A Multicultural Witness Against the 'Homogenous Unit Principle' (part 2, by Jin S. Kim)
The meaning of evangelism is the proclamation of good news to the world. How can we continue to exclude and avoid those with whom we are not comfortable and live into our evangelical calling at the same time? If we do not shed this primitive tendency, and yet heed the call to be evangelical, do we not risk exporting our ecclesial tribalism far and wide? How can we say we are evangelical if the good news is not good for the whole world? If the gospel is proclaimed under the rubric of the homogeneous unit principle, I would argue that this is distorted news, even false news. The acid test of evangelism must be: Is this good news for the poor?
But the church has largely forgotten the poor, instead focusing on the perceived poverty of individual rights driven by debates over human sexuality and ordination. What about plain old poverty driven by the historic legacy of racism, a politics seemingly motivated by a preferential option for the rich, and the exploitation of the newly arrived on American shores?
I don’t believe that the church’s mission is to broker the competing claims of “rights” among various factions. In our local church context, the power-brokers are the Korean-Americans since the Church of All Nations emerged from the Korean immigrant context. As we moved at increasing speed toward embodying the multicultural vision, the collective response I seemed to get from that group was: “We work for Dow Chemical, 3M, General Mills, and the University of Minnesota. Although we have well-paying jobs we are not really leaders in these places. We still have to live and work under the overarching white power structure. Now we come to a Korean-American church, the one place where we have power, where we have leadership, where our culture is affirmed, and you want to take that cultural hegemony away from us? You want to take away the one last refuge where we can be ourselves?”
My answer is “yes.” Yes, we lay down our lives for our friends. Yes, we love our neighbors as ourselves. Yes, we care for the widows, orphans, aliens, and strangers in our midst. Although we have painstakingly constructed foxholes and bird nests for our security, we choose with our Lord Jesus to be homeless wanderers on this earth, to have nowhere to lay our heads (Luke 9:57). I have compassion for my fellow 1.5- and second-generation English-speaking Korean-Americans who must choose between comfortable and affirming spiritual fellowship and the daring work of the ministry of reconciliation. I myself have worshiped and worked in the Korean church context all my life. I understand the need for the church to be a place of comfort; surely that is one of the roles of the church. But is God calling us to something higher than religion for our particular group? Can the Korean-Americans be evangels who, having achieved majority status and cultural dominance in the local congregation, willingly lay that down so that other cultures may be lifted up and affirmed? Can we be a mosaic of believers who witness to the God who reconciles all things to himself?
Jin S. Kim is pastor of the Church of All Nations in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Suppose a Korean congregation decides to open up a food pantry or homeless ministry in a largely Black and Hispanic neighborhood. Then they could have their cultural comfort on Sundays AND sacrifice that comfort by venturing into work that requires reaching out not only to those of different races, but of different economic and educational statuses.
Here's another bit to chew on: even if churches eventually became more integrated racially, would they still be segregated economically and educationally (as so many are now)? Is it really solving the problem to have lots of churches with a cross-section of upper-middle-class Blacks, Whites, Asians and Hispanics with graduate degrees? Would that be true diversity?
Posted by: I and I | August 22, 2008 4:53 PM
I and I -- Good point. Very good point.
Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 5:02 PM
I think in order to integrate this thoroughly, you'd need to set the example with the church staff and leaders. I'm not saying the platform has to be colorful as much as who are they inviting to dinner? Is it a diverse group?
We did something in one of my favorite churches called "Snack Six". Groups of 6 met a few times just for snacks -- nothing fancy -- just to get to know more people in the congregation than they were normally hanging out with. The college group may have met with some of the retirees, etc.
Another thing that church did that I loved, was give Thanksgiving pies to the widows. If they were alone, they usually asked you to join then for a piece when you dropped off the pie. If they had kids, they were just glad for it. Actually, they did a lot for the widows, and it's the only church I've ever been in that's done so.
Also, if you view people as people, it's not really stepping out of your comfort zone. We don't have to make outreach a big and scary thing.
Posted by: frankie | August 22, 2008 6:12 PM
I must say I am very much impressed with Jin Kim's attitude.
Posted by: Gordon | August 22, 2008 9:28 PM
Me too.
p
Posted by: Payshun | August 22, 2008 10:10 PM
Christ gave us the ultimate example... He got down on his knees and became the servant of his disciples. This was truly disruptive to the culture they were brought up in, as it was never a culture of service, but one of "mission". They were there to bring light to the world. They were the light, no less, they had thought.
But the lesson is true, and the principle behind it sound. When one is dedicated to service, the social, racial, ethnic, or other distinctions are disrupted.
You can turn inner city gang kids into great citizens, if you can put them into the service of others.
You can reach anyone if your church is dedicated to serving the needs of others.
You can close the back door where the members drift out, and fill the front door where new members march in, enthusiastic and on fire, if the church mission is one of service, service to its members, community, and to anyone who needs.
Unfortunately, Pastor Kim doesn't quite seem to get it, he continues to recognize the need for selfless service, but tries to regain the racial or cultural component, which MUST NOT EXIST in order to be sustained.
The focus MUST BE ON THE INDIVIDUAL, and no racial, cultural, ethnic, or other stereotype or consideration will serve to guide this relationship. Only fidelity to purpose, God, and selfless service will prevail.
I admire his innate grasp of the need to reject a majority social power structure as a relevancy or even allowable, I would far more reccommend to him that his purpose is not to raise other cultures or races or groups... But to raise Christ as the focus, and Christ alone.
Posted by: Watcher | August 23, 2008 7:06 AM
I and I,
I think that's partly what Rev. Kim was trying to say, more so in Part I of his commentary. His idea of multicultural extends far beyond people of different races. I think it's a more mature viewpoint than simply saying multicultural means racial diversity.
I think socio-economic status and culture divides Americans much more so than race. Some of culture is tied to race, but not as much as we think. An upper middle-class, white, white collar guy growing up in Maryland (for example) is going to have a lot more in common with an upper middle-class, white collar, black guy in the same neighborhood than he would with a poor, blue collar, white guy from Texas. Or a poor, black women from the rural south will have much more in common with a poor, Hispanic woman from the same area than she would with a affluent, black woman from San Fransisco.
I think this is a lot harder for churches than obtaining racial diversity.
Posted by: Eric | August 23, 2008 11:18 AM
That is an excellent point, Eric
Posted by: Gordon | August 23, 2008 11:35 AM
It seems to me that the point is 'living the parable'. By that I think that if we 'live the parable' with integrity, it calls us to live the parable with all people, as children of God.
If we instead try to patch together diversity without living the parable, it seems a bit forced and artificial, a mask we try to wear.
Just a thought . . .
Posted by: Cleopas' friend | August 23, 2008 11:39 AM
Cleopas - I'm not sure what you mean by "living the parable".
Posted by: Gordon | August 23, 2008 11:44 AM
Kim presents the ultimate connundrum... How do you be non-racially motivated, if you're counting people by skin color?
Yeah, sure, that's a simplistic description of his conclusion, but ultimately, that's how he's boiling it down. The question is implicit, not stated, and he's in the process of realization, I hope.
It's when he says "we're Korean, and now we're in a group we run, and the people want to identify their church, worship, and culture as Korean within their church - and in part, his response has been that no, you cannot be identified as Korean, without focusing on ethnicity and becoming exclusivist.
But Kim doesn't let the other shoe drop. He's still stuck on what to do about the self imposed identity and trying to find some way to retain that self-identity which puts race or ethnicity on a pedestal. So long as his focus and his congregation's focus is on matters of ethnicity or race or culture, it cannot rise above those.
Yes, you can "try" to reach out to and create some sort of space for other "groups" within, but again, it fails the test of fully integrated.
NOt until within the church, we observe and recognize NO race, ethnicity, culture, or grouping, other than to be "children of God" can we be integrated. That is the sole unifier, the sole group to which ALL can belong without being the insider or the outsider.
These groupings are not to be "managed", as the term "multicultural" implies, attempting to mollify or perhaps even proactively address divisions and tension between them. They must actually go away, so that there is ONE culture, ONE grouping, ONE ethnicity...
The Children of God. They may be rainbow of appearances, but God doesn't look at that, he looks at the heart.
Posted by: Watcher | August 23, 2008 12:29 PM
These groupings are not to be "managed", as the term "multicultural" implies, attempting to mollify or perhaps even proactively address divisions and tension between them. They must actually go away, so that there is ONE culture, ONE grouping, ONE ethnicity...
Watcher -- In fact, in Acts 6 the apostles actually worked proactively to address ethnic and cultural tensions among believers that had been simmering for centuries. The only reason why there was such unity there was because it was persecuted from all sides.
Posted by: Rick | August 23, 2008 1:54 PM
Some deep thinking there Mr I and I . Good points may I add .
Seems we have occurred the same problems that the First Century Church had , plus invented some of our own . The Apostle Paul teaching us not to ignore the poor man and give the rich man extra attention in the church appears to speak to what you brought forth also.
Getting out of our comfort zones , hard to do .
Through Christ is really the only way of
doing it .
Right Rick , the church grew in unity when it was being persecuted . It is growing stronger still in areas of the world now where that is true . Hence you get a unity of people .
Not so much In America , I think we have been spoiled . Almost like the Gospel has become a pot luck , choose what we want to digest and leave what we find less attractive . We have the head and legs , but the hands and toes for balance are in a another socio group , the eyes of the body of Christ are yet in another socio group . The need is in a group that is foreign to ours , those with much are sharing their wealth through 501 C's or whatever instead of with the person sitting next to them in the pew .
Posted by: Michael | August 23, 2008 2:40 PM
"those with much are sharing their wealth through 501 C's or whatever instead of with the person sitting next to them in the pew."
Indeed, greed is a sin. And, I might add, one of which we are all prone to be guilty, regardless of race, gender or socio-economic status.
Suppose the one in need sits on the pew between a "rich, white-collar guy" and a "struggling blue-collar guy." If the blue-collar guy does not help because he thinks the white-collar guy should do it, is he not equally guilty of greed? Has he not loved his possesions more than his brother? Are we to the point of applying "situational ethics" to our Christian duties?
Also, another sinful attitude to which we are all susceptible: Jealousy. Being envious of what others posses, regardless of what you would do with it if you had it. (i.e. Coveting is a sin, even if you long for their possessions so that you can use them to "help others.")
Posted by: Bradley | August 23, 2008 3:54 PM
Also, another sinful attitude to which we are all susceptible: Jealousy. Being envious of what others posses, regardless of what you would do with it if you had it. (i.e. Coveting is a sin, even if you long for their possessions so that you can use them to "help others.")
I knew where you were going with that, and it repesents an out-of-bounds cheap shot. I once told one of my spiritual mentors, a wealthy lawyer who lives in the absolute wealthiest part of town, "I don't have what you have, and I don't want what you have." He and his wife are very generous people, lending their time and their means to the cause of Christ, especially members of the congregation who are "down and out."
However, the Scripture clearly condemns people who use their means to oppress others ("selling the needy for a pair of sandals," for example). These days doing so is a bit more complicated, but the principle of subverting the political system to give yourself more at the expense of the poor still applies.
Posted by: Rick | August 23, 2008 4:34 PM
Watcher -- In fact, in Acts 6 the apostles actually worked proactively to address ethnic and cultural tensions among believers that had been simmering for centuries. The only reason why there was such unity there was because it was persecuted from all sides.
No, the REASON FOR THE UNITY WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT AND DEVOTION TO THE GOSPEL.
The Acts 6 situations you speak of are NOT an example of how to pattern a church. They are the realization and the example of how and why paying attention to such things as race and ethnicity doesn't work.
The disciples were not engaged in the process of attempting to create a "multicultural" movement. Far from it, they were trying to figure out how to NOT let cultural differences become a barrier to the proclamation of the Gospel.
Most of what is addressed has to do with practices and behaviors which were common to the Jews, but not to those being reached, and the conflict had more to do with the nature of sin, the role of tradition vs faith, and which decided what behaviors were acceptable.
AGain, you're way, WAY off the mark with your example. IT was NEVER about being Multicultural or Multiracial, but about more weighty matters of tradition vs faith.
These types of issues are not specific to ethnicity, nationality, or even a mix of secular cultures. They are highly prevalent just between generations, even when all are the same race, ethnicity and secular culture. I know, I have witnessed them in both monochromatic and diverse churches.
Posted by: Watcher | August 23, 2008 4:45 PM
"I must say I am very much impressed with Jin Kim's attitude."
And his church does seem to practice what it preaches.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 23, 2008 4:49 PM
Rick,
Pointing out that sin is not restricted to those above a given socio-economic level is not an "out-of-bounds cheap shot." It is stating a fact.
I do not endorse nor condone "subverting the political system to give yourself more at the expense of the poor." At the same time, I will not excuse or condone abusing the political system to give yourself control over the possessions of others so that you may direct the use of that which you did not earn toward the ends that you deem approriate.
Rick, if I were to obtain your credit card number and begin using it buy clothes for myself, would you be angry? How about if I used it to make contributions to charities that I like or to support organizations that advance an agenda of which I approve?
Would you view that as acceptable since my intentions with your money were to help others? Or would you feel violated and resent the fact that I used what you earned to support organizations that either have goals with which you disagree or methods of which you do not approve?
Posted by: Bradley | August 23, 2008 5:17 PM
The disciples were not engaged in the process of attempting to create a "multicultural" movement. Far from it, they were trying to figure out how to NOT let cultural differences become a barrier to the proclamation of the Gospel.
Multiculturalism in ancient Rome was a given considering the vast amount of territory it ruled; everyone belonged to some "tribe" or another. And yes, there was persecution from outside -- from the Jews to the Roman government, the church had few friends. Operating in such a hostile atmosphere requires the Holy Spirit.
However, as members of the church since have been separated, and thus affected, by culture, ethnicity, theology and tradition we do have to make some adjustments if we want to be unified; such things take time and effort.
Posted by: Rick | August 23, 2008 5:29 PM
Pointing out that sin is not restricted to those above a given socio-economic level is not an "out-of-bounds cheap shot." It is stating a fact.
Given the context in which you speak, it certainly was.
I will not excuse or condone abusing the political system to give yourself control over the possessions of others so that you may direct the use of that which you did not earn toward the ends that you deem approriate.
That's precisely why it was a cheap shot -- it was the standard right-wing line about taking what "belongs to me" to give to someone "less deserving." Remember that, ultimately, every cent of a Christian's wealth belongs to God and is to be managed to bring glory to Him. It's why Jesus was so much harder on the rich -- they're often snared by their wealth and often even distort the Scripture to justify maintaining it.
Anyway, the key is not simply "giving" to the poor but working to change the system so that they can help themselves get out of poverty -- but since many of the rich got there because of the current system they would oppose upsetting the "status quo."
Posted by: Rick | August 23, 2008 5:40 PM
That's precisely why it was a cheap shot -- it was the standard right-wing line about taking what "belongs to me" to give to someone "less deserving." Remember that, ultimately, every cent of a Christian's wealth belongs to God and is to be managed to bring glory to Him.
The idea that someone has possessions that they can call “mine” and aren’t to be taken by other humans and distributed as those others wish isn’t a “right-wing” view. This is a mainstream view found across the political spectrum. Many people on the American left believe they actually have the right to do with their own possessions what they want too. The Christian idea that every cent we have belongs to God and not to us is the radical, counter-cultural view in this instance (I’m not really sure which “wing” it’s on. Labels are helpful anyway).
You’re correct to say that no possession “belongs” to us, but belongs to God. But you’re making a huge leap by assuming that because nothing truly belongs to us then it is the proper duty of other people to appropriate those possessions to do with what they see fit. I don’t see that in Jesus' teaching.
Posted by: Ricardo | August 23, 2008 6:53 PM
That should have said: "Label's aren't helpful anyway."
Posted by: Ricardo | August 23, 2008 6:57 PM
The idea that someone has possessions that they can call “mine” and aren’t to be taken by other humans and distributed as those others wish isn’t a “right-wing” view. This is a mainstream view found across the political spectrum. Many people on the American left believe they actually have the right to do with their own possessions what they want too. The Christian idea that every cent we have belongs to God and not to us is the radical, counter-cultural view in this instance (I’m not really sure which “wing” it’s on. Labels are helpful anyway).
Actually, they HAVE been given to us, and God demands we return 10% of whatever we profit with it, and then asks we be generous with the rest.
The fine point of ultimate ownership ( the universe is God's, obvious ) is not in question here, but whether what we possess or are given by God is ours to use, and the Bible, at least, is very clear on that... it IS ours.
Posted by: Watcher | August 23, 2008 9:25 PM
Rick,
Your position in entirely dependent upon the false assumption that I (and others who share my views) believe that it is not my responsibility to help the poor.
Imagine that I were able to get your credit card and use it to make contributions to Operation Rescue. I am forcibly taking your money and giving it to an organization that you do not agree with. Then, when you complain, I accuse you of not wanting to reduce abortions. Further, I tell you that you are greedy because you are holding on to what is "yours" and not willing to help "the least of these."
This is precisely what you support in the area of poverty. You want to tell me how my money should be used to help the poor. You have your opinion about how best to help them and I have mine, but you demand that I not only accept your view, but that I fund it as well. That is wrong.
Posted by: Bradley | August 23, 2008 9:47 PM
This is precisely what you support in the area of poverty. You want to tell me how my money should be used to help the poor.
No, I've never said this -- it's not so much your money but your resources in general. How about your church connections? Or at your job? Or among your social circles? Think "big picture," not just your bank account.
Posted by: Rick | August 23, 2008 11:31 PM
Rick,
If that is your position, then we can agree. I thought you were supporting taxation of the "wealthy" in order to fund government programs that aim to "alleviate" poverty. This clearly would be immoral and I'm glad we agree.
Posted by: Bradley | August 24, 2008 12:41 AM
"Indeed, greed is a sin. And, I might add, one of which we are all prone to be guilty, regardless of race, gender or socio-economic status.'
Bradley i think you misunderstood what I meant by the fact a person was giving money to a 501 C instead of the person in the pew next to him .
My mistake , I was thinking a 501C was a charity . I was speaking to the fact that we as Christians and our churches are not often very diverse . The same socio group attends basically . So the rich person may donate to say a shelter or the Salvation Army instead of DIRECTLY helping the Christian who attends his own church . One on one , or church on one . I believe there is more to giving and receiving spirtually ,the giver and receiver loose the the spirtual Fullness of God when Godly Principles of Helping those in need are done through debit cards with out SOCIAL INTERACTION .
The Giver and Receiver need the Love of Christ in the middle of the exchange .
I believe our culture has lost the one on one help we use to give to our brothers and sisters in the Lord , now its done through an agency .
I was responding to I and I who spoke about our churches needing to be more diverse.
Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2008 4:18 AM
If that is your position, then we can agree. I thought you were supporting taxation of the "wealthy" in order to fund government programs that aim to "alleviate" poverty.
That has always been my position, from day one -- the goal is to destroy poverty, not simply to alleviate or manage it. That said, programs I support include things like Head Start and tertiary educational grants and low-cost loans with the goal that people better themselves and become taxpayers, no longer being a drain on the "system."
Posted by: Rick | August 24, 2008 7:28 AM
"You’re correct to say that no possession “belongs” to us, but belongs to God. But you’re making a huge leap by assuming that because nothing truly belongs to us then it is the proper duty of other people to appropriate those possessions to do with what they see fit. I don’t see that in Jesus' teaching."
No. What you see in Jesus teachings are those people who are filled with the Holy Spirit offering up those possessions they own, of their own free will, so that others may have their basic needs met.
Could it be that the people who you cite as wanting to take things from you are simply put there by God as reminders that you are too closely attached to your possessions?
Posted by: DonF | August 24, 2008 9:46 AM
DonF,
You are making the false assumption that I do not accept benevolence to the poor as my responsibility. There is no argument from me concerning whether everything I have belongs to God.
Where I disagree is when government beauracrats commandeer my possessions and use them to fund social programs which do not work (and that are actually counter-productive) and that do not address the most important needs (spiritual needs.)
Posted by: Bradley | August 24, 2008 11:39 AM
Multiculturalism in ancient Rome was a given considering the vast amount of territory it ruled; everyone belonged to some "tribe" or another. And yes, there was persecution from outside -- from the Jews to the Roman government, the church had few friends. Operating in such a hostile atmosphere requires the Holy Spirit.
ANY effective witness for God requires the Holy Spirit. Even the total absence of all other outward forces still leaves one in absolute and unqualified need of the Holy Spirit.
The early church was NOT "multicultural". The church in Jerusalem looked much different from that in Rome, or anywhere else the Gospel travelled. The church looked like the people who made it up, who did not "celebrate" their differences, but instead, attempted to not those differences become an obstacle.
A small example is about eating food which may have been offered to Idols... "I have no problem with it, but I do not do it when surrounded by people who DO, lest I be a stumbling block for them..."
The biblical example is not to highlight our differences, but to minimize them, and to to be accomodating without resentment, those who are different.
That is the very opposite of "multicultural", which, by nature, is NEVER "integrated", just "together".
Posted by: Watcher | August 24, 2008 12:55 PM
Where I disagree is when government beauracrats commandeer my possessions and use them to fund social programs which do not work (and that are actually counter-productive) and that do not address the most important needs (spiritual needs.)
Bradley, this statement contains some serious inaccuracies.
First, "government bureaucrats" do not "commandeer" yours or anyone's possessions (unless they are law enforcement officers who are confiscating property used in a crime). Like it or not, it's your elected representatives, not bureaucrats, who enact funding, taxation, and program legislation. Bureaucrats only carry out the program or enforce the rules, they don't make the program.
Second, you are making an a priori presumption that government-enacted social programs don't work and are counterproductive. If you wish to assert that this is true, you must give us evidence that demonstrates that they don't work. You can't just tell us that it's so. And somehow, if you actually do the research, I think you will find that sometimes they really do work, which means that this oft-repeated right-wing talking point really isn't about whether the programs work or not.
Finally, regardless of how you feel about government-funded social programs, government is not able to address spiritual needs. So why even mention it?
Peace,
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 24, 2008 1:00 PM
Don,
"you are making an a priori presumption that government-enacted social programs don't work and are counterproductive"
First, the record of the failed "War on Poverty" speaks volumes more than I could say on this blog.
Second, if you believe government is the best solution, you should be free to send them as much money as you would like.
Third, my argument is not contingent upon whether the programs work or not. See my above analogy to Rick about using his credit card to fund Operation Rescue. It doesn't matter if OR is effective or not, if he believes it is counter-productive, he should not be required to fund it.
Fourth, "government is not able to address spiritual needs. So why even mention it?" I mention it because I believe spiritual needs are more important than physical needs. Furthermore, both types are better served by the local church than by government.
Posted by: Bradley | August 24, 2008 2:06 PM
The biblical example is not to highlight our differences, but to minimize them, and to to be accommodating without resentment, those who are different.
That was then, when it was just starting out. But today, especially since the church is well-established but divided, we do need to address differences -- because most Christians subscribe to traditions that are foreign to others depending on the way we read the Scriptures. Having moved around different sets of believers during my entire adult life, I'm not at all threatened by those differences.
First, the record of the failed "War on Poverty" speaks volumes more than I could say on this blog.
It didn't fail -- it was sabotaged, both by the Vietnam War and the then-nascent conservative establishment that sought to destroy it for the sake of power. In fact, by many indications most of the implemented programs worked properly in the way they were supposed to. In fact, had you not had "white flight" in the 1950s and '60s and the resultant economic disparity it may not have been needed at all.
Posted by: Rick | August 24, 2008 2:22 PM
"It didn't fail -- it was sabotaged, both by the Vietnam War and the then-nascent conservative establishment that sought to destroy it for the sake of power"
Posted by: Rick
First of all that is not true . Second many of the policies indeed did and are working . Also some of the programs that did not work were continued not because of the right wing , but to win votes for the left . They were held on to get votes and power . No different then some of the techiques of the right . You I believe know political power and programs that you are passionate about are sometimes used to gain your support, not because of any real concern . Discernment should tell us all this .
Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2008 3:18 PM
Finally, regardless of how you feel about government-funded social programs, government is not able to address spiritual needs. So why even mention it?
Peace,
Peace,
Posted by: Don
I believe that was a responce of taking a church speaking to soving some problems in the "church" to those that carried it into politcs .
When I support a brother or sister in the Lord , regardless of economic status , race , or church attendance their is a spirtual Bond that glorifies God .
When I pay taxes and theose are distributed to war , or for those without housing , or those in need or transportion , God does not get the glory or the blame as in the case of war , The receiptent of gratitutde or blame is given to a politician or a political party , not to the Glory of God .
In Evangelical culture we are taught a perspectibve , and I believe it is Bibical if you care to discuss it , that when we do Good Works , God should get the Glory . Not ourselves .
If the amount of money the government gave to the poor , was given by our churches , I believe we would not have the divide we see here . That of course is not happening or appearing will happen , but I am trying to explain the spirtual aspect of what is lost through government .
I support a child through a organization that uses the money to help with education , medical , and also a Spirtual Teaching of Christ . I could also donate to an organization that helped a child in the same way , but would leave out the spirtual education . If I had a choice , I would always pick the Spirtual education as part also .
Safety nets with government I can totally understand , programs to help the poor also .
But you can be a pagan and do good works . I know of many secular pagan liberal minded and conservative people who help others . To say which side is right , or economic system is better for all concerned is a question of judgement , not spirtual superiority . Listen to the political positions held here are often compatible , in fact more passionate by those who believe god is a fairy tale . Obviously the superior judgement of these people are at risk on some matters ?
As blaming the poverty of the poor on the religious right , or the failure of the church and our moral failings on the left .
Gains donations , does little for the church .
Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2008 3:44 PM
Second many of the policies indeed did and are working. Also some of the programs that did not work were continued not because of the right wing, but to win votes for the left.
Your first statement is true but your second one isn't, primarily because by then the "left" was falling apart and there were few votes to win here because its focus had shifted to the war.
Posted by: Rick | August 24, 2008 3:51 PM
Second, if you believe government is the best solution, you should be free to send them as much money as you would like.
Bradley, you just made another a priori assumption here. I never said or implied that I support government as the "best solution." My comments were not designed to give my opinion. They were strictly related to your lack of support for your arguments. You don't make your case when you merely repeat what you've heard without providing examples.
You actually won't ever learn my own opinion on the government programs vs. private charity debate because I stay out of those discussions.
And the example you give, e.g., the 'war on poverty' is not a very good example because it's too general. Which programs failed? Be specific. Why did they fail? What caused them to fail--were they poorly designed, poorly executed, or what were the reasons? Unless you can give us data like that, you're just repeating talking points.
Further, there's an argument out there--and again, I won't say what I believe myself--that the war on poverty actually worked very well, and that's why the far right has been working for the last quarter century to dismantle it. In short, it empowered the wrong people, from the far right's perspective.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 24, 2008 4:33 PM
Don,
This is what happens when you come in at the end of a discussion and you are unaware of what is being discussed.
You mistakenly assumed that my main point is that government programs do not work. Although that is a true statement, and one that I would be happy to discuss further, my main point was not related to whether they work or not. Rather, it was that I should not be forced to support methods that I do not agree with and that I believe are fundamentally wrong and counter-productive.
Hence, the example of stealing Rick's money and giving it to Operation Rescue. The discussion related to that analogy is NOT whether or not Operation Rescue actually reduces abortions. Rather, it was whether I should be able to force Rick to fund Operation Rescue and then if he complains accuse him of supporting abortion.
Posted by: Bradley | August 24, 2008 5:25 PM
It didn't fail -- it was sabotaged, both by the Vietnam War and the then-nascent conservative establishment that sought to destroy it for the sake of power. In fact, by many indications most of the implemented programs worked properly in the way they were supposed to. In fact, had you not had "white flight" in the 1950s and '60s and the resultant economic disparity it may not have been needed at all.
You are indeed entirely wrong. About everything you said.
First, blaming failure of redistribution as a means of ending poverty is a red herring. It IS NOT POSSIBLE to end poverty via redistribution. Please learn this. Second, though you can't end it, YOU CAN MAKE IT MORE COMFORTABLE.
Redistribution does not end poverty, because it does not change behavior. Only behavior change ends poverty in a person's life.
Imagine you can't ride a bicycle. Will someone driving you around in a car ever overcome this? No. It requires you learn the skills for riding a bike. Getting out of poverty, not getting into it, and succeeding financially are learned skills.
And it's not enough to just "tell" someone how to be financially successful. They have to learn by experience, and that experience can be first or second hand, but in the case of the latter, it has to be integrated into someone's thinking.
So, while you can ALLEVIATE the results of poverty, until you can find a way to get people to alter their behavior by subsidizing the wrong way to do things (notice the logic problem...), it is BY DEFINITION impossible to end poverty by redistribution.
Posted by: Watcher | August 24, 2008 8:02 PM
This is what happens when you come in at the end of a discussion and you are unaware of what is being discussed.
Bradley:
I was responding to this statement from you:
"Where I disagree is when government beauracrats commandeer my possessions and use them to fund social programs which do not work (and that are actually counter-productive) and that do not address the most important needs (spiritual needs.)"
Whether I came in at the end of a discussion or not is really irrelevant. Whether your main point is that government programs don't work is also irrelevant. You still made the comment that they don't work and that they are counterproductive, and you failed to back it up. Whether it was your main point or not, it still had logical and substantive errors in it and consisted mostly of unsupported talking points. You need to do a better job of supporting your arguments and comments, whether they are your main point or not. That's all I was trying to say.
Posted by: Don | August 24, 2008 8:17 PM
First, blaming failure of redistribution as a means of ending poverty is a red herring. It IS NOT POSSIBLE to end poverty via redistribution.
Please learn the difference between mere "redistribution" and opening up opportunity, the latter of which "Great Society" programs did quite well. In fact, you don't even have a black middle class without it.
Posted by: Rick | August 24, 2008 11:45 PM
Watcher: "Imagine you can't ride a bicycle. Will someone driving you around in a car ever overcome this? No. It requires you learn the skills for riding a bike. Getting out of poverty, not getting into it, and succeeding financially are learned skills."
It is frustrating when conservatives accuse anti-poverty programs of treating only symptoms rather than causes. Head Start, for example, is a poverty-fighting program that tries to give underprivileged and often at-risk children some skills at an early age so that they can avoid the poverty trap in the future. And that was an LBJ Great Society program, part of the so-called War on Poverty, that some of you folks are saying failed and would love to see eliminated. Fortunately, Head Start was spared most of the budget cuts that befell other fine programs during the Vietnam War.
Frances Moore Lappe has an excellent article in the current issue of Sojourners that debunks five myths about poverty, one being that "government programs dopn't work." She cites that between the (I think) early sixties and late eighties poverty was cut in half, or something like that (Check the article for the exact numbers). As far as welfare, most people are on welfare for a short period of time and it is indeed temporary.
I've said it before: behind every small-government anti-taxer I see either a naive person or a hypocrite. No country has ever had "small government" or ever will. The wealthy would not have gained their wealth or been able to maintain it without support from their government, so it is only fair that the poor should receive protection and assistance from government as well (preferably in the form of poverty-prevention programs as well as cash assistance programs). And they need to be funded and we all have a responsibility to fund them just as we have a responsibility to fund our roads and public safety.
Geez, sometimes I feel like I'm teaching a high school government class. Apologies to the majority of commenters who already understand this.
Posted by: I and I | August 25, 2008 10:14 AM
I and I: "Geez, sometimes I feel like I'm teaching a high school government class. Apologies to the majority of commenters who already understand this."
Nothing wrong with the occasional refresher course, I and I!
Posted by: carl copas | August 25, 2008 12:45 PM
I&I,
I'd like to back your comments up a bit from an individual perspective. I am on "welfare" (food stamps and previously cash aid) and am "multiracial" to use the most pc term. To address the welfare. I am a student and have been in collegiate academics as a student for almost 10 years now. I started a family and have multiple financial burdens with no means of finishing school and making enough money to live in one of the two most expensive areas in the US. The food stamps program is the only thing that has allowed my family to survive financially because after housing and health insurance we literally are in negative income with me working side jobs in the university and my wife working weekends and nights. In a couple years when I attempt to get a professor position all of this will change drastically. This is not as uncommon as you may think and why social programs have done great things to the individuals that make up a whole.
To address Kim's article specifically. I fully support and try to assist our church in efforts to gather people from many cultures. At the same time, different cultures have different nuances. As a different blogger wrote that a black woman from the South and an affluent black woman from a major city would have less in common than a poor Hispanic woman also from the South, I don't agree. The two black women would connect in a different and more profound way. I say this based on the fact that I'm very involved in a campus organization built for people of my indigenous heritage. There are subtle jokes and ways we do things (cook, talk about life, find importance in life, relate to each other and other races, etc) that are entirely unique and bond us together. Race and, by extrapolation, culture, are very strong bonds. While the church seeks to become multicultural and gather all nations together, in one place under His name they must be aware of the things that identify who we are and help support those.
There's been one other Native person at my church and we came from about 2000 miles apart but clicked almost instantly. While we would meet for lunch or whatnot we didn't neglect being in the church and apart of all people's lives. This mixing, in my opinion should resemble stew and not soup. Each individual ingredient is identifiable but all come together to produce something much better.
Posted by: matt | August 25, 2008 2:11 PM
I and I,
Watch out for the spit balls.
Posted by: Bradley | August 25, 2008 2:40 PM
Watch out for the spit balls.
?????
Posted by: Don | August 25, 2008 3:32 PM
Don -- Check I and I's last graf.
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 3:49 PM
Bradley, put that pea-shooter away!!
Posted by: carl copas | August 25, 2008 4:47 PM
No. What you see in Jesus teachings are those people who are filled with the Holy Spirit offering up those possessions they own, of their own free will, so that others may have their basic needs met.
Don - You're absolutely right. But that's not what Rick is talking about.
Could it be that the people who you cite as wanting to take things from you are simply put there by God as reminders that you are too closely attached to your possessions?
They could be, and it's a good reminder, but that doesn't justify their actions or make them an example we should laud.
Posted by: Ricardo | August 25, 2008 4:58 PM
Ricardo, please distinguish between myself (Don) and DonF, who wrote the comments to which you replied. You had me confused for a moment.
Don -- Check I and I's last graf.
I think I understood the reference, but I guess I was a bit nonplussed by the juvenile-sounding reply. I'm not sure I want to relive my junior high days.
D
Posted by: Don | August 25, 2008 5:19 PM
It is not only about money. It is also about attitude. How many well to do people don't even want to belong to the same church that lower income people attend? And if they do belong to a church where a lower income person is a member, how many will not include that person into their social network? How many will even avoid sitting next to that person in the church? How many will refuse to shake that person's hand in a gesture of peace? I have observed much of these behaviors from people who are obviously well to do because they wear expensive clothing and drive expensive cars. It is not just about giving your money to help the financially less fortunate, it is also very much about attitude. But, remember, in God's eyes all people are our bretheren and what you do to the least of them you also do to Him. Your riches will not buy you salvation.
Posted by: Jacqueline | August 25, 2008 5:22 PM
I've said it before: behind every small-government anti-taxer I see either a naive person or a hypocrite
"deleted for brevity and sterotypical horse puckey"
Geez, sometimes I feel like I'm teaching a high school government class. Apologies to the majority of commenters who already understand this.
Posted by: I and I
Well teaching the class as if we were living in China may be part of the problem . Here in the free world we need some better reasons for supporting policies that have not worked along with the same folks who support policies that do work . Appears with the throw money at it crowd or your a hypocrit crowd the debate is over .
Head Start is part of the solution , if you studied the issue you will see as the children who use Head Start grow in age , BUT that help and support that allowed them to keep up is lost as they grow and move on in the education system . Head Start is only part , much more to it then that . Having that said ,I disagree with your unproveable belief in big government , because it has not worked , government closest to the people has always been the best , it was
what designed by our Founders , and is what has excelled even in FDR's time . The local States and smaller governments had a much easier time of operating with the bureacracy and regulation from the government . FDR policies helped more because the tax dollars went more to the people it was helping , as now education dollars by the time it gets to the classroom is drastically reduced . Big government stinks .
.
Posted by: Michael | August 26, 2008 1:14 AM
Having that said, I disagree with your unproveable belief in big government, because it has not worked, government closest to the people has always been the best, it was what designed by our Founders, and is what has excelled even in FDR's time.
That came from Scots-Irish culture -- that ethnic group represented the largest number of non-English settlers to these shores. Also, the opposition to the civil-rights movement was motivated partially by "big government"; even Bill Buckley came out against it because MLK Jr. went to the feds. (Buckley later said that he had it wrong.) State government is also closer to the people who resist change; in the South industry actually virtually wrote state constitutions in order to promote and maintain their interests.
Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 8:46 AM
Bradley: "Watch out for the spit balls."
I suspect you're not the only one on this thread who was throwing spitballs during high school government class. It would seem to explain a few things.
Posted by: I and I | August 26, 2008 9:24 AM
I and I:
Are you suggesting that some people who post here might not have been paying attention in government class?
Unthinkable!!
Posted by: Don | August 26, 2008 10:03 AM
I and I: "I suspect you're not the only one on this thread who was throwing spitballs during high school government class. It would seem to explain a few things."
I resemble that remark!
Posted by: carl copas | August 26, 2008 11:18 AM
Re spitballs, I certainly wasn't thinking of you guys! :)
Rick: "Also, the opposition to the civil-rights movement was motivated partially by "big government"; even Bill Buckley came out against it because MLK Jr. went to the feds."
I remember being surprised when I learned that not all who opposed the movement were doing so out of sheer racism. But I think this points to an inherent flaw in conservative ideology and the conservative movement has largely failed to learn from it.
Posted by: I and I | August 26, 2008 2:12 PM
I remember being surprised when I learned that not all who opposed the movement were doing so out of sheer racism. But I think this points to an inherent flaw in conservative ideology and the conservative movement has largely failed to learn from it.
Not only was this the case concerning the civil-rights movement but what also led to the Civil War, which didn't really start over slavery. The point is, however, that conservatives in my view don't understand the concept of justice and today label many efforts to a secure it as "socialism."
Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 2:28 PM
"Big government stinks."
No, bad government stinks. When government is doing stuff it should not be doing, or not doing stuff it should be doing, it is bad and it stinks. Right now, under the enlightened policies of the Bush Administration and the McConnell/DeLay/Hastert/Boehner leadership in the Capitol, we've got a federal government that is spending lots of money it doesn't have to do stuff it shouldn't, while citing lack of money as an excuse not to do the stuff it should. You can surely understand why Obama's theme of change is catching on.
Posted by: I and I | August 27, 2008 10:14 AM
No, bad government stinks. When government is doing stuff it should not be doing, or not doing stuff it should be doing, it is bad and it stinks.
Which is why you had anti-government folks trying to get rid of Clinton -- they knew that he knew how to run a government and would (and eventually did) dispel the myth that government was inherently bad.
Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 3:48 PM
Rick, I suspect that is also what is behind the war spending and the resulting huge federal deficit. Now they can forever respond to a good domestic initiative with "we don't have the money," and turn over longtime government functions to the less-efficient private sector.
Posted by: I and I | August 27, 2008 4:16 PM
I jumped from the beginning to the end and somehow got from a spiritual discussion to a political one, so forgive me for backtracking. I just wanted to point out that I thought the original article made a lot of good points, as I have recently relocated from the suburbs into the city and visited 7 churches in my community before settling on one to explore more deeply. I believe that Jesus came to save all of us, and that the Kingdom of God (whether you believe it is here on earth, in the afterlife, or both) is not segregated. We are all on a walk of faith that God has laid out to make us who we are meant to be for His glory. At a different point in my journey of faith, it was critically important for me to be in a church that reflected my ethnic experience because I had no other access to the deep biblical truths as they applied to what I faced in the world every day. At this point in my journey of faith, I have been strengthened by those truths and carry them with me, but also recognize that God lays out new paths for us to explore. It is true that the Kingdom of God is not segregated, and to conduct myself as if it is and consider myself to be progressive or on a path of transcendence seemed incongruent. The church I attend now is Bible-based, as my previous church was, but ethnically I am in the minority. Because this church is God-centered and focused on scriptures, love, service, and social justice, it makes the ethnicity question much less important.
Posted by: Lynne B | August 27, 2008 4:33 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?