Mr Wallis I believe your heart was in the right place , but perhaps discernment is one of the gifts you need those in your organization helping you with . Your gift appears to me is the gift of mercy . George Bush is a good man I believe , but he has not the gift of discernment or mercy .

Posted by: Nathan | July 1, 2008 6:53 PM

There might be a way to combine the resources of the state with the life-changing insights of Christianity, to the tremendous benefit of the less fortunate in our society, but I strongly doubt that this will get the job done.

That assumes one thing: That lots of people will be "saved" by their efforts, which I don't anticipate. When Bush first came up with the idea of "compassionate conservatism," the idea basically had political motives -- to shut up black pastors (like Jeremiah Wright) who were critical of conservative policies, which is why my own church, which does a lot of that type of inner-city ministry, showed no interest. Besides, diaconal ministry by itself doesn't change the actual poverty rate, since no more resources are coming into at-risk neighborhoods than before. And that's the real problem -- lack of resources.

Posted by: Rick | July 1, 2008 7:45 PM

"...and the eventual politicizing of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives office along partisan lines."

What Jim fails to realize in his arrogance and self-congratulatory haughtiness is that he and his progressive crowd are just as guilty of politicizing everything. How hypocritical! Instead of trying to work with conservatives and moderates, they complain and whine about people sticking to their beliefs. The result? Nothing of value gets done and they accuse conservatives of initiating and maintaining stalemate.

What's even more alarming is that these progressive Christians accuse Republicans and conservatives of mixing government and religion. The funny thing is, Obama, Wallis and McLaren are all much worse than anything that conservatives have tried to do.

I don't always agree with Patrick Buchanan (he can be quite extreme), but I think he has some interesting words in regards to Obama's (and by association, Wallis'):

"""Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," said Obama.

"Even ... if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States ... whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's or with Al Sharpton's?"

Barack was saying that, since Christians disagree deeply over what is biblical truth, why fight? Let us "try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than have religion divide us."

In Catholicism, this is the heresy of indifferentism, which holds that one religion is just as good as another and all religions can be a path to salvation. The Pew poll out last week reveals that 82 percent of Protestants believe there are multiple paths to salvation, as do 79 percent of Catholics and 57 percent of evangelicals.

A striking development. For did not Christ say, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"?

Dr. Dobson is having none of it. Tuesday, he accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology."

(H)e is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," said Dobson. "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the life of tiny babies?"

"What he (Obama) is saying here is that unless everyone agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Dobson has no small point. For in his litany of moral heroes, Barack himself selected no "can't-we-all-just-get-along?" Christians.

Indeed, Obama celebrates the Underground Railroad and the abolitionists who, to end slavery, took us over the brink into Civil War. He invokes the defiant marchers of Selma Bridge and Dr. King, who chose confrontation and tore the nation asunder rather than see segregation endure.

Obama, however, is now preaching a kumbaya Christianity where leaders who believe abortion is the killing of the innocent unborn are to set their convictions and cause aside in the name of ecumenical amity.

It is Dobson who, in his intolerance of perceived evil, seems in the tradition of the abolitionists, and Barack who appears more like the milquetoast believers of whom Christ said he would spit them out of his mouth because they were neither hot nor cold and whom Dante consigned to the deepest reaches of hell.

Does social peace require the toleration of manifest evil?

In the Roman Empire before Constantine, Christians accepted martyrdom rather than burn incense to Caesar. Thomas More went to his death rather than assent to the divorce of Henry VIII, declaring, "I am the king's good servant, but God's first.""

Posted by: Armed2Win | July 1, 2008 10:13 PM

James M.

As educated and sophisticated as I like to pretend to be, deep down inside me there is a little evangelical nutcase who thinks that Christianity isn't just nice, but that it is also true.

And I don't mean some watered down purely social gospel, I mean the Christianity of the Red Letters and the Black Letters, the one that was summed up in the Nicene Creed. The Christianity of Saint Paul and Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer and C.S. Lewis, the one where Jesus is killed for our sins and resurrected, not as some kind of political statment, but because he is God.

And I want churches, in the midst of all the charitable work that they do, to say so without apology, and to have the freedom to say so, gently or bluntly, as they see fit.

Do churches need to do "dogmatic instruction" as part of charitable work? Maybe, maybe not. It probably depends a lot on the individual they are working with. But that's for churches to figure out, not the federal government.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | July 1, 2008 10:16 PM

"Under Obama's plan, faith-based charities that participate will not be allowed to prosyletize, and they may be forced to hire people who do not share their religious beliefs."

I and my family give to many different charities, most which participate in alleviating poverty. But before we give one dime, we make sure it's a charity that "shares the Gospel". Otherwise, what good is it to lift a person out of poverty, only to see them end up in Hell? The Muslims, Mormons, and other non-Christian religions also have charities -- but what good are they to the Kingdom of God?

The big question is WHY does Obama's plan have these restrictions? What does he have against sharing the Gospel? This alone makes Bush's plan infinitely superior.

Posted by: Al N | July 1, 2008 10:52 PM

I need to reiterate what Quetzal said. Jesus rarely proselytized (the woman at the well being one notable exception and even then it was not like he was completely clear on the subject.) He just healed and fed people. I think evangelicals miss the point when they restrict proselytizing to merely words. Feeding a man or building a house show the kingdom and prove the gospel just as clearly as saying repent the kingdom is at hand.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 1, 2008 11:36 PM

We live in a Nation that approves and endorses Separation of the Church and the State. It is right for the State to require that the Church not use Federal money to build congregations or to promote ideologies. I'm sure that these righteous Christians would being an uproar if Federal money was used to build Mosques or Moran temples. Yet they seem to think it is their God given right to use the to use money to promote Christ.

If I recall, the Apostles did not use Roman tax money to promote the Faith and the Way. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's and to give to God what is God's. If you want Federal money to promote your help programs, then abide with the law.

One reason Bush's plans went nowhere was because the Faith based groups wanted their cake and wanted to eat it to.

Obama's plan will work with those who will stay in the guidelines. If the Religious Right can't work with it, they just don't have to take the money.

Posted by: Paul Shrias | July 2, 2008 12:03 AM

"Why should they need to do that? "

Jesus felt compelled to do so.

Obama's initiative is fine. If he fails to follow through on his promise, will Sojourners devote the hundreds of blog posts to criticizing his lack of effort, even if Republican congressman are partly to blame?

Posted by: kevin s. | July 2, 2008 12:15 AM

What Jim fails to realize in his arrogance and self-congratulatory haughtiness is that he and his progressive crowd are just as guilty of politicizing everything. How hypocritical! Instead of trying to work with conservatives and moderates, they complain and whine about people sticking to their beliefs. The result? Nothing of value gets done and they accuse conservatives of initiating and maintaining stalemate.

Nothing could be further from the truth. For openers, the conservatives had added to the gospel of reconciliation, thus perverting it. Furthermore, they set themselves up as the only true agents of God and don't let anyone else in -- go to a number of evangelical websites and publications and you won't see anything but the "received" doctrine. Sorry, but it's not folks like Wallis that need to reach out.

Obama celebrates the Underground Railroad and the abolitionists who, to end slavery, took us over the brink into Civil War. He invokes the defiant marchers of Selma Bridge and Dr. King, who chose confrontation and tore the nation asunder rather than see segregation endure.

That was different -- what the Underground Railroad and King were about was justice for all people ultimately. And do you know what's sad? Dobson probably would have opposed, or at the very least, ignored them!

And I want churches, in the midst of all the charitable work that they do, to say so without apology, and to have the freedom to say so, gently or bluntly, as they see fit.

My church actually does this now. But it won't regard "liberals," gays and abortionists as special classes of sinners. It long ago resigned from the "culture wars" to concentrate on ministry, and it has no interest in political power to pump itself up.

Posted by: Rick | July 2, 2008 12:56 AM

Folks, there is about to be need in this nation on a level unheard of since the Great Depression.

We will be compelled to do whatever it takes to meet the needs of one another because the scale is going to be absolutely daunting.

This will be no academic exercise that can afford arguments about ideological purity.

I hope you're ready.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 2, 2008 1:02 AM

"And I want churches, in the midst of all the charitable work that they do, to say so without apology, and to have the freedom to say so, gently or bluntly, as they see fit."

Fine, just don't use our tax dollars to do so. Furthermore, Christianity is in a sad state when Christians feel compelled to use their charitable works to indoctrinate others.

Posted by: JamesM | July 2, 2008 6:13 AM

So many people talk about charities proselytizing, and Obama's plan to ban that with public money.

The thing that they need to realize is that it's ALREADY banned. Obama is just reiterating current policy. Bush said the same thing in 2005. And even before the current Bush, charities were under that restriction.

There are always going to be charities that preach anyways, and I can think of a few denominations where that happens off the top of my head. But I'd choose those that preach and do a good job over haphazard charities any day.

Posted by: Matthew Streib | July 2, 2008 8:12 AM

""Jesus rarely evangelized?""

You changed the term that they used above. Evangelize means "to present the good news" (Grk eu "good", angelizo "to give a message"). Of course, there was hardly a time that he wasn't giving good news.

Proselytize means "To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith." This really isn't a category that can apply to Jesus at all when you consider that his primary audience was already Jewish and therefore already a member of his faith and in his interactions with gentiles, he wasn't necessarily trying to convince them to become Jewish.

And yes, Obama's plan does continue current restrictions on proselytization. My wife works with a faith-based initiative program, so I have first hand knowledge of this. Yes, as some others have pointed out, some Christian groups prefer not to accept faith based funds because it has implications for proselytization. But that isn't really any different from a church choosing not to accept tax-free status because the want to retain their right to speak politically. In both cases, the group will have to look at the calling they've received from God and ask themselves which way will allow them best to achieve it. We should remember that just because a faith-based program exists, a socially active Christian group does not HAVE to accept funds from it. There's enough more than enough charitable work to go around, so it isn't like groups that don't accept funds will somehow be squeezed out of the service.

Posted by: V | July 2, 2008 9:24 AM

My dear Al Anon,

So you are saying that McCain IS someone we can trust? After he flip-flopped on some pretty important things such as the Bush tax cuts? Yes, America really wants four or eight more years of bumbling Bush...

Posted by: I and I | July 2, 2008 9:56 AM

Al N:

Why not stick to the topic here and save your Obama bashing for a more appropriate venue--somewhere away from God's Politics?

Don Hussein

Posted by: Don | July 2, 2008 10:11 AM

Jesus rarely evangelized? How did he end up with all those people following him (on a few ocassions we're talking thousands of people) and then in John when the teaching was too hard (John 8) they all left.

Heck, He didn't have to evangelize -- He represented a breath of fresh air compared to the oppressive system taught and practiced by the religious establishment of that day. Besides, His teachings were backed up with signs, including healings and other miracles.

You couldn't under Bush's program either - but that is not what Wellstone - Teddy Kennedy and Mondale told us.

You should know, however, that it was the original intent of "compassionate conservatism" -- preach Jesus and hopefully get people saved and discipled out of a life of crime and drugs so that we would never have to worry about them again. In fact, Marvin Olasky (World magazine editor who popularized the phrase in the first place and a Bush advisor when he was governor of Texas) came out against Bush's program precisely because it didn't allow evangelism; he wanted only churches -- no synagogues, mosques or secular agencies -- to get that cash. Furthermore, one of its unstated goals was to convert or at least shut up black pastors, among the harshest critics of conservative ideology.

Posted by: Rick | July 2, 2008 10:45 AM

tim: "Moreover, Jesus was trying to convince others to worship Him as God"

Tim, can you cite Scripture in support of this? I'm just curious--no desire to debate the "proselytize" vs. "euangelion" issue, though I must confess I never thought they meant the same thing. So often on God's Politics we argue over words that hold different meanings for different people. People end up talking past one another.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: carl copas | July 2, 2008 11:22 AM

How did he end up killed by the support of the people if he was such a breath of fresh air and performed so many miracles?

Remember a couple of things: For openers, the people believed that the "Messiah" would overthrow Rome and restore Israel; when that wasn't coming they turned against Him. Also, the religious leaders were in cahoots with the Roman government and felt that getting rid of him would quell any rebellion. (We know how that turned out ... )

Posted by: Rick | July 2, 2008 11:38 AM

Hi Carl: I was hoping for your historian's input on the "Gundamentalism" post.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | July 2, 2008 11:55 AM

"Furthermore, one of its unstated goals was to convert or at least shut up black pastors, among the harshest critics of conservative ideology."
--What's beautiful about any sentence starting with the words "one of its unstated goals was..." is that the speaker can follow it with any words he wants, and it's impossible for anyone to disprove him. It's similar to the "idolatry" charge Wolverine mentioned and many of the other charges often thrown out here.

And if we try to deny it, then you can site some quote by the Promise Keepers founder which somehow settles the debate.

It's great having thoughtful conversations like that...very persuasive.

Posted by: jesse | July 2, 2008 12:21 PM

Jesse:

Since we don't know what judges Obama might appoint, and since we never know how any judges will rule after they are appointed, your question is at best highly speculative and at worst disingenuous.

D

Posted by: Don | July 2, 2008 12:32 PM

Um, Hillsdale College is hardly a model for Christian faithfulness. It may have wanted independence, but a lot of that was just a general pattern of removing any possibility of outside scrutiny and responsible governance.

Hillsdale was (is?) the darling of a certain portion of the financially conservative movement, but it is not for moral values, to say the least.

The top officials of the college were involved in all sorts of chicanery from adultery to financial misappropriation and nepotism and it ended in disgrace and suicide.

I do not believe any argument that government partnering with charity to deliver services it is mandated to but just can't, as a matter of pragmatism, is inherently bad, when there is really no difference between unaccountable government and unaccountable private charities or businesses.

The key is transparency, rather than ideological arguments that assume all government programs (except those for war and prisons) are bad, while somehow just making something private makes the individuals involved lose their all too human propensity for greed and power.

Government isn't necessarily a dirty word - if it's accountable.

Private institutions aren't necessarily open, honest and efficient, unless they too are accountable. Like Hillsdale College in the past, too many have not been accountable and have squandered their endowments and served poorly.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | July 2, 2008 1:01 PM

What's beautiful about any sentence starting with the words "one of its unstated goals was..." is that the speaker can follow it with any words he wants, and it's impossible for anyone to disprove him.

This website actually ran a cartoon series a few years ago depicting the very thing I was talking about! I have also heard anecdotal evidence that it was happening, and the pastor of my church turned down available funding for similar reasons. If you understood the history of the conservative movement, you'd know that it got much of its strength from opposing civil rights for African-Americans -- and guess where the movement started? In the black church! And considering that the conservative movement has always sought to silence its loudest critics, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the strategy. My comments stand.

Posted by: Rick | July 2, 2008 1:03 PM

Tim:
"Your understanding does not reflect the Biblical account of things. "

Me:
I could say the same thing about you. I wish to God you knew what you were talking about. Have you read John 17 and 18? The fulfillment of Judaism was first and foremost union with God and union with mankind. Love God with all you heart, mind body and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.
That is the whole of the law and the prophets.

Jesus goal was first and foremost to lead people into relationship with the Father. He himself said that the Father was the only Good one. He himself said that his goal was to call people into relationship with the Father. The worship and adoration he received while walking on the earth were gifts from his father. He and the Father are one but his goal while on Earth was to bring the Father glory by revealing him to mankind and uniting them back to him.

His role and focus on the Father remained the same but then he also was one in total spirit with the Father with no more sinful flesh to hold him back. So please read your bible more and stop listening to only evangelical accounts of things. There are 3 other branches of Christianity that you can learn from namely Orthodox, Catholic and Coptic sources that go into much better and developed theology than what you are using.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 2, 2008 1:26 PM

"Just by loving someone, serving someone, and being kind says nothing of communicating the Gospel message." Tim

Henri Nouwen would have told you you're full of hot air.

Posted by: canucklehead | July 2, 2008 1:38 PM

Any large donor to any entity ends up influencing that entity, because of something that donors are fond of, called accountability.

Otherwise, there's the fear that funds will be misappropriated to pay for other than what they were intended.

In regards to charity, a reasonable best-case enforcement of accountability would be that the funds be used for what they are intended.

If they are to be used to feed the poor, for instance, it wouldn't be appropriate to spend them on luxury (or non-luxury) vehicles for pastors, nor to buy new hymnals for the sanctuary or for stain glass windows.

How this plays out will be determined by good-faith efforts on both sides.

If regulators' purpose is not to feed the poor (or any other worthwhile charitable purpose) but to entrap faith-based charities into being hostilely targeted for destruction, then that's one thing.

On the other hand, if the purpose of a charity is to pretend to do certain non-religious services in order to scam funds for another purpose, no matter how worthy, then that's not going to be right, either.

I'm no true believer in government solving all that ails us.

But I have worked for various Christian ministries and nonreligious United Way charities and I can tell you that not all I saw was what I consider ethical, to say the least.

Oversight and transparency are not bad things.

It would be wrong to make transfers of taxpayer funds and then ignore what happened to them, just because some might want to argue accountability would compromise the sectarian interests of that charity.

I don't think a case can be made, either, that government ought to finance religious proselytization, given that the monies are exacted from a general population made up of many different beliefs - unless a way can be found to make such available to those of any religion or none.

All that being said, reasonable and caring people must find a middle ground of compromise so that we can synergize and leverage our societal resources to help in the economic tsunami that is coming.

The Lord isn't going to ne asking us about abstract ideological purity, but what we actually did to help Him - "the lest of these" - of whom there are soon to be so many more.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 2, 2008 1:58 PM

Posted by: Don | July 2, 2008 10:11 AM

"Al N:

Why not stick to the topic here and save your Obama bashing for a more appropriate venue--somewhere away from God's Politics?

Don Hussein"

I'm with you. As long as Obama's middle name continues to be an issue (as it clearly is for our friend Al), my middle name is Hussein too.

Posted by: Another Hussein nonymous | July 2, 2008 2:09 PM

What happened to separation of church and state ... one of the basic pillars of our founding fathers ... one of the basic principals which separates us from the theocracies which are providing the intolerance that's threatening peace in the world. Using faith and religion in a political race is just a way of preaching platitudes, while ignoring reasonable responses to real issues ... a favorite red herring used by Barrack Obama ... and, it sounds like a cheap attempt at pandering to religious Americans in order to get their votes in November.

Posted by: Lee | July 2, 2008 3:07 PM

""This distinction isn't particularly compelling. Jesus said he would die and rise from the dead, and certainly wanted people to believe it. That such belief only later became known as Christianity is immaterial to the question of whether Jesus proselytized.""

I'm not sure I follow your logic. The word "proselytization" has a particular meaning that limits its application to particular contexts. To apply it to the life of Jesus is to ignore the historical in which Jesus lived and the social context in which he taught, both of which are necessary to understanding what the original author(s) or speaker (in this case, Jesus) meant. So such a distinction is very much material to the question of whether Jesus proselytized.

Let's make it clear that we are using proselytization in a very clear and precise sense. No one is disputing whether Jesus intended or attempted to persuade people of particular beliefs. We are only disputing whether the particular kind of persuasion in its historical and social context may rightly be called "proselytization."

Posted by: V | July 2, 2008 3:19 PM

Jesus' own divinity was not his primary focus.
John 7:16
16So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.

17"If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

18"He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.

19"Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?"

His goal was always exaltation of the Father above his own.

Kevin said:
"He is then accused of having an evil spirit, a claim he denies in his famous "house divided" oratory, the upshot of which is to declare himself God."

John:
Which has nothing to do what he said in John or the fact that Jesus himself said they only followed him because he fed them. The disciples and others followed him across the sea of Galilee. Then Jesus says:
Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.
John 7:26

Not only that but we are focusing on a very specific set of miracles. We were talking about the feeding.

"The idea that Jesus was unconcerned with the question of his own deity is not supported by scripture at all."

No where in my post did I say that he was. So I don't know why you are bringing this up.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 2, 2008 3:54 PM

If I have to listen to religious indoctrination before I can get a sandbag on my levee, just what is the point?

If I have to hear about Mohammed or Buddha as the price for the sandbag help, or for emergency provisions, I might agree just out of necessity, not assent.

I would be more congenial to any religious or spiritual impetus behind the help if it wasn't done quid-pro-quo.

That doesn't mean that the helping organisation has to remain anonymous or its spiritual or religious affiliations redacted.

Some kind of "help," if done only for utilitarian purposes of recruitment to the helping group, comes off as awfully manipulative.

In fact, people recognise this and therefore missionary efforts often fail.

How often do we see even foreign aid as really not for the benefit of the helped, but to enable them to buy products from our own financial interests?

Where is the selfless love that is transforming, versus the good deeds that are done "to be seen by men" with the only purpose to proselytise?

Of course, on the grounds of free expression, no individual should be barred from speaking his or her own mind to others as to what they are there for personally.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 2, 2008 4:00 PM

Interview w/ Obama yesterday by Relevant Magazine Editor Cameron Stange.

Strang: Your plan specifically prohibits discriminatory hiring policies based on religion. Do you think faith-based organizations that would want to join this program would bristle at the limitation that they can’t hire a staff that reflects their organization’s values?

Obama: I think it’s important to distinguish between people who are hired as part of a church to carry out that church’s mission or ministries, or administer the church. There’s always a religious exemption there from Title VII. It’s important for us to make sure that a Christian church can hire Christians or a Jewish church can hire people of the Jewish faith. That’s different from programs that are specifically funded by the federal government and offered to the public.

I’m going to have my Council on Faith-Based Partnerships review all our policies, review relevant law and regulations, executive orders and court cases. But the simple principle is that we should not discriminate against faith-based organizations in being able to carry out terrific programs [funded] by the federal government, but we want to make sure that those programs are run in a nondiscriminatory manner.

And that’s not going to encroach on the ability of those faith-based organizations to do what they need to do when it comes to their core religious mission. They are going to be able to hire and carry out those functions of a church, or synagogue, mosque or temple, but they can also participate in federal programs as long as those are done in a way that is not encroaching on a separation of church and state, is open to the public and is not involved in proselytizing.

Strang: Not being able to proselytize through a program that receives funding—how would that be enforced?

Obama: You know, the truth of the matter is, a lot of faith-based organizations currently are doing a great job on this issue, and they recognize that when they are administering federal funds, their priority has to be to provide high-quality services and they are not interested in discriminating or proselytizing. Obviously, there may be some who try to use these funds in inappropriate ways, but I think that’s the tiny minority of those who really just want to serve their communities and do the right thing.

Complete Q+A Here

Posted by: Russell Hawkins | July 2, 2008 4:06 PM

"However, he might be sincerely wrong in his beliefs, which is why others said he was speculating."

There is a difference between being wrong and being disingenuous. I don't understand how speculating can be off limits with regard to an election. Isn't it all speculation? John McCain might govern as a byzantine socialist. It is unlikely, but it is speculation to say whether he will or won't.

"So such a distinction is very much material to the question of whether Jesus proselytized."

Not in this context. Say Jane starts a religion. One of the fundamental tenets of this religion is that Jane is God. As luck would have it, 20,000 people choose Janism as a religion. Jane heads to DC to secure some funds to dispense dolls to orphans.

If she is successful in securing said funds, she will be forbidden from making any mention of herself as God during any federally funded doll passing sessions. Similarly, Janism adherents will be forbidden to express their worship of all things Jane.

Now replace Jane with Jesus, and explain, biblically, how Jesus would support a program established in his name that was not allowed to give him glory. Find me scripture that supports that idea.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 2, 2008 4:35 PM

"This website actually ran a cartoon series a few years ago depicting the very thing I was talking about!"
--I have no doubt that you and Sojo agree on many things, and appeals to authority don't prove anything.

A couple of you dismissed my "speculations" about the types of judges Obama would appoint. But, as Kevin pointed out, Obama has already told us what kind of judges he wants to appoint. He has said Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter would be models for his nominees, and as Kevin also pointed out, all three dissented in the Hein v. FFRF decision. All three said govt funds could not be used for faith-based charities.

My main point still stands: Obama gives public support to policies he would undermine through his judicial appointments. Who's being disingenuous?

Posted by: jesse | July 2, 2008 5:06 PM

"Why not stick to the topic here and save your Obama bashing for a more appropriate venue--somewhere away from God's Politics?"

>> I am on topic! Wallis posted this latest thing that Obama is proposing, and I've simply asked: WHY can we trust ANYTHING that he is promising? He's a repeated promise-breaker.

Don, you're getting a little bit touchy! I haven't said Barack H Obama's blessed middle name for quite a while now! But now you have!

And I-and-I: Yes, I do trust McCain to keep his word. Unlike Obama, he doesn't have a record of breaking his pledges. He never opposed the Bush tax cuts, but voted against them as a protest that they didn't include enough spending cuts. Now he says that allowing those tax cuts to expire would be a severe TAX INCREASE, which he correctly says is something that would devastate our economy. THAT is not the same as breaking your pledge -- as Obama has done repeatedly.

Posted by: Al N | July 2, 2008 5:27 PM

Sorry, Al N, but most of us here aren't so enlightened as to see all these broken promises by Obama. But it must be true that he's a promise-breaker. After all, you said so.

By the way, is the "H" so that the rest of us know exactly which Barack Obama you refer to? Some of us were confused because we thought the conversation was perhaps about Barack S. Obama, some plumber from Pittsburgh.

Posted by: Paul | July 2, 2008 5:49 PM

Yes, and getting a personal invitation, as opposed to seeing a sign on a wall, would have no effect on the likelihood that recipients would actually attend.

I don't think it would.

As far as faith-based organizations being better, you seem to believe that they aren't, at least not any more. Okay, your theory is entirely possible. Which brings us back to my question: why are we bothering with a faith-based initiative then?

Originally, as I said earlier, it started out as an veiled attempt to indoctrinate poorer communities with conservative ideology. But with such considerations now basically out the window we might get some real ministry going (remember that Obama started his career as a community organizer and thus would understand first-hand the part that churches might play).

Posted by: Rick | July 2, 2008 6:12 PM

"why are we bothering with a faith-based initiative then?"

"But with such considerations now basically out the window we might get some real ministry going"

I guess it all depends on your definition of "ministry". If "ministry" must entail indoctrination and having the recipients say the sinner's prayer, then the faith-based initiatives which prohibit such activities would be of little interest. If, on the other hand, you want to provide assistance (no strings attached), which I believe is the way to go, you would have no problem with faith-based initiatives as proposed.

In my experience, the problem is that many churches do not consider it a success unless they win others over to their way of thinking. Their aid is anything but disinterested.

Posted by: JamesM | July 2, 2008 7:03 PM

Posted by: Rick | July 2, 2008 10:45 AM

So one person was against Bush's Faith Based In. because it was not limited to 'Christian churches' - big deal. The reason it is Faith Based and not Christian Faith Based is for that very reason. When I think about all the people that we could have helped over the past 7+ years if it wasn't for the Dem Machine in my community. But that does not matter to the Mondales and their type of the this world. Just make sure that there is no success on the other side of the isle is the bottom line for them.

I will pray the if BHO gets the White House that his plan works and that those who try to make it happen will experience success. I will stay out of their way so I don't become them.

Furthermore, one of its unstated goals was to convert or at least shut up black pastors, among the harshest critics of conservative ideology.

BULL! If that was in writing or even mentioned it would have been blasted out in a heart beat. Most of the people that need help reside in communities that have a lot of black congregations. So - BULL!

Blessings
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 2, 2008 7:09 PM

Barack Obama simply expressed his agreement with dumping the poor off on church steps. What would faith-based programs be able to offer to those who need a comprehensive program of standard social services? The majority of people who experience poverty need only short-term assistance. Before welfare "reform", 80% of recipients voluntarily quit aid in under five years. Will faith based groups have the trained staff (psychiatric social workers, etc.) and resources to work with the remaining 20%, many of whom require long-term medical/psychiatric treatment? Is there a standard set of rules (and protections) and requirements from one faith-based group to the next?

Faith based groups can't reach the poor, and the poor can't reach the groups. This contrasts to
a centralized social services agency in every county. The urban poor tend to be concentrated; how will faith-based groups locate the rural poor? Many have no transportation. It's also important to note that distrust of the church has grown considerably among the poor in recent years.

I don't think Obama meant much of anything at all. He merely recited a worn-out talking point, giving the illusion that we are helping the poor and/or getting tough on the powerless, still regarding the poor as "something less" than us. Catch his ad in which he congratulates himself for his role in "reducing welfare roles by 80%", misleading the public to assume that the poor actually were "moved from welfare to work". It doesn't work that way. There is (A) a strict time limit, and (B) since there's no longer an entitlement to aid, aid can be denied or cut off at any time, for any reason. Only a fraction of those who need employment assistance actually receive it. Those who are cut off or reach the time limit are simply removed from the welfare rolls. (Government initially tracked the results of those who were denied aid, then abruptly decided against doing any follow-up to see what became of these people.)

I can understand faith-based groups being eager for the funding, but I don't believe it is realistic to expect much of anything from them.

Posted by: DHFabian | July 2, 2008 7:37 PM

I too hope both candidates commit with action and $$ to a vision for faith-based initiatives, but I'm cynical that it will really happen.

It seems that power that great dilutes the soul to such a degree that one forgets the reasons why they entered into public service; or actually reveals the TRUE reasons they became politicians. Where are the American heroes in politics? Moreover, why doesn't the public DEMAND and support them? This isn't a monarchy!!!!!!!

Posted by: Joel | July 2, 2008 8:21 PM

What you say speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say.

Chrit's command is to love one another - no restrictions.

Posted by: Pastor Oliver | July 2, 2008 8:27 PM

"Perhaps you would rather that Obama not involve religious groups and that he just stay in the old Democrat mode of big governement?"

I think I speak for Wolverine when I say we'd rather Obama not be involved at all.

"I don't think it would."

That's cause you're a Calvinist.

" I would do the same if someone came here voicing personal attacks against McCain."

I'll hold you to it, my man.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 2, 2008 9:11 PM

Ah Henry Morgentaler - the man who even his supporters regarded as a cynical opportunist and profiteer, who became a millionaire establishing a franchise free-standing abortion clinics across Canada, at the time the only non-government-run private medical facilities that the government paid for, while all other similar medical procedures were limited to public facilities.

Amazing how he is still alive, all these many decades later after his staged sympathy "heart attacks" when he was arrested for running his string of abortion clinics.

Folks like the late June Caldwell, feminist abortion rights supporter, didn't have much good to say about his character privately, but found his zeal for profit in pursuit of abortion a useful vehicle to propel abortion rights and completely suppress those of anti-abortion protesters.

Posted by: Morty Shulman | July 2, 2008 9:13 PM

I've worked with many faith-based organizations overseas using US Government funds and the same guidelines - no preaching and no exculsion. It works well. Often the goverment funds are for specific, material items and the FBOrg. provides the matching funds in the form of labor, priests and nuns, pastors and lay workers. They do not hire with the government funds and they practicied their good works by reaching out to any and all in need. As one of the commenters said, "some wanted their cake and eat it too." I think that the program would have gone farther if 1) there had been more promotion of the program with training - it was new for some groups; and 2) more funding had been available.

When we do grant programs overseas there usually is a program of "civil society training" or "organizational strengthening" so that the organizations know the rules; can do accounting; will provide reports; know how to do participatory identification of needs, etc. etc. see the draft report on 20 years of civil society practice overseas at: http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACQ156.pdf

In there we describe the whole contextual support needed for this sort of government to community organization program. Willis alluded to this needed support in his article.

Posted by: Kris Merschrod | July 2, 2008 9:38 PM

"As one of the commenters said, "some wanted their cake and eat it too."

Of course, some find the cake to be bland and inedible.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 3, 2008 1:32 AM

"Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of ministries might operate somewhere between those two extremes?...I'll bet even an ACLU attorney could sit through that -- the whole thing wouldn't take more than 30 seconds -- without suffering any permanent injuries...I mean, seriously, Christians mentioning their faith? Oh the humanity! Will the outrages never stop?"

I don't have a problem with Christians mentioning their faith. Your argument is a red herring. And the red herring characterization is being generous. The issue is whether taxpayer dollars should fund that endeavor.

The way you make your point, you sound like some worn out "Left Behind" DVD with a persecution complex- "Oh we poor Christians, the world is against because we love the Lord.." To borrow your own clever words: "Has it ever occurred to you"...that one reason many Christians are not positively viewed by many outsiders is not because these outsiders are drive by some "insidious" ACLU agenda, rather it is because they are perceived as being unwilling to do good, for good's sake and that they do good with strings attached?

Posted by: JamesM | July 3, 2008 5:31 AM

Neither the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus Christ nor the New Testament says that government should have government handouts and welfare for the poor. All the government is required to do is prevent oppression or exploitation of the poor. That includes oppression of the poor by all the evil gangs and drug dealers in the inner cities, which Obama and all the Democrat mayors have failed to do for 30 years or more!

Thus, the faith-based programs are evil, as is our current welfare system. If Rev, Wallis and Sojourners were truly of God and truly knowledgeable of what the Bible actually says, they would be advocating the abolishment of this system, as I am doing here.

And, education is supposed to be controlled by the parents (and no one else!).

The ministry that really advocates what I am saying here is www.americanvision.org. I also prefer these other ministries: www.answers.org, www.equip.org, www.movieguide.org, and, to a lesser extent, www.frc.org.

Tom Snyder
author "Myth Conceptions" (Baker Books, 1995)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 9:37 AM

Nathan, hypothetically, what is it that constitutes a good man? For we have all fallen short of the glory of God and our hearts are all deceitful. None of us are good men. Attributing the name "good" to men who do not practice discernment and mercy is not helping the situation either. Just something to ponder.

Posted by: Bradley Hofbauer | July 3, 2008 10:12 AM

Teen Challenges across the country receive funds from the Faith Based Initiative. They are the most successful drug rehab program in the country. Prayer, study of the bible and encouraging (not forcing) addicts to have a relationship with Christ is foundational to that success.

If these practices restrict them from receiving funds under Obama's administration, so be it. The government can send that money to ineffective programs. Libs can feel great about themselves, because money is being spent on the problem (to little effect).

Teen Challenge can continue to actually help addicts and their families.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | July 3, 2008 10:44 AM

Rick wrote:

Well has it occurred to you that the Constitution and multi-faceted and may just prohibit what you're advocating regardless of your devotion and commitment to its truthfulness?

As a matter of fact, it has. That's why I have never been all that enamored with the "faith-based" initiative. But if we're going to have one, it should be done in such a way that allows religious charities to remain, you know, religious. And if they can't, they probably should not participate. A church that is willing to trade in its Christian character for government money isn't a church any more, it's an arm of the state.

Moreover has it occurred to you that there are other hardworking taxpayers who don't share your views and don't want their hard earned money spent in the way you are advocating? Or is, Wolverine, the only thing that occurs to you is your own agenda?

Now that you mention it, I do seem to vaguely recall some other folks on Sojo who had different ideas on how government money should be spent...

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | July 3, 2008 11:20 AM

It seems that we have two "Ricks" on this thread -- I did not write the last post on conversion.

Posted by: Rick | July 3, 2008 12:48 PM

"Now that you mention it, I do seem to vaguely recall some other folks on Sojo who had different ideas on how government money should be spent..."

Which has nothing to do with this discussion. Issues of how money should be spent are open issues between the respective parties. But when you are giving monies to religious organizations who want to use it for both charitable work and to preach, you have a problem with the Establishment Clause. You are either inadvertantly or deliberiately trying to confuse the two issues,while you take a gratuitous jab at SOJO.

Posted by: JamesM | July 3, 2008 1:25 PM

Under Bush's Faith Based Initiative there are strict regulations about not proselytizing with federal grant funds. Obama's program sounds similar to that of Bush's. Faith-based organizations are free to continue proselytizing, as long as those activities are not using federal funds.

Posted by: Howard | July 3, 2008 2:33 PM

Don "Hussein" said:
"I would just like to see you, and others, talk about specific policies, proposals, and campaign promises that Senator Obama has discussed rather than the personal attacks against him, his church, his pastor, etc. Feel free to disagree with his ideas as much as you want--let's have a real debate! That's what democracy is all about, after all. But give us facts that back up your disagreements. Tell us why his ideas are bad for the country, supported with facts, data, and information to back up your concerns."

All Right, the reasons are too numerous, but I'll give you a few:

1. ABORTION. We are now only one Supreme Court justice away from FINALLY overturning Roe v Wade. That evil law is hovering on the health of 88-year-old J.P. Stevens. When he either retires or dies, the next President will undoubtedly replace him. If it's Obama, does anyone doubt that he'll replace him with a solid supporter of legal abortion in all forms? After all, Obama is MORE pro-abortion than even Kerry, Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton. His opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act testifies to his extreme position. (McCain, on the other hand, has pledged to nominate justices in the pro-life "mold of Roberts and Alito").

2. NATIONAL SECURITY. Obama's promise to hold unconditional talks with evil despots like Hugo Chavez and Iran's Ahmadinejad shows that he is too inexperienced and too naive to lead the most powerful nation on earth. Say whatever you will about President Bush, but his War on Terror policies HAVE kept us safe from anymore terrorist attacks. None other than Democrat Joe Lieberman has predicted that if Obama is elected, the terrorists will "test" him very early. Is there any reason to doubt this? Is there anything in the fortitude of Barack Obama (no "H") that the terrorists should fear? The US Presidency is not an on-the-job-training position! We honestly need someone who is actually QUALIFIED for such an important position, don't we?

3. SUPPORT OF ISRAEL. As a Christian, I believe there are many Biblical commands for us to support God's people (the Jews) and the nation of Israel. There are many, many reasons why Israel would seriously doubt a President Obama's support. Reverand Wright and his ties to Louis Farrakahn are one reason, as well as Obama's close friendship with Israeli-hating Palestinian, Rashid Khalidi. Again, there's also his promise to go soft on Iran. And while I'm NOT saying Obama is a Muslim, he's got it throughout his family, so does anyone doubt that he'd be a lot softer on Muslim extremists than McCain would be?

4. ENERGY & GAS PRICES. Are you enjoying these $4 per gallon gas prices? Barack Obama is on record for saying he has no problem with them, only that he wishes they had gone up more slowly. He is a typical liberal who actually likes these high prices because it FORCES Americans to conserve and use less oil -- thus cutting down on "greenhouse gases" to address his fear of "Global Warming". (The key word is "FORCES" - liberals are into forcing things on Americans!) This is why Obama opposes any additional oil drilling (offshore, ANWR, etc.), opposes building more oil refineries, opposes more use of clean coal, and even opposes more nuclear power plants (which are safely providing over 75% of France's electricity today).

How's that for a start?

Posted by: Al N | July 3, 2008 2:49 PM

The fundamental problem here is that government did not create poverty and thus cannot be the remedy. At the risk of sounding cynical I have but one question for politicians of any stripe (party matters little any more); “I hate current American politics, and I have to pray to Jesus not to hate politicians, what do you say to someone like me?’

The answer I would hope for would not include the typical nonsense of election cycles of “the incumbent is a bum, elect me, a non-bum.” How many cycles must we live through before we understand the duplicity and fallacy behind this crap?

Politics demands but one thing – re-election. The good will of the FBCI offices will ultimately find their demise under the weight of that axiom.

Posted by: David Auterson | July 3, 2008 3:29 PM

To be succinct, while I have not heard any outright endorsement of Barak Obama from Sojourner's or Mr. Wallis, it is beginning to feel like an assumption - an elephant that can't be mentioned. While I personally and vocally support Obama over McCain, I would like to encourage Mr. Wallis and Sojourners to not forget what happened to the well-meaning Moral Majority in the 80s. We, too, are not exempt if we choose to flirt with the state. The power or expected influence is too attractive. We will become bed fellows at ours and the church's expense.

Posted by: David B. Gladson | July 3, 2008 3:37 PM

BTW, I saw John Paul Stevens interviewed recently. The interviewer mentioned that when he was appointed to the court he was known as a moderate conservative. Stevens said he still is one; the rest of the court has just moved so far to the right that he now looks like a liberal. I find that frightening.

Posted by: Another Hussein nonymous | July 3, 2008 3:46 PM

To correct a comment by "Another Hussein nonymous": McCain is on record for opposing torture. After all, he was submitted to years of torture. Your other charges also are unfounded. Please do some reading.

Posted by: judithod | July 3, 2008 3:56 PM

Okay, you did well with actually talking about some policies, though I'm not sure you got Obama's position right in all cases.

But as briefly as possible, here are my replies:

Abortion--how do we know Roberts and Alito will actually rule against Roe? We don't. And we won't know unless and until they agree to hear a test case. They may or may not decide to do that, even if one comes before them. Justices are notorious for going their own way after they are appointed to the Supreme Court (Anthony Kennedy is a good example), and I for one am not holding my breath before Roe falls. I oppose legal abortion as much as you do, but we won't be able to make the procedure illegal until we have a national consensus and demand for doing so. We have a long way to go before reaching that goal. We won't achieve it by "packing" the Supreme Court with appointees who we think will rule our way.

And the current Court has made some very dubious rulings in other areas, especially in regard to consumers' and workers' rights.

National security and foreign policy--I actually believe we should be talking to Iranian officials--and should have been for several years now. I don't know much about Chavez, but it might be a good idea to talk to him as well. We just achieved success with North Korea through diplomatic means, so why not Iran? Talking to potential enemies is not in itself being 'soft' on them; being 'soft' on them would be giving them what they want to try and placate them. Obama is not advocating giving in to Iran by offering to talk to them.

We've always been willing to talk to enemies and potential enemies; Bush is the first president who has demonstrated such an almost pathological aversion to it. Obama simply wants to take our foreign policy practices back to the pre-Bush years--to the way it was practiced by both Republicans and Democrats. Here's a guess: A President McCain will likely go the diplomacy route as well, despite his "tough talk" right now.

And I am one who believes that the terrorists have left us alone DESPITE Bush's "war on terror," not because of it. Here's my variation on Lieberman's prediction: the terrorists are going to try and test the new president no matter which one is elected.

Obama is no less qualified to be president than many others who have held that office. In fact, what exactly were Bush's qualifications before he was elected in 2000? He was governor of Texas, right? And what are McCain's qualifications? Both he and Obama are senators; none have direct foreign policy experience, do they?

Support for Israel--I should first say that I thoroughly disagree with your theology regarding who Israel is today. God's people today are the Christian church--made up of both Jews and Gentiles (see Galatians 6:16), not the modern nation-state of Israel, so all the biblical admonitions for support of God's people mean, under the New Covenant, support for the church (e.g., Psalm 122:6). So I don't believe our policies toward the nation-state of Israel have any theological significance.

Our nation's foreign policy re. Israel should not be based on anyone's theology anyway, but rather on working toward a peaceful resolution of the ongoing conflict there. And we ought to consider the Palestinians, too, a significant number of whom are our Christian brothers and sisters (here's one example of a Palestinian Christian church that's affiliated with my own denomination: http://www.elcjhl.org/)

The number of Christians in Palestine has been decreasing, as Christian Palestinians have been leaving due to the continuing conflict. Eventually there may be no Christian presence there in the land where Jesus walked. Doesn't that concern you?

There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that a President Obama would be 'soft' on Islamist extremists. And you can be assured that the Israel lobby will be making their case to Obama and his advisers anyway; therefore, we won't renege on our nation's legitimate obligations to the Jewish nation.

Your mention of this is an irrelevant red herring, but I still need to reassert what I wrote to you in another post: Rev. Wright has no "ties" to Louis Farrakhan; he gave Farrakhan an award for the latter's work among the needy in Chicago.

I haven't heard of Obama's ties to Khalidi and factcheck.org is down, so I couldn't find anything about it. My guess is that this too has been hyperbolized.

Energy--No I don't enjoy high energy prices any more than anyone else. However, I've tried to limit my driving for a long time now, I walk a lot, I don't use drive-thus, and I take the bus when I can. Plus, my family's cars are both very fuel efficient. But from what I've read and heard, neither presidential candidate really has much of a clue about energy policy anyway. Neither do the Republicans or Democrats in Congress. So this isn't an Obama problem alone.

However, I actually agree with Obama that high petroleum prices in the long term are very a good thing. A lot of other people believe that also, like Thomas Friedman. And we need to be thinking long-term about energy, not what's best for next month or next year. Read my comments on this topic in the "D#@*$% environmentalists!" thread (now in God's Politics' archive, dated June 27). Higher fuel prices do encourage conservation and alternative energy development, and this could eventually lead to energy independence.

Wouldn't it be great not to be funding our terrorist enemies through our gasoline purchases any more?

And no president, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, will be able to do much about it anyway. Drilling in ANWR won't lower prices because the pricing is based largely on worldwide supply and demand. Again, see my comments on the earlier thread.

"Clean coal" is an oxymoron. Even if it can be burned cleaner, we still have to get it out of the ground. Drive through eastern Kentucky and West Virginia and take a look at the environmental damage being done by coal extraction. Whole mountaintops are being sheared off, and the region is being ravaged. "Clean coal" isn't an answer to our energy needs.

Nuclear power is a possibility. The latest reactors are a lot more efficient and produce much less waste. But nuclear waste is still a large concern, and still limits nuclear's long-term viability.

So the bottom line, Al N, is this: I commend you for giving me some actual policy comments and not just personal attacks. However, you still haven't given me a valid reason not to support Obama.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 3, 2008 4:08 PM

I forgot to include my new signoff.

Don Hussein

Posted by: Don | July 3, 2008 4:37 PM

It is time to end arguing about politics and pay attention to what Jesus teaches us. A real Christian follows the way he taught us. Posted by: Pastor Oliver | July 3, 2008 4:38 PM

So please tell us how discussing politics is not "following the way [Jesus] taught us"? We aren't quite sure what your concern here is. I try to inform my political views by my faith, as do many others who post here.

Peace,

Posted by: Don Hussein | July 3, 2008 4:48 PM

History has proven, time and again, that whenever the church gets in bed with the state, oppression of people inevitably occurs. The state is quite capable of murdering and torturing human beings without the aid of the church! I absolutely oppose mixing tax moneys with the pledges and tithes of believers of any faith!

Posted by: Rev. John D. Zeigler | July 3, 2008 5:17 PM

Jim,
Once again, the Republicans seem to have made all the mistakes--never the Democrats or yourself. Did the "wall of separation" enthusiasts ever give this a chance? Did you hold them accountable for their actions, or is accountability just for conservatives?

"As I recall, Jesus never proselytized" when he healed the sick and tended to the poor...nor was he concerned about who was "Jew" and who was "Gentile." "
??????
Quetzal, why are you accepting those that insist that proselytize is a swear word? "Repent and believe the Good News" was Jesus' message, and there was never a wall of separation when good works were involved. Jesus was very concious of every personal detail, including Jew and Gentile. See Matthew 15:27 and Mark 7:28

Posted by: witness for peace | July 3, 2008 5:27 PM

Dear Don Hussein:

I've noticed that since you've started using your new signoff, there's been a noticeable INCREASE in the spiritual insight and political wisdom emanating from your noggin. I find this particularly peculiar since we all know that people of certain designation are intent on one thing alone, that being the ravaging and pillorizing of all things American and Christian. How do you account for this fascinating d'vpment?

Posted by: canucklehead | July 3, 2008 5:53 PM

I am saddened to read so many responders to Jim's message say that Jesus was Lord, which he was, yet politics and the poor have nothing to do with His ministry! How can there still be Christians who say we are only about abortions and ostracising gay people? How can this be? Matthew 25 and 26 says it all; the Sermon on the Mount, when completely understood, talk politics and morals and values. Not once is abortion mentioned. I guess thhe Sermon was not written by Pat Robertson, who we all know is smarter than Jesus's words are! Come on people, our mission is to help those less fortunate! Can you not see that? We are as judged by how we treat the least among us! Clear to most of us, I hope!

Posted by: John M | July 3, 2008 6:02 PM

People forget that the "faith-based initiative" was initiated by President Bill Clinton under the name, Charitable Choice. Senator John Ashcroft of MO wrote most of the legislation to free up application of federal funds for use by faith-based charitable institutions, which may not have yet accessed federal funding. At that time, in the 1990's, the legislation passed by Ashcroft and signed by Bill Clinton as president freed up federal fundings so that faith-based entities could apply for federal funds on equal ground with non-faith-based social service programs. It started as a bi-partisan effort and needs to continue as such. The way to free up funding and seperate it from political control or partisan action, is to allow tax credits to donors, who give to faith-based outreach ministries and social service work that supplement social services and help with providing dignity, opportunity, a hand up, and a way out of poverty for many people. Check out our website (www.phope.net) to see how we used it and then check out Artful Askers to see how Bob Vickers has worked the faith-based initiative as a nationally renown consultant from MO!

Posted by: Denis Rigdon | July 3, 2008 6:07 PM

"Thus, the faith-based programs are evil, as is our current welfare system. If Rev, Wallis and Sojourners were truly of God and truly knowledgeable of what the Bible actually says, they would be advocating the abolishment of this system, as I am doing here."

If the churches in this country were truly willing to follow the commands of God, there would be no need for government programs.

Why is it that churches are not acting on this important command from God? If, as you state, the Bible says that caring for the poor and hungry is the job of the church and not the job of government, then why isn't the church doing the work?

Maybe it's time for these churches to sell off their properties and fancy buildings and put their money into the work you seem to believe God has called them to do. Then we wouldn't need government based welfare programs.

Posted by: RJohnson | July 3, 2008 7:10 PM

Al N:

John F Kennedy wasn't all that experienced either: a few years in the Senate, a stint in the Navy during WWII, etc. Of course, his term was cut short by an assassin, so it's kind of hard to evaluate how effective he was as President.

But let's talk specifically about military experience.

McCain's military experience is certainly admirable, and it is definitely a plus on his resume. However, when it comes to exercising their role as commander in chief, most presidents have to rely on expert military advisers to help them make their decisions. Very, very few presidents have actually had the kind of military experience that would qualify them to act as commander in chief in a solo capacity--Eisenhower was the most recent one, in fact. And among the generals who have served as president, one of them, Ulysses S. Grant, was one of the worst presidents in our history.

So neither McCain's military experience nor Obama's lack of it can by themselves determine whether or how either will succeed as commander in chief. A lot will depend on what advice they get, how they process that advice, what their decisions are, and how they implement those decisions. These are things we are unlikely ever to know about a candidate who isn't an incumbent.

D

Posted by: Don Hussein | July 3, 2008 7:33 PM

Perhaps I should clarify that I don't regard the info on the above link to be nonsense. Just the assertion that Jesus tried convince people that He was God--as well as the notion that the antichrist can be readily identified at this time.

Posted by: Hermes | July 3, 2008 8:32 PM

I agree with Quetzal Jesus did not proselytize that much if at all. When Jesus healed the lepers he did not ask that they repent before hand before he healed them. When he made water into wine he did not interrupt the wedding and then ask the bride and groom and their party to follow him. When Jesus brought Lazurus back from the dead he never once asked all those there to repent and follow him. The acts spoke for themselves and some repented some did not.

I think we need to remember that. Jesus showed his father's love by simply taking care of the needs of the people. He did that a lot more than asking people to follow him. Heck he even told the demoniac to stay in his region and tell his story never once asking him to repent. My point is that the message of Jesus Christ is not simply repent and believe. It's larger. For some it includes repent and believe but for others it's God loves you and wants to be in relationship with you. That's the real power of the gospel.

If it were really about our behavior and our actions they would have been sufficient to restore right relationship with God. They are not and will never do that. When we have accepted Christ our holy actions are a response, sometimes a faith and sometimes a fear but they are always from the Holy Spirit living within us. We can't claim credit for them without alienating the Holy Spirit. That's what's missing from this discussion of proselytizing verses evangelism.

There are many different parts of the body and not all of us are called to proselytize. But we are all called to share the good news. Sometimes that can be with a kind word, or praying for someone or showing compassion or... But those are equally valid to coming out and asking people into relationship with Jesus. For many people the little acts work better because they no longer are words but living reminders of God's love.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 3, 2008 8:44 PM

Barack's support for faith-based initiatives just negates one of the biggest lies of the Religious Right, that only conservatives support anything related to church. With more of the budget being spent to benefit regular Americans instead of deepening the pockets of big business, the Faith Based Initiatives will probably increase under Obama. It also should expand in terms of the variety of programs that will be supported. Looks like America could be in for a good dose of humanity for the first time since Jimmy Carter. (Remember that for a lot of his term Clinton was hamstrung by a Republican Congress.) Finally maybe we can recover from the selfishness of the Reagan era.

Posted by: Rhonda Brwoning | July 3, 2008 9:36 PM

It is incredible how many repugnicans come in here and rewrite the Bible to favor neoconserviative principles. Will the Caucasian race never ever get it? JIM WALLIS how do you stand it? Patience and faith in a better future, I guess.

Posted by: John M | July 3, 2008 10:37 PM

I am not in favor of the faith-based initiative of George Bush or any variation of such. What I ask of all is "Please keep your Religion out of my Government"
Ronald Pace

Posted by: Ronald Pace | July 4, 2008 12:58 AM

State and Church are separate and there should be a million miles distance between the two. While Faith Base Iniatives may look innocent to some of its promoters it is someting that one day could come to cause them more pain and regret than they ever dreamed of. From a Christian point of veiw---Jesus said to keep your faith in the closet--when he was telling Christians how to pray and that is supportive of the separation of Church and State.

PLEASE KEEP RELIGIOUN OUT OF GOVERNMENT. ONLY IDIOTS WOULD WANT THIS IN THE UNITED STATES. THESE FOLKS APPARENTLY ARE HISTORY DUMMIES AND CAN NOT SEE WHAT HAS HAPPEND IN THE PAST AS WELL AS IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES WHEN GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION GET IN BED WITH EACH OTHER. OUR FOREFATHERS MAY HAVE HAD A LITTLE SOMEWHAT RELIGIOUS BUT THEY ALSO STRONGLY ADVOCATED THOMAS PAINE'S (AN ATHEIST) COMMON SENSE. WASHINGTON ORDERED HIS ARMY AND MARINES TO READ IT. YOU SHOULD TOO. WHAT IS WRONG WITH GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION IN BED WITH EACH OTHER?---LOOK AT THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND FALL OF THE CZAR WHICH WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE MONK RASPUTIN. Look at all the religious wars today (such as was in Ireland)and the past---more people have been killed in such events than all of the wars combined since the beginning of time.
Finally NO ONE HAS ANY FREEDOMS OF RELIGION EXCEPT THE DOMINANT GROUP WHO THE DICTATE WHETHER THEY ARE ALLOWED OR NOT. AS FAR AS CHRISTIANITY IS CONCERNED---LOOK AT COMMUNIST CHINA WHERE THE GOVERNMENT TELLS CHURCHES IF THEY CAN EXIST OR NOT AS WELL AS APPOINTS THEIR MINISTERS.

Faith Based initiatives lead to disrimination and we have already seen this in the Catholic Charities groups, Salvation Army and various "missions" for the homeless and down and out. Many of these so-called initiatives care nothing about the people that they are suppose to help. Instead they are about everything to 'spread the gospel' and 'saving souls' first and if you have an urgent need--that is put on the backburner first until you are 'saved'. Many of these organizations are little more than an excuse to take advantage of the down and out,homeless et al and place them into a subtle form of slavery.

When HIV pandemic began to make inroads in the US---faith based initiative churches turned away these people because it fallaciously called a gay mans disease. That discrimination led to the spread of HIV like wild fire in the heterosexual populations. Today few gay people have HIV and mostly those who are heterosexual have it. This is just one example of why faith based initiatives should be avoided like a plague because separate is not equal.

Posted by: ludwig | July 4, 2008 1:39 AM

In the process of trying to get at the causes of poverty it seems impossible to get away from politicizing everything.

I sat down with a single-parent, a mother, the other day who has growing debt. She makes about $13,000 a year working in a nursing home as an aide. She does get another $2400 from ex-dad of the kids. So she is looking at $15,400 income for the year. We went through her expenditures and figured out that she can just barely make it at about $19,000. I wouldn't want to live that way, but I figured out that if her employer could pay her $2.00 an hour more than they are, it would make up that difference.

I began thinking about the time Henry Ford almost doubled the wages of his assembly-line workers. He caused quite an uproar among his fellow industrialists. However, when the dust settled and they all joined that move so they wouldn't lose their best workers, everyone made more money. The rich even got richer. Impossible though it seemed to them, the synergies that were let loose in the economy accomplished raising the standard of living for everyone.

This wasn't made possible because the government printed more. That isn't how money works. It just moved through more hands faster. Old Henry stated it in quite simple terms, "I just want my workers to be able to afford one of these contraptions that they are making."

Ross Perot started talking about this effect during his campaign and he wanted to rely on the power (or politics, if we can't get away from using that word) of influence and common sense.

There has to be a way to demonstrate something I would call optimal wages/salaries instead of squeezing people whereby the owners pay as little as possible, but charge "what the market will bear" to the few who can afford it and become the causes of poverty.

This is hard to demonstrate in a service organization rather than a manufacturing organization, but there must be a way. The little bits of boost we are seeing in our country with the recent outlay from Uncle Sam is a bit of demonstration, but it won't last.

If our money is more or less based upon GDP instead of on Gold, devaluing what labor is worth does nasty things to the economy. Making this work in a free-market economy requires diligent use of intelligence and constant awareness of all the push-pull factors both in pricing and in setting pay rates. However, I believe that simply resorting to doles and even careful provision of services on the part of government even in cooperation with faith-based organizations is not going to make the great changes some are claiming.

There are certain situations that require provisional service. But the larger economic issue needs to be adequately addressed. This is going to take place by accounting departments who bring more into account that simply looking at the short term "bottom line."

Posted by: Sam | July 4, 2008 5:23 AM

Let me "interpret" Don's statement:
"And I am one who believes that the terrorists have left us alone DESPITE Bush's "war on terror," not because of it."

Interpretation: "I hate George Bush and thus I'm not giving him credit for anything -- even if it's undeniable."

"Here's my variation on Lieberman's prediction: the terrorists are going to try and test the new president no matter which one is elected."
>> I agree, and when that happens, WHO do you want making the decisions on how to respond? The one whom the terrorists themselves are scared to death of (McCain), or the one they are openly rooting for (Obama)? If Barack has to respond to a 9/11-type attack, he'll wet his pants!

"John F Kennedy wasn't all that experienced either: a few years in the Senate, a stint in the Navy during WWII, etc."
>> Gimmee a break -- ever heard of the PT109? JFK was a war veteran who knew what it's like to be under fire! He knew the military and war.

To say military experience means nothing simply means that you want to vote for Obama, either because he gives nice speeches, or because you just like his ultra-extremist Left-wing liberal politics -- whether he's qualified or not.

The sad truth: You and I are just as qualifed as Barack H Obama!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 4, 2008 11:47 AM

"To say military experience means nothing simply means that you want to vote for Obama, either because he gives nice speeches, or because you just like his ultra-extremist Left-wing liberal politics -- whether he's qualified or not."

Oh please, I say that military experience doesn't matter because it does nothing to show how a president can handle domestic issues, infrastructure reconstruction... For you to say that military experience matters shows that you really don't care about what happens domestically. Obama does and that's one of the reasons I am voting.

BTW he is not an ultra left winger. We don't have many of those in the United States. When I went to college I learned that ultra left wingers are militant communists and Obama is not that. He has never worked with the Sandinista or any other left wing group.

You know your bias shows that you are voting for a man that has no clue about the economy and has no connection to the urban or working poor. Sorry but McCain is clueless.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 4, 2008 1:35 PM

I speak from the experience of serving as a pastor for twenty plus years, with lots of engagement in public service (and a Master of Public Policy degree) and now serving as an elected City Commissioner. My observation is that the role of providing social services to help people find socio-economic prosperity should be primarily the job of oursociety through our levels of government. The role of religion in my view is primarily to help people open to God's grace for the strength to live in and with lovingkindness. Congregations seem to me to do a very meager and low-skilled job of providing the now much-lacking social services of Anerica. My view has remained unchanged from the outset that the Faith-Based initiative of the Bush Administration was always a cover-up for continuing the Reagan revolution of destroying what had been America's growing competence at helping all members of society find their way to well-being. Though I will vote for Obama in all likelihood, his endorsement of Faith-Based social services is a sign of his inexperience and perhaps an unwilingness to do the hard job of education as to the possibilities and challenges of our system.

Jack Donovan

Posted by: Jack Donovan | July 4, 2008 7:51 PM

Interpretation: "I hate George Bush and thus I'm not giving him credit for anything -- even if it's undeniable."

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. I said that Bush's so-called "war on terror" has done little to make us safer and cannot be credited with keeping the terrorists at bay. I do give Bush credit where he deserves it--such as trying to get Congress to pass some reasonable immigration reforms, and such as his AIDS relief work in Africa.

However, those weren't the issues you brought up; terrorism was. And the notion that the "war on terror" has made us safer is actually quite deniable. I believe that the "war on terror" was wrongheaded from the start, and I think I have the evidence to prove it. But I don't feel like writing another dissertation here tonight.

WHO do you want making the decisions on how to respond? The one whom the terrorists themselves are scared to death of (McCain), or the one they are openly rooting for (Obama)?

How do you know the terrorists are "scared" of anyone? This is a ridiculous and meaningless comment, and another personal attack on Obama.

If Barack has to respond to a 9/11-type attack, he'll wet his pants!

When are you going to stop the personal attacks?

Gimmee a break -- ever heard of the PT109? JFK was a war veteran who knew what it's like to be under fire! He knew the military and war.

Of course I heard of PT 109; you know, I was born on a Monday but it wasn't last Monday! I even mentioned Kennedy's "stint in the Navy" if you would re-read what I wrote before. But my comment stands--Kennedy didn't have all that much "experience" (especially political or administrative experience) before he was elected president. I think Obama's experience is rather comparable to Kennedy's, in fact.

To say military experience means nothing simply means that you want to vote for Obama, either because he gives nice speeches, or because you just like his ultra-extremist Left-wing liberal politics -- whether he's qualified or not.

First of all, I didn't say that military experience means nothing. Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. Pleas re-read what I wrote. What I wrote was that military experience by itself doesn't and cannot tell us much about how a presidential candidate will handle the commander-in-chief part of the job. I'm sticking by that for the reasons I gave earlier.

And secondly, I already told you I haven't made up my mind on who to vote for--I at least need to see the other half of the tickets first, because that could make or break either candidacy for me--so please stop presuming that you know my mind. Nevertheless, you haven't given me any valid reasons to rule out voting for Obama.

And by the way, Payshun is right; Obama is no "ultra extremist Left-wing liberal." Not even close. Further, most Americans have never seen one.

Peace,

Posted by: Don Hussein | July 4, 2008 11:29 PM

It's not "What would these faith-based groups actually do? "
it's what they are ALREADY doing, like Catholic Charities and Teen Challenge.
Of course, it would be difficult for faith based groups to replace every last secular social program, but that's not how I understand what Bush tried to do, and what Jim thinks Obama can pull off.
Blessings,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | July 6, 2008 5:08 AM

"It was good to see that the failures of the Bush faith-based initiative have not deterred Obama from proposing a robust vision of his own."

Please don't be so easily fooled by politicians. It is the Church duty not the politicians.

Posted by: Rj | July 6, 2008 9:08 PM

Al, you sure love hurling those personal attacks, don't you? I've mentioned this several times, and you persist in doing it: "evil," "Jew-hater," "racist," etc.

My older son attended Trinity UCC in Chicago yesterday morning. I think if you ever attended, you might find it a lot different than you think it is. But of course you'll never attend because you know you are right about what an evil church they are.

I have news for you and for all who, like you, enjoy using the ad hominem personal attack for your "arguments." These attacks reflect far more on you than they do on the people you're attacking. And that reflection isn't a positive one: it's called lack of credibility.

So I hope you enjoy sitting there writing condemnations of all the people you disagree with. Because I can assure you that very few are listening.

Peace,

Posted by: Don Hussein | July 7, 2008 11:10 AM

I Have worked for the Catholics, the Methodist and the Mennonites as a social worker. I am not a member of any of these faiths. I was never asked about my faith. I was only quizzed on my credentials. In one job, managing a foster care program, I became the leader for that group. I did the hiring of all of the paid and volunteer staff. From my experience, I know that churches can play an important role. Church facilities have been used during the time churches were not providing services. Most of the programs I worked in were also supported by the United Way. They had to pass rigorous oversight rules. That assured that the programs worked as they purported to work. So, in short, I support faith based services when the emphasis is on services and not on faith. These services are provided to all on an equal basis and there are no strings attached. If done that way, it can be a fantastic piece needed to lift up those in need.

Posted by: rshrink | July 7, 2008 4:10 PM

Secondly, some of you are downright WRONG when you say Obama is not a Far Leftwing Extremist Liberal.

Politics in the USA is far more conservative than in the rest of the democratized world. What means "liberal" in the USA is not liberal by world standards. Obama is not a liberal by those standards; he's actually a moderate conservative. He's actually not all that far to the left of John McCain.

The closest to a "far left extremist" we had during the late primary season was Dennis Kucinich. Nader is a bit to the left of him.

But don't take my word for it (I know you won't anyway):

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

Posted by: Don Hussein | July 8, 2008 12:15 PM

Don,
OK, I accept that by the world's standards, Obama is not so extreme. But he's running for President of the USA, and by our standards he's VERY extreme! And he's FAR more extremely liberal than McCain! There are very few issues where Obama is not WAY to the left of McCain.

There is one issue, by the way, where Obama is very much like the Socialist liberals of the rest of the world: Taxes. If elected, Obama wants to raise the top tier tax rate to 59% (from the current 39%). Taking more than half of anyone's wages away in taxes is obscene, don't you think?

Paul,
Not to get the last word in, but Gosh, sometimes you say things that NEED to be responded to, such as:
(1) Comparing Obama to Abe Lincoln! Wow, talk about apples and oranges! But considering that, at least Abe had some military experience (Black Hawk War). If you remember Hillary's 3am TV commercial, that is exactly my point -- Obama is utterly not qualified to receive that call, and I fear he'll make some major mistakes if he has to.

(2) MY opinions about Obama are misguided?? Wow, I'm not the one believing these silly falsehoods about him being a moderate, or a uniter, or post-racial. Those are the real misguided beliefs that I'm simply trying to correct.

(3) "the Farrakhan non-connection"? Come on, Paul, do me the courtesy of telling me HOW you can say this in light of the 4 points I gave you of the Farrakhan Connection! Shoot -- now that I look, I see that they have censored me again (for no reason). No wonder you still think there's no connection. My bad.

(4) God bless you too, and I'm glad you agree on abortion. If we really want to reduce the number of abortions, let's do what we can to get the 5th pro-life vote onto the Supreme Court and maybe then states like Utah and Mississippi will have the freedom to ban abortion. Electing the MOST abortion-friendly President in our history is not the way to do this!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2008 3:20 PM

Oh, by the way, Al, Beliefnet doesn't "censor" people for no reason. They pull posts that violate their rules of conduct:

http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp

Take it up with them if you are concerned.

Peace,

Posted by: Don Hussein | July 8, 2008 3:51 PM

I think the Faith-based initiative is a horrible idea that violates the separation of Church and State. I believe that the Government should be religiously neutral. The Faith-based initiative has been abused to favor certain religious groups and it should be abolished.

Steve

Posted by: Steve Jenkins | July 8, 2008 10:02 PM

The Minnesota Vikings are for sure!

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 9:20 AM

I was just looking for where I said George Will endorsed Obama. Nope. I didn't say it. I said that he debunked the myth that a nice looking resume is everything. Buchanan looked good on paper and yet was uniquely unqualified to be President. Lincoln's resume was pretty dismal, and look how we revere him. You and I are just never going to agree on Obama's qualifications, partly because you don't actually read the words that I actually write.

And regarding Farrakhan, I find it humorous that you can write what you just did with a straight face. Come on, Al... I was reaching? Show me where Obama (not Wright, OBAMA) supports Farrakhan and I'll concede the arguement. If you thought I was reaching, you're almost falling over with that big stretch.

Nice use of irony, though.

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 11:50 AM

Again, I'll disagree that Obama's resume is empty. Personally, I see him as tremendously qualified. I respect your right to disagree. Thankfully, you and I get an equal voice at the voting booth.

I do agree that Farrakhan is an extremist and a racist. I think Wright has many great qualities that have been overlooked lately because, yes, he has too often fallen into Farrakhan's way of thinking. I think that Obama has probably missed some of that because he was focusing on the good things Wright and Trinity UCC were doing in black communities. I think all three men share a desire to improve the lot of black Americans, but I don't think they share the same extremist viewpoints. (God help me if I'm wrong!)

Without defending Farrakhan's racism, I will say that his Nation of Islam is not the black equivalent of the KKK. His racist attitudes have not translated into lynchings, cross burnings, Jim Crow and deep oppression of an entire race.

And I'm not bothered by Obama being slow to denounce Farrakhan in a debate with Hillary. There was a whole lot of race-baiting going on and this whole "denouncing" thing has gotten to be one big, silly political game. I wish I had a quarter for every time someone in the news was demanding an apology or public denunciation of something-or-other.

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 1:59 PM

He's devoted his adult life to humanitarian efforts, community improvement, job creation and economic development. He has been editor of the Harvard Law Review, a legislator in one of our most populated states and a U.S. Senator. He has committed his background, thoughts and philosophies to paper and had it published for the whole world to see. He has rallied millions of people at the grass roots level to care about their governemt again. He has shown great skill in surrounding himself with friends, enemies and surrogates that further his agendas. That all looks like the kind of background that makes a President.

I remember a friend in college complaining about President Reagan and how he was unqualified and was just "nothing but P.R." I made the case that the President is one person at the head of an entire government branch. He must be able to motivate people, to build consensus, be tough when necessary, make hard decisions under advisement and tell the people of our nation what we can achieve as Americans. Reagan did those things, and Obama is well on his way to doing those things.

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 6:42 PM

Here's what I'll give you:

Based on a resume, McCain would and should win this without a problem. (McCain would be a very good President who has served his country with distinction for decades.) I'll even concede that Obama's resume looks pretty lean in terms of executive experience. You may be right that a lot of what I wrote rests on what Obama says. I've read his books and found myself thinking, "Yes. This guy gets it." I know you disagree with me, but I see an honesty that has been missing in both GOP and Dem politics.

I'll give you an example of something this week that separates him from the Democrat party same-old-same-old. Jesse Jackson was complaining about Obama calling on young black fathers to take on their parenting responsibilities. As far as I can tell, Jackson doesn't believe Obama should be talking about black men taking responsibility. He just wants poor black people to be victims that the government will take care of. Obama's comments ranked up there with Bill Cosby saying such horrible things as that black people should get an education and work to rise above bad conditions.

I hope I'm not just being naive, but I like hearing Obama talk about that kind of mix. We'll take care of people who need help and try to give people all the advantages we can, but people also need to take responsibility for their own lives and well-being.

Remember the old saying about giving a man a fish and feeding him for a day or teaching him to fish and feeding him for a lifetime? It used to be that the GOP was the "teach a man to fish" party, while the Dems were the "give a man a fish" party. Lately it seems the Dems want to give a man a fish, and another fish, and another fish, and another fish. The GOP seems to want to say, "Heck with that guy. He's just not fishing hard enough. I've got my fish."

Along comes Obama who seems to want to give the man a fish and then teach him to fish. In my book, that kind of reason and judgement goes way beyond some much beefier resumes of other potential candidates.

Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2008 3:59 PM