Stones Cry Out

And I've read the Bible enough to have an alarm go off when I hear “pro-rich, pro-war” used in a positive light.

You said:
"as many Christians have believed, that free markets, when combined with compassionate church and private sector, are the best solutions for ending poverty..."

Many Christians have believed a good deal of stuff, much of it less than positive or biblical. But since we're starting from the same point (ie, we have a biblical/Christian mandate to have concern for the poor and to be wary of wealth...or at least I'm assuming we can agree that these are central to biblical teaching?), why not use this space to have a bit of a discussion on how we can best do that?

Why do you distrust Wallis and wary of Webb? What makes you uncomfortable for us to say that MoveOn is doing God's Work? Let's get down to specifics here, reach some understanding, see where we can come together, whaddya say?

I'll give you a longer post later, but the central message of the Gospel is "Repent and believe." Nothing in there about money as far as I'm concerned.

You are aware, I'm sure of Jesus' own proclamation of purpose?
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

You are aware of the centrality of taking care of/siding with the poor throughout the Bible?

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world." James 1:27

Am I saying that poverty is central to salvation? No. I'm suggesting that biblical teachings on money and warnings about wealth and power are found throughout the Bible and especially in Jesus' teachings. I can't imagine that you would disagree with this.

Looking forward to hearing more from anyone interested...

I see lots of "be careful" but I don't see much to suggest that we should all embrace asceticism.

Okay, but we are both clear on Jesus teaching to "do unto the least of these" (to the point that those who "did not do," did not enter the Kingdom of Heaven)?

And so my question is: How do we best "do unto the least of these?" How do we best recall Jesus' command, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth"?

How do we best "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." and avoid Jesus condemnation that he heaped upon the Pharisees ("Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and self­indulgence.")?

Will we follow Paul's teaching to "Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God..." and to "Keep our lives free from the love of money and be content with what we have"?

Will we follow James' teachings and tell our rich church folk "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days"?

Will we stand with the prophets and condemn the wealthy and powerful oppressors and call us all to "to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"

What will we do to "Seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow..." and who are the oppressed, orphaned and widowed in our culture?

What does all this look like to you in practice?

Yeah, I got it. Help the poor and less fortunate. We should also help the rich guy whose wife just left him for the pool boy and we should be a friend to old widow who is sitting one a million dollars. Money is not the issue; pain and suffering are the issue.

I think the means of carrying this out will vary from place to place. But Democrat-style welfare has never ever EVER worked and I reject any idea that I have some sort of Biblical obligation to support government programs as a means of carrying out God's call.

That should read: "a friend to the old widow who is sitting on a million..."

That's fine, my point is that I agree with the author of the essay originally cited in this post: That we tend to ignore the more difficult teachings of the bible because they make us uncomfortable and seem difficult. But we ought not to avoid thorny societal issues because they're difficult or uncomfortable because we have multiple biblical mandates to do otherwise.

And so, what shall we do with the poor? The oppressed? The oppressors?

Disagree with the notion of gov't support if you wish but tell me what you propose instead. What we can't do, says I, is ignore the issues. Not without sitting in judgement of the Jesus whose salvation we seek.

Here's what we can do. End wasteful government spending and bureaucracies. Give people back their money. Cut taxes. Then let pastors and priests and lay leaders suggest that everyone prayerfully consider their own lifestyles and evaluate what then can do to help. Set up ministries. Give tell it hurts. Help existing ministries. We can do it better than a bureaucrat.

I agree that we avoid challenging Biblical texts. I read Bonhoffer this summer and it was very convicting. But I am cautious about how we approach these texts because it is very easy to slip into legalism. I am not going to suggest to a married couple that their weekend away is wrong or that parents should not give their kids a decent Christmas. It is when these things occur without concern for the less fortunate that they become troublesome, but I refuse to stand in judgement of others until I know their specific situation. I think this should help clarify my position.

"Give people back their money. Cut taxes. Then let pastors and priests..."

THEN? Why not now? If it is the right thing to do (care for the widows and orphans, etc) why are we not doing it now and what makes us think we'll do it when we have more money? And if one of those areas you're talking about cutting back on is Aid to families and the needy, then if churches aren't standing up to the job now, what makes you think they will (or will even be ABLE to) later when there's the massive flood of folks no longer receiving assistance from the gov't?

Thanks for the clarification. But just to throw it out there one more time: What I'm asking for (and not just you, Brother Matt) is what about these awful problems of poverty, homelessness, hunger, violence and oppression? You've read a small sampling of the biblical injunctions: Where are our bible-believing churches?

If you don't think that gov't assistance is the way to alleviate poverty, fine. But churches ought to be out there leading the way in advocating solutions, changing systems, standing up to abusive policies, calling the rich and powerful to task when necessary.

And I'm saying that we (the church) seems to spend an awful lot of time dwelling on stuff that is marginally biblical (or not biblical or ANTI-biblical) [gay marriage, alcohol, drugs, the quality of TV and movies, advocating war!, etc, etc] and not much time, money or energy on central biblical teachings.

Is there a risk of sounding judgemental? Pushy? Sure. But then, the prophets sounded judgemental and Jesus got pretty darn pushy and there is a time and place for such.

In a world where 790 million lack adequate nutrition, one billion lack access to safe drinking water, over 2.4 billion lack basic sanitation, approximately one billion adults are illiterate, etc, etc, etc, I say the time is long past.

Dan makes a good point. If people and churches aren't doing anything now, there is no reason to believe they will do anything when they have more money.

It's possible that the removal of relief programs would shock the church into realizing what it should be doing. But do we really need to throw the poor and oppressed into even worse straits before we start doing what the Bible clearly calls us to be doing?

I'm tired of having this argument. I don't believe bureaucracies work. I don't think it's the governments job to feed people. It does not work and it has not work and more programs and more taxes won't help. We can talk about whatever you guys want but this is finished.

Put down Jim Wallis. Read some Thomas Sowell and we'll talk.

I've read Sowell. Not impressed. But since we both read the bible, let's talk strategies for doing what we're called to do. As a christian in a republic that is largely Christian, I don't have a problem letting the gov't intervene to try to solve problems.

After all, it's not as bleak as you paint it: We do have low poverty rates as compared to the much of the world. We don't have people dying on the streets too often from cold or hunger. Our safety nets ARE working after a fashion.

But I'll agree with you that gov't is often not the best case manager or service provider. So, what is your solution? I'm open to other ideas. What I'm not open to is cutting out my solution with no plan or feasible reason to believe things will get better.

The ball's in your park to provide some workable solutions, it seems to me.

Matt said:
"Wallis should be afraid to say as much [he's a leftist], and he should certainly be willing to defend his position biblically."

I think Wallis will gladly admit he's progressive/leftist and he has EXTENSIVELY defended his positions biblically. As I've extensively pointed out the biblical mandate for caring for the poor.

Seems to me that we're still waiting on the Right to do so. And I don't mean that as a slap, I mean that as a challenge to honestly discuss these matters on a biblical and logical basis.

And a point of fact on the oft-repeated but baseless claim that "welfare does not work:"

The historical evidence is clear: welfare reduces poverty, and the lack of it increases it. In the 1920s, fully half of all Americans could not make ends meet. Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973. Since the rise of the corporate special interest system in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking, and poverty has been steadily rising, to over 15 percent today.

Matt said:
"I hope to somehow become a part of this conversation, because I remain worried about much of its implicit political direction."

I've offered and am game. Y'all pondering answers/discussion points?

That conversation was one of culture, theology, society, etc. It wasn't one of economics. I'm not going to discuss this with you, because if you think the Great Society was a success, then we disagree on fundamental issues and I'm not going to bother.

For me, economics is a subset of theology. And I thought so for you, too, since that seemed to be a main thrust of your comments about Mr. Webb.

But okay, let's not discuss economics (or if someone else wants to, I'm still game). But for Matt: What part of "culture, theology, society, etc" were you wanting to converse upon?

You said you were wanting to engage in conversation with progressives out of your concern "that the politics of this conversation seem to be consistently drifting leftward," so what troubles you concerning us on the Christian Left that made you want to engage in dialog with us? I agree that we need dialog and now's as good a time as any...

I'm new to bible arguing but I would have to say that Matt ought to turn in his sunday sack cloth, put on his brooks brothers suit and scoot over to the Wall street journal. You ought to do it before Jesus returns and runs you out of the temple again.

Although it has been a staple of Gop/christian politics there is no evidence that supports the idea that giiviing money to the wealthy is good for the poor.

Matt, you are avoiding the main point. It doesn't matter how competent the government is at relieving poverty. The church's duty is independent.

Is "Bible arguing" a thing? I don't know if I like the sound of that ;-)

So Mike, the 1st rule of Bible arguing is to always speak in love. Nobody actually does that, but technically it's the rule ;-)

Of course, words spoken in love sometimes sound like:
"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation!

But woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep!

You serpents! you brood of vipers! how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna [a burning dung heap]?"

-Jesus to the Pharisees

Just a thought: Sometimes the best, most loving thing to tell a rich guy is to "go, and sell all you have, give it to the poor and join in with my community of shared goods."

So, does this mean that everyone is too busy to spend time trying to find common ground between Leftish and Rightish Christians on these important issues? "Busy," I understand. "Aren't interested" would bug and disappoint me.

Doug? James? Mark? Rick? Anyone?

Busy is a good word.

Fair enough. Another day, then, but not "never."

One final thought though on the church/state issue of dealing with poverty: It would be quite an interesting thing and a coup for Jesus if the church were to roll up her sleeves and DO something about the difficult issues of poverty so that the gov't had to finally say, "Gee. I guess we're not needed here. Here's all that welfare money back, we don't need it anymore as the church is taking care of these needs for us."

Wanna do something about "high taxes that feed our welfare state" (a myth)? Take care of the welfare state.

And a bit of prophecy. T'ain't going to happen.

Dan - if you'd like to e-mail me, please do so at matthew.stokesATua.edu if you would like to continue this discussion. I don't want a comment thread to be full like this, but I don't want to let it die, either. Peace.

Thank you, sir. I'll take you up on it.

One place you might try for some serious, compassionate, and economically conservative thinking about poverty and how to defeat it is the Acton Institute. I attended one of their conferences a few years ago and it was an eye-opening weekend. Of course, they are mostly Roman Catholic so that automatically gives them a leg up on evangelicals in the care for the poor as far as I'm concerned (and I am an evangelical).

Matt,

Glad to hear you're wanting to engage in the emerging church conversation. I am very interested in a lot of what they are saying, but I too am concerned with that movement leaning too far to the left. Hopefully, if enough of us more conservative/orthodox folks join in the fray, that will not be the case.

I have only one point to make and it is in reference to the conclusions you drew based on links you found on Derek and others' websites.

Why do you assume that a link to a site is a wholehearted, blank-check affirmation of the theology/practices of said site?

I have noticed this kind of wooden mentality amongst Christians who like to wear a more conservative label.

There probably exist several hundred reasons why someone might post a link to a site.

Perhaps you need to grasp the "emerging" perspective that acknowledges that conversations themselves are helpful.

Personally, If I link to a certain site I am not implying that my orthodoxy and orthopraxy is in absolute alignment with theirs. I am saying that I think they have something important to contribute to the conversation.

What kind of Christian community would exist if we were only to align oursleves with the small percentage of Christians who happen to see the world from our own small perspective?

I appreciate your honesty in admitting where your deductions were drawn (i.e. from links on a site). Now I hope you will reconsider the subjective reasoning behind your assumptions.

I confess I am a big Derek Webb fan. My take on his message is that it is non-political. As he says in one song, "My first allegiance is not to a flag, a country or a man. It's to a King and a kingdom."

I object to anyone who tries to make government or politics the answer to a Kingdom issue. I believe we are PERSONALLY responsible for bringing the kingdom of God to those around us. I spend dozens of hours every week working with the homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes -- not because they are intrinsically more "needy" than the rich, but because that is where God sends me.

We don't all have to give away what we own to embrace the kingdom. But we can't be owned by it.

Jesus never asked us to pick up our picket signs and follow Him. If we want prayer in the schools, we need to head down to the schools and pray. If we want to end poverty and suffering, we need to go help someone who is poor and suffering. The Bible tells us the poor will always be among us, so it isn't about fixing them. It's about fixing ourselves, and fixing our eyes on Jesus.