didn't remove Payshun's. Why just one and not both? For that matter, why EITHER of them? Please explain.

Posted by: squeaky | January 31, 2008 4:46 PM

daryll -- Cheap shot.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 5:15 PM

I believe in living in poverty, and I do, because I cannot live large and delude myself into believing that I love my neighbor as myself.

Posted by: Oakley Howell | January 31, 2008 6:16 PM

I love the majesty of the prophets. their relationship w/ God always makes me want to worship or remember all that they went thru.

14but have walked after the stubbornness of their heart and after the Baals, as their fathers taught them,"

15therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, "behold, I will feed them, this people, with wormwood and give them poisoned water to drink.

16"I will scatter them among the nations, whom neither they nor their fathers have known; and I will send the sword after them until I have annihilated them."

In many ways I do think John Edwards served prophetically. He called us to what was right. He called all of us to love the poor and take on corporate greed and selfishness.

I just hope we are wiser than ancient Israel.

I hope that Edward's message will have a positive impact on the church.

9For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Behold, I am going to eliminate from this place, before your eyes and in your time, the voice of rejoicing and the voice of gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride.

I don't want what happened to ancient Israel during the time of Master Jeremiah to happen to the church now.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 7:25 PM

rick, i am always amazed at your psycho insight. the master of superior knowledge. conservatives threatened by educated people? you sound like my athiest friends. how will middle class and wealthy people moving back into the cities create joby for homeless and poor people? you answer your own dumb statement.
gee, i thought that the Gospel had to do with Jesus, Son of God, Savior. so after you witness do you then go on to tell of God's big picture and God's alternative values and alternative community? or do you present God's word. as in First John. what are you spinning? i will look for the passage about creating change.

Posted by: jerry | January 31, 2008 9:22 PM

My brother-in-law, Chris, is agnostic and a supporter of John Edwards. Upon reading Jim Wallis' farewell to John and Elizabeth, I had hoped to send Chris the link--to show him that there are many Christians like Jim, who are not intransigent and narrow-minded. Wanted Chris to see that there are some truly "good" people among us believers; people who are bright and passionate but compassionate and balanced; people who may have differing views but are able to engage in lively discussion--as siblings might. Sadly, after reading these posts, I will be unable to do so. I read the Sojourner's blogs everyday and find that this particular thread is among the most disheartening. It, unfortunately, reinforces every negative stereotype Chris has. I just can't see Jesus here. Shame on us.

Posted by: seeker-finder | January 31, 2008 10:35 PM

seeker-finder -- Don't give up on us yet. I've been trying not to be one of those sterotypical Christians, but it seems that, especially in evangelicalism, that we focus so much on theology and ideology that we lose the purpose of why Jesus came in the first place, which I've already mentioned. Some folks want to determine who's "in" and who's "out" based on artificial criteria when it should be our personal lives and relationships with other Christians that radiate God's presence. That said, I apologize to you here.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 10:47 PM

sorry rick--that post sounded pretty self-righteous. meant to include myself as one who is often tempted to "prove my point". don't want to bring attention to any specks while i still (and will always) have that log in my eye!

Posted by: seeker-finder | January 31, 2008 11:30 PM

"Well Rick, I'm disapointed in your response... Who are you to decide who "really knows Jesus"? I"

He's a prophet, as he'll be happy to inform you.

If all it took to be like Jesus was to not vote for Republicans, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If that is where I thought my salvation lay, I'd do it. There is nothing I have read in the scriptures that indicates this, and the self-proclaimed prophets here have done nothing to persuade me.

They are emphatic, to be certain. They share that in common with the Jeremiahs and Micahs. The similarities end there.

For starters, the prophets would have your babies dashed across rocks for thing such as creating false idols. All that would hold others to that standard might want to check themselves, and examine how that standard might play out, fully, in real life.

We are either fully theonomist, or we are not. I'm open to rebuke from either side of that particular aisle. But the opportunistic middle can simply argue its points in a civil manner, thank you very much.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 1, 2008 1:02 AM

But Jesus is full of grace - even if we aren't - and he accepts Mark's faith.

What is Mark's faith in, actually? The way he was talking it sounded though his faith was in himself -- his own efforts, his own get-up-and-go etc. and he added "religion" only to buttress that rather than allow himself to be used of God; based on what he said I get the impression that he doesn't understand or appreciate His grace. This is part of what I was talking about when I said that the Gospel was way more than "fire insurance" -- just a few minutes ago I was listening to Charles Stanley talking about inadequacy.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2008 9:04 AM

"We are either fully theonomist, or we are not."

I think Romans 3:23 would have to mean that "'WE' are not" would necessarily include you Kevin, and me as well. Or do you actually claim to being "fully theonomist?" Dangerous ground Bro!

If my brother conservatives believe what they say and government actions to fight poverty are just a waste of our time and money, then I suggest they get to work promoting something that will provide for individuals to work their way out of poverty and quit griping.
If the private sector is so much more efficient than the Government, perhaps it could prove it by putting the government out of a job and tackling poverty itself. It would seem to be a real growth industry worthy of business' full attention, and not just as a by product of some "trickling down" theory. Make a profit out of ending poverty! (But please do so without Government assistance and subsidies.)
Since Government is so inefficient, and the private and business is so much better they should have no problem outperforming Government in the arena of poverty, despite having to pay taxes while doing so. If they are so efficient it would seem only logical that is is their duty to do this.
In all my years working in the private sector, for large Corporations, and even running my own businesses, I always found inefficiency to be a rampant human trait, and certainly not limited to government. The ideal of professionalism was at best a goal, not a reality. Often it was a canard or a pure fantasy. Waste, corruption and inefficiency are parts of our fallen nature. They exist at all levels of both the private and public sectors in huge amounts.

Posted by: wayne | February 1, 2008 9:36 AM

OK, now I've heard everything. Some on this post are calling themselves theonomists. I assume that means they advocate the death penalty for homosexuals, those who have committed adultery, and those who follow other religions.

Posted by: I and I | February 1, 2008 11:07 AM

Posted by: carl copas | January 31, 2008 2:58 PM

Thanks my friend.

Remember my friend - petitioning the Almighty in prayer for specifics is considered 'idolitary' by some on this site. Welcome to the club?

Busy weekend working with students.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 1, 2008 12:24 PM

Oh--and I should add, now that I have seen Moderatelad's post, let's forgive, let go of, and forget past hurts, no matter how offensive and uncalled for.

Posted by: squeaky | February 1, 2008 12:34 PM

One of the frustrations that those in various political movements are going to experience is that Christian conscience and the policies that flow from that as faith being put into action are never going to be wholly owned subsidiaries of any political ideology - whether conservative, liberal or other variants of worldly human ideologies, or the parties that adhere to them.

Christianity is not a "subculture" but a "counterculture."

Given its source, it is transcendent, not caught up in or measured by the limited ideas and practices of any particular time or place.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 1, 2008 1:12 PM

Squeaky,
please take this as a friendly request. Can you divide up your posts into paragraphs more often? You have great things to say but a long paragraph with several dozen sentences is hard on my middle-aged eyes.

Your brother in Christ,
Carl

Posted by: carl copas | February 1, 2008 1:56 PM

"Remember my friend - petitioning the Almighty in prayer for specifics is considered 'idolitary' by some on this site. Welcome to the club?" Modlad

I guess that that comment real got to you! Forget it. I see others here wishing you well in your job search. Let me join in. I wish you the best. But just one thing- I thought you were retired.

Peace,
Jim

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 1, 2008 2:17 PM

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 1, 2008 2:17 PM

But just one thing- I thought you were retired.

LOL - Thanks for the chuckle. Yes, my children and my Tech Kids at school think I am as old as 'dirt'. but I am far from that. I can still remember what I was doing at 21 so I am 'young at heart'. I am in my early 50's - but feel 35 - looks, late 40's.

I do not plan on retiring to my recliner. I will retire when I am able to and then get a job with a small 'not-for-profit' that can not afford me. I look forward to having a totally different career that will allow me to proactively help my fellow man to improve their position in life. By doing so - introduce as many as I can to the Savior. (I believe that a few people just started praying that the Almighty will take me home sooner rather than later - LOL - alright by me)

Blessings to all
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 1, 2008 3:02 PM

Another:

If you had ignored it, others probably would not have (e.g., Payshun, who responded on his own to that very objection). on the surface, the objection of "simplistic" was mild. At that point, certainly, the debate had not been hijacked.

Eventually it became apparent, though, that this individual wasn't even trying to understand the point, and began virtually shouting at us. Maybe that was the time to stop responding. It just seems so difficult to know.

What would I have done? Probably nothing differently. But that was the point I was trying to make--I'm not sure what the best course of action is in these kinds of situations, and I'm sort of asking the rest of you what you all think we should do.

D

Posted by: Don | February 1, 2008 3:41 PM

Posted by: seeker-finder | February 1, 2008 4:06 PM

I understand what you are saying and there are times that I have strayed over the line and a few people have pull on the reigns - in love - and I have stepped back.

I believe that we to understand that we all have our 'opinions' and need to deliver the message in a manner that allows for open discussion and not from a place of superiorty. We should share what we know and believe rather than lecture and tell people that 'I know all about this...' or the 'Don't argue with me...' attitudes.

Only we can own our convictions and beliefs. Sharing what we have 'learned' respectfully opens the door to wonderful discussion.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 1, 2008 4:18 PM

S-F -

I think it's fair to say that there has been a tone of sarcasm on this blog from the very beginning, usually initiated by people responding to valid points raised in the initial post. I resisted posting anything for a long time because I didn't want to get drawn into the cesspool. However, as a longtime Sojo reader I care so passionately about many of these issues that I just can't resist the opportunity to get a word in when I have something to say. There have been times when it was worth it, and other times, like this thread, when it probably wasn't. That's why I invited you to please contribute to more of these discussions. It takes a critical mass of non-sarcastic posters to make a discussion work.

I think I have previously mentioned Schopenhauer's Law of Entropy, which states than when you add a spoonful of wine to a barrel of sewage, you get sewage, and when you add a spoonful of sewage to a barrel of wine, you also get sewage. Unfortunately, the present thread suggests that Schopenhauer had a point. If I read the Gospel correctly, though, it suggests that things should work the other way around too, at least some of the time. Let's work on it. :-)

Posted by: Another nonymous | February 1, 2008 4:26 PM

Don, Another, Seeker-Finder, and Moderate:

I also agree that it is difficult to know what to do in these situations, and add my own admission that I've gone over the line. I've had to decide many times whether to ignore posts, respond, apologize for my own tone, etc.

Somehow I think if all of the folks who post on here were in one room, physically, there would be a reminder that everyone who posts on here is a complex human being, plus people would not be able to vent their frustration anonymously. Since it is not possible to discuss the topics in person, we have to be careful to remember that each person posting is more than the sum of their posts.

As it stands, I am considering taking a break from the blog for a while because I find it addictive as much as it is enjoyable. But when I start posting regularly again, I may begin using my own name rather than an alias. All of you may want to consider doing so as well. I think we would be more likely to post our messages with circumspection when we can be held accountable for our words.

In fact, in the thread before Christmas about how the moderators are going to clamp down on the bickering and inappropriate messaging (and truth be told I don't see any evidence of the moderators doing anything different), I suggested Sojo require registration before posting onto the blog. In this way everyone would be required to use their real name. I think this would lead to kinder, more thoughtful, FEWER, and BETTER posts.

Posted by: I and I | February 1, 2008 4:37 PM

Don, Squeaky, and others,

you raise good points. I've stepped over the line of not just Christian love, but simple courtesy, several times. Almost invariably, it's because I'm immature enough as a Christian to get provoked by a sarcastic or snide or thoughtless comment.

I and I may be right about the need for registration. The anonymity encourages recklessness. And the very nature of the blog--you read something and then you fire off an intemperate reply--doesn't help. (Email at the office can fall prey to the same dynamic.)

If anything, "Mark" perhaps has taught us just how poisonous we and this blog can become if we don't keep a lid on our tempers and our sarcasm. Maybe in the long run, he was a blessing.

I wish you all a good weekend. I'll be praying about the best way we should proceed on Sojo.

Posted by: carl copas | February 1, 2008 5:38 PM

"OK, now I've heard everything. Some on this post are calling themselves theonomists."

I am not sure how I was interpreted to call myself a theonomist. I am not one. Casting aspersions on ones' faith on the basis of one's political leanings comes perilously close.

For the record, I have never really attempted to be anonymous, and used to link to my website. You will find I say the same things over a beer as I do here.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 1, 2008 11:31 PM

"Two questions about moderation on this site: Isn't registration with Beliefnet already required to post comments? I have to log in at all the sites I've visited on Beliefnet in order to be able to post, which I only do rarely, and Sojourners already asks for an e-mail address before one posts. What does the Sojourners staff intend to do about non-recurring IP addresses?"

I was thinking of a model such as the one Washington Post uses, not for its On Faith feature, but for its comments at the bottom of stories. Now granted, the stuff can get pretty nasty on there, but in that system once you register under a name, that name is what is automatically used when a post is made from your computer. I would go further and require that it be a real name and not an alias, which is what most of the WashPosters use. Of course some folks would still game the system by entering false names, but setting the tone by requiring the real name would be a good start. And more active, intentional moderating would help, too. In fact, an ideal Sojo blog would ask each person to submit a profile that includes city and state, interests, occupation, whatever, and that profile could be linked to at the bottom of each of that person's posts. My hometown newspaper does this.

Just an idea.

Posted by: I and I | February 2, 2008 10:53 PM

" Then why did Jesus command the disciples to take the Gospel to the nations. He didn't say, go save as many individuals as possible. Sure, God cares about each of us individually, but he is also concerned with nations, cultures, and civilizations.

Are you trying to say that, Canada, for instance, and everyone that lives in it will be either saved or lost, depending on policy written and mandated in Ottawa?

This idea is too absurd to consider seriously.

Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 9:46 PM"

Mark, the only why I could understand this in context is to quote the book of Romans...

" Romans 12
Living Sacrifices
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his[b]faith. 7If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

Love
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Love, for the Day is Near
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.[c]"

Based on my understanding of the Scriptures, this tells me that all the people of the world "will be judged on their words, good or evil." (see the Book of Revelations). Of course, the book of James does say " 14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (James 2:16-24 (NIV) )

What I get from all this was that Government's role first and foremost is the protection of its citizens, maintaining law and order, whereas the role of the Church is to live out the Gospel in faith, words, and deeds. The entire idea of the social welfare state is a modern invention. In light of the undermining of the feudal system by capitalism, I believe the state does have a role on issues concerning healthcare, the environment, national security,etc...

However, the Church must not be complacent in terms of helping the poor. For example in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus in "The Parable of the Sheeps and Goats" explains that how the Church (represented by sheep)and those not part of the Church (represented by Goats) will be judged based on how they treat "the least of these" in society. Why? Because how we treat such people is a direct reflection of how we treat God. To use a modern example, when the US Federal Government was slow to act in response to Hurricane Katrina, church volunteers (which Sojourners took part in, in addition to NGOs) moved in to provide aid long before the government did.

In other words, government can play a role in the protection of its citizens (i.e. social welfare), but it must not be used as an excuse for the Church to do nothing!

Posted by: jwlnler | February 4, 2008 1:29 PM