Well Done, Thou Good and Faithful Servants (by Jim Wallis)
John Edwards ended his campaign this afternoon at the same place he started it and with the same theme—ending poverty as a moral imperative. In the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, Edwards said that he was stepping aside in this presidential campaign, but that he would now continue his life-long work for economic justice. Before announcing his decision, he called both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to ask for a pledge to make ending poverty central to their campaigns for president and to their presidencies if they are elected.
John Edwards has changed the shape and the agenda of this campaign. He has put the needs of the poor and working families on the political agenda for the first time in many years. His clear and consistent voice has made sure that universal health care, fundamental issues of economic inequality, and the plight of so many Americans who are barely getting by would be on the front burner of this election campaign. John Edwards has championed the poor more than any white presidential candidate since Robert Kennedy did many decades ago. His campaign may be ending today, but he has already shaped the priorities of this election year in a decisive way.
Again today, he reminded us that "we have a moral responsibility to each other," as his valiant wife Elizabeth could be seen wiping a tear from her eyes. Because, he said, "But for the grace of God, there goes us." He called for an end to government "walking away" from poor and working people. Nobody has spoken of the 37 million Americans who wake up every morning in poverty more than John Edwards.
As he was on his way to give the announcement to withdraw from the presidential race, he stopped to talk to some homeless people under a bridge. One woman said, "Promise me you won't forget us." Edwards promised that he wouldn't. I believe him. I have admired John Edwards greatly - especially among the presidential candidates in recent years - and today I was so proud of him once again.
He closed by saying, "This son of a mill worker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine … it's time for all of us, all of us together, to make the two Americas one." And today he made a commitment for his party (to which he is now likely to continually hold them to account): "We will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you." He said to all of those he had heard in the past several days asking him to speak for them, "I want you to know that you almost changed my mind."
The Bible says that a nation will be judged, more than anything else, by how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable. And seldom do we see a political candidate who sounds like a biblical prophet. So I just want to say thank you to John and Elizabeth Edwards. You may not become president this time, but you have been a prophet to the nation and will continue to be. As you said in your closing remarks, your presidential campaign may be over, but it's time to get to work. And I know we will be working together. God bless you both.
Read the transcript of Edward's announcement here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
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
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. Nations don't have to feed the hungry. Nations don't have to provide health care. Nations don't have to welcome the stranger. If you want to do that on your own time, fine. The nation's only job is to wield God's sword of wrath, meaning start wars and impose the death penalty.
John Edwards' idea that our nation should be concerned about poverty probably comes from some liberal view of Jesus and a rejection of substitionary atonement. You can always tell those guys like Edwards who think we have a corporate responsibility to take care of the poor and marginalized--they never believe in verbal plenary inspiration. If they did, they would see that the clearest teaching of the Bible is that if your don't work, you don't eat. Sell all you have and give to the poor was clearly a commandment for an earlier dispensation, not this one.
I'm glad we don't have to hear any more about John Edwards' false Jesus and the idea that loving our neighbor means building a society where everyone is welcome and has the same opportunity. If you're going to believe that, you might as well imagine all the people sharing all the world.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 30, 2008 5:33 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
What evidence is there to suggest that Wallis can actually declare Edwards was carrying out God's political campaign?
Seriously, if he was, wouldn't he have won?
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 5:45 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
I agree with your post. I believe the Edwards were real. I think the republicans were scared of John Edwards - he stood the greatest chance of being able to turn this country around. Sadly, he was lost in the "shuffle."
Posted by: Osipov | January 30, 2008 6:07 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
"I thought all of that was simply personal morality."
well then you really need to read the prophets. They are full of examples of God judging the nations for all manner of sins, including genocide, slavery, massacres, desecrating temples...
Amos 1:3
3Thus says the LORD,
"For three transgressions of Damascus and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron.
4"So I will send fire upon the house of Hazael
And it will consume the citadels of Ben-hadad.
5"I will also break the gate bar of Damascus,
And cut off the inhabitant from the valley of Aven,
And him who holds the scepter, from Beth-eden;
So the people of Aram will go exiled to Kir,"
Says the LORD.
more Amos
6Thus says the LORD,
"For three transgressions of Gaza and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they deported an entire population
To deliver it up to Edom.
There is a lot more but you get the point.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 6:23 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
Mark ,
That comment was a bit out of line . Realize this sight is toxic at times , but that language is not allowable , and the only thing it does show is you lost your cool .
Posted by: Mick | January 30, 2008 7:09 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,
Please consider the following more as friendly advice than a rebuke.
As one of the more established conservative posters here, I understand that dealing with many of the lefties here can be frustrating. I've succumbed to the temptation to lash out myself at times. But doing so rarely accomplished anything -- not even to make me feel better.
I've seen you make intelligent comments on other threads, but your last post here really was deletion bait. It was rude and lacked any substance or even wit.
I actually think you're capable of better than that.
I won't say everything must be sweetness and light; politics is a rough business. But before I hit the "Post" button, I look at what I have typed in and ask myself "Is there anything in this that's enlightening, that really helps to explain things?" If the answer is no then I erase it and start over or step away from the computer.
That won't guarantee that you won't get complaints, but over the long run I feel better about what I'm doing here.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 30, 2008 7:13 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, Mod, Wolvie, and Mick
I am really proud of the four of you. It takes a lot of guts to point out the faults of your own and attempt to point out the error of their behavior. Thanks for that.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 8:05 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
Mark ,
That comment was a bit out of line . Realize this sight is toxic at times , but that language is not allowable , and the only thing it does show is you lost your cool .
Please take note, that the moderator is able to see the email address we voluntarily post under, and hopefully the IP we use to post. The moderator needs to take care of this, and will notice that it was > me.
While most of you find me abrasive, I would NEVER post anything even remotely like the crude comments posted by persons unknown under my name.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 8:13 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
Though I would never vote for a pro-abortion, anti-marriage and tax raising Democrat, Edwards spoke the theme of the Bible quite well.
Jeremiah 22:
"This is what the Lord says: Be fair-minded and just. Do what is right! Help those who have been robbed; rescue them from their oppressors. Quit your evil deeds! Do not mistreat foreigners, orphans, and widows. Stop murdering the innocent!"
And:
He gave justice and help to the poor and needy,
and everything went well for him. "Isn’t that what it means to know me?" says the Lord.
But you! You have eyes only for greed and dishonesty. You murder the innocent, oppress the poor, and reign ruthlessly.
///
What the Prophets spoke to their political leaders, still rings loud to those of today. Especially murdering the innocent.
Posted by: Donny | January 30, 2008 8:17 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
Quote:
=====================================
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.
=====================================
So, this is a command to have the federal government redistribute money taken by force from individuals, regardless of thier capacity to live without it?
PLEASE explain this illogic for all us, please.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 8:25 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
hey, this is mark. I can post as someone else. Like someone did to me.
Calm down people. Let the moderator see and deal with the truth.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 8:33 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
I have noted that some of those who claim to be conservative voices, not all, are the most strident and intolerant and prone to expressing resentment to critiques of their own culture, though they are quick to marginalise and denigrate those of others
Often it's heavily masked and justified with "patriotism," that extremist form of nationalism that's been a curse worldwide and such a tragic progenitor of sectarian and ethnic warfare and even genocide.
At times, it reminds me of the type of histrionics that Roland Freisler was capable of in the films of him.
That is "the angry white rage" stereotype writ large, suffering from Willy Loman syndrome. Remember Michael Douglas portraying such a psychologically displaced man in "Falling Down"?
Those striking this pose sure can ladle it out, but they can't take even a drop of critique without becoming livid.
Southern author and psychiatrist Walker Percy called
them "knot heads" with that predictable ideology that was combined with anger, high blood pressure, throbbing temple veins and sense of loss of pre-eminence. Percy's boozy protagonist in his novels, Dr. Thomas More, treated them with his heavy sodium balancing lapsometer - a "stethoscope of the soul" - that enables to both diagnose and treat people's inner demons.
Most Americans,” Percy has More diagnose, “do well
enough. In fact, until lately, nearly everyone tried and succeeded in being happy. But times are changing: odd psychiatric disorders have cropped up in both Lefts and Conservatives causing them to be unhappy as well.
“Conservatives have begun to fall victim to unseasonable rages, delusions of conspiracies, high blood pressure, and large bowel complaints. Liberals are more apt to contract sexual impotence, morning terror, and a
feeling of abstraction of the self from itself. So it is that a small Knothead city like my hometown … can support half a dozen proctologists, while places like Berkeley or Beverly Hills have a psychiatrist in every block."
Why are "Christian" conservatives so adamant in defending every secular conservative ideology and ideologue, even the fringe extremist "knot head" ones that demonize their imagined enemies - from leftists to immigrants - in a frenzy of flag-waving and militarism?
Why do they seem to have become today's version of the "Know-Nothings" of the 1850s, those infamous and infectious intolerants who for a season overwhelmed American politics with their American Party. Its motto was, "I know nothing but my country, my whole country, and nothing but my country."
They sought to end all non- white protestant immigration, exclude Chinese, allow no jobs to be held by immigrants or the foreign born, but only native-born citizens, and they wanted to keep immigrants from even being naturalized for at least 21 years, and they were intensely nationalistic.
Only the rise of Abraham Lincoln and the division of the civil war quenched their xenophobic madness of a time, and they became a spent force thereafter, although their identical politics emerges from time to time in the American political bloodstream as if a latent but virulent infection - a kind of political form of shingles has come back to torment us.
Ah, for More's stethoscope of the soul - a lapsometer - to be handy to Sojourners' moderators!
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 8:56 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
So anyway, back to the topic at hand...I am sad to see Edwards drop out. I saw him speak at the University of Maine's commencement a couple of years ago. He spoke about poverty with passion and conviction, and I really got the impression he believed what he said and wanted to make meaningful changes.
Posted by: squeaky | January 30, 2008 9:07 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
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.)
I think this is a highly simplistic view of this. I think if you just think about this, you're going to find that God does not judge us as groups. Salvation or lack of salvation is a individual thing, not a national thing.
I think you'll find that if you investigate a bit, you'll find that the translation of "nations" means "people", not literally nationalistic units. God does not recognize our human governmental creations, He deals with individuals.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 9:23 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
Salvation or lack of salvation is a individual thing, not a national thing.
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.
Squeaky's comments about individualism's being out of line with biblical culture are correct.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 9:28 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
Jim,
Even though I agree with your premise, your praise of Edwards is rather over-the-top. He is a multi-millionaire who seems to pit groups of Americans against each other. He seems to have put his campaign ahead of his wife (until now) and was not the choice of most democrats who saw more spark and concern from Barack Obama. We also have to be careful how we address poverty. We can't just dump money and resources on the problem. We need to also empower the poor so they can succeed in the free market. Otherwise we create wards of the state, and that is an altogether new kind of bondage that may be worse in the long run. John Edwards was a populist who emphasized some important concepts. But his appeal is limited, because it's not just the poor, but the middle class that is squeezed by energy prices and the cost of daily living. Personally, I think Barack Obama understands this better than Edwards and Clinton.
Posted by: sojoman | January 30, 2008 9:40 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
Another--thanks for the book title--I'll check it out.
Posted by: squeaky | 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
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
"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
"I think this is a highly simplistic view of this. I think if you just think about this, you're going to find that God does not judge us as groups. Salvation or lack of salvation is a individual thing, not a national thing.
I think you'll find that if you investigate a bit, you'll find that the translation of "nations" means "people", not literally nationalistic units. God does not recognize our human governmental creations, He deals with individuals."
Well that's not true.
Again read Amos, Ezekiel, Habbukkuk, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Heck read Jonah.
Even though Jonah is a mythic story, it clearly demonstrates a God that was about to destroy all of Assyria. Then you also have the Psalms. That word nations also means nations, people from different ethnic groups.
The idea that God is focused purely on indidualistic encounter is heretical and completely against everything the bible talks about. God is about creating a new nation, a royal priesthood. That royal priesthood is made up off many different nations w/ many different but equal ways of worshipping God.
Can we please define some terms here? What do we mean when we use the word "salvation?"
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 9:48 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
The idea that this nation was ever a Christian nation is laughable. When God judges nations it's because they use their power wrongly. All of Israel was not holy during the time of Moses all the way to Rehoabem. God still showed mercy to the nation because there were righteous Israelites living in the mix.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 9:51 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
Again read Amos, Ezekiel, Habbukkuk, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Heck read Jonah.
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.
Please don't confuse this with thinking that our government can in any way be confused iwth God.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 9:57 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
Mark,
The post in question did seem out of character with your other posts, that is why I qualified my statements with "(if it was yours)". I've enjoyed your contribution to the site and hope your continue to take part.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 30, 2008 10:01 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
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...
Got to love evangelicals. They manage to minimize salvation to an eternal place. Salvation is first and foremost being one w/ God. That's the more important thing. The kingdom of heaven is important but only so much as it allows us to know God more initimately and to be one w/ our fellow believers.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 10:03 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
Quote:
======================
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.
========================
Ezekiel and Daniel were of the nation of Israel, were they not? Did they not proclaim to serve God, and why was Daniel in the Lion's Den?
Because they identified themselves as being of the nation of Isreal, a theocracy set up and ruled by God himself.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 10:11 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
"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. "
Squeaky I think you are missing the point here of what scripture teaches us . We are all guilty of sin . And we suffer because of it , even when its not our sin . Say a drunk driver running into a sober driver and killing him or her . The sober driver was innocent , yet died because of the sin of driving while drunk . So a nation which does some horrible things , will cause all of its citizens judgement for God . I just would be carefull how you go about saying God issues His judgement . Remember all the conservative Preachers after 9/11 .
Even the innocent pay , which I think is hard to understand from our minds . God told Job off for asking about it and getting into God;s Face about it , He told us we could not understand the answer is what I have taken from God's responce to Job . .
But this individualism of being a conservative and attaching it to this subject I find way off the mark of understanding the consequences of sin . God would be the SAME if our culture was based on collective soicialism or whatever .
God is the same . Right ? Our culture is as strong as the weakest link in many ways , but is also able to be helped by any of us . Individualism is how God meets us . I suggest to you being individual and having a PERSONAL relationship with Christ will do more good supporting conservative or liberal politics ever will .
Posted by: Mick | January 30, 2008 10:16 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
Umm Mark it already did happen by the Nazis and our "Christian" fathers. Umm I am not a theocratic type. I have not argued that we are a Christian nation ruled by God, quite the opposite actually.
Maybe you should ask question instead of assuming something.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 10:19 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
"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."
Mark -
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.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 30, 2008 10:26 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
Rudy: So long, good riddance.
There's my salute.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 10:32 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
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.
you need to study Jewish history a little better.
Isreal did TOO exist. Why did Daniel refuse to bow to the King and end up being tossed into the pit to become cat food? Because he was still serving the God of Isreal. Jerusalem still existed, and people still lived there. Read about Nehemiah.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2008 10:39 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
Mark -
*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.
Posted by: Another nonymous | 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
"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."
*Who* are you calling theocratic?
"Otherwise, you're requiring all individuals to force others to "behave correctly" to assure "salvation"."
Not guilty. I'm not interested in forcing people to do anything. I'm talking about the Gospel.
I'm going to bed now. This has been an interesting conversation, but I get the distinct impression that we're talking around rather than to each other. Maybe that's my fault. I meant to respond to Ashpenaz, not to start a new tangent. It's time for me to stop.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 30, 2008 11:17 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
"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."
No policies do the same thing and that's what your side is all about. No government regulation of business, no safeguards, no unions,... That makes no sense in light of our history.
You really did drink the cool aid if you believe God formed this nation to represent freedom. This nation was founded purely on greed, exploitation and selfishness. Please don't ignore the hundreds of millions of Africans that are buried in the ocean or the Indians whose land our ancestors stole. It's dishonors the dead. Respect the dead by remembering them.
as to my values.
http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php
p
Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 12:16 AM
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
The original writing here was to thank John Edwards for his 'work'to advance the cause of the poor.
I could more easily join in that thanks if John weren't returning to his 7200 suare foot home, complete with pool and tennis courts (indoor pool, too, I understand).
Sorry. . . John's sincerity rang hollow with me. I can't help it; I just kind of assume that, if a guy really, really cares about the poor, he will actually go and find a poor person and give him - - I don't know - - maybe a free swim!!
Posted by: joekc | January 31, 2008 7:54 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
"So anyway, back to the topic at hand...I am sad to see Edwards drop out. I saw him speak at the University of Maine's commencement a couple of years ago. He spoke about poverty with passion and conviction, and I really got the impression he believed what he said and wanted to make meaningful changes." Posted by: squeaky
Agreed. I really liked Edwards a lot. I thought that he had the chutzpah to say things as they are- a rare quality in our sanitized political climate. I hope that he can find his place at the table of power in some capacity because he has a lot to offer.
"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." Mark
Concept #1: God is aloof.
"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." Mark
Concept #2: God is not aloof when it comes to the United States.
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.
My view: I uncategorically reject this self-centered, egotistical, self-righteous way of viewing the world.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 31, 2008 9:19 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
'...but you have been a prophet to the nation...'
So again Wallis places the mantle on another person. We have Gore the 'Enviromental Evangelists' and now we have Edwards the 'Nations Prophet'.
I really believe that the Dem. canidate was going to be Edwards. I have in the past and will continue in the future to pray for him and the family as they deal with his wife's health, that she would be healed so she can see her children grow up. (sorry - the idolitor comes out again)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 31, 2008 10:11 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
Sigh--the "fake mark" post is still there...I'm beginning to doubt any moderator has even read through this thread.
Posted by: squeaky | January 31, 2008 11:05 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
squeaky, sadly, I think you're right. The "anonymous" kind of blog entry is kinda nice, but always tempts certain types to be... Shall we say, far less than honest.
Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 11:14 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
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.
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.
Besides, the real issue is (and I hate to keep having to say this) about making changes in the system to help the poor make their own way. I don't mind seeing my tax dollars help in the process because eventually those people will become productive citizens and taxpayers.
That said, what bothered me about this post was that it was a bit over-the-top in praising Edwards. I have no doubt that he does care about the poor; in the South, because the political system is structurally weighted against the poor, trial lawyers (his former occupation) are considered next to God, the money he's made in the process being immaterial. But God's "greeting" to Edwards, as though He were entrusting him personally, using that parable? Overkill.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 11:36 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
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.
The proof is in the pudding. Conservatives, in my experience, have these rose-colored glasses when it comes to their agenda; those of us, however, who suffered through it have a different view.
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.
Actually, Revelation is just a microcosm of human history never meant to point to any "end times." We wait only for the return of Christ.
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 political and religious mandates.
Somehow, that sounds awfully familiar ... Wait! That's right -- the 1980s, with Moral Majority, Focus on the Family etc.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 11:44 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 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.
No, that is not the entire message of the Gospel -- it is about reconciliation, first vertically (with God Himself) and then horizontally (with other people). Also, God makes clear in the Scriptures, most notably in Paul's writings, that He intends to redeem the entire creation. So, while we are saved personally we still have work to do down here; avoiding hell isn't the issue.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 11:52 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
Statistically, the transfer of TRILLIONS of dollars has not resulted in any signficant reduction in poverty rates.
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.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 11:57 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
mark--
"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."
The discussion about national responsibility to God is a good one. It is, however, a theological question, and you are politicizing it. It is an extremely difficult question, and I find the discussion itself to be very challenging from both ends and all across the spectrum. Probably would be better on a site where people want to talk theology rather than politics. I think it is a very important question but I also think it is one that is extremely difficult to wrap our brains around, in part because we are looking at it from a Western perspective. No one has solid answers, as some have already suggested. One person suggested a book or two for you to read so you know the perspective they are coming from. Probably until any of us do some study on it, most of us would be arguing from points of ignorance, and many of us from our political and cultural perspectives.
Posted by: squeaky | January 31, 2008 12:06 PM
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
"I suppose it might, but I don't think in terms like that."
Ditto, concerning the influence of my ideas about national salvation.
"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."
Likewise ditto.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 31, 2008 12:08 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
The discussion about national responsibility to God is a good one. It is, however, a theological question, and you are politicizing it.
I'm sorry, but no matter how many times I read this, I cannot separate the concept of "politics" from the phrase "national responsibility".
No matter how I try to look it, it turns political, because IT IS.
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.
period.
This completely refutes ANY notion of "national responsibility to God".
Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 12:12 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
Besides, the real issue is (and I hate to keep having to say this) about making changes in the system to help the poor make their own way. I don't mind seeing my tax dollars help in the process because eventually those people will become productive citizens and taxpayers.
You repeat this mantra of "making changes in the system", but you never state what kind of "changes" you want.
First, I don't know what you mean by "the system". Frankly, I've never found that everything operates by some narrow set of rules. Further, I REALLY do not understand how government can mandate personal opportunity. In the end, it always boils down to personal choices, economic skills and understanding, and experience and understanding of how to achieve personal goals, be they career or economic.
Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 12:24 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
So is someone who uses personal responsibility as an excuse to evade collective responsibility.
Who defines these 'collective responsibilities' and has the authority to force them on me?
Posted by: mark | 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
"Who defines these 'collective responsibilities' and has the authority to force them on me?"
Why do you have to keep bringing this back to force? The Gospel is not about force; it is (in part) about acceptance of burdens and responsibilities. These include collective ones, as John Howard Yoder makes painfully obvious. Jesus expected the nation to honor the concept of he jubilee, in which all debts were forgiven and everybody started again from a level playing field. So it is fair to say that Jesus defined these collective responsibilities - and please don't argue with me until you've read Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus." Jesus, of course, refused to force anybody to do anything, thus defining a completely new political strategy. However, the idea that he rejected collective responsibility is simply ludicrous.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 31, 2008 12:33 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
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
Well that makes sense to me , we need a balance . I don't think we were ever a Christian Nation as some people like to point out , but I know at one time in this country you had to pretend at least to be a Christian to get elected . I do think our culture has some components to it that have Judeo Christian components to it that have caused our nation to be Blessed by God . We helped the poor beyond what other nations do , do provide opportunity and dedication to allowing opportunity for all of our citizens regardless of God given differences among us , at least we have a goal of doing that I believe . And we have been blessed as a nation because of it . We support opportunity and the freedom to pursue it , and we allow our citizens not to choose paths that many of us all would consider un Godly . We allow choice to choose right or wrong , which God allows us also .
To take away the choice , I believe you take away a precious gift of God's . But to not do what is ruight as a nation , we take away the blessing of God .
Complicated is right .
Posted by: Mick | January 31, 2008 12:41 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
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?
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. It defies every belief I have in God, everything I understand in the Bible, and acceptance of such would simply be the first step to religious tyranny.
It contradicts every facet of Christianity, our nation's foundation of personal and religiuos freedom, and far too much resembles the absolute WORST times of history.
So, no, I leave NO room for such a thing. I wil fight, to the DEATH to prevent and will NEVER obey, even at gunpoint, such religious mandates.
Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:02 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
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.
No, God did not reject Isreal. Not until Christ was crucified and officially rejected. To think so completely refutes all Biblical teaching.
Rather, Isreal would reject God's leadership and go thier own way. They had pagan kings and corrupt priests and so on. At these times, they became vulnerable, because they rejected God's protection.
At Sinai, in the wilderness, God made a covenant with Isreal, and they agreed to it. They said "all that God says, we will do". They broke that before Moses could get off the mountain. Collectively, they turned to idols.
So, God made a second agreement with them, and it went like this... If you turn to Me, and put Me first, I will cleanse your hearts and put goodness within you." Not those exact words, the first contract was a simple, straightforward promise of obdience in exchange for His blessings. It, of course, was fatally flawed. None of us EVER fully follow God.
But Isreal needed to understand that. So, the next Covenant was about thier spiritual life.. They had to do nothing otehr than accept, and God would do the rest, including change in thier life and behavior.
When Isreal rejected Christ, that covenant is now what applies to ALL. We accept and allow God to work through us. We are incapable of law-keeping as genetically sinful human beings, but God promises to alter our hearts and minds, and Christ's death paid for our deficiencies.
You are wrong, of course, about God rejecting Isreal. It was always the other way around.
Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:14 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
"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."
Please look, God is also corporate. That's why he appeared to the nation state of Israel when Moses was leading it. If it were clearly about a personal relationship he would not have revealed himself to the entire nation of Israel. It was so terrifying that Israel rejected a corporate relationship and used Moses as a go between.
Before I get to Revelation and what it truly says I need to correct something, well actually a few things. The people that are trying to control personal behavior thru the law are you folks on the right. As a secular nation state not controlled by the mandates of the bible I believe and fully support gay marriage. Grown tax paying adults have a right to do as they choose.
We don't believe the government can solve all of our problems quite the opposite. But it can help, it's tool. So please stop trying to think I am turning all personal responsbility to the state. Quite the opposite actually. I believe in both individual and corporate responsibility.
Oh and the Ark the Covenant disappeared after the destruction of Solomon's temple. God took his presence away from Israel shortly before it's destruction. One more thing. God himself says they rejected him as king. So your knowledge of the bible is a little off. Let me show you.
1 Samuel 10:18-19
18and he said to the sons of Israel, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I brought Israel up from Egypt, and I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the power of all the kingdoms that were oppressing you.'
19"But you have today rejected your God, who delivers you from all your calamities and your distresses; yet you have said, 'No, but set a king over us!' Now therefore, present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes and by your clans."
More in a second.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 1:22 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
"Statistically, the transfer of TRILLIONS of dollars has not resulted in any signficant reduction in poverty rates."
This is reminicent of Reagan's famous campaign line "We fought a war on poverty and poverty won." Not true, unless you think that the only purpose of the Great Society and New Deal programs was to eradicate poverty entirely. Our "war on poverty" and the money that we have invested have helped prevent untold numbers of families and individuals from slipping further into poverty or have helped them avoid poverty altogether. Should we try to make such programs more efficient? Sure. Should we try to address unexpected side effects, such as the rise in unwed pregnancies? Yes. And as a nation, and on the state level, we are doing both. And that is different from saying we should scrap the idea of government programs to address poverty. Like a Presdient once said, "mend it don't end it."
Posted by: I and I | January 31, 2008 1:24 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
Our "war on poverty" and the money that we have invested have helped prevent untold numbers of families and individuals from slipping further into poverty or have helped them avoid poverty altogether.
Utter nonsense.
Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:28 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
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.>/i>
Well, Rick, boy do you have a rude awakening. There is NOTHING you think about any of this which is correct.
This characterization of economics, plus your efforts at class warfare, are pointless, useless, and wrong.
I wish you could come work with me for.. Ohhh... about 2 years.
You would abandon your ignorance and suddenly realize just what you've been missing, and why the world passes so many people by, and others do so well.
And government handouts are COMPLETELY irrelevant to this.
Posted by: mark | January 31, 2008 1:32 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
Revelation is an apocaylspe. It's style of writing designed to empower the Christians that were facing horrible persecution at the hands of various roman emperorors.
The idea that it is a book about the end times as it relates to us is ridiculous and arrogant to say the least. It's not about that at all. I want to show you something in the book of revelation which speaks to corporate nature of God's call to restore the nations.
Revelation 22:2
2in the middle of its street On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
If God did not have a global plan for everyone why would he use the image of leaves to heal the nations?
p
Posted by: payshun | January 31, 2008 1:36 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
I wish you could come work with me for.. Ohhh... about 2 years.
You would abandon your ignorance and suddenly realize just what you've been missing, and why the world passes so many people by, and others do so well.
If you worked where I do -- a major metropolitan newspaper -- and if you went to church with me -- I attend a large evangelical assembly which actually serves the poor comprehensively and whose diaconal fund is quite large -- you'd see first-hand just how ridiculous your arguments actually are, because then you'd run into real people with real problems and who were actually victimized by conservative economic and political theory. Even my conservative, Republican pastor understands this.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 31, 2008 1:42 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 obse