Ryan,
I'm flattered that you decided to include my quote in your post and I appreciate your more charitable understanding of the two perspectives--which did seem to be arguing past each other.

I still see the root of the conflict as being a matter of worldviews, and I will continue to challenge utopian elements of liberalism that propose that if you can just make a perfect system, you can make a perfect people (which is the only way poverty, war, etc. will be "ended"). This is a view I think lay nascent in Wallis' remarks here. He's also previously stated something to the effect that since poverty exists, we have an unjust economic system that must be replaced by some other system.

My original post was intended to point out this tension that I believe exists for left-leaning Christians (though not all give into unbiblical utopian views). I fully acknowledge that other tensions exist for Christian conservatives, as well, as many here are fond of pointing out.

Posted by: jesse | February 1, 2008 4:24 PM

This was great. Thanks for giving me reasons to think what I already want to think about working for peace and justice in the world, inside and outside the political arena.

Posted by: Jess I | February 1, 2008 4:46 PM

Bravo. It is very true that we live in a fallen world, and no human power can ever "unfall" it. But that does not mean that improvements are impossible. Striving for a just society is something we all should do.

Where the tension exists between the economic liberal/conservative points of view though is the social safety net vs. personal responsibility issue. When should people be rescued by a social safety net (and who should provide and pay for that net), and when should personal responsibility or the lack thereof be allowed to reach its logical conclusion? Liberals tend to support a wider net, paid for the wealthy through taxes upon them, while conservatives argue that the net should be narrow, and that the wealthy are taxed enough. They correctly argue that excessive tax rates on the wealthy serve as a disincentive to work more for the wealth.

The failure of communist economic systems in the 20th century has shown that in this fallen world, greed is alive and well and fallen people might as well harness it (albeit with controls) to do some good.

Posted by: Ngchen | February 1, 2008 4:56 PM

"Jesse, can you honestly say you know any liberals who actually think this?"
--I know a lot of people who think that poverty, crime, war, etc. are completely (or mostly) due to unjust systems that are in place, and that if we just change the environment via govt policies we can eradicate these things. This was the whole impetus behind the war on poverty. See my above comments for why this is problematic.

Posted by: jesse | February 1, 2008 5:08 PM

Jesse: "Capitalism and democracy are far from perfect, but they're much better than the alternatives, and the best thing we have for the poor."

Jesse, capitalism is certainly better than some alternatives, but better than all? I'm not convinced. "The best thing we have for the poor"? Maybe, but we know of societies in the past where there was very little variation in wealth. Whether we could duplicate that in a post-industrial society like the 21st century USA is an open question. I'd like to see it explored.

Posted by: carl copas | February 1, 2008 5:14 PM

These negative outcomes were the logical extension of a utopian, unbiblical view of man. It behooves Wallis and others not to push for similar policies with similar consequences. I see elements of this worldview in Wallis's comments here and elsewhere.

One person who shared the view that you denigrate was Martin Luther King Jr., who had no illusions about the "total depravity" of man. But would you deny the good that he actually did because he believed that things could change?

Jesse, I think you miss the point -- we Christians need a vision, a goal, a hope to shoot for; even if we don't succeed in our lifetimes it's still worth working for. Anything less and we prove that we don't really have "eternity in our souls," as the cliche goes.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2008 5:23 PM

Jesse, one other quick comment: capitalism may be the best way to address poverty, as you say, but we also must be careful not to let THAT become a god. I don't think Jim Wallis advocates an overthrow of capitalism, but simply a capitalist system with some interventions and controls. John Rawls wrote quite extensively about this. It doesn't have to be an either/or choice of absolute unfettered lassez-faire captialism or totalitarian communism.

Posted by: I and I | February 1, 2008 5:24 PM

Though I can't speak for the original commentator, I am in some agreance with the original critique. Modern theology born out of the enlightenment (that includes those aligned with ideologies of either laisze-faire capitalism and Marxism) have made the fatal error (literally) of placing hope in human institutions for the salvation of the world. Its not that Christians shouldn't work to end war and poverty, its the dangerous utopian ideas that have created a century of destruction greater than history has ever known! While one is right to critique the wrongs of American Evangelicalism, liberation theology has its own skeletons in the closet (namely that Latin-American socialist regimes proved no better friend of human rights than their right-wing counterparts). Without a right understanding of the human condition and the human place before God, all our righteous efforts to "build a kingdom" are susceptible to a great destructive power--human sin!

Posted by: Matt K | February 1, 2008 5:35 PM

I spoke to my nursing home congregation last Sunday afternoon, using Jesus statement to his disciples: The Kingdom of God is near." I told them some folks think it already here. Some folks think it is off in the future when Jesus "returns." I said both ideas avoid any responsibility on our part. God has done it all and we are passive recipients. But when we think about the Kingdom being "near" or "at hand", we become part of the work of bringing it to fruition. We can take hold and pull it into the world by the way we live as Jesus taught us. I talked about how they can do that where they are - acts of mercy and kindness to one another, praying for one another and for the staff. I was amazed. Most of the time, these old folks sit passively and I don't know what they're taking in. This Sunday, heads were nodding all over the room. The Kingdom of God is indeed at hand!

Posted by: Conrad Steinhoff | February 1, 2008 5:45 PM

Jesus said "The poor you have with you always". Proverbs makes clear that the Lord is the maker of the poor. I believe that the reason that we will always have the poor amongst us is to measure those of us who are "whole". They are God's opportunities/challenges for the "well/rich/blessed". God is looking for faithful stewards of His grace.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | February 1, 2008 6:58 PM

Before we start giving things to the poor (even though a strict reading of Matthew 25 would indicate that is necessary to get into heaven), how about paying people who work what it costs to live (that would be food, clothing, housing and medical care). Since the free market does not like to pay for things - especially labor - that will mean at least some government intervention. For those of you who hate government, I remind you that two legitimate functions of government are to try to limit theft and to keep public order. I do not understand why so many conservatives are blind to the theft of labor and refuse to see the enormous threat to public order that comes with vast differences in wealth.

Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | February 1, 2008 9:19 PM

Nobody is trying to create a perfect world. But Christians and non-Christians, liberals and conservatives, can work together to bring about a world without poverty and without war. It would still not be a perfect world, but it would be a whole lot better than the one we have now. So let's get to work!

yes, tis I, your much hated and loathed conservative...

I wish to quote the Bible at this point, in fact, Christ...

Mark 14:7
The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want

Deuteronomy 15:11
There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

Since it seems that just facts themselves won't convince some of you, it is NOT POSSIBLE to end poverty and war. It isn't. That will not happen till Christ's 2nd Coming.

This is a fundamental disagreement I have with so many of you. You actually think we MUST stamp out poverty. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

Now, let me paint a scenario... You have a situation, and a certain number of tools to fix it. No tool you have can fix the problem. How long and how many of the tools will you use and break, before you give up?

Liberal ideology says we must continue to exponentially increase ( I remember a liberal think tank in the early Clinton years saying that we needed to at least TRIPLE the entire federal budget before we could start making serious progress ) X or Y or Z until it works.

No matter how many situations where someone is hurting are cited, and WHOLESALE changes to our economy, lifestyle, etc are implemented, there's simply more problems found, often created by those "solutions".

To which I answer the utterly weak objection to "we know we can't, but shouldn't we keep trying?". The answer is. NO! For pity's sakes, if you know you can't do something, and everyone from Christ himself to every reasonable scholar on earth says it can't be done, why should you continue to expend the substance of others in the effort?

On the other hand, there ARE things we can do, we KNOW we can do, because they work. Like, efforts to help INDIVIDUALS get out of poverty.

Rick and I can't make any headway, because his entire focus is "we have to try to stamp it out". I cannot accept, and will NEVER agree to any such effort. If YOU want to try, please go ahead, but don't waste MY wealth, efforts, time, and money on a pointless useless effort.

I have far better use of MY charity, and that is to do the things I KNOW will work and I KNOW make a difference, because they're proven to work, one soul, one neighbor, one family, one couple, at a time.

No, I refuse to surrender to things that have emotional appeal, when they are not wise. The idea that structural changes to the economy will have huge results has never been shown to work...ANYWHERE. Not just not here, ANYWHERE.

Then, what remains... Is to debate how to do what DOES work.

Posted by: mark | February 1, 2008 9:59 PM

Before we start giving things to the poor (even though a strict reading of Matthew 25 would indicate that is necessary to get into heaven), how about paying people who work what it costs to live (that would be food, clothing, housing and medical care). Since the free market does not like to pay for things - especially labor - that will mean at least some government intervention.

As an employer, would you please explain this to me?

And, after you have done that, would you explain to me why you believe that those who lack what it takes to be productive enough to create enough value to earn a living should NEVER be allowed to have a job?

Posted by: mark | February 1, 2008 10:05 PM

Some writers have commented that they don't believe US social programs help anyone. My father was very poor during the Great Depression. Because he served in World War II he was able to receive government funds that helped pay for him to be the first member in his family to graduate from college. He also received help to buy his first home. His aged parents were able to live independently in their own home until the end of their lives due to Social Security and Medicare. (Imagine what it would have cost for my father, and only son, to have tried to support them into their old age). My father became a teacher, and because of his modest financial success was able to send his children to college. Without US government assistance it would have been very difficult for us to climb to the middle class. I am very thankful and hate to see the way that many conservatives want to turn back the clock seventy years or so to a time when only the few rare geniuses had much of an opportunity to dig their way out of poverty. What surprises me most is that many of the same people who are against social programs have come from the same family background as I have. It is only fair that we who have been helped remember that other people also need help.

Posted by: Susan Davis | February 1, 2008 11:24 PM

Some writers have commented that they don't believe US social programs help anyone.

You need to check your facts here.

More to the point, however:

I was recently listening to some talk show, not sure which one, and the host had some really interesting stuff on a program I never heard of, that the Clinton adminnistration asked for and spent many millions of dollars on, it was called "first accounts".

It was an effort to get people who do not use banks, to use banks.

I kid you not. It was an effort to get people who don't have bank accounts, to go through the process to get checking and savings accounts.

On average, they spent around $350 PER PERSON, to convince them to open a bank account. One likely closed very shortly after that.

Whom did this benefit?

Not a lot.

I recently read an effectiveness analysis of the Job Corps program. Apparently some people are helped, but on average, there was no statistically significant financial or career success between the public at large and Job Corps enrollees.

That little tidbit will cost the taxpayer 1.5 billion dollars. And will likely do nothing of any significance. Yes, there will be SOME benefit to SOME people. But hardly such that it justifies the billions that have been spent.

Job Corps serves around 65,000 people. With a 1.5 Billion dollar budget, that's around 23,000 PER PARTICIPANT. More than half of all college students have education costs of 9000 or less annually.

Anyone here think that Job Corps sounds like an absurd waste of dollars? We'd be better off to just pay for college for 65,000 people. Instead of having no signficant education at the end of the program, and a placement record that's less than average, perhaps we'd do far more good...

Posted by: mark | February 2, 2008 12:04 AM

The rest of the verse reads, however, "You will not always have me." The context was not that there would always be poor people that the disciples could help anytime but that Jesus would not always be here in the flesh. That word was meant only for the Twelve, not for us.

Rick, you'd think that on a public forum, you'd at least try to be honest. Sheesh.

I quoted an old testament verse with the exact same statement.

So, in la-la land, apparenlty, Christ tells ONLY the 12 apostles that the poor will always be around - meaning that the statement was really meant to serve HIS desire for recogition and lauding, not as an actually TRUE statement. For the rest of us, we humans with our human divisings are smarter and we actually end it.

You people are so unbelievably willfully blind it boggles the mind.

Posted by: mark | February 2, 2008 12:11 AM

Mark most definitely wins the logic debate by stating "To which I answer the utterly weak objection to "we know we can't, but shouldn't we keep trying?". The answer is. NO!" He goes on to say "On the other hand, there ARE things we can do, we KNOW we can do, because they work. Like, efforts to help INDIVIDUALS get out of poverty." Amen to that. Show me someone making the effort and I'm ecstatic to lend them a generous helping hand.

I can't rightly tell you who you could work with. First, it's NO EASY THING, to befriend someone who at first may think that you are as fickle as the next guy. Or thinks you're out to screw them in some way.

It takes personal dedication and sometimes a LOT of your time and maybe a little money, too. Do you understand money managment well? If not, educate yourself. Sadly most of us think we're pretty good, but aren't. Attend a Financial Peace University seminar - takes 3 months. Costs a couple hundred bucks and a few hours one day a week.

Whether you are talking to someone at 15, or at 45, it is immensely important to be financially literate.

Then... do you help someone who's a teenager? Single and barely adult? Or someone who is 40 and been a chronic dependent?

Or maybe a young family who has just never mastered success and keeps bouncing from one disaster to the next.

And the various situations that may exist are so varied, that generalizing just seems pointless. But you need to know each otehr. Trust each other. You have to get past why a successful individual would take time and effort to befriend someone doing poorly. Suspicion runs deep.

Maybe you're dealing with a 16 year old... or a 12 year old. What do they NEED? They need wise advice. They need someone to trust them a bit. They need someone who will BELIEVE IN THEM.

Someone who accepts them, no matter what, and always raises them up, not puts them down.

You can make a world of difference in a young person's life, if you can just awaken in thier minds, the understanding of the immensity of opportunities that exist, to let them see, in thier own mind, REAL possibilities for thier own success.

If you can't envision yourself as anything but a failure or a dependent, or even just being "poor", then you can't rise above that.

You can't do what you can't imagine doing.

You want to keep a kid off drugs, out of gangs, in school, and have him be as deterimined to be a success as anyone you'll ever find, no matter how the demographics indicate he or she is "at risk"?

Make him your friend. Take him out once or twice a month on a weekend and do something personal for someone else. Rake an old person's lawn in the fall, or plant flowers in the spring. Shovel walks in the winter. Paint a home. Clean a garage. Take valentines to lonely folks in a nursing home.

Do it with him. Side by side. Then take him out to dinner or home for dinner and talk about what you did and how it feels to be useful. You demonstrate in ways he understands that You CAN be useful and that if you can do good for others without accepting or wanting any reward of any kind, you can be trusted to want the same for him or her.

Teach him to look beyond his own problems. It's much easier to solve problems for someone else than for yourself. But you learn the thinking habit that makes it work for yourself, too.

And you'll save yourself. Say goodbye to depression, boredom, anxiety, pent up frustration and anger. And you'll do the same for him.

You can change your world, but only one person at a time. And once you start a person down that road, you'll suddenly find that a fascination with programs and welfare and such is lost as you become amazed at the drive, resourcefulness and personal capabilities that emerge from people who you thought might be hopeless.

But you'll never see it unless you DO IT.

Posted by: mark | February 2, 2008 1:45 AM

So then why do you continue to bring them here? Another of Jesus' words: "Physician, heal thyself!" Posted by: Rick Nowlin

"You people are so unbelievably willfully blind it boggles the mind."Posted by: mark

Rick, I have watched you post here for quite some time now. I have a great deal of respect for you. However, it is unbelievable how you continue to even dignify Mark with a response. He is a troll who is here to provoke. Ignore the troll and he will shrink an leave.

The moderator needs to take this situation in hand and put an end to this and not just post cryptic warnings.

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 2, 2008 7:27 AM

Interesting thread. I tend to oppose the use of 'government money' (collected from people who work) to support "programs" to "help" the poor. One reason is the one that has been repeated here, many times, and that is, history demonstrates it doesnt work very well, if at all.
But there is another reason I oppose it.
And it is this. . . . if I can say, "The government has a program in place for that. . ." then I can duck out of my individual, God-given responsibility to literally be my brother's keeper. I sometimes wonder if we, who are corporately the church, the very Body of Christ, do not do that - - we use that excuse to avoid confronting poverty, sickness, lack of health care, by actually going to find someone who needs something, and getting it for them.
Is this possible? Could we, the church, actually take over these programs that don't work, add the Power of the Spirit to this kind of work, and go and do it, by ourselves, without the "help" of bureaucracies? It seems to me that we could, if we really wanted to.

Posted by: joekc | February 2, 2008 11:09 AM

Why are the conservatives so focused on Government spending on the poor.
What about all the government bailouts and tax freebies to businesses, the agricultural subsidies, the earmarks, and the outrageously wasteful expenditures for military contractors , a field rife with a history of corruption and fraud in the billions. Nader from the left, Ron Paul from the right and Dobbs from the middle along with many others have produced an extensive record of Corporate Welfare. These 2 areas constitute the vast bulk of wasteful spending.

I have a small business and recognize some wisdom in what mark is saying. I think all government programs should be limited and experimental until they prove their worth ( as for example Social Security and Medicaid have done), and believe there is much to be said for mark's enthusiasm for individual responsibility, but it overlooks structural imbalances in power that can incentivize exploitation rather than decent paying jobs. Worker employer relations do not have to be adversarial, but employees need to have bargaining power or you end up with brutal and inhumane treatment in dead -end jobs propped up by an investor class that benefits from abuse.

There is no way with the current level of economic and technological interdependence , multi generational mega-corporations , and ecological impacts from industrial processes to humanely or wisely eliminate government from having important ethical and economic power. Laissez faire capitalism produces robber barons and great depressions. Right now the Reagan Bush Friedman economic philosophy has produced one more in a series of catastrophes that taxpayers are being asked to bail out , It has emphatically failed to produce a self sufficient competitive and resourceful economy based in our own productivity and our own natural resources. Instead it has produced the largest levels of individual and national debt in history. I think both parties have contributed to this problem in important ways.

The attempt to reduce our complex role in a global economy and a global geo-political reality to a narrow cluster of philosophical precepts is a formula for practical failure and political demagoguery. I personally am deeply attracted to what I accept as the historical teachings of Jesus, but in my opinion, those too, while providing wonderful spiritual and humane guidance are incomplete apart from living experience and the technological, cultural and spiritual wisdom of the many people on Earth.

Xenophobia is the greatest force keeping us from more just and effective forms of government. We all need each other's gifts and we all need the influence of the godly pursuit expressed in the sermon on the mount " Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall shall be satisfied".

Thanks for the stories Eileen and Susan.

Posted by: jonabark | February 2, 2008 2:40 PM

Mick: "Why not try assuming the other side is open to learning, because I know most conservatives are here, and I know Mark is by the way he handles himself."

Mick, I have great respect for you and other conservatives on here such as kevin s, moderatelad, wolverine, etc. And although we sometimes get angry with one another, I like to think that when we're at our best we're trying for genuine dialogue.

But--and I don't write this lightly--Mark is absolutely poisonous. The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 6:4 about people such as Mark: "he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words."

Posted by: carl copas | February 2, 2008 3:01 PM

Well Thank you for saying that Carl .
But I have seen people here call those in the armed service stated to be non Christian .
No one considered that posinious ?

I don't understand that , to me that was hurtfull , condemning , statement . I would think those with a pro peace value system based on the Bible would totally consider that off the mao is Christian understanding and Compassion . Not a peep . In fact there was support by at least a couple regular left of the compass never wrong on anything types who supported those comments . Poisonous to me is when you honestly believe you are preserving peace , Love the Lord , and are told you are going to hell . So far what Mark has done from what I read is discuss his belief in small government . Why big government does not work , and he gives reasons for it. Those reasons can be debated of course , but I don't see the malice ?

Perhaps if you identify to Mark what he said , and explain why it is offensive , he would make amends . Then at least you can say you did your part . God will have to deal with Mark . My experience in when I am wrong , I rather correct it myself or have it pointed out before God gets involved . I am toast when the Lord has to handle it .

Posted by: Mick | February 2, 2008 3:16 PM

JamesMartin and carl copas,
I'm having trouble seeing your problem with Mark. It seems out of proportion. Just my observation.

Don Gisselbeck,
I respect that Matthew 25 is an important text for you. I think your understanding of the text may not be the strictest reading. I encourage you to study it further, especially the phrase "the least of these my brethren". You may or may not change your mind, but it will be a worthwhile study.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 2, 2008 3:28 PM

Mark,
You may be right. I respect carl copas and by making the observation, I thought it may smooth the waters a bit.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 2, 2008 3:55 PM

( warning, humor alert light on )

Oh, let them spout. If they get mad enough, they might even blurt out truth now and then :)

Posted by: mark | February 2, 2008 3:58 PM

"Worrying about 'exploitation' by megacorps who enrich only the "investor" is misplaced entirely."

I will remember that when I think of Enron. The power of the human spirit is remarkable indeed. But you know what your side really lacks is the ability to understand that actual injustice exists and you cannot ignore it. You want to focus purely on personal uplift w/o doing anything about the systemic injustices many innercity folks deal w/. Your examples and exhortations don't do anything about slum lords, really sick children or neighborhood upkeep. When I lived in the innercity (doing ministry there) there were potholes and other obstacles in the street. It was the city's responsiblity to make sure those things were taken care of. But because they were poor it did not happen. Imagine seeing landlords having to be taken to court because they did not do their jobs...

My point is stop pushing false hope unless you really step into the actual wounding that lives in the poor. It's disrespectful of the people that just want a normal life.

p

Posted by: payshun | February 2, 2008 8:51 PM

I will remember that when I think of Enron. The power of the human spirit is remarkable indeed. But you know what your side really lacks is the ability to understand that actual injustice exists and you cannot ignore it. You want to focus purely on personal uplift w/o doing anything about the systemic injustices many innercity folks deal w/.

Enron executives cheated the investors of Enron. This is HARDLY a case of "systemic injustices many innercity folks deal with".

I dare say not a single "innercity" person was dealt injustice by Enron.

BTW, Enron executive's fraud was enabled and worsened by the Clinton administration exempting them from the accounting practices required of publicly held companies. It was further extended by generous contracts from the same administration that kept it afloat even though it was actually bankrupt, which deepened the hole and the depth of the fraud committed. It wasn't until shortly after a change of administrations and an outright refusal by the next one that the fraud was no longer able to be concealed and the scandal broke.

In other words, Enron's failure had NOTHING to do with partisan conservatives. It had to do with something that knows no ideology or boundaries. Greed.

Posted by: mark | February 2, 2008 9:40 PM

Quote:
========================
Laissez faire capitalism produces robber barons and great depressions. Right now the Reagan Bush Friedman economic philosophy has produced one more in a series of catastrophes that taxpayers are being asked to bail outIt has emphatically failed to produce a self sufficient competitive and resourceful economy based in our own productivity and our own natural resources. Instead it has produced the largest levels of individual and national debt in history. I think both parties have contributed to this problem in important ways.

Me:
The problem w/ conservative practice is that they look for ways to sabotage governmental programs. When they do (as is often the case) they then say the programs don't work. It is our job as Christians to use all of our resources (ngo, governmental, individual, and churches) to help as many people as we can. But conservatives cut out the governmental because they don't think governments will do any good. They are right it won't, as long as they have anything to say about it.
======================

All of that is 100% pure HORSE MANURE.

Not a shred of truth to ANY of it.

Posted by: mark | February 2, 2008 9:48 PM

Alright Mark, I stood up for you before, but there comes a time when you, or anyone for that matter, has commented enough. There doesn't need to be anyone who's responsible for close to half the comments on any subject. It's time to shut up and listen.

Posted by: Cads | February 2, 2008 10:18 PM

Enron's actions caused energy prices to go through the roof hurting everyone, but as is always the case, the poor, most of whom were in the cities, were hurt the most, along with the elderly on fixed incomes. The total loss to the poor is a staggering figure, outstripping any investor losses to such a degree as to make them meaningless. Mark your statement here is really quite absurd and befuddles me completely.

Enron's loss caused energy prices to shoot up?

When, where, how?

Enron was a trader, it produced NOTHING.

Posted by: mark | February 3, 2008 12:12 AM

Wanna know how Enron forced up electricity prices in my state then read the article below.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD1430F934A35756C0A9649C8B63

p

Posted by: payshun | February 3, 2008 12:49 AM

Hi all!

I have no illusions of creating utopia, some world without poverty. I believe it will end the way Revelation says it will - with a 7 year Tribulation ending in Armageddon with most of the human race trying to war against Christ returning with the heavenly hosts in the clouds. A world with multiple lethal stab wounds that will leave it with people starving and sick and the planet ravaged with neglect.

But...still....where do the gospels or the epistles ever imply that I am to adopt the values of those around me? Or the prevailing mindset? Quite contrary - God tells me I am called to be different through God's Spirit, in how I spend my life, time, money, at home, at work, in the community, when I vote.

SHINE out among them (Philippians 2, Matthew 5) ...Light is never to blend in and go along with the flow of the darkness. It is to be very, very different - bright in the darkness, and therefore reducing the darkness.

Salt (Matthew 5) becomes useless if it ever carelessly adopts the values and flavors it finds itself surrounded by. It is only useful when it is very, very salty - and therefore changes its surroundings and influences them for the better.

When I live, I am to be salty - without apologies.
When I work, I am to be salty - without apologies.
When I vote, I am to be salty - without apologies.

Will I ever revolutionize my neighborhood, my workplace, the country, the world. I doubt it.

But by God's power, I WILL change my corner of it.

Jess....why adopt ANY worldly philosophy? Why not look to Christ - and therefore free yourself to adopt the fine points of EACH? I don't want to waste my time defending capitalism, socialism, neo-conservatism, liberalism - waste my time defending any of them.

That is so often, why I read the threads here, and opt to not comment at all. Too often, you feel backed into a corner to defend some ideology. I'm not interested in defending ANY of them.

I go back to the Greek word used in the New Testament for "sin" - hamartia - it is an archery term - meaning to miss the bulls-eye of a target.

I've played archery. The only way to hit the target is to keep your eye on that target and ignore all the extremes - extreme top, extreme bottom, extreme left, extreme right.

Yes, any one of those "extremes" is bad - but if you focus your attention is trying to avoid the sins of the top, bottom, left, or right - you will only wind up in the opposite direction, and you will still wind up missing the target.

The only way to hit the target is to fix your eyes on the target. And ignore the faulty directions.

What is our target? Is it not Jesus Christ and the Scriptures?

We would be best-served to focus on filling our thoughts with the mind of Christ so we will become more Christlike - and limiting the amount of time we worry about the pitfalls of all the worldly political philosophies. Because in trying sooooo, sooooo hard to avoid the sins of socialism or capitalism, etc - we will only wind up committing the sins of the the other side.

Kind of like a drunken driver who tries so hard to stay out of the ditch on the right shoulder - that he winds up in the opposing lane of traffic and having a head-on collision. And we will miss the bulls-eye of the target.

We really need to spend less time on all these other distracting worldly philosophies - and more time focused on Jesus Christ and the New Testament in particular. And that way, we will be free to adopt the positive aspects of all these philosophies in politics.

Posted by: Amazon Creek | February 3, 2008 2:22 AM

This statement sums up well the problem with contemporary liberalism, which refuses to acknowledge the fallenness of man and creation. You can no more "end" these things than you can eradicate sin.

Are you saying we shouldn't try? Anyway, the "right" did the same thing in the 1980s. Or thought it was doing the same thing.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 3, 2008 8:21 AM

"It seems to me that Enron, despite whatever laws they were breaking, was running a scam on their investors and on the public. They played a very sophisticated shell game and that is wrong, regardless of the law on the matter. The breaking of the law is not the issue. If there had been no law what they did would still have been wrong."

The documentary on this is pretty good . Enron , The Smartest Guys In the room . A bit politically slanted , which was a shame because they did not have to . But it is amazing what these guys got away with , and how people just went along . The strategic closing of powergrids to cause black outs and their phony accounting are shown by actual audio .

Posted by: Mick | February 3, 2008 2:10 PM

I'm in this a little late but...

It has never been the position of mainstream conservatism that there is no point to efforts to minimize poverty. Every now and then someone from the fringe libertarian/Ayn Rand faction may suggest such a thing ("helping is futile") but such thinking isn't all that widely accepted among libertarians, let alone the rest of the right.

The thing that makes conservatism uneasy is the eschatological rhetoric -- "We can abolish poverty", without any acknowledgement that fallen human nature virtually guarantees there will be some degree of poverty. We all have a capacity for foolish, self-destructive, and cruel behaviour. As long as that is the case, there will always be poverty. Even if we managed to abolish it for a while it would just be a matter of time before someone would find a way to bring it back.

Furthermore, if one seriously makes the total abolition of poverty a goal of public policy, one is prone to fall for radical schemes that look great on paper but fail miserably in real life. In the meantime one dismisses, as insufficient, workable ideas to limit the extent or severity of poverty. The potential for tragedy is tremendous.

A little bit of grandiose rhetoric is forgivable and perhaps even healthy. Certainly we on the right have let our enthusiasm get away from us at times. But at some point reality must be accepted and reality is that we will always have poor among us. If we are wise, their numbers will be small and their situation will still allow them some grounds for hope.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 3, 2008 3:54 PM

That's just it. The problem is that we who don't support the right right don't see enough people on the right who really support changing the state -- the culture, if you will -- of the poor so that they can work their way out.

Exactly what major "cultural" change has to occur in society? I think everyone, and I mean, EVERYONE who is not incapacitated mentally or physically, is capable of success in our society JUST AS IT IS. There are varying levels of difficulty, to be sure, but there are NOT "structural impenetrable barriers" to escaping poverty that are not self imposed.

Indeed, in our view the right in general is in practice opposed to the very idea of people escaping poverty -- indeed, are actually threatened by that -- because they know they won't get the glory for it.

This is hogwash. I have never met ANYONE who was threatened by someone escaping poverty. How could anyone possibly be threatened? Why would they be threatened? The only people who would be threatened are those we classify as "poverty pimps" and those are people like Jesse Jackson, whose entire existence depends upon having a large following of people who think he's "salvation" from poverty or racism, or whatever. I've never met a single conservative who pimps poverty. I've never heard one, or read one. The concept itself is in conflict with conservatism, which holds that the honor and the means of escaping poverty both belong to the one who did it.

I know that sounds offensive, but we believe that the argument over "government programs" misses the point; the poor need, more than anything else, authority.

Huh? I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. I did not need authority over anyone else to escape poverty. I needed to take charge over my OWN life, rather than be passive.

Posted by: mark | February 3, 2008 6:13 PM

Since these forums have been hijacked - and that hijacking approved by an Ann Coulter-style-approving cabal - the Sojourners blogs have been rendered well-nigh worthless.

It's not worth anything at all to waste time prayerfully developing thoughts to share, for they're lost in the cacaphony if not outright trampled underfoot.

I'm sure this does serve someone's purpose - someone who wants to destroy Sojourners' effectiveness.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but when I showed other people from church what's going on here they thought it was a craziness and that it couldn't possibly be Christians behaving in such a manner - nor would they waste their time on it

What an embarrassment.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 3, 2008 7:17 PM

Don -

I have done as you suggested, and have also contacted the sojo webmaster (webmaster@sojo.net). The repeated violations of the rules of conduct, not to mention basic decency, have been appalling. I want this blog back, but I will not post anything further as long as the individual in question is allowed to continue posting here.

Posted by: Another nonymous | February 3, 2008 8:01 PM

Since these forums have been hijacked - and that hijacking approved by an Ann Coulter-style-approving cabal - the Sojourners blogs have been rendered well-nigh worthless.

Wow, I'm a "cabal".

One person disagreeing with the majority turns the blog "useless"?

Or is it that when faced with disagreement, the whole concocted pretense of peace and light from the left disappears?

Posted by: mark | February 3, 2008 9:13 PM

Enron was not a result of the New Deal utility regulations that had worked for decades but of a highly deregulated industry in which Enron lawyers participated in writing their own regulations. Rather like setting the proverbial fox to make access rules for the henhouse.

Posted by: jonabark | February 3, 2008 10:37 PM

The bottom line Rick is that most of your criticism begins with a presumption of bad faith, for which the only evidence you have is that we have the nerve to disagree with you.

No -- just the opposite. It's the conservatives who, over the past 30 or so years, have taken everyone to task for even approaching them with another view. You are right in saying that I do have a presumption of bad faith, in large part because, as I said before, they never talked to anyone else and in fact, loved to accuse people of either misunderstanding, misquoting or hating them, just as mark has consistenly done on this blog. Well, you know what? That has gotten old and people are reacting to it now.

Rick, there are about eight million stories in the naked city. Neither of us really knows more than a handful. What makes you so darned sure you're more of a poverty expert than me?

I've personally been there, for openers. So have members of my extended family and current members of my church. I indirectly also have been victimized by political desicions made a couple of generations ago based on color, the effects which are still being felt today. I don't have to consult studies; it's all around me.

And the left, which is patronizing in its own way, assumes that all poor people have similar needs that can all be solved by the omnibenevolent, infallible government, and that private charity can do little worthwhile.

It does no such thing, thank you. The "left," such that it is, actually gets to the root of the issue of poverty, which results from the lack of resources and, eventually, hope in certain neighborhoods. Conservative "solutions," on the other hand, treat only symptoms that leave the original issues unaddressed -- but, a generation ago, if you brought these up you were denounced as a Communist. Why? Because the critics were so tied to what they had they didn't want to share it just so that others could have even a little bit.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 3, 2008 11:06 PM

Rick Nowlin wrote:

You are right in saying that I do have a presumption of bad faith...

Thanks for acknowledging that.

I want you to know that for all our disagreements deep down I think you mean well, and that you are motivated by genuine concern for the less fortunate.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 3, 2008 11:16 PM

But the right, which is often patronizing these days, talks at or about people but almost never to them -- and that's why it rightly gets a lot of criticism on this blog. Rick N

And not only that but they seem to favor dropping bombs on people who pose no threat to them, and conducting coups against democratically elected governments that want to claim national ownership of their resources. Curiously they rarely intervene when human rights alone are at stake, they prefer more substantial goals like oil, copper, tin, gold, and strategically placed military outposts.

These peculiar habits, backed by free market blather, also tend to bother those who think humans are worth more than SUVs, energy guzzling mansions, private planes, and 200 dollar plates of food.

Posted by: jonabark | February 3, 2008 11:48 PM

Quotes:
=======
Did it ever occur to you that people feel no compunction to try to improve their lot because they wouldn't know where to start?

Actually I have. In fact, I'm willing to stipulate that there are a lot of poor people who are willing to work to improve their lives but can't because they don't know how to begin. But just throwing money in their general direction won't necessarily help them figure that out. These people need knowledge and a plan.
=======

First, let me state up front, this is precisely what I have said over and over. That people don't know how to get out of poverty, and that the process happens because THEY change, not the world around them.

Further, I specifically have stated that my lack of understanding how to get out of poverty was the precise reason for my being in it. Further, that the people I looked toward, for help, substituted "programs" and "assistance" for any real help. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY on the left gave me a single clue. I have YET to find a single politician or political activist on the left address how an individual learns how to better himself.

I changed my attitude, and realized that the problem was with ME, not the world around me, after being immersed in what most people here would call "Right Wingers". Sadly, even they failed to understand the depth and reality of how I did NOT understand anything at all about economic opportunity.

They understood... they didn't understand that I didn't. Since those days, I have quite a number of years experience dealing people who were or are just was I was. A good lot of them don't want to hear that the problem is with them. It's much easier to rely on the largess of the taxpayers or charity, and believe that the ills they suffer from are not thier fault.

Rick's message is seductive. It's easy to tell someone that their condition is a result of someone else's bad attitudes. But it is pure poison. It innoculates that individual from EVER finding his way out. Like making a starving man convinced he is allergic to all food.

But it is WRONG.

Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 12:01 AM

By the way, mark, who gave you or anybody else exclusive rights to the word conservative? You seem to want to load far more into these 12 letters than they can possibly hold. I guess I never realized the un-capitalized words were being privatized. When did this happen? 1984?

You see I have some direct experience with this word, because I currently make my living as a professional conservator. I have worked on stained glass windows from the middle ages. I have also taught art history and English, and perhaps it is a matter of this training and experience, or perhaps it is my natural inclination; but I prefer a conservative approach to semantics, which in this case brings us to the historic and linguistic roots of the word conservative:( definitions and etymology from the Oxford English dictionary)
conservative ( adj.) ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [aiming to preserve] ): from late Latin conservativus, from conservat- ‘conserved,’ from the verb conservare (see conserve ). Current senses date from the mid 19th century onward.
conservative(noun) a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
conserve( verb) ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French conserver (verb), conserve (noun), from Latin conservare ‘to preserve,’ from con- ‘together’ + servare ‘to keep.’

So you see it basically means to preserve or keep together, which is what I do with stained glass windows. And in my work I meet many wonderful church people, many who describe themselves as conservative. Not a single one has ever espoused the kind of ideas or used the kind of insulting language you frequently use to describe an idea or person(s) holding an idea which you disagree with.

The current, strained use of the word conservative started when it became the title of a British political party, but their political usurpation of a perfectly good word was not, in the strictest sense, a truly conservative use of the word because it did not preserve the word's original meaning. In my opinion, it's been down hill ever since. I personally oppose feeding words, which are dear to me, on a high-fat diet, especially without proper exercise and social interaction. Otherwise they become bloated, isolated from other words, and weighed down with more than any word can carry. They begin to have severe mood swings. One moment they feel like the masters of the universe and the next they seem desperate for attention, and feel jealous of their lean, trim, clearly defined neighbors. Every time such a word gets into a sentence it is like a fat man getting into a canoe. Things just get tippy, and before you know it everything is upside down and all the other words are swimming for the solid ground of plain and honest usage, while the ungainly tipster flounders, kicks, and spurts great streams of wet, empty noise. I hate to see a once useful and upright word floundering in such a morass, which is why, when it comes to words and many other things, I am a conservative.

By the way, while the word conservative does not make it into any Bible translation I could find, the word liberal, mostly in its modest and natural form of an adjective, appears in many English translations of the Bible.
It is used in a very complimentary way to those it is applied to.

Acts 10:2 He was religious and God-fearing--and so was every member of his household. He was also liberal in his charities to the people, and continually offered prayer to God. (WEY RSV)
Romans 12:8 or he who exhorts, to his exhorting: he who gives, let him do it with liberality; he who rules, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. (Root in WEB WEY ASV NAS RSV)

2 Corinthians 8:7 Yes, just as you are already very rich in faith, readiness of speech, knowledge, unwearied zeal, and in the love that is in you, implanted by us, see to it that this grace of liberal giving also flourishes in you. (WEY)

2 Corinthians 8:20 For against one thing we are on our guard--I mean against blame being thrown upon us in respect to these large and liberal contributions which are under our charge. (WEY RSV NIV)

2 Corinthians 9:13 seeing that through the proof given by this service, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the Good News of Christ, and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all; (Root in WEB KJV WEY ASV DBY WBS YLT NAS)

1 Timothy 6:18 They must be beneficent, rich in noble deeds, open-handed and liberal; (WEY DBY RSV)

Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to be kind and liberal; for with sacrifices of that sort God is greatly pleased. (WEY)

Proverbs 11:25 The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (WEB KJV ASV DBY WBS YLT RSV)

Proverbs 19:6 Many will entreat the favour of the liberal man; and every man is a friend to him that giveth gifts. (JPS ASV)

Isaiah 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. (KJV JPS WBS)

Isaiah 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. (KJV JPS WBS)

The root word means generous, giving, or noble minded. So while many profess to hate liberalness, God actually seems to like it.

So you see mark, every time you are generous and giving, and I have little doubt that you are, you are at that moment liberal.

Posted by: jonabark | February 4, 2008 12:59 AM

The root word means generous, giving, or noble minded. So while many profess to hate liberalness, God actually seems to like it.

When I was young, in grade school, I was taught that "liberal" was someone who had an open mind, accepted that not everyone was the same - be it the way they think, what they looked like, or how they talked. Back then "conservative" meant timid, slow, someone who did not challenge the status quo. I thought a liberal was colorblind, didn't care if someone was rich, poor, or in between. Someone who accepted people whether they were educated in a university, or learned life the hard way. Someone who didn't judge others to be inferior or of bad character just for being different, or thinking different, or disagreeing.

I don't see that definition holds true anymore. If you ask me if I'm a liberal - I would say I am a Jeffersonian liberal, as far as politics goes. If you ask me if I am a liberal person with my time, wealth, skills... I am.

But the definition of "liberal" has changed when it comes to politics. Modern "liberals" have been converts to the extreme left - where the dividing line between public and private does not exist, where there are many who believe themselves so superior to everyone else, that they deserve to force thier way of life on everyone else. That "charity" must be taken by force of law and distrubuted by the disinterested career beaurocrat. I wasn't political for quite a few years of my life. I don't know when the reality chagned and no longer met the definitions I learned from my childhood years. But I know it changed.

So you see mark, every time you are generous and giving, and I have little doubt that you are, you are at that moment liberal.

And why not? I am just not a political liberal. I am compared to what I learned as a child, or how Jefferson thought of it. But not as political liberalism exists today.

Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 2:39 AM

I really appreciated the original thoughts. We all know the Golden Rule. We want to change the world? Start with ourselves and live it. -Even in business. Profit gets to be the decider so often, when it is a side effect. Too often the whole of our society including medicine and religion put profit at the helm. Some say that's reality, but what a limited and disastrous cruise for those on board.

Posted by: Barbara | February 4, 2008 5:21 AM

Rick Nowlin wrote,

...and the nasty comments from conservatives on Sojo are kind compared to those places (for example, FreeRepublic.com). Worse, many of those places couch their ideology in religious tones and have far more experience in doing so.

As for who's nastier where, the comments at Free Republic are beyond my control, just as the nastiness at Democratic Underground is beyond yours.

It seems to me that Jim Wallis is quite capable of couching his ideology in religious terms when the occasion calls for it. Over here you sometimes call it being "prophetic". Same difference.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 4, 2008 8:57 AM

For all of those who are calling for the moderator to censor people might I suggest the only person who should be censored here is Cads. Most of us could probably just use a good jab in the ribs and be told to watch the heat.
Mark has his points. Nothing worthwhile changes without some inner morphing of the individual.
Owning up to our own responsibility for the challenges we face is part of that change.
Government programs in and of themselves have not proven themselves to be effective motivators of this change, but not all government programs have failed. There are many cases where Government programs have given people a chance to better themselves which they would not have received otherwise.

There are oppressive forces in the world that should be fought against. Anyone who works with the poor knows that the reason a person is poor is not just because of the bad choices they make, nor is it just because they fail to take responsibility for their own need to change, not any more so than many people who are wealthy do anyway. (The poor are not the only one's who could stand a better grasp of reality)
It is a false notion that the reason many people are poor is because they do not work hard. The hardest working people I know are all poor. I do not mean that I do not know any lazy poor people. I also know some really lazy rich ones.

Then you have this other thing called "children" who need food, protection, etc., and because families are in such disarray, some part of society as a whole needs to provide for this. The government/business and private charities/churches are required here. This means that there are going to be those who abuse the care provided. (another thing everyone who works with the poor knows very well, and Rick will rightfully point out that abusing the system is not just a "poor persons" sin. The wealthy use and abuse the system far more and many fortunes are made in this way. War profiteering comes immediately to mind.)
I do not believe that if government does all of this, or is seen as the major mover in it, it will work. Government does not do a very good job of motivating people to change. Real change is a spiritual work and as such it takes time, patience and commitment.

Mark, if you were to go to Mississippi you would find systemic problems that purposely keep people in poverty. (Earlier you asked why people would do this, as if it was unthinkable. Well, I believe it is called, sin.) If you were to go to Northern California you would find the same. The fact that solving those systemic problems in and of itself would not defeat poverty, is just not a good reason for not doing so. To say we need to solve those problems if people are to have a chance
to become successful, equal partners in society is not the same as saying Government help is the answer.

Your responses here seem to be saying that changing unjust systems is not the way to go and then accusing Rick of living in denial of people's personal need to change and take responsibility for their lives. Neither of these are true statements. You seem to only ask questions that are rhetorical or argumentative. Why not switch tactics? Why fight fire with fire? As it stands I do not think anyone will think you much of a martyr if you are excluded from this forum. I have made many similar mistakes here, you are not the worst, just the latest.

Posted by: wayne | February 4, 2008 9:11 AM

Mark
you could make meaningful contributions to the site if you wanted to, but instead, you choose to lace your words not with the grace of God, but with acid. If you try the former, maybe we could have a meaningful conversation, but the tone of your comments automatically turn people off so they don't listen to you.

Posted by: squeaky | February 4, 2008 10:31 AM

Well, if you're still reading this you've got a lot of time on your hands...

Thanks for the Wright quote. The 3rd paragraph is pretty much the only valid reason I can see for getting out of bed in the morning. As Followers of Jesus its our job description.

Posted by: Mike | February 4, 2008 11:10 AM

Having lived everywhere from upper class neighborhoods to the abject poverty of an indian reservation, I've never seen any deliberate "stopping people from being indepedent" except for the reservation.

Have you ever lived in the South or in the 'hood? And more importantly, do you understand that history? The political structure of many Southern states -- and by that I'm inlcluding their respective constitutions -- institutionalize injustices toward the poor, which a courageous Alabama governor who happened to be a Christian tried to address a few years back but was in the process was pilloried by the state chapter of the Christian Coalition. (It's the same reason why former trial lawyer John Edwards is who he is; "jackpot justice" was in many cases the only weapon some of the poor have in that part of the country.)

Posted by: danowlin@usa.net | February 4, 2008 12:17 PM

Your responses here seem to be saying that changing unjust systems is not the way to go and then accusing Rick of living in denial of people's personal need to change and take responsibility for their lives. Neither of these are true statements.

I think you misunderstand me, if that's your take on what I say. We live in a human world, and there will ALWAYS BE INJUSTICES. But to tell people that unless that changes, they're doomed to live a life of poverty, dependency, or mired in crime and violence is poisonous. It says that your conditions in life are permanent until someone else changes. That's fatalistic, it robs the soul...and it's wrong, too.

It may be HARDER, but escape is still possible. And even if tomorrow some miracle occurred, and city councils fixed the potholes in the streets, and the slum lords started taking care of the buildings, those people who need to escape thier poverty will STILL need all the same things they need now.

A sense of the possible for themselves. A belief in the possible for themselves. An understanding of the ways to achieve that. And the courage to try. And advice from people with the greatest assets of all - experience and judgement.

You seem to only ask questions that are rhetorical or argumentative. Why not switch tactics?

To what, may I ask? For well more than a decade, I have been online watching the political nitty gritty debate between people. It hasn't changed one IOTA. I know where all of them are headed. I've seen it over and over and over X 20, some X 100.

People of a modern liberal political persuasion are NOT inclined to question anything about what they think. They don't think that deep. The basis for why those on the left think as they do is rarely reasoned or thought out. Most have just accepted certain premises and have never so much as questioned why they hold them. And then comes along people like Wallis, with his "message" and suddenly you have yet another layer on top of the unreasoned foundation.

Yes, I'm being argumentative. And why not? Isn't that how we argue? You see, "debate" is a spectator sport. A few people do it, everyone else watches. Argument is between individuals.

Who of us has become rapturously enlightened by watching a political debate on tv? Seriously, canned questions, canned answers, rhetoric piled to the ceiling. Disagreements are all about who can 'score points' rhetorically, and to bloody hell with the truth.

Argument, on the other hand, is personal. One can sit through thousands of worship services and remain unaffected, until it becomes personal.

And yeah, it's personal. It has to be. What use is rhetorical bouquets for an audience? I want to make you face up to what YOU say. I want you to try to challenge ME.

It's all about the individual, you know. Salvation is personal. Success is personal. Failure is cruelly personal. Being right, being wrong, these are personal. And so I live in that realm.

If I bother to stick around, notice the following: I don't post gratuitous personal insults. I never pass or state any kind of judgement on another's soul. And I have long ago given up tolerance for muddled thinking or "dumb". Further, I never call anyone "dumb" or "stupid" or anything else, But certainly I will call ideas, concepts, or ways of thinking that.

I demand honesty. Own up to what you think. Don't even try posting inconsistent drivel to me. I won't to you. Why should any of us? It's disrespectful in the extreme to waste another's time that way.

Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 12:29 PM

Wolverine... Reservation life, culture, politics, economics... these are outside the scope of this forum, I'd say.

I lived in truly a third world country inside of this country. It's one of the prime examples of "feel good" or maybe even better "guilt driven" politics by those on the outside, prejudice by those on its border, and by the absolute WORST motives by the "native" government.

The only means of relevance for the navaho government is its "distributive" power. It hands out the dough. And it keeps everyone else from having anything by political and economic policies that would embarrass the medieval land barons and aristocracy of yore.

The reality is, there's little difference between the average Navaho family and the average white, black, brown, etc, family. The needs and wants are pretty much identical, but sadly, they live in a world geared to specific ideological strictures that prevent change, and prevent economic prosperity.

In the 1950's through the 1970's, it was common for large families to send a few kids off the reservation to live. Not just off the reservation, but FAR AWAY. These kids acclimated themselves to concepts of money, got educated, and learned to deal with the reality of the world around the reservation. They learned to deal with the concepts thier culture can't deal with.

There are no words in Navaho to describe the concept of "punctuality", much less be a word for it. "Navajo time" was a reference to an inability to be any place and time asked to be. Money has no historical context as well.

Also, the language barrier is broken by immersion. Many of these people came back to the reservation with "non indian" thinking and behavior. They often succeeded immensely economically and otherwise by comparison.

Sadly, the goals of the navaho nation are now to "return" people to thier historical roots. No matter how badly that makes them disfunctional in the world around them.

The schools turned from English by Immersion to ESL. White kids can't even go to the reservation public schools. Ownership laws and regulations on the reservation make outside investment pointless and gauranteed to fail. Only the government can "sponsor" or fund an enterprise, and then it seeks to control it. It has managed to run off or out of business almost every employer of size.

And that's the goal. To have a primitive people, in a primitive culture, living primitive - except for those things thier governemnt distributes to them.

The culture being what it is, the people are not activist. The culture is to be passive. Thus, the navaho government runs roughshod over them, and plays any number of games to gain power. Corruption is almost the norm, rather than the exception.

But, like I said, this is not really the place for that. Sadly, I have not been back in 25 years now. All my friends have moved on, since the institution we centered around has closed. I will visit again someday, but it won't be the same. I will be an outsider in land hostile to me, rather than being a neighbor.

Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 1:08 PM

Contrary to what you said, we don't all believe it's a "universal" --

Sadly, it is a universal truth: that injustice will exist until the day of the 2nd Coming.

Like weeds, injustice and corruption return all on thier own. Eternal vigilance will only reduce it, not end it completely. But we can't let that be any reason to fail to succeed. It may present a further obstacle, but it can always be gotten around.

Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 1:32 PM

Who says you're going to succeed in changing city hall? Or do so quickly? While rooting out corruption at City Hall has been a civic task and an unending effort, and it will be for as long as there is a City Hall, we can't use that as any sort of reason to delay or fail to address dealing with the individual. Nor, can we let it become any excuse for the indivual to fail to succeed.

What in the world do you think MLK Jr. did? He changed not only City Hall but an entire region of the country. And in fact, African-Americans in that region had been doing exactly what you suggest but that clearly had nothing to do with the real problem, so the political system had to change and eventually did so. Are you saying that he was simply supposed to accept racial injustice? Because if that's your contention you're treading on thin ice theologically (as I have said before).

I don't know your theological leanings, but you sound like a dispensationalist. If that be the case, you've got it wrong.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 4, 2008 1:44 PM

What in the world do you think MLK Jr. did? He changed not only City Hall but an entire region of the country. And in fact, African-Americans in that region had been doing exactly what you suggest but that clearly had nothing to do with the real problem, so the political system had to change and eventually did so. Are you saying that he was simply supposed to accept racial injustice? Because if that's your contention you're treading on thin ice theologically (as I have said before).

The political system remained exactly the same before as after MLK. There was no shift in the process. I believe MLK capitalized on a long term cultural change that was occurring long before and long after, to gain public support for righting a plain and obvious injustice.

But this grandiose flourish of rhetoric doesn't address the fundamental disagreement we have. In fact, I'm unable to understand what you think at all. You continue to contradict yourself.

Let's imagine that you live in Philly. And City Hall, through influence by the elected leadership withdraws police protection, stops fixing the roads, and fails to carry out its basic functions in an area of town. Why doesn't matter, right now.

Crime runs rampant, property devalues, all the ghetto problems spring up and grow worse.

So a group of people get together, campaign to replace the elected officials who fail to carry out thier duties with new people.

And they fail. They fail for 3 elections in a row.

Now here I am, saying that even though that has occurred, you cannot tell the people who are mired in that abyss that they're hopeless and they must just accept their fate until the City Council changes.

Nope, they still need to do all the same things, and find ways to escape thier poverty. Stay off drugs, ,don't turn to crime, find ways to get and stay employed, get educated... blah, blah, blah.

For the individual, the goals and needs remain the same. So, it is my contention that telling these people they have no hope until X or Y or Z gets out of office is a cruel injustice. Life and success may be harder, but it isn't impossible.

Now, for saying that, you have said that I have bad theology. I can't imagine what theology has to do with this. It's just how things work.

How or why you're trying to make this theological, or even why you're bringing up theology, I simply can't fathom.

Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 2:18 PM

Mark, I'm a tenured full professor of history at a good-sized university on the West Coast. I've tilted swords with some of the best minds in the field.

I'm the son of a Depression era 1st generation American. He was a logger and mechanic by trade. 5th grade was his highest education.

I have been a logger like my dad, a mechanic, and now am a small business owner, and network administrator. I run an ISP.

I make no great claims to education, having tilted with the best, or anything else.

I am not be educated with classic philosophies, But then again, they never accomplished much. I had to learn to stay alive, get stuff done, and learn from my mistakes. I may not be as polished, but if you think I can't hold my own on what matters in real life, you're mistaken.

Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 2:34 PM

The political system remained exactly the same before as after MLK. There was no shift in the process. I believe MLK capitalized on a long term cultural change that was occurring long before and long after, to gain public support for righting a plain and obvious injustice.

It wasn't so obvious to a lot of people in that part of the country, and yes, there were changes (such as the removal of poll taxes and the opening of the franchise.

Nope, they still need to do all the same things, and find ways to escape thier poverty. Stay off drugs, don't turn to crime, find ways to get and stay employed, get educated... blah, blah, blah.

My aunt lives in Philly, BTW. Anyway, that's not what I'm talking about. For openers, because of political desicions that were made in the past, doing all these things are problematic. Beginning in the 1950s, as in most major cities, much of the wealthier population left for the "greener" suburbs and basically closed the door to keep people out. (This actually is happening more overtly in Atlanta, where I attened school briefly and where one of the suburban counties for decades has been trying to keep metropolitan buses out -- guess why?)

One other thing, mark -- this is a blog on religion and politics, so there will and should be references to theology. This is no time for a simple "me and Jesus" type of religion because our LORD is concerned about all areas of everyone's life; after all, He is the Creator of everything and wants it to glorify Him. How does your stance, which comes across as, frankly, quite mean and insensitive, do that?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 4, 2008 2:46 PM

Mark: You must have missed my first post or thought it not relevant, but since you chose to quote the same two verses (in fatalist terms), I thought you may react to my post as well. To recap; The reason we have any suffering in this world is to give us the opportunity to restore and portray the image of God in response. I agree with your emphasis on personal responsibility but that does not obfuscate our obligations to corporate response as well. The Gospel is Good News to the world as well as the individual. God is not willing that any should perish and he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | February 4, 2008 4:13 PM

Mark: You must have missed my first post or thought it not relevant, but since you chose to quote the same two verses (in fatalist terms), I thought you may react to my post as well.

I don't really "react". I respond, and that response is generally deliberately chosen.

I'm curious why you think that my quote is "fatalistic". Why anyone would think that poverty can be eradicated is beyond comprehension. It cannot be. That's an immutable fact. I think that's the first fundamental step in choosing how to deal with it. At least, in the real world, with real world problems, intelligence says that you must ascertain the characteristics of the problem you face, and then use those characteristics to guide how we tackle them.

Why you'd call it "fatalistic" to understand a well understood fact in real terms, I don't know. As I've stated over and over... this fact should guide our minds in how to deal with it. Any presumption that we can erase it will cause us to start out with a flawed premise for dealing with it.

To recap; The reason we have any suffering in this world is to give us the opportunity to restore and portray the image of God in response.

I've always understood that the reason bad stuff happens, is because this world is ruled by evil. Evil brings about suffering, pain, etc. How we deal with it in God's name will either glorify or villify Him.

I agree with your emphasis on personal responsibility but that does not obfuscate our obligations to corporate response as well.

Who is "corporate"? I fail to understand how there is a "corporate" obligation if all individuals in the Body of Christ have the same personal obligations.

The Gospel is Good News to the world as well as the individual. God is not willing that any should perish and he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Who is "the world" if it is not just individuals?

Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 7:05 PM

"We point solely to God"?? I thought there was some commandment about loving your neighbor as yourself. I'm sure I am belaboring the point but a plain reading of Matthew 25 would also indicate that how we treat others is the most important thing. I haven't seen any one address the problem of wages dropping to essentially zero with a surplus of labor in a fully free market. Western logging camps in the late 1800s or present day 3rd world labor are two examples. How is paying your neighbors less than the cost of living for a 16 hour work day loving them as yourself?

Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | February 4, 2008 9:01 PM

Calvin was VERY wrong.

The theif on the cross needed no church. He was not able to do anything before he died, and that was to ask Christ to remember him.

The theory that the church is needed... Is absurd.

Posted by: mark | February 5, 2008 1:26 AM

The theory that the church is needed... Is absurd.

The analogy of the thief on the cross is a false one.

This statement is heresy. Christ died precisely to form a body of believers, not a mere collection of individuals.

Go back and re-read your New Testament, especially the Book of Acts.

D

Posted by: Don | February 5, 2008 5:57 AM

This statement is heresy. Christ died precisely to form a body of believers, not a mere collection of individuals.

Not at all. Christ died for every person. INDIVIDUALLY only. He did not die to create a man-based organization. He died for one reason and one reason only - He died as the punishment for every individual's sins. He was GOD - he was ETERNAL, and He voluntarily let His life be taken as the payment for sin.

Sin is committed by individuals. Salvation saves only the individual. The "church" is irrelevant to this eqation. The only purpose a "church" serves is to allow us to fellowship together. It serves no function for salvation.

Heresy = term used to justify killing, torture, ostracization of individuals, by pretending that the Church has authority over individuals. It has none. Only God has authority in terms of doctrine, salvation, and judgement.

Posted by: mark | February 5, 2008 10:38 AM

Mark

Thank you for your honest response. It was quite revealing. I still agree that poverty will never be eradicated just as Jesus said. Neither will suffering or sin in this world. The reason I call your viewpoint fatalistic is that your assumption is rooted in "winning is everything" (all things measured by a final accounting) mentality. Would you say that prayer is useless unless you get what you ask for? That requires "right" prayers with Jesus' name tacked on for good luck. Prayer is not about us obtaining anymore than work to relieve poverty is about us eradicating it. God's plan is for us to be shaped into the Image of Christ. If Jesus had your world-view would he have come to this "evil-ruled" world? What good did it do for Him to come anyway? (Other than to "save"-validate a few already right people like yourself) The joy is in the struggle more than in the accomplishment itself.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff | February 5, 2008 10:44 AM

The reason I call your viewpoint fatalistic is that your assumption is rooted in "winning is everything" (all things measured by a final accounting) mentality. Would you say that prayer is useless unless you get what you ask for?

I think you're mistaken here about what I think.

The advocates of the "eradicate poverty" mantra really DO have the notion that we must change things radically and ERADICATE (ergo, be none) poverty. It is they who have the "winning is everything" attitude, not I.

The problem I have with that, is that they devise plans which do not work in the real world, because the very premise for thier actions is untrue. The premise for EVERY "we must eradicate poverty" movement is that poverty exists because of capitalism or because of structural flaws in society, or because of cultural flaws in society. All of these are based on the notion that if you change EVERYONE ELSE, then these people will magically be transformed into successes.

Realists such as I look at this and assume it a preposterous and worthless exercise in moral authoritarianism. These things are never designed around reason, economic laws, or even experience and judgement. They are based upon subjective theories of "social justice" and a lack of understanding human nature.

The rick nowlins of the world are stuck with obsessing about the corruption in city hall and various facets of our economy, and thus fail to understand that the real difference between those who succeed in spite of all these, and those who don't... Is the individual himself.

There are those who succeed in spite of having all the obstacles, and those who don't. Again, the difference being the choices the individual makes.

While we have to continue to replace politicians, because being in politics corrupts them, the secret to individual success lies in transforming the individual, and that's true even IF we could somehow remove all social, economic, and cultural disadvantages for specific people.

Posted by: mark | February 5, 2008 11:26 AM

Mark: "Both of us are examples of how class and status means nothing. Our family history does not determine how we'll turn out. It influences our thinking, but we are not slaves to it, nor does our historical background in any way control our destiny."

Mark, I appreciate your softer tone in this post. I agree that you and I are examples of how through hard work one can better oneself. In my case, I'd throw in some luck combined with God's blessings--good health, a reasonably intelligent mind, a very stable family, a solid public school, etc.

I would modify somewhat your statement "class and status means nothing" to read "class and status obstacles can be overcome." Indeed, you seem to modify the statement somewhat when you say "it influences our thinking."

"Nor does our historical background in any way control our destiny." I depends I suppose on what you mean by "destiny."

Rick, I think, would throw "race" into this mix, and maybe gender. I would argue that, because of historical circumstances, it's been somewhat more likely for a white male to rise from humble circumstances than people of color and women of any race.

That is NOT to say that it's easy for a white male to overcome a modest background--it's not, and you and I can both attest to that. Nor is it to say that people of color and women cannot overcome their background. Many obviously do. And certainly the candidacies of Clinton and Obama confirm what we already knew, that these things are changing, if slowly.

But I'm straying far afield from the blog's topic.

Shalom.

Posted by: carl copas | February 5, 2008 11:54 AM

>i?"There is one body (i.e., "church") and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all...It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ (i.e., "church") may be built up..."--Ephesians 4:4-12

This is both wrong and very, VERY dangerous.

Devout Lutherans believe they are right. Devout Catholics believe they are right. Devout unchurched believe themselves saved.

This kind of "we have a lock on Salvation" arrogance that lead to the abuses by the Catholic church in historical times. "Excommunication" is the same foolish arrogance.

Christ said "I have sheep not of this fold".

You are correct in one part. That being, that the Church is "the body of Christ". What is the body of Christ? ALL who have accepted Salvation through Christ's death.

They may be any denomination or even totally unchurched. They may not even know the name of Christ as we know it, but have accepted the leading of the Holy Spirit and let it transform their lives.

Posted by: mark | February 5, 2008 12:14 PM

Absolutely NONE of the well over 100 references indicated an organizational requirement. Rather, I find that Christ heads the church (not an organization of men) and that the body of Christ is the individual members.

If you understand the context and culture in which the church first formed, you would understand just how ludicrous your statement is. In that day it had few friends, especially in high places, and thus its members had to hang together, literally for dear life (which is why they referred to each other as "brothers" -- probably more than a few had literally lost their families for the sake of the Gospel).

"There is one body (i.e., "church") and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all...It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ (i.e., "church") may be built up..."--Ephesians 4:4-12

This is both wrong and very, VERY dangerous.

You dare deny the very Word of God? Or doesn't this apply to your ideology?

They may be any denomination or even totally unchurched. They may not even know the name of Christ as we know it, but have accepted the leading of the Holy Spirit and let it transform their lives.

I've already mentioned that I willingly and readily fellowship across denominational and theological lines and know many people that do the same. Are they any less believers because they attend a different assembly? Of course not. So your statement is utter nonsense.

And besides that, "personal salvation" was never God's goal -- He alway intended to separate a people for Himself through which He can bless the whole world ("For God so loved..."). That was his purpose with ancient Israel, and that's what the church represents today.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 5, 2008 12:37 PM

And besides that, "personal salvation" was never God's goal -- He alway intended to separate a people for Himself through which He can bless the whole world ("For God so loved..."). That was his purpose with ancient Israel, and that's what the church represents today.

How can you be saved, without it being personal?

It isn't possible. Either you accept, or you don't. Nothing external to you and God matters in this regard.

Everything else is an argument about what is meant by "church".

The problem lies in that people like you insist there is a "corporate" obligation to God to be a political liberal and hold various social and philosophical tenets.

You can' straddle this... Nor can anyone who believes in the "church sponsored salvation".

The church, as defined by Christ, IS EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES. NO MAN KNOWS WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE. I have witnessed devout ministers of the Gospel turn against God and become bitter antagonists. I have witnessed retired ministers who confess they didn't really believe or understand until after they had a life career in ministry.

I asked who decides what these "obligations" are, and nobody can. Instead I get some sort of vague drivel about "caring for the poor". And being told that disagreeing with Rick Nowlin about the best way to do that is the road to Hell.

Since when did YOU become God?

The fact is, you're attempting to justify your political beliefs using your religion. Which is fine. My political beliefs are also guided by my religion. And we disagree.

I can accept that you are sincere. You cannot accept that I am... because I disagree with you on political and economic issues. Our motivation to help comes from a Divine inspiration. How that's done does not. I cannot imagine God wanting us to filter our money through the government. Rather, He commands us to be personal in our charity, not for the sake of the recipient, but for OUR OWN.

Perhaps you've been reading this part of the Bible too long:

Hesitations 5:9 "He who suffers another to err in matters of politics and economics will find his soul doomed."

Both are human creations, and arguments about them are human, not Divine. Heaven knows neither, and God's not taking sides. He just gave us a mind to figure out how to get stuff done.

Posted by: mark | February 5, 2008 12:57 PM

This is both wrong and very, VERY dangerous.

You dare deny the very Word of God? Or doesn't this apply to your ideology?

The inserted commentary is the problem, here, Rick. THat is what's dangerous.

I have no problem accepting the Bible here. I, too believe there is one spiritual body of Christ. It is those who have accepted Salvation.

Period. No organization on earth encompasses that. No organization on earth is ONLY that.

There are people in churches who are part of spiritual body of Christ, as the metaphor goes. There are people NOT in churches who are, as well. There are people in churches who are NOT.

Thus my disagreement with Don. How could a "church" be required, if that church is defined those who accept salvation? I do NOT know who those people are. I don't know whey are NOT, either. I can't judge that part of the soul, I have no means of doing so.

I suspect that Don much more means that a specific Church organization, with specific doctrines, is required. But church organizations are creations of man - except Don seems to think that ONE is divine, the rest are fakes. ALL are creations of men.

The only "church" creatd by God, is made of all who accept salvation, and no organization on earth is all of them, or only them.

Posted by: mark | February 5, 2008 1:18 PM

How encouraging to find that a "classic" political liberal and a "classic" political conservative can find common theological ground.

Well, many of my "liberal" political tendencies come from my "conservative" theology.

The inserted commentary is the problem, here, Rick. THat is what's dangerous.

It's accurate.

Thus my disagreement with Don. How could a "church" be required, if that church is defined those who accept salvation? I do NOT know who those people are. I don't know whey are NOT, either. I can't judge that part of the soul, I have no means of doing so.

Oh, there certainly are marks of salvation, the clearest one being "Do you love the brethren?", where you can judge whether people are truly saved. That also is in the Scripture, especially in John's epistles, and James also says, essentially, "If you're saved but have no works, your salvation should be questioned."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 5, 2008 2:05 PM

Oh, there certainly are marks of salvation, the clearest one being "Do you love the brethren?", where you can judge whether people are truly saved.

Judging whether people are saved or not is a sin.

In the words of Christ:

Matthew 7 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

Luke 6 37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

James 4
11Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

I think this is pretty clear. I am not to judge another's character or salvation. I am not fit. Man looks on the outward appearances, says the Bible, but God looks on the heart.

Posted by: mark | February 5, 2008 2:48 PM

My last statement should have read:

...James also says, essentially, "If you say you're saved but have no works, your salvation should be questioned."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 5, 2008 2:59 PM

And I reject the notion that ANYTHING but acceptance of Christ's sacrafice is needed for salvation.

Define "salvation."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 5, 2008 3:08 PM

Define "salvation."

God's gift of eternal life with Him after the abolition of evil.

Posted by: mark | February 5, 2008 3:10 PM

By you. The person in question. If your claimed faith doesn't change your behavior, then examine your faith.

No, not by just me but by all of us, because what you do may affect me and vice versa. Remember, I'm not saying that; the Scripture is. (And in fact, if I'm doing something that I shouldn't be fellow believers have the right and responsibility to take me to task.)

God's gift of eternal life with Him after the abolition of evil.

There's more. What else? And just what does that mean?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 5, 2008 3:36 PM

God's gift of eternal life with Him after the abolition of evil.

What does that mean?

If you are referring to the power of sin to affect our eternal standing before God I agree w/ you. Salvation can be corporate. Ask Zacheus about that one.

There are many meanings of salvation.

Salvation doesn't include or should not be about getting into heaven if that's what salvation is then we are worshipping an eternal place over the God that made it.

p

Posted by: payshun | February 5, 2008 9:07 PM