Jim Wallis says yes. According to him, no one has been looking out for the poor in Washington:
But the religious community is changing this: It formed “A Circle of Protection” to defend the most effective anti-poverty efforts both at home and around the world. Today, Sojourners has a full-page ad in Politicowith the message “God Is Watching” as a part of our series of print ads on the budget. This week our radio ads, recorded by local pastors, are playing in Nevada, Kentucky, and Ohio to remind politicians of the moral issues at stake. Faith leaders say God is biased in such matters, and prefers to protect the poor instead of the rich, and instructs the faithful to do the same. This is class warfare now, and when it breaks out, the Bible suggests that God is on the side of defending the poor from assault.
After literally decades of failed social policies — policies that have helped create a permanent underclass, fostered a dependent spirit in millions of citizens, and helped explode the illegitimacy rate (all for the low, low price of several trillion dollars) — it would be tempting to roll our eyes at Wallis’s christianized socialism. Unfortunately, however, the evangelical progressive Left is gaining ground in American Christianity. Thus, columns like Wallis’s demand a response.
First, it is now crystal clear that more social spending does not mean less poverty. As the chart below shows, serious progress in reducing the poverty rate was made before the War on Poverty commenced. Since then, while social spending always rises, the poverty rate does not always decrease and instead bounces around in much the same way as the business cycle.
Second, while this video has been linked on the Corner before, it really should be shown every week. Simply put, socialism doesn’t lead to prosperity. Freedom does:
Finally, much of the Left’s argument is often built around a baseless assumption that cuts (or even decreases in the rate of increase) in social programs will create a void that nothing will fill. In reality, the choice is not between Medicare and death or food stamps and starvation. Families (even broken families), friends, churches, and secular charities can and will step in with care that is more efficient, more effective, and more lovingly delivered than that provided by even the most well-intentioned bureaucracy.
Even if “Cut, Cap, and Balance” had passed, hundreds of billions of dollars would still flow towards the poor and elderly in our country. We cannot let the bureaucracy replace our own charity, and we have to remind ourselves — and the church — that the greatness of our hearts is not measured by the size of our government.
Jim Wallis is a political hack and always has been. Some of the left of center evangelical "social justice" types like Ron Sider I can respect because he is just as strong against abortion and in favor of things that actually work like microloans.
But Wallis is dishonest, partisan in the worst way and provides a convenient fig leaf which the Left hides behind in much of the Christian community.
This is what you get when the you only read one book in your life and think it somehow contains every answer to any question. I would rather be ruled by Thomas Jefferson who was perhaps at most a Deist than self-proclaimed Christians like Wallis or Huckabee who are really are just a step below a Theocracy.
Michael, it's unfair to smear the Bible for the statist tendencies of some who claim to revere its teachings.
Guys like Wallis frequently don't even seem to know the book all that well, except in dishonest proof-texting to justify their policy positions.
I mean, seriously: a century ago, this country's general population was a LOT more supportive of the free market. It's not as if Americans were ignorant of the Bible in 1910 and only started obsessing over the book in the last 100 years.
Point well taken. I think there is a lot more to public policy that somehow coming up with a "WWJD" answer and my eyes glaze over and with all the stuff about the debt ceiling I blew off some steam. (WWJD on a personal level is a whole different animal and a good path to follow.) I suppose growing up as a Catholic in the 1980s when a good number of Bishops basically sounded like Wallis and me with what I thought was a good understanding of history and economics thinking the exact opposite made me jaded. (Thankfully JPII and now Benedict has done a good job replacing these "social justice" bishops with those who are all about spreading the Gospel.)
The problem with this type of "caring for the poor" project is the inability to distinguish between folks who are poor by providence and those who are poor by choice. God wants us to care for those who cannot care for themselves, but he also wants us to be good stewards of our resources. The U.S. government, while generous to a fault, is not, and never will be, a good steward of our charitable resources.
I find it a bit bizzare that religous organizations would try to claim that God wants more anti-poverty government programs. The Bible calls on us to help the poor OURSELVES, not delegate that responsibility to Ceasar.
For most of this nation's existence Americans have done just that, with churches and charitable civic organizations at the center of those efforts. But I guess these religous organizations can't be bothered any more and are happy to let the government do it.
Americans are among the most generous people in the world, and would step up and do what is right if the government got out of the way. A safety net is a good thing, dependence is not.
"Faith leaders say God is biased in such matters, and prefers to protect the poor instead of the rich, and instructs the faithful to do the same."
You know what, Wallis? Why not use your "church" to actually provide services to these people, instead of devising misleading sermons to mandate that I be separated from more and more of my money?
God wants the government taking people's money to force them to pitch in to programs that have been proven failures? For starters, that is a pretty convoluted concept of God you have swirling in your brain -- that he expects ANYONE to rely on the state for ANYTHING other than protection from invaders and insurrectionists.
And I doubt that God prefers that the government not protect the rich, as their assets and property YOU ARE GONNA NEED to fund all your notions of what the government should involve itself in.
I highly doubt that an all-knowing God holds such antagonism for those of us who are successful. If you can prove he shares your animus for the successful among us, then I promise I'll become an atheist. Because I would NEVER want any part of a God that looks at human beings in such pathetic terms as you do.
Secondly, that is pretty uncreative of you. That's the best you can do to advocate for the poor? Sign them up to government programs?
I work with the poor every day, "preacher". Your benevolent socialist programs are destroying every vestige of hope they had in their bloodstream.
Once upon a time, the underclass was actually poor, as in "I have no food".
That stopped about 50 years ago - 3 generations have been raised with food I bought them, and they still complain. The "poor" have a higher standard of living now than the middle class did in 1960.
The division isn't rich vs. poor.
It's responsible, provident, thrifty and cautious vs. foolish, gullible and self-indulgent.
I agree (or accept the statistics) regarding everything you said. However the graphs of poverty rate graph should be scaled to include 0. It is visually misleading otherwise. For those that understand those things and are inclined to disagree with you, such presentations will give them an out: If you can't be trusted to present the data accurately in all respects...etc etc.
I am not disputing your caution, but making a point...
Why should a graph showing the poverty rate ever be indexed to 0%? The poverty rate will never BE 0%, so why should that be where the axis crosses? Since this post is about preachers telling us what to do with our money, I'll toss out John 12:3-8, particualrly verse 8 "For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."
You raise a good point regarding graphing. Broadening the range flattens the graph. Narrowing the graph makes the distinctions sometimes seem artificially sharp. I thought this range was fair because its bottom mark is right around the lowest poverty rage, and its top mark is near the highest rate in the last fifty years. Other charts sometimes go from 0 to 50, and the line is flatter but still makes the exact same point -- the War on Poverty has not decreased the poverty rate in the United States.
First, can we get a second line on that graph that shows per capita government spending on the war on poverty? The contrast should be interesting.
Second, God is *not* on the side of the poor over against the rich. As a matter of fact:
"You shall do no injustice in court. You SHALL NOT BE PARTIAL TO THE POOR or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." Leviticus 19:15, ESV (emphasis mine)
Mr Wallis needs to read his scriptures before he demands we comply with them.
Interesting that Wallis' social justice organization Sojourners pays Wallis a salary that puts him in the top 7% of household earners in the US--not to mention undoubtedly the top 1% world-wide.
Where are the ACLU wall-of-separation types who normally scream bloody murder whenever anyone tries to use the government to impose his religious beliefs on others?
Are they with the Code Pinkos who are raising such a complete ruckus over our participation in the bombing of Libya?
My best calculation of charity in this country might contradict that idea. In 2004 (the last year I could find numbers for), aggregate household income was in the vicinity of $7 trillion. Aggregate giving was less than 4%. Could it be that people don't give an average of 10% because Uncle Sugar takes so much on April 15th?
I might speculate and say that God loves a cheerful giver and there ain't a lot of cheer on Tax Day.
Actually, the tax payers pays much more in tithe than it seems. About 50% of taxes go towards entitlements and programs taht help the poor. Since I am in the 25% tax bracket, I estimate that 12.5 percent of taxable income is a form of tithe. In addition, I give other charity money. By my view, I am far above and beyond the tithe in helping the poor.
The social justice Christians have co-opted charity to the government so that they would not have to bare a greater share of the burden. The net result is a gradual replacement of God with the government. The only problem is that charity is to be rendered with compassion. God IS compassionate, the government cannot be. As long as an applicant fits within the required criteria, they get the charity. That is not compassion, it is enabling. But it is much easier (although vastly more expensive on the whole) to use the power and reach of the government to coerce charity from all that can afford it rather than for the few of them to put forth the time, effort and resources and demonstrate to those of all other faiths the glory of God. How often did Jesus teach about the virtue and compassion of the roman empire? We Christians truly have the ability and opportunity to change this world for the better and show millions the path to heaven but we have dropped the ball for Uncle Sam to pick up!
Charity is not the willingness to take from somebody in order to give to somebody else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, I've always found it hilarious how "compassionate" these people are with other peoples' money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim Wallis is a political hack and always has been. Some of the left of center evangelical "social justice" types like Ron Sider I can respect because he is just as strong against abortion and in favor of things that actually work like microloans.
But Wallis is dishonest, partisan in the worst way and provides a convenient fig leaf which the Left hides behind in much of the Christian community.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is what you get when the you only read one book in your life and think it somehow contains every answer to any question. I would rather be ruled by Thomas Jefferson who was perhaps at most a Deist than self-proclaimed Christians like Wallis or Huckabee who are really are just a step below a Theocracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichael, it's unfair to smear the Bible for the statist tendencies of some who claim to revere its teachings.
Guys like Wallis frequently don't even seem to know the book all that well, except in dishonest proof-texting to justify their policy positions.
I mean, seriously: a century ago, this country's general population was a LOT more supportive of the free market. It's not as if Americans were ignorant of the Bible in 1910 and only started obsessing over the book in the last 100 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoint well taken. I think there is a lot more to public policy that somehow coming up with a "WWJD" answer and my eyes glaze over and with all the stuff about the debt ceiling I blew off some steam. (WWJD on a personal level is a whole different animal and a good path to follow.) I suppose growing up as a Catholic in the 1980s when a good number of Bishops basically sounded like Wallis and me with what I thought was a good understanding of history and economics thinking the exact opposite made me jaded. (Thankfully JPII and now Benedict has done a good job replacing these "social justice" bishops with those who are all about spreading the Gospel.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem with this type of "caring for the poor" project is the inability to distinguish between folks who are poor by providence and those who are poor by choice. God wants us to care for those who cannot care for themselves, but he also wants us to be good stewards of our resources. The U.S. government, while generous to a fault, is not, and never will be, a good steward of our charitable resources.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find it a bit bizzare that religous organizations would try to claim that God wants more anti-poverty government programs. The Bible calls on us to help the poor OURSELVES, not delegate that responsibility to Ceasar.
For most of this nation's existence Americans have done just that, with churches and charitable civic organizations at the center of those efforts. But I guess these religous organizations can't be bothered any more and are happy to let the government do it.
Americans are among the most generous people in the world, and would step up and do what is right if the government got out of the way. A safety net is a good thing, dependence is not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Faith leaders say God is biased in such matters, and prefers to protect the poor instead of the rich, and instructs the faithful to do the same."
You know what, Wallis? Why not use your "church" to actually provide services to these people, instead of devising misleading sermons to mandate that I be separated from more and more of my money?
God wants the government taking people's money to force them to pitch in to programs that have been proven failures? For starters, that is a pretty convoluted concept of God you have swirling in your brain -- that he expects ANYONE to rely on the state for ANYTHING other than protection from invaders and insurrectionists.
And I doubt that God prefers that the government not protect the rich, as their assets and property YOU ARE GONNA NEED to fund all your notions of what the government should involve itself in.
I highly doubt that an all-knowing God holds such antagonism for those of us who are successful. If you can prove he shares your animus for the successful among us, then I promise I'll become an atheist. Because I would NEVER want any part of a God that looks at human beings in such pathetic terms as you do.
Secondly, that is pretty uncreative of you. That's the best you can do to advocate for the poor? Sign them up to government programs?
I work with the poor every day, "preacher". Your benevolent socialist programs are destroying every vestige of hope they had in their bloodstream.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce upon a time, the underclass was actually poor, as in "I have no food".
That stopped about 50 years ago - 3 generations have been raised with food I bought them, and they still complain. The "poor" have a higher standard of living now than the middle class did in 1960.
The division isn't rich vs. poor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's responsible, provident, thrifty and cautious vs. foolish, gullible and self-indulgent.
I agree (or accept the statistics) regarding everything you said. However the graphs of poverty rate graph should be scaled to include 0. It is visually misleading otherwise. For those that understand those things and are inclined to disagree with you, such presentations will give them an out: If you can't be trusted to present the data accurately in all respects...etc etc.
David
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am not disputing your caution, but making a point...
Why should a graph showing the poverty rate ever be indexed to 0%? The poverty rate will never BE 0%, so why should that be where the axis crosses? Since this post is about preachers telling us what to do with our money, I'll toss out John 12:3-8, particualrly verse 8 "For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou raise a good point regarding graphing. Broadening the range flattens the graph. Narrowing the graph makes the distinctions sometimes seem artificially sharp. I thought this range was fair because its bottom mark is right around the lowest poverty rage, and its top mark is near the highest rate in the last fifty years. Other charts sometimes go from 0 to 50, and the line is flatter but still makes the exact same point -- the War on Poverty has not decreased the poverty rate in the United States.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, can we get a second line on that graph that shows per capita government spending on the war on poverty? The contrast should be interesting.
Second, God is *not* on the side of the poor over against the rich. As a matter of fact:
"You shall do no injustice in court. You SHALL NOT BE PARTIAL TO THE POOR or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." Leviticus 19:15, ESV (emphasis mine)
Mr Wallis needs to read his scriptures before he demands we comply with them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting that Wallis' social justice organization Sojourners pays Wallis a salary that puts him in the top 7% of household earners in the US--not to mention undoubtedly the top 1% world-wide.
External Link
External Link
Social justice physician, heal thyself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat compassion is there in writing hot checks? Where is the good deed in stealing from some to give to others?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere are the ACLU wall-of-separation types who normally scream bloody murder whenever anyone tries to use the government to impose his religious beliefs on others?
Are they with the Code Pinkos who are raising such a complete ruckus over our participation in the bombing of Libya?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo God wants welfare?
My best calculation of charity in this country might contradict that idea. In 2004 (the last year I could find numbers for), aggregate household income was in the vicinity of $7 trillion. Aggregate giving was less than 4%. Could it be that people don't give an average of 10% because Uncle Sugar takes so much on April 15th?
I might speculate and say that God loves a cheerful giver and there ain't a lot of cheer on Tax Day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, the tax payers pays much more in tithe than it seems. About 50% of taxes go towards entitlements and programs taht help the poor. Since I am in the 25% tax bracket, I estimate that 12.5 percent of taxable income is a form of tithe. In addition, I give other charity money. By my view, I am far above and beyond the tithe in helping the poor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe social justice Christians have co-opted charity to the government so that they would not have to bare a greater share of the burden. The net result is a gradual replacement of God with the government. The only problem is that charity is to be rendered with compassion. God IS compassionate, the government cannot be. As long as an applicant fits within the required criteria, they get the charity. That is not compassion, it is enabling. But it is much easier (although vastly more expensive on the whole) to use the power and reach of the government to coerce charity from all that can afford it rather than for the few of them to put forth the time, effort and resources and demonstrate to those of all other faiths the glory of God. How often did Jesus teach about the virtue and compassion of the roman empire? We Christians truly have the ability and opportunity to change this world for the better and show millions the path to heaven but we have dropped the ball for Uncle Sam to pick up!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse