What is your position on Social Justice? -- Take the Poll

[Oliver Phillips]

How would you describe your position on Social Justice?

Participate in the survey: http://www.culturalexpressionsmagazine.org/en/surveys/5-what-statement-most-describes-your-belief

[Mike Schutz]

Oliver - this poll is difficult because it involves a forced choice, when the perspectives are not mutually exclusive. It is not only possible that someone could hold options 1, 2, 3 and 5, but it is reasonable to suggest that someone would hold to #3, because of holding to #1, 2, and 5.

[Billie Goodson]

I would have to understand how the author of the survey was using the term "Social Justice" before I could even begin to answer the question. I have my own definition of what is acceptable in regards to social justice, but I would believe it differs substantially from that of the author. Perhaps in that regards, only option 5 is tenable to me. I care about social injustice perhaps more so than social justice, which may seem odd but it has to do more with how I define it.

I like the statement by H. G. Wells that all people are "equally entitled to the respect of their fellow-men." I might even be for some form of broader sense of income redistribution at a macro level, but not at a micro level. Perhaps that opinion is highly influenced by my experience with our government and finding that the major proponents of social justice platforms participate the least in the actual implementation of those platforms. Perhaps if my "church" was the arbiter of social justice instead of the government, I might be friendlier to the cause.

[Jim Chabot]

I was also unable to take the poll due to an inadequate definition of "social justice" For instance if "social justice were to be defined as our individual voluntary participation, or even as corporate yet entirely voluntary participation towards this goal, then I could answer yes to all of the poll questions. However if "social justice" is defined to include non voluntary participation i.e. government involvement then I would need to answer no to all of the questions. The former allows for the spirits urging each one of us to be "missional" while the latter violates the commandment not to steal, and for me personally, I would need to violate the commandment not to covet in order to be in favor of such a thing.

[Andy Mistak]

I was also unable to take the poll due to an inadequate definition of "social justice" For instance if "social justice were to be defined as our individual voluntary participation, or even as corporate yet entirely voluntary participation towards this goal, then I could answer yes to all of the poll questions. However if "social justice" is defined to include non voluntary participation i.e. government involvement then I would need to answer no to all of the questions. The former allows for the spirits urging each one of us to be "missional" while the latter violates the commandment not to steal, and for me personally, I would need to violate the commandment not to covet in order to be in favor of such a thing.

Jim, you REALLY need to stop accusing those of us who advocate progressive social policies of "theft".

[Eric Frey]

I think we over-analyze to avoid having to answer the hard questions

[Eric Frey]

Jim, you REALLY need to stop accusing those of us who advocate progressive social policies of "theft".

Don't worry. That's not HIS idea. He probably stole it from some conservative talk radio host:smilies1722::smilies1722::smilies1722:

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, you REALLY need to stop accusing those of us who advocate progressive social policies of "theft".

I'm sorry Andy, truly I am. But it is the truth, and that is something that I can't back away from. Then again if you would read my post carefully you would see that I attribute theft to those who actively engage in the appropriation of the belongings of others. To those who advocate for this, I attribute covetousness.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm sorry Andy, truly I am. But it is the truth, and that is something that I can't back away from. Then again if you would read my post carefully you would see that I attribute theft to those who actively engage in the appropriation of the belongings of others. To those who advocate for this, I attribute covetousness.

Covetousness is the desire to possess another's belongings. I don't desire to possess anyone's belongings... I desire for other people to possess them. It is difficult for me to separate these commands from the culture in which they were established. In that culture, it was required by the law that a portion of everyone's belongings be given to help the disadvantaged within society. It was a further legal requirement that all land be returned to its original owners, all debts canceled, and all slaves freed, twice every century. Shall we consider the tithe for the poor and the Year of Jubilee actions of theft? If so, they were theft prescribed by the Lord. Shall we limit the taxed funds which go to social programs to 10% of everyone's income once every three years? This would be far and away more than is current;y raised in taxes for these purposes. Seems to me that denying taxes for the benefit of the poor and disadvantaged on biblical grounds is an ignorance (whether intentional or unintentional) of just how biblical such practices actually are.

[James Diggs]

How would you describe your position on Social Justice

I believe in loving our neighbors AS ourselves. So then that means that we should look to dedicate as much to our neighbor through whatever means, and wherever we have areas affluence, (social, political, economic, whatever) as we would unto ourselves.

Social Justice is only "political" to the degree that the "social" (society) has influence in its own collective decisions.


Social justice is a recurring theme of the Old Testament prophets
Yes, absolutely. If God held rulers, dictators, and kings accountable for the poor and marginalized why do we think God would not hold us accountable in a democratic republic form of government supposedly made up of "we the people"?


Social justice is an implied theme of the Luke 4:17-21 passage.
Yes, and many other passages where the Kingdom of Heaven is preached as being for the marginalized poor, sick, and oppressed. It is about human redemption, and living into the Kingdom of God in a way that closes the gaps caused by the sins that divide human relationships and exploits others by not loving our neighbors as ourselves.

Jesus said "today" such good news has been "fulfilled", that the Kingdom of heaven is HERE; because He is here as God incarnate (emptying himself with all it means to be the greatest to become one of the least of these). We live into the truth of this new Way through Jesus Christ today even though we also still wait for it to come in all its fullness with the return of Christ as the old world passes away.


Social justice should be embraced by Christians today.

Yes- If we understand sin as it is, than we understand that sin is relational and social- So then, if we believe in redemption and holiness that impacts us in the here and now then we believe in a movement that begins to overcome these sins even today for not only the benefit of ourselves, but also others. My sin is not in a vacuum- nether is my redemption, salvation, and God's work of holiness in my life.


Social justice should not be practiced by the Christian community today.

Only those who think Christianity is about radical personal individualistic salvation can believe this. John Wesley didn't believe this as he said, "‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows of no religion, but social; no holiness but social holiness."


Social justice serves as a witness that we care about doing something about injustice.
A witness that has been lacking and as such has made us in many places in the world largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, we have largely only held on to "a form of godliness but denied its power." It's no wonder many people laugh at us when we we as Christians say we love "goodness" and "righteousness".

[Jim Chabot]

Covetousness is the desire to possess another's belongings. I don't desire to possess anyone's belongings... I desire for other people to possess them.

And sadly, you see a distinction here? If these words satisfy, then ok, I won't belabor the point.

My desire is that God's people will be moved by his spirit to move voluntarily to embrace and help those less fortunate than ourselves. To take a word from James Diggs, we need to seek solidarity with the unfortunate and with the down trodden. We need to do this ourselves, taking it from others will not do, for it is truly more blessed to give than to receive.

[Jim Chabot]

Unfortunately, we have largely only held on to "a form of godliness but denied its power." It's no wonder many people laugh at us when we we as Christians say we love "goodness" and "righteousness".

Wholeheartedly agree James! We as Christians have rightly been branded as a bunch of cheapskates, all talk and no action. We need to quit with all of the talk and we need to reach into our own pockets, not just in giving to the church and giving to the poor. We need to learn something that will really make a difference, we need to learn to be generous.

[Shea Zellweger]

And sadly, you see a distinction here? If these words satisfy, then ok, I won't belabor the point.

My desire is that God's people will be moved by his spirit to move voluntarily to embrace and help those less fortunate than ourselves. To take a word from James Diggs, we need to seek solidarity with the unfortunate and with the down trodden. We need to do this ourselves, taking it from others will not do, for it is truly more blessed to give than to receive.

I apologize, that portion was tongue-in-cheek. However, I'd be very interested in your response to the remainder of my post, since it's a pretty clear biblical grounds for taxing the "haves" for the benefit of the "have-nots."

[Hans Deventer]

My desire is that God's people will be moved by his spirit to move voluntarily to embrace and help those less fortunate than ourselves. To take a word from James Diggs, we need to seek solidarity with the unfortunate and with the down trodden. We need to do this ourselves, taking it from others will not do, for it is truly more blessed to give than to receive.

And Jim, since this won't happen any time soon in the real world, should a government (that has no money but yours and mine) let the poor rot till that day arrives that Christians finally do what they should have been doing all along?

[Larry Parsons]

Covetousness is the desire to possess another's belongings. I don't desire to possess anyone's belongings... I desire for other people to possess them. It is difficult for me to separate these commands from the culture in which they were established. In that culture, it was required by the law that a portion of everyone's belongings be given to help the disadvantaged within society. It was a further legal requirement that all land be returned to its original owners, all debts canceled, and all slaves freed, twice every century. Shall we consider the tithe for the poor and the Year of Jubilee actions of theft? If so, they were theft prescribed by the Lord. Shall we limit the taxed funds which go to social programs to 10% of everyone's income once every three years? This would be far and away more than is current;y raised in taxes for these purposes. Seems to me that denying taxes for the benefit of the poor and disadvantaged on biblical grounds is an ignorance (whether intentional or unintentional) of just how biblical such practices actually are.

Isn't it true that the so call biblical Poor Laws was only intended be use for short peroid of time to help the poor to get on thier feet. In other words the poor laws of the bible was only to be use as a emergency . It was away to give them some breathing room until they got on thier feet. It was not designed for long haul.
I may be wrong but I can't fine it anywhere in the scripture where God requires any organization outside the family and the church to give to give aid to the poor. Remember what paul told the church at Galatia "let us do good unto all men especially unto them who are part of the church. I don't get me wrong I'm not saying we shouldn't help those outside our family or church'
If term social Justice mean more goverment control over lives of people then I don't think I would be for it.
Thanks
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

Isn't it true that the so call biblical Poor Laws was only intended be use for short peroid of time to help the poor to get on thier feet. In other words the poor laws of the bible was only to be use as a emergency . It was away to give them some breathing room until they got on thier feet. It was not designed for long haul.
I may be wrong but I can't fine it anywhere in the scripture where God requires any organization outside the family and the church to give to give aid to the poor. Remember what paul told the church at Galatia "let us do good unto all men especially unto them who are part of the church. I don't get me wrong I'm not saying we shouldn't help those outside our family or church'
If term social Justice mean more goverment control over lives of people then I don't think I would be for it.
Thanks
Larry

There were three tithes required of all Israel. The third tithe was given every three years, and was to be given to the levite, the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and others who were "without inheritance." In addition, laws were in place regarding the harvest and the threshing floor, such that the owner of a field could only make one pass throughout the field, one attempt at bundling the grain, and one attempt at collecting what had been threshed out. Anything initially missed during those points in the harvest could not be gone back and recovered by the original owner, but were instead considered to be the possession of the poor. When the Israelites did not heed this command, God had Amos deliver some pretty harsh words for them. There is nothing in the Torah which places a limit on how much aide the disadvantaged could receive- in fact, it is likely that a poor person would end up subsisting off these built-in aid structures until the year of jubilee restored their ancestral lands to them. So no, it's not true that they were only intended to be used for a short period of time. They had no statute of limitations whatsoever- as long as there was need, there were structures in place to provide for that need.

[Jim Chabot]

And Jim, since this won't happen any time soon in the real world, should a government (that has no money but yours and mine) let the poor rot till that day arrives that Christians finally do what they should have been doing all along?

Honestly Hans, if this won't happen anytime soon in the real world, then we have failed miserably and in what I see as the worst way imaginable. If we don't love each other then we certainly do not love God. I would add that if we do not open our wallets, our ears and our time to those less fortunate than we are, then we don't love them, and consequently we do not love God either. We will have failed at the very core.

This thing called "social justice" has been given to us to accomplish, this job has been given by God to God's people. The thought that God's people then urge the government to do their job for then, to me is reprehensible. Somehow we just don't get it, not even close. This "social justice" thing is for us, not for them. We are the people who need our hearts softened by the regular exercise of compassion for those around us. We must dirty our own hands, for "social justice" if it is done God's way becomes a personal thing, we must seek solidarity, and we cannot do so by urging the government to handle this task for us.

I'll say it plainly for it is something that I feel very strongly about. This isn't about what "they" get, this is about what "we" give. We cannot pass the job off, we cannot say "I gave at the office". To each one uf us if we will listen, God's spirit will at times urge us to reach out in areas that take us out of our comfort zone, either financially or in our perceived abilities. I can tell that each time I have done so, the rewards have been incredible. To think that we can pass off this very personal responsibility onto the government flies in the face of the passages that Oliver has outlined.

And please don't tell me that we need to do both at the same time, for we as Christians have proven that we do less each time the government does more. The shame we feel should be profound.

Shea: I hope this answers the second half of your post. I'm glad that your initial statement was tongue in cheek, no apology needed. But I will ask you this. Do you think that it is possible that those initial words would find a resonance with many Christians? I think that they would.

[James Diggs]

I may be wrong but I can't fine it anywhere in the scripture where God requires any organization outside the family and the church to give to give aid to the poor.

Let’s remember that social justice is not just about charity, but to answer your question as to who should be doing it according to the scriptures- how about rulers and kings?

The OT prophets are full of these kind or requirements for rulers. Jesus himself quoted Psalm 82 when speaking about how God would judge rulers and kings (gods) who have failed to live up to the definition of what those things should be. Just before this he said he himself was the “Good Shepherd” a reference to an OT theme where God judges the “shepherds of Israel” for not caring for the people and says that he himself will fulfill that role.

Psalm 82

1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the "gods" (rulers):
2 "How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I do believe that Jesus himself is the one doing (in a whole new way) as a “King” and “Good Shepherd” what others of this world have failed to do, but in Christ we are to be his body; his hands and feet. At the same time, I also don’t think that this means that God has stopped holding kings and rulers accountable when they “defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked” rather than “Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed and rescue the weak and needy, and deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

I think this accountability is especially true for Christians in a nation like ours when we are given shared responsibility to “rule” within our democratic republic system. As the Body of Christ our influence on the rule of this land should reflect that of the Good Shepherd. I believe because we are able to take part in a government of "we the people" we will be judged according to our degree of influence on how our nation is ruled so that justice is promoted through our politics to those whom otherwise are treated unjustly. As rulers then our politics should reflect what God expects from rulers in places like Psalm 82.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Speaking of "cheapskates," statistics show that people on the political right side of the spectrum give more to charity than do people on the left side; and this goes for apples-to-apples comparisons of demographics - (i.e. rich lefties vs. rich righties; mc-lefties vs mc-righties).

[James Diggs]

This thing called "social justice" has been given to us to accomplish, this job has been given by God to God's people. The thought that God's people then urge the government to do their job for then, to me is reprehensible. Somehow we just don't get it, not even close. This "social justice" thing is for us, not for them. We are the people who need our hearts softened by the regular exercise of compassion for those around us. We must dirty our own hands, for "social justice" if it is done God's way becomes a personal thing, we must seek solidarity, and we cannot do so by urging the government to handle this task for us.

But what if the government isn't a THEM but WE are the government? And according to our constitution WE ARE. So I agree that "we are the people" who should be doing it.

Seeking solidarity should come in every area of influence. Anywhere we would advocate for ourselves we should advocate for our neighbors- especially the least of these.

So yes, I agree with you that if we are just identifying with the poor in the way we vote then we are missing a big chunk of what finding solidarity with the least of these means. But this is not an either or thing. We are given a political voice in a democratic republic government of "we the people"- we should use it.

But government is not the only way we are to be "political" for Jesus as we engage in all kinds of processes by which groups of people make collective decisions. How we spend our money in economic systems also is important. You are hardly seeking solidarity with the least of these if you buy things through our economic and capitalist processes for yourself that are made by oppressing others.

And of course seeking justice means that we also open up our lives, homes and churches for the stranger and the least of these around us. We need to live in ways that give the invisible viability again rather than walk by on the other side of the road.

------------------------------

Can I just say that I am tired of this bogus stand against using our political influence for justice in government as if our efforts to seek justice for our neighbors should only belong in one sphere or the other. Don't you know that the church is wherever the Body of Christ is?

I am especially tired of it when people protest promoting justice in political spheres because they think the "church should be" doing XW&Z in the private sphere. Yet many of these same people mostly only use this to say "government shouldn't do it" and don't put the same effort in actually doing it, or promoting it, in the public sphere as they do protesting it in a political one.

To those who protest getting involved politically because they believe the church should do it only privately- yet despite all the "shoulds" they themselves actually do very little in this regard. I only have one thing to say. Shut up and lead by example as how to do more and stop condemning those who are trying to do something to promote justice for their neighbor in at least one sphere of influence. Shame those who only promote justice by voting by doing more yourself. Make those efforts by those who only engage in political solutions look small by comparison. Because right now it looks like its the the other way around. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds whatever hypocrisy you see in the the liberals and socialist, you will never enter the life of the kingdom of heaven.

[David Pettigrew]

I'm going to make a couple of statements that may seem contradictory.

If social justice is defined as actively working on behalf of those who are oppressed (which I believe to be the biblical definition), then I can think of no greater ministry for the church. Social justice causes in which the church has played a crucial role in the past have included abolition, suffrage, and child labor. The focus of social justice is not the redistribution of wealth. Human trafficking may be the defining social justice issue of our generation. The prolife movement could also be viewed as a social justice movement.

The culture of the United States today would be the first in the history of the world that has concerned itself with "injustice" to the rich and powerful. The powerful and greedy in our country have convinced us that if they had to settle for a mere billion dollar profit, rather than say ten billion, it would be a threat to our way of life. They have used conservative religion to propagate this message, and pour their millions into elections to ensure things work their way. A couple of generations of this have ensured the rich have become very, very rich - and the middle class is shrinking. Some have gone up the ladder, most have gone down.

The powerful have always done just fine without God's people to protect them. If we switch our efforts to the powerless, we could do a lot of good.

[James Diggs]

Speaking of "cheapskates," statistics show that people on the political right side of the spectrum give more to charity than do people on the left side; and this goes for apples-to-apples comparisons of demographics - (i.e. rich lefties vs. rich righties; mc-lefties vs mc-righties).

Let's remember that social justice is not just about charity. We can give lots in charity in the way charity is typically viewed in our country while still maintaining our position above those we are charitable too. Biblical charity calls us to solidarity, we give in ways that see the needs of others as our own. The harder questions involves exploring systemic injustice and how we can better identify with those on the bottom of those systems as if they were us. We are not loving our neighbors as ourselves if we do not challenge systems that favor us over the least of these among us.

Yup but even still, there is no doubt that their is much political hypocrisy going on for sure by many on the left, but this does not negate the validity of some of the efforts for justice the left promote more than the right. Again it shouldn't be an either/or thing in any direction.

As for the hypocrisy of the left, this is why I said


For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds whatever hypocrisy you see in the the liberals and socialist, you will never enter the life of the kingdom of heaven.

By the way, I believe the reverse is also true- that unless our righteousness exceeds whatever hypocrisy we see in the the conservative and capitalist, we will never enter the life of the kingdom of heaven.

[Mike Schutz]

The culture of the United States today would be the first in the history of the world that has concerned itself with "injustice" to the rich and powerful. The powerful and greedy in our country have convinced us that if they had to settle for a mere billion dollar profit, rather than say ten billion, it would be a threat to our way of life. They have used conservative religion to propagate this message, and pour their millions into elections to ensure things work their way. A couple of generations of this have ensured the rich have become very, very rich - and the middle class is shrinking. Some have gone up the ladder, most have gone down.

The powerful have always done just fine without God's people to protect them. If we switch our efforts to the powerless, we could do a lot of good.

So difficult for the church to take its prophetic role in this area so long as many church folks get their marching orders on how Christians should behave in the public square, not from Scripture or even from other believers, but from super wealthy conservative commentators who pander to our fears and who themselves benefit from the rich becoming richer. We can see how dangerous some of these voices are - when through their arrogance (Limbaugh arguing that the answer to the US's health care crisis is to do away with health insurance and simply for folks to pay for the health care they can afford, and if you can't afford what you need - tough luck for you), or through their ignorance (Beck, a Mormon, building a case against Christian social justice by misappropriating Whitfield and misrepresenting both the biblical mandate and church history), they reveal that they are more interested in their own influence and kingdom-building than they are truth and justice.
However, it is not just the political right that fights against "the lion lying down with the lamb." The political left is equally culpable for playing to our fears and viewing our society as special interest groups and voting blocks - and either catering to or negating each group, in order to gain and maintain political power.

[Hans Deventer]

Honestly Hans, if this won't happen anytime soon in the real world, then we have failed miserably and in what I see as the worst way imaginable. If we don't love each other then we certainly do not love God. I would add that if we do not open our wallets, our ears and our time to those less fortunate than we are, then we don't love them, and consequently we do not love God either. We will have failed at the very core.

We agree, and I think that what you describe is actually the case.


This thing called "social justice" has been given to us to accomplish, this job has been given by God to God's people. The thought that God's people then urge the government to do their job for then, to me is reprehensible. Somehow we just don't get it, not even close. This "social justice" thing is for us, not for them. We are the people who need our hearts softened by the regular exercise of compassion for those around us. We must dirty our own hands, for "social justice" if it is done God's way becomes a personal thing, we must seek solidarity, and we cannot do so by urging the government to handle this task for us.

Again, I completely agree. I just don't see it happen on a scale that makes any difference.


I'll say it plainly for it is something that I feel very strongly about. This isn't about what "they" get, this is about what "we" give. We cannot pass the job off, we cannot say "I gave at the office". To each one uf us if we will listen, God's spirit will at times urge us to reach out in areas that take us out of our comfort zone, either financially or in our perceived abilities. I can tell that each time I have done so, the rewards have been incredible. To think that we can pass off this very personal responsibility onto the government flies in the face of the passages that Oliver has outlined.

And please don't tell me that we need to do both at the same time, for we as Christians have proven that we do less each time the government does more. The shame we feel should be profound.

I'm only saying that since we don't do it on a serious scale, I'm at least happy the government is doing it.

Other than this, I think we agree, Jim.

[John Brickley]

I was also unable to take the poll due to an inadequate definition of "social justice" For instance if "social justice were to be defined as our individual voluntary participation, or even as corporate yet entirely voluntary participation towards this goal, then I could answer yes to all of the poll questions. However if "social justice" is defined to include non voluntary participation i.e. government involvement then I would need to answer no to all of the questions. The former allows for the spirits urging each one of us to be "missional" while the latter violates the commandment not to steal, and for me personally, I would need to violate the commandment not to covet in order to be in favor of such a thing.

I honestly am so tired of this tired argument :horse:

This is for me a very clear example of the rot that is at the roots of American evangelicalism. We have allowed right wing political ideology to shape our understanding of the faith and our reading of scripture as opposed to allowing our reading of scripture and the clear teachings of Christ about the Kingdom of God to shape our political ideology. In the Old Testament the call for the nation to deal justly and compassionately with her poor and disenfranchised is so universal it is hardly necessary to provide a reference here, as it is in the warp and woof of both the Torah and the Prophets. It is quite frankly shocking to me that this "concern" over "covetousness" is held as a higher value than the needs of the poor, that is amazing to me. It is also profoundly hypocritical because as I have often stated this tired argument of covetousness or theft never comes up when the raise in taxes is for a military application, and there is rarely if ever a call from the right wing (politically, and staggeringly from the church as well) to cut military spending but each and every proposal that is given to attempt to improve the lives of those less fortunate is vehemently criticized as if it were the devil himself that made the proposal. And until those from the right wing correct this hypocrisy they will lack any credibility in my opinion, and they also destroy the credibility of the church in the broader society in my opinion as well.

Honestly how upside down have we become as a people that we so totally embrace our military machine but spurn those around us that need help? And this ridiculous individualization of social justice that has been advocated in this thread is not only pie in the sky utopianism, but even if the whole of the church mobilized and responded to the needs around us as we should, there are still issues that only the government can and must address. That is a part of being We the People, which again is just another measure of the hypocrisy of the political right, because they want all the benefits of being we the people without any of the responsibilities. They thump on the constitution and the declaration as if they are more sacred than scripture, but then come out with this individualization nonsense when being We the People actually costs them something. It is just staggering. :smilies1390::smilies1390::smilies1390:

[David Pettigrew]

So difficult for the church to take its prophetic role in this area so long as many church folks get their marching orders on how Christians should behave in the public square, not from Scripture or even from other believers, but from super wealthy conservative commentators who pander to our fears and who themselves benefit from the rich becoming richer. We can see how dangerous some of these voices are - when through their arrogance (Limbaugh arguing that the answer to the US's health care crisis is to do away with health insurance and simply for folks to pay for the health care they can afford, and if you can't afford what you need - tough luck for you), or through their ignorance (Beck, a Mormon, building a case against Christian social justice by misappropriating Whitfield and misrepresenting both the biblical mandate and church history), they reveal that they are more interested in their own influence and kingdom-building than they are truth and justice.
However, it is not just the political right that fights against "the lion lying down with the lamb." The political left is equally culpable for playing to our fears and viewing our society as special interest groups and voting blocks - and either catering to or negating each group, in order to gain and maintain political power.

Yes, this is why I've finally left all party politics behind. Each side is simply making things worse and playing right into the hands of the special interests.

I'll give a real world example of what I was talking about in my earlier post. In my community, there used to be three factories - Levis, Pillsbury, and Johnson Johnson. Most graduated from high school and immediately went to work for one of these three, or one of the dozen or so smaller factories that supported these three (a cannery, for instance). You got a livable wage, overtime, benefits, and a pension. You could support a family, own a home, take a vacation, and have a small slice of the American dream - all with one wage earner.

So, all three factories are closed now (and, thus, all the smaller ones that supported them). To the owners of these corporations, stock value trumps all, and if you can lower overhead by consolidating or moving overseas and throwing 700 people out of work, so be it.

Another company moved into one of those factories. If two adults work there full time, you can get by, but not in any way that any of us would want to live. You'll probably never own a home, even if you buy one.

So, there are three types of people in my community - retirees who lived simply and have a decent pension, workers who are barely getting by with massive debt, and non-workers on government assistance because there are simply not enough jobs. The third group grows larger by the year. These are first generation non-workers. Their parents had jobs.

I doubt my community is unique.

[Shea Zellweger]

Speaking of "cheapskates," statistics show that people on the political right side of the spectrum give more to charity than do people on the left side; and this goes for apples-to-apples comparisons of demographics - (i.e. rich lefties vs. rich righties; mc-lefties vs mc-righties).

Define "charity," please. Arthur Brooks, of Syracuse University, did find that Conservatives overall give more to charity, but he qualified any voluntary giving of funds, time, or resources as charitable giving, and it is generally his research that is used in this discussion. If a wealthy conservative were to donate $100,000 to a conservative lobbyist group, that giving would qualify under Brooks' definition as charitable giving. It does go both ways, such that a liberal donating to a liberal lobby group would be considered in the same manner. So my first question would be which group is more generous when it comes specifically to matters of social justice- helping the poor, the outcast, the downtrodden, etc.

Brooks does note that in some cases, liberals withold from charitable giving in an attempt to force the government's hand in enacting certain programs, while conservatives wish to keep helping those less fortunate a matter of choice, so some feel compelled to give. If this assessment is accurate, then I think that specific liberal motivation for not giving and conservative motivation for giving are both foolish.

[Jim Chabot]

I'm only saying that since we don't do it on a serious scale, I'm at least happy the government is doing it.

Other than this, I think we agree, Jim.

Actually I am not in total disagreement with you even on this. I'm glad to see people helped in any way, even if the government has to do it. I am saddened that here in the US, our government seems to peddle everything as some sort of social justice. They reach out with one hand and show you the fish that they will give to the poor, then the poor get the rock that they hold in their other hand while they eat the fish themselves.

I guess what bothers me the most about this is that as a group, we as Christians are probably the worst offenders. To hear Christians talk about making others help the poor so that they can feel good about themselves is reprehensible to me. I'm not singling out anyone here, I'm speaking of us in general as a group. We need a good dose of retrospect, and we need to reach into our own pockets!

[Glenn Harris]

This conversation reminds me of a scene from Schindler's list where Schindler is explaining to Stern about being promised by Geoth that Stern will receive "special treatment" at Auschwitz and Stern says that he reads more and more every day about the "special treatment" and he hopes that isn't what Schindler means. Schindler says "ok then, preferential treatment! do we have to invent a whole new language."

I think maybe I would need to know what the author means by "Social Justice" prior to answering the quiz. I've found too many times that it doesn't mean what I think it should or when it is played out, doesn't even mean what the person using the expression said it did.

[Sarah Smith]

I'm one of those that does not believe the job of the church is social justice or taking care of the poor.

I believe the job of the church is, yes, seeking the salvation of individual souls.

But I also believe that when those souls are truly saved, they are changed.

That means the person of wealth who is saved will do all they can to help those who cannot work and to make work available at a reasonable wage to those who can.

It will also mean that a poor person upon salvation, if able to work, will be willing to work.

Both of those new hearts in people would eliminate much poverty.

But I am not in favor of taking from those who are wealthy, or those who are not but who work for what they get and giving it to those able to work but unwilling to work.

In our poverty stricken town businesses are going begging trying to get workers. Stores are shutting down because they cannot get workers. And able bodied, seemingly able minded people would rather live in welfare housing and on welfare than work.

I believe it is wrong to support that lifestyle.

[John Brickley]

I'm one of those that does not believe the job of the church is social justice or taking care of the poor.

I believe the job of the church is, yes, seeking the salvation of individual souls.

But I also believe that when those souls are truly saved, they are changed.

That means the person of wealth who is saved will do all they can to help those who cannot work and to make work available at a reasonable wage to those who can.

It will also mean that a poor person upon salvation, if able to work, will be willing to work.

Both of those new hearts in people would eliminate much poverty.

But I am not in favor of taking from those who are wealthy, or those who are not but who work for what they get and giving it to those able to work but unwilling to work.

In our poverty stricken town businesses are going begging trying to get workers. Stores are shutting down because they cannot get workers. And able bodied, seemingly able minded people would rather live in welfare housing and on welfare than work.

I believe it is wrong to support that lifestyle.

It is a lot easier to justify our lack of care for the poor when we demonize or dehumanize them isn't it? I also wonder where in the world it is that you live, because in this economy there are literally millions of unemployed workers that would gladly take those jobs if they could. While I am not questioning your word, I have to say that what you report is the extreme exception and not the rule.

I would also remind you that Jesus did say something along the lines As much as you do for the least of these my brothers you do for me. Where you find scriptural support for the notion that the church is not commissioned to care for the poor I have no earthly idea.

In my opinion this is just another example of the extent to which we have allowed our right wing political ideology to shape our theology. It is truly sad and devastating for the witness of the Church.

[Larry Parsons]

Those who are on the left loves to quote Luke 4:18-19, to those who are on the right, believing those who are on the right doesn't want to see a better world. The liberal Christians or some of them anyway,love to claim that Christ doesns't makes any distinction between the poor.and of course we know that is not so. Let take a look at what Jesus said few verses after he said (Lk,4:18-19) Remember, Jesus is preaching in his home town of Nazareth where He was faced with rejection and unbelief and apparently even by “the poor and oppressed.” Our Lord responded by leaving the town, permanently and the poor of Nazareth were excluded from His ministry. And before He leaves He explained His actions by reminding them of Elijah and Elisha’s ministry to the poor and aillicted. See Lk. 4:25-29 This verse seem to be saying that “The poor” of Israel didn't received and help from God’s prophets; instead, the prophets aided the stranger who had called on the name of the Lord and were obedient to His word. This comment from the Lord must have really upset those people who were in the synagogue that day. Remember these was people who try through off the mountain.
Here is what I believe Jesus was saying, God’s concern for the poor is discriminatory. It is not just “the poor” in some abstract, general, universal sense who are the objects of God’s care. Here they are on the very same level with the rich: if they reject Christ, they are themselves rejected by Him. They wanted benefits, but were ready to murder Him when they discovered that He practiced discrimination in His welfare plan. There is no getting around this text. Some wants us to believe that Christ came to relieve the sufferings of “the poor,” without distinction. God’s but remember, He hears those who call upon Him in truth see (Psalm 145:18), and He hates all those who do iniquity see (Psalm 5:4-5) regardless of the size of their paycheck. It is for this reason that the Psahnist can exult: The LORD also will be a stronghold for the oppressed, A stronghold in times of trouble, And those who know Thy name will put their trust in Thee; For Thou, O LORD, hast not forsaken those who seek Thee.
Thanks
Larry P

[Jim Chabot]

It is a lot easier to justify our lack of care for the poor when we demonize or dehumanize them isn't it? I also wonder where in the world it is that you live, because in this economy there are literally millions of unemployed workers that would gladly take those jobs if they could. While I am not questioning your word, I have to say that what you report is the extreme exception and not the rule.

I would also remind you that Jesus did say something along the lines As much as you do for the least of these my brothers you do for me. Where you find scriptural support for the notion that the church is not commissioned to care for the poor I have no earthly idea.

In my opinion this is just another example of the extent to which we have allowed our right wing political ideology to shape our theology. It is truly sad and devastating for the witness of the Church.

I don't see where Linda has demonized or dehumanized anyone here, you are accusing her of something that she has not done. Rather what I see in her post is an affirmation of the power of the gospel of Christ and His ability to change lives. I am truly sorry that you cannot see this. Please John read Linda's post again, take hold of it's redeeming qualities before you get shook up over what you perceive as bad.

[John Brickley]

I don't see where Linda has demonized or dehumanized anyone here, you are accusing her of something that she has not done. Rather what I see in her post is an affirmation of the power of the gospel of Christ and His ability to change lives. I am truly sorry that you cannot see this. Please John read Linda's post again, take hold of it's redeeming qualities before you get shook up over what you perceive as bad.

Jim,

This is unfortunately an all too common approach by those from the conservative end of the spectrum to blame the poor for their poverty. If you read what Linda said you see that she is claiming that folk are poor because they do not want to work. This is dehumanizing and does not take into account the myriad of influences that bring about poverty (many of which are beyond our control). It makes it so much easier to excuse or justify our ignoring the clear teachings of Christ (and all of scripture for that matter) to care for the poor by blaming the poor for their situation, or we take Larry's position and make any assistance conditional upon their accepting our message before they get any help. Good thing the Lord did not look at Larry that way!!! And as far as redemptive qualities that kind of gets overshadowed by her opening statement. Once you say I don't believe that the job of the Church is taking care of the poor you have lost me, and I have a really hard time seeing redemptive qualities in light of an assertion like that, Western individualism and a exclusively spiritual and individual gospel yeah, redemptive, hardly.

[John Kennedy]

Broad brushes and people adept at painting with them are found at both ends of the spectrum. Your charges that Linda was demonizing and dehumanizing the poor was without any rational basis whatsoever - it was way over the line.

I realize that for having the temerity to disagree with your charges that I'll probalby be branded as a demonizer and dehumanizer also. Fortunately that judgement in that case is left to God and God alone.

It is possible to state a difference of opinion withou resorting to casting aspersions on their character. IMO, you owe her a big apology.

[Shea Zellweger]

Broad brushes and people adept at painting with them are found at both ends of the spectrum. Your charges that Linda was demonizing and dehumanizing the poor was without any rational basis whatsoever - it was way over the line.

I realize that for having the temerity to disagree with your charges that I'll probalby be branded as a demonizer and dehumanizer also. Fortunately that judgement in that case is left to God and God alone.

It is possible to state a difference of opinion withou resorting to casting aspersions on their character. IMO, you owe her a big apology.

I have to agree with John K on this one. I disagree with Linda's statements regarding the poor being unwilling to work, but I think it was an observation based on her personal context, and is likely a valid observation, and possibly true in some cases. Paul did say that those who refuse to work should not eat... those willing to work but unable to (either due to disability or job shortage) should receive aide, and I'm not aware of any practical way to weed those out from among those who are abusing the system, but abuse of the system does exist, and I don't think we need to look upon it approvingly.

[John Brickley]

Broad brushes and people adept at painting with them are found at both ends of the spectrum. Your charges that Linda was demonizing and dehumanizing the poor was without any rational basis whatsoever - it was way over the line.

I realize that for having the temerity to disagree with your charges that I'll probalby be branded as a demonizer and dehumanizer also. Fortunately that judgement in that case is left to God and God alone.

It is possible to state a difference of opinion withou resorting to casting aspersions on their character. IMO, you owe her a big apology.

I will concede that demonizing was too harsh a word and for that I apologize, however, this is far too often a ploy of those on the right edge of the political spectrum to shift the blame of the inequities of the society on those that are suffering the most for those inequities. I find this tactic simply a way of excusing our own lack of compassion and care for the least of these my brothers (now I am not saying that is the case for Linda personally, I don't know if it is or not) and our support for positions and policies that continue to exploit and intensify the suffering of the poor. I find it disturbing at best, and yet far too often I read these kind of sweeping generalized statements about the poor here on NazNet from those who are generally considered political conservatives. This I find heart breaking and it reveals a lack of true identification with the poor and disenfranchised. The fact is that Jesus in His incarnation identified Himself with the poor and has called us to do the same, and it is very hard to do that when we are constantly belittling the poor and blaming them for their poverty and never accepting our responsibility for their poverty.

And for the record I said nothing about her character.

[John Brickley]

Those who are on the left loves to quote Luke 4:18-19, to those who are on the right, believing those who are on the right doesn't want to see a better world. The liberal Christians or some of them anyway,love to claim that Christ doesns't makes any distinction between the poor.and of course we know that is not so. Let take a look at what Jesus said few verses after he said (Lk,4:18-19) Remember, Jesus is preaching in his home town of Nazareth where He was faced with rejection and unbelief and apparently even by “the poor and oppressed.” Our Lord responded by leaving the town, permanently and the poor of Nazareth were excluded from His ministry. And before He leaves He explained His actions by reminding them of Elijah and Elisha’s ministry to the poor and aillicted. See Lk. 4:25-29 This verse seem to be saying that “The poor” of Israel didn't received and help from God’s prophets; instead, the prophets aided the stranger who had called on the name of the Lord and were obedient to His word. This comment from the Lord must have really upset those people who were in the synagogue that day. Remember these was people who try through off the mountain.
Here is what I believe Jesus was saying, God’s concern for the poor is discriminatory. It is not just “the poor” in some abstract, general, universal sense who are the objects of God’s care. Here they are on the very same level with the rich: if they reject Christ, they are themselves rejected by Him. They wanted benefits, but were ready to murder Him when they discovered that He practiced discrimination in His welfare plan. There is no getting around this text. Some wants us to believe that Christ came to relieve the sufferings of “the poor,” without distinction. God’s but remember, He hears those who call upon Him in truth see (Psalm 145:18), and He hates all those who do iniquity see (Psalm 5:4-5) regardless of the size of their paycheck. It is for this reason that the Psahnist can exult: The LORD also will be a stronghold for the oppressed, A stronghold in times of trouble, And those who know Thy name will put their trust in Thee; For Thou, O LORD, hast not forsaken those who seek Thee.
Thanks
Larry P

So let me get this straight Larry, your saying that those in need can find help if they buy what we are selling, but if they don't well they can just go to hell? Yeah I think that certainly reflects the love of Christ. :smilies0417::smilies1390::smilies0717:

And we wonder why the church is deemed as irrelevant, and uncaring by the broader society around us?

[Mark Metcalfe]

I've only skimmed this thread because it is a rehash of hash and a lot of it comes across to me as nag, nag, nag.
You lefties want to take from producers and give to non-producers and call it love and compassion.
You righties don't care about the poor and despite giving more than lefties, you never give enough. (I thought we wanted to move away from guilt-based religion!)
You're stealing.
You're demonizing. The poor can't help being poor.
Generalizations, nagging, and labeling, and we call it prophetic.

Humbug.

Mark

P.S. To the person that asked: I define charity as giving to ease the situation of another.

[Hans Deventer]

I've only skimmed this thread because it is a rehash of hash and a lot of it comes across to me as nag, nag, nag.
You lefties want to take from producers and give to non-producers and call it love and compassion.
You righties don't care about the poor and despite giving more than lefties, you never give enough. (I thought we wanted to move away from guilt-based religion!)
You're stealing.
You're demonizing. The poor can't help being poor.
Generalizations, nagging, and labeling, and we call it prophetic.
Humbug.

Yes. And now what? I'm trying to approach this from a pragmatic point of view. What works the least bad, is better than what works worse. But I'm open to better ideas, put into practice.

[John Brickley]

I've only skimmed this thread because it is a rehash of hash and a lot of it comes across to me as nag, nag, nag.
You lefties want to take from producers and give to non-producers and call it love and compassion.
You righties don't care about the poor and despite giving more than lefties, you never give enough. (I thought we wanted to move away from guilt-based religion!)
You're stealing.
You're demonizing. The poor can't help being poor.
Generalizations, nagging, and labeling, and we call it prophetic.

Humbug.

Mark

P.S. To the person that asked: I define charity as giving to ease the situation of another.

My case in point! I have to agree with you, that Jesus who called us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to care for and identify with the poor, and to serve and LOVE the least of these His brothers, sure was a nag. :smilies0417::smilies0723::smilies0436:

Mark, can you please explain to me how the call to love all humanity and to express the love and compassion of Christ to them is "guilt based religion", because you have really lost me there.

The more posts I read like this the less hope I have for Christianity here in America. Something is desperately wrong.

[Shea Zellweger]

P.S. To the person that asked: I define charity as giving to ease the situation of another.

I'm fine with that definition. That is not the definition researchers used when demonstrating that those on the Right are more "charitable," hence my issue with those statistics.

[Larry Parsons]

So let me get this straight Larry, your saying that those in need can find help if they buy what we are selling, but if they don't well they can just go to hell? Yeah I think that certainly reflects the love of Christ. :smilies0417::smilies1390::smilies0717:

And we wonder why the church is deemed as irrelevant, and uncaring by the broader society around us?

It seem to me this is what Jesus is saying (Lk,4:25-27) to the people in the synagogue that day.He was letting them know that he would be practiced discrimination in His welfare plan. We need to guard against the false impression ( that He came to relieve the sufferings of “the poor,” without any distinction. God hears those who call upon Him in truth and He hates all those who do iniquity see-(Psalm 145:18 and(Psalm 5:4-5) God does not merely relieve the oppressed or troubled in general. He graciously relieves the sufferings of those who seek Him. The poor man who is treated unjustly and has no legal recourse in an ungodly society need not despair. If he seeks the Lord with his whole heart, he will find Him. God will arise in deliverance, breaking in pieces the oppressor, avenging injustice, and satisfying the needs of His people see=(Psalm 12:5; 34:6; 68:10; 72:2-14; 113:7-8; 140:12; 146:7). If the poor man commits himself to the Lord (Psalm 10:14), he will be delivered. God “will deliever the needy when they ask for help” (Psahn 72: 12). But not before. Can one say according to the scriptures that God is always siding with the poor as a matter of principle? Can we say that God is constantly overthrowing the rich, so poor and oppressed may become rich? It seem to me that the scriptures doesn't teach that God is aways sides with the genral poor.
If i understand what Paul is saying in Gal,6:10 It is our obligation as Christians is to help those within the house hold of faith first. The other day I was readinga old sermon by Charles Spurgeon where he said: We are to love our neighbor as ourselves, but we are to love our fellow-Christians as Christ loved us.

Thanks

Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

It seem to me this is what Jesus is saying to the people in the synagogue that day.He was letting them know that he would be practiced discrimination in His welfare plan. We need to guard against the false impression ( that He came to relieve the sufferings of “the poor,” without any distinction. God hears those who call upon Him in truth and He hates all those who do iniquity see-(Psalm 145:18 and(Psalm 5:4-5) God does not merely relieve the oppressed or troubled in general. He graciously relieves the sufferings of those who seek Him. The poor man who is treated unjustly and has no legal recourse in an ungodly society need not despair. If he seeks the Lord with his whole heart, he will find Him. God will arise in deliverance, breaking in pieces the oppressor, avenging injustice, and satisfying the needs of His people see=(Psalm 12:5; 34:6; 68:10; 72:2-14; 113:7-8; 140:12; 146:7). If the poor man commits himself to the Lord (Psalm 10:14), he will be delivered. God “will deliever the needy when they ask for help” (Psahn 72: 12). But not before. Can one say according to the scriptures that God is always siding with the poor as a matter of principle? Can we say that God is constantly overthrowing the rich, so poor and oppressed may become rich? It seem to me that the scriptures doesn't teach that God is aways sides with the genral poor.
If i understand what Paul is saying in Gal,6:10 It is our obligation as Christians is to help those within the house hold of faith first. The other day I was readinga old sermon by Charles Spurgeon where he said: We are to love our neighbor as ourselves, but we are to love our fellow-Christians as Christ loved us.

Thanks

Larry

I think your interpretations here fail to fully encompass the instructions we have on the matter. For example, Gal. 6:10, which you referenced, says "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." It doesn't say "believers only." It doesn't even say "believers first." It says to do good to EVERYONE, as often as we have the opportunity to do so, and to do even more for those in the family of believers. The laws God established in Leviticus regarding assistance to the poor are just that- they don't make any rules about who can receive, or how long they can receive.
As for God opposing the proud or upholding the poor at all times, it is not a categorical opposition/upholding, but there are very specific instructions for the rich. In Amos, God says destruction is coming to Israel because they did not help the poor. Paul tells Timothy to command the wealthy to give generously. In Luke, Jesus says "blessed are you who are poor.... but woe to you who are rich." Throughout the Old and New Testaments, it is impossible to deny that God desires for the poor to receive help- in the one theocracy created by God, it was a requirement of the law; In the early church, not giving what they were able to give led to Ananias and Sapphira's deaths; at no point does God (or Jesus) pause to say that help has an expiration date, or that a person must first come to Christ before he or she can receive aide. Your exegesis of the Nazareth passage extrapolates far beyond what it says. People can refuse our help, and if they do, so be it. But Jesus didn't pause to ask whether those seeking to be healed would accept his message or become his followers, and chances are many of them did not.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm sorry Andy, truly I am. But it is the truth, and that is something that I can't back away from. Then again if you would read my post carefully you would see that I attribute theft to those who actively engage in the appropriation of the belongings of others. To those who advocate for this, I attribute covetousness.

This is silly, Jim. Come on. Stop it, please. The only fair words to describe this are "silly" and "nonsense." I'm sorry, I truly am. But it's the truth it's it's something that I can't back away from.

The fact is we live in a society where we've agreed that taxation by representation is acceptable and a part of the social contract. We all are taxed to provide for things which we expect benefit the common good. For instance, Military.

Is the government stealing from me when they send my tax dollars top fund wars I don't support? My guess is you'd say "no." But it's the same thing, Jim. You can say it's wrong and disagree with it. That's fine. But you cannot call it theft. It's is completely wrong and is nothing but using inflammatory speech to make it seem that you're right.

So, Jim. Andy is right. You really do need to stop this and I hope that you will. For your sake and for the sake of others.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm one of those that does not believe the job of the church is social justice or taking care of the poor.

I believe the job of the church is, yes, seeking the salvation of individual souls.



On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.

Odd that here "remember[ing] the poor" is seen as something else beyond evangelizing which Paul is expected and required to do if the Pilars are going to accept his law-free gospel and evangelization.

It's nice to have our own opinions, but this one is not found in Scripture and goes completely against most of what is found in Scripture.

[Jim Chabot]

This is silly, Jim. Come on. Stop it, please. The only fair words to describe this are "silly" and "nonsense." I'm sorry, I truly am. But it's the truth it's it's something that I can't back away from.

The fact is we live in a society where we've agreed that taxation by representation is acceptable and a part of the social contract. We all are taxed to provide for things which we expect benefit the common good. For instance, Military.

Is the government stealing from me when they send my tax dollars top fund wars I don't support? My guess is you'd say "no." But it's the same thing, Jim. You can say it's wrong and disagree with it. That's fine. But you cannot call it theft. It's is completely wrong and is nothing but using inflammatory speech to make it seem that you're right.

So, Jim. Andy is right. You really do need to stop this and I hope that you will. For your sake and for the sake of others.

Perhaps you could just take a few deep breaths and re-read my post. Then perhaps you could understand where I am coming from. Or I could simplify it.

Here is the simple version. When cheapskate christians, whine moan and beg the government to help the poor, they bring shame and reproach upon the cause of Christ. They have no credibility, none, for they clearly will not reach into their own pockets. The hue and cry that goes out to ask the government to do the job we are called to do is reprehensible.

I'll admit that you may have a point regarding the charge of theft, although I question exactly how representative is our government. The charge of covetousness stands, we should have no wish that others be deprived of what they have for any reason, that is sin. We are called to solidarity with those less fortunate, instead we ask others to do what we are not willing to do?

[Jim Chabot]

This is unfortunately an all too common approach by those from the conservative end of the spectrum to blame the poor for their poverty.

I think that this sentence exhibits exactly what I was trying to point out to you. You see the problem is that you aren't conversing with those on the conservative end of the spectrum. You are speaking with a person named Jim and a person named Linda. Maybe if you could make the effort to try and find out where we are coming from, rather than jousting with windmills? Maybe then you could see some of the good in others who may not hold to your particular views. For you see God loves us every bit as much as he loves you, and he speaks with us as well as he does you.



If you read what Linda said you see that she is claiming that folk are poor because they do not want to work.

And yes, you could say that. Or you could see it that Linda is speaking of the positive change that comes over a sould set free from the law of sin and death. I will say first that there are people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. I can name names, I know some of these people personally. (that is what we are called to do.) Yet at the same time, I also know people who are their own worst enemy, they cause their own problems. Their situation is one of their own making, and I know that the spirit of Christ could set them free and change their lives completely. Do you deny this, or are you just angry with Linda because she had the temerity to bring this forward?

Come on John. I realize that you have a burden for the underprivileged, the disadvantaged and especially for those who are exploited. Must you make everyone who may have a different calling toward this same purpose your enemy?

[John Brickley]

Perhaps you could just take a few deep breaths and re-read my post. Then perhaps you could understand where I am coming from. Or I could simplify it.

Here is the simple version. When cheapskate christians, whine moan and beg the government to help the poor, they bring shame and reproach upon the cause of Christ. They have no credibility, none, for they clearly will not reach into their own pockets. The hue and cry that goes out to ask the government to do the job we are called to do is reprehensible.

I'll admit that you may have a point regarding the charge of theft, although I question exactly how representative is our government. The charge of covetousness stands, we should have no wish that others be deprived of what they have for any reason, that is sin. We are called to solidarity with those less fortunate, instead we ask others to do what we are not willing to do?
:horse::horse::horse::horse::horse::horse:

[Paul DeBaufer]

When cheapskate christians, whine moan and beg the government to help the poor, they bring shame and reproach upon the cause of Christ. They have no credibility, none, for they clearly will not reach into their own pockets. The hue and cry that goes out to ask the government to do the job we are called to do is reprehensible.

I agree.

[David Pettigrew]

I wonder if there is anyway for this not to be a right/left issue.

[James Diggs]

But I am not in favor of taking from those who are wealthy, or those who are not but who work for what they get and giving it to those able to work but unwilling to work. ….And able bodied, seemingly able minded people would rather live in welfare housing and on welfare than work. I believe it is wrong to support that lifestyle.

From spending time working with homeless families I can tell you that this is a generalization that isn’t true for many- perhaps most- of the homeless families I have encountered. It is simply too easy to call the poor “lazy” as a way to justify our lack of seeing ourselves in them.


I'm one of those that does not believe the job of the church is social justice or taking care of the poor. I believe the job of the church is, yes, seeking the salvation of individual souls.

Here are the foundational theological questions regarding your statement- what does it mean to save a soul? What is a soul?

I am afraid we as a Christian culture have looked at “souls’ in almost Gnostic like ways as if the gospel is about saving the spirit later in the afterlife and escaping this “corrupt’ world, rather than saving our very humanity itself and redeeming us and all of creation.

Some have mentioned “dehumanizing” in reference to Linda’s post. I don’t think Linda has intentionally done this at all, but I can see it all over the theology which has influenced us and much of our culture.

Being a Christian according to pop Christian theology today isn’t about making us more human, it’s about escaping our “corrupt” humanity. This is what people unfortunately mean when they say “salvation” and because of this have a very difficult time connecting the dots from salvation to the actual redemption of humanity.

Oh some, like Lorie, will speak of the change in hearts of people that takes place if one becomes saved. They know instinctively (with the help of the Spirit) that some transformation of love takes place, but they have trouble seeing how that love is connected to our human condition. The idea of love is compartmentalized away from human needs because salvation is viewed in a way that compartmentalizes the “soul” as a spiritual escape from the world in the afterlife.

The problem is that this isn’t what Jesus taught; not even Paul. In fact Paul called Jesus the “new Adam”; humanity itself was actually being redeemed. Paul of course believed that redemption was accomplished on the cross.

Jesus would occasionally ask the question, “what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?” He used this question in the context of his own suffering he would have to endure on the cross in places like Matthew 16, Mark 8, and Luke 9. He also in this context says that we would have to follow in the way of the cross.

The question in the context of the cross speaks to the great value Jesus placed on humanity. Jesus was compelled to restore solidarity with humanity even if it meant that he would also have to share in the underside of human sin, suffering, and death. God himself became a human being; being the highest he emptied himself and identified with even the lowest of us all by sharing in our human condition. God created humanity in his own image, but sin distorts that image. But in Christ God sees himself in humanity again. This is our redemption; that God identified with us in our humanity restoring for us what we had undone.

This wasn’t just a one time thing; Jesus’ act of redemption paved the way for us to follow us in it. The way of the cross tells us that it is better to identify with the other, even if it means suffering with and for the other, than it would be to “gain the whole world” and lose our soul”. We lose our soul when we fail to see ourselves in the other; our humanity is lost as we fail to see our humanity in the other, and respond when they are in need as if we would unto ourselves.

“For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” Holding on to our lives at the expense of love for the other is the essence of “our sin problem” that leads to our own demise. In this we fail to see the connection that our own humanity has with the humanity of the other.

We might not have beaten and robbed the man laying in the ditch, the man may have been foolish and reckless to travel the road alone or at night, and though our only “sin” may be walking along the other side of the road and “minding our own business”, but by not attending to this man’s human needs we have not only disregarded the value of his humanity but have lost our own. This was the example Jesus gave when speaking about what it means to love our neighbors AS ourselves.

Jesus came to make a way for us to love God again (because he first loved us) and our neighbors AS ourselves. The problem is that we have made following the Way of Jesus into a religion. We SAY that Jesus took care of the “sin problem” on the cross, but because we insist on framing “salvation” exclusively as saving souls in the after life we allow religion to compartmentalize our “sin problem” away from real life, real relationships, and real people. We domesticate the gospel and make sure it does not cut both ways; we do not allow it to change us so as to become real agents of human redemption in the world. We take the real good news of the gospel that loves the least of these among us as unto Christ and turn it into a “consolation prize” for after we die.



I don’t believe the job of the church is to take care of the poor. I believe the job of the church is seeking the salvation of individual souls. The fact that many “Christians” in our culture can not connect the dots between taking care of the poor and the "salvation of souls" is troubling. Even some who admit we should take care of the poor still can't quite see the connection between these two ideas that Jesus linked together. It is evidence that we have made the gospel into a shell of a religion rather than the Way Jesus preached.

Statements like the one above show how we have made following Jesus into an empty religion which compartmentalizes concepts of “sin” and “salvation” away from the reality of believing in real redemption for our human condition and broken relationships. It truly is holding on to a form of godliness, but denying its power. It reduces following Jesus to a religious thing rather than the redemption of humanity. Statements like the one above truly is the religion that promotes white washed tombs.

I want nothing to do with such perversion of the gospel.

[Mark Metcalfe]

My case in point! I have to agree with you, that Jesus who called us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to care for and identify with the poor, and to serve and LOVE the least of these His brothers, sure was a nag. :smilies0417::smilies0723::smilies0436:

Mark, can you please explain to me how the call to love all humanity and to express the love and compassion of Christ to them is "guilt based religion", because you have really lost me there.

The more posts I read like this the less hope I have for Christianity here in America. Something is desperately wrong.

I never read that Jesus nagged. Not one Christian here disputes the "call to love humanity and to express the love and compassion of Christ." Not ONE!

However, I have seen people preach their ideas of "social justice" and call it prophetic utterance, when it sometimes comes foremost from their political viewpoint and cloaked in the good that it is supposed to do. This has occurred on both sides, and both sides are claiming holier status.

Linda is right in that heart-change results in right behavior and not the other way around. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Mark

[John Brickley]

The fact that many “Christians” in our culture can not connect the dots between taking care of the poor and the "salvation of souls" is troubling. Even some who admit we should take care of the poor still can't quite see the connection between these two ideas that Jesus linked together. It is evidence that we have made the gospel into a shell of a religion rather than the Way Jesus preached.

Statements like the one above show how we have made following Jesus into an empty religion which compartmentalizes concepts of “sin” and “salvation” away from the reality of believing in real redemption for our human condition and broken relationships. It truly is holding on to a form of godliness, but denying its power. It reduces following Jesus to a religious thing rather than the redemption of humanity. Statements like the one above truly is the religion that promotes white washed tombs.

I want nothing to do with such perversion of the gospel.

James,

All I can say is a huge thank you for this post. I too want nothing to do with such perversion of the gospel. Thank for saying what I have been trying to say, so much effectively.

Blessings,

John

[Paul DeBaufer]

From spending time working with homeless families I can tell you that this is a generalization that isn’t true for many- perhaps most- of the homeless families I have encountered. It is simply too easy to call the poor “lazy” as a way to justify our lack of seeing ourselves in them.

Here are the foundational theological questions regarding your statement- what does it mean to save a soul? What is a soul?

I am afraid we as a Christian culture have looked at “souls’ in almost Gnostic like ways as if the gospel is about saving the spirit later in the afterlife and escaping this “corrupt’ world, rather than saving our very humanity itself and redeeming us and all of creation.

Some have mentioned “dehumanizing” in reference to Linda’s post. I don’t think Linda has intentionally done this at all, but I can see it all over the theology which has influenced us and much of our culture.

Being a Christian according to pop Christian theology today isn’t about making us more human, it’s about escaping our “corrupt” humanity. This is what people unfortunately mean when they say “salvation” and because of this have a very difficult time connecting the dots from salvation to the actual redemption of humanity.

Oh some, like Lorie, will speak of the change in hearts of people that takes place if one becomes saved. They know instinctively (with the help of the Spirit) that some transformation of love takes place, but they have trouble seeing how that love is connected to our human condition. The idea of love is compartmentalized away from human needs because salvation is viewed in a way that compartmentalizes the “soul” as a spiritual escape from the world in the afterlife.

The problem is that this isn’t what Jesus taught; not even Paul. In fact Paul called Jesus the “new Adam”; humanity itself was actually being redeemed. Paul of course believed that redemption was accomplished on the cross.

Jesus would occasionally ask the question, “what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?” He used this question in the context of his own suffering he would have to endure on the cross in places like Matthew 16, Mark 8, and Luke 9. He also in this context says that we would have to follow in the way of the cross.

The question in the context of the cross speaks to the great value Jesus placed on humanity. Jesus was compelled to restore solidarity with humanity even if it meant that he would also have to share in the underside of human sin, suffering, and death. God himself became a human being; being the highest he emptied himself and identified with even the lowest of us all by sharing in our human condition. God created humanity in his own image, but sin distorts that image. But in Christ God sees himself in humanity again. This is our redemption; that God identified with us in our humanity restoring for us what we had undone.

This wasn’t just a one time thing; Jesus’ act of redemption paved the way for us to follow us in it. The way of the cross tells us that it is better to identify with the other, even if it means suffering with and for the other, than it would be to “gain the whole world” and lose our soul”. We lose our soul when we fail to see ourselves in the other; our humanity is lost as we fail to see our humanity in the other, and respond when they are in need as if we would unto ourselves.

“For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” Holding on to our lives at the expense of love for the other is the essence of “our sin problem” that leads to our own demise. In this we fail to see the connection that our own humanity has with the humanity of the other.

We might not have beaten and robbed the man laying in the ditch, the man may have been foolish and reckless to travel the road alone or at night, and though our only “sin” may be walking along the other side of the road and “minding our own business”, but by not attending to this man’s human needs we have not only disregarded the value of his humanity but have lost our own. This was the example Jesus gave when speaking about what it means to love our neighbors AS ourselves.

Jesus came to make a way for us to love God again (because he first loved us) and our neighbors AS ourselves. The problem is that we have made following the Way of Jesus into a religion. We SAY that Jesus took care of the “sin problem” on the cross, but because we insist on framing “salvation” exclusively as saving souls in the after life we allow religion to compartmentalize our “sin problem” away from real life, real relationships, and real people. We domesticate the gospel and make sure it does not cut both ways; we do not allow it to change us so as to become real agents of human redemption in the world. We take the real good news of the gospel that loves the least of these among us as unto Christ and turn it into a “consolation prize” for after we die.




The fact that many “Christians” in our culture can not connect the dots between taking care of the poor and the "salvation of souls" is troubling. Even some who admit we should take care of the poor still can't quite see the connection between these two ideas that Jesus linked together. It is evidence that we have made the gospel into a shell of a religion rather than the Way Jesus preached.

Statements like the one above show how we have made following Jesus into an empty religion which compartmentalizes concepts of “sin” and “salvation” away from the reality of believing in real redemption for our human condition and broken relationships. It truly is holding on to a form of godliness, but denying its power. It reduces following Jesus to a religious thing rather than the redemption of humanity. Statements like the one above truly is the religion that promotes white washed tombs.

I want nothing to do with such perversion of the gospel.

Simply clicking the "thank you" button is not enough. THANK YOU!!!!!! and AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James you very eloquently state what I have been feeling and wish I could express but fall over the words. Again, Thank you.

[Jim Chabot]

:horse::horse::horse::horse::horse::horse:

Nice! John, real nice.

[Larry Parsons]

I think your interpretations here fail to fully encompass the instructions we have on the matter. For example, Gal. 6:10, which you referenced, says "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." It doesn't say "believers only." It doesn't even say "believers first." It says to do good to EVERYONE, as often as we have the opportunity to do so, and to do even more for those in the family of believers. The laws God established in Leviticus regarding assistance to the poor are just that- they don't make any rules about who can receive, or how long they can receive.
As for God opposing the proud or upholding the poor at all times, it is not a categorical opposition/upholding, but there are very specific instructions for the rich. In Amos, God says destruction is coming to Israel because they did not help the poor. Paul tells Timothy to command the wealthy to give generously. In Luke, Jesus says "blessed are you who are poor.... but woe to you who are rich." Throughout the Old and New Testaments, it is impossible to deny that God desires for the poor to receive help- in the one theocracy created by God, it was a requirement of the law; In the early church, not giving what they were able to give led to Ananias and Sapphira's deaths; at no point does God (or Jesus) pause to say that help has an expiration date, or that a person must first come to Christ before he or she can receive aide. Your exegesis of the Nazareth passage extrapolates far beyond what it says. People can refuse our help, and if they do, so be it. But Jesus didn't pause to ask whether those seeking to be healed would accept his message or become his followers, and chances are many of them did not.

The Bible does tell us to “Seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” this is what Isaiah 1:17 This is, in fact, the essence of Christian living “This is pure and undeti.led religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27). The church has a special responsibility in this regard. Paul exhorted Timothy to “honor widows” (I TDothy 5:3). The Greek word translated “honor” is often used in Scripture to indicate payment, and it obviously has that meaning here in I Tmothy 5 (in fact, Jesus clearly used the term in this way when he commanded that children should provide their aged parents with financial support: Matthew 15:4-6). There is, however, a limitation on the church’s responsibility to aid widows: regular support must be given only to those widows “who are widows indeed,” who are without a family, too old to remarry, and thus unable to receive support from relatives (I Timothy 5:3-16). The family bears the major responsibility for financial and other aid, and no other institution or group should take away this responsibility.“If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (I Timothy 5:8). These are strong words, and we must take them with up most seriousness even as collective body of believer. Even as a collective body of believers we have been too quick to go out side the church for help. When we do, we undercut the famies and church responsibility to care for their own.
According to Paul, charity should be restricted. A widow is to be placed on the list for aid only if she herself is engaged in charitable service, “having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work” (I Timothy 5:10).
The main principle of biblical law is that “if anyone will not work, neither let him eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10). The
Biblical law is geared toward responsible action on the part of individuals and families. The Old Testament doesn't show that Isreal was a wel-fare state.
Thanks
Larry

[Sarah Smith]

There is a huge difference between what the individual Christian is called to do, and what the church is given as its overriding priority.

If we want to share credentials, I come from among the poor and have chosen to work with and LIVE AMONG them. I know them intimately, having for long stretches of my life been one.

We may not like to hear it, but again, when the wealthy get saved and obey Jesus Christ they won't need government or the church to make them do right by the poor.

Ditto the working stiff.

And like to admit it or not, when a poor person gets saved and obeys God they too get to have that changed heart. Often those changes in personality and action will result in their no longer being poor.

If not, see what I said about the wealthy and the working stiff and you see the help will be there.

But you know what? If I could I would get my neighbor off drugs in a heartbeat. I would get him off the front porch and into a job. I would lavish his table with delicacies and his kids with education.

But if I did all that, and did not share the gospel with him, I would be worse than a murderer. A murderer can only kill the body. Focusing on saving bodies without focusing on saving that which will live for ever is inflicting far more pain than poverty ever can.

[James Diggs]

When cheapskate christians, whine moan and beg the government to help the poor, they bring shame and reproach upon the cause of Christ. They have no credibility, none, for they clearly will not reach into their own pockets. The hue and cry that goes out to ask the government to do the job we are called to do is reprehensible.

I'll admit that you may have a point regarding the charge of theft, although I question exactly how representative is our government. The charge of covetousness stands, we should have no wish that others be deprived of what they have for any reason, that is sin. We are called to solidarity with those less fortunate, instead we ask others to do what we are not willing to do?

Jim, I think you need to understand that many on the left do not see their advocating in government as somehow begging government to do what they won't do themselves. Their view of our government isn't a "them", it's a "we". For many, it is in solidarity that they advocate for the poor in our political process just like people advocate for themselves in our political process.

In fact, when businesses have professional advocates (lobbyists) to advocate for their interests and profits, we need people stand up and advocate for the interests of the least of these when those interests conflict with the powerful who are clearly only loving themselves as themselves. It's not just about asking for money, though if you believe that WE have a right to both tax ourselves, decide how to tax ourselves, and decide how to spend our taxes through our political process then I see nothing wrong with advocating that WE spend some of that on the poor.

But social justice is also about advocating for fair wages and protection for workers and citizens and communities; and these interest often compete with the interests of business who also have advocates.

I'll leave the particulars of the debates that contribute to our process out of the equation for now as I concede there are great differences in what many think is best in regard to policy, taxing and spending. There are good points on all sides.

But my point is that there is not necessarily shameful intent by those that advocate for spending on social programs, even if it means more taxes by those who can afford it, as they simply in solidarity with the poor look for what WE can do together as they engage our political system and process.

You can say that they aren't asking what they can do if they aren't contributing the same amount of money through taxes, but I would liken it to a marriage. A couple may not make the same amount of income but still have equal say concerning the budget. I have made significantly more than my wife in the past, but currently she makes more than me (I'm a Pastor). But we don't weigh our vote as to what to do with our money based on who contributes more as we negotiate how to spend it. The same is true, or should be in the church, and I think (lobbyist aside) our government is set up the same way.

So please don't villainize those who advocate for others as they would advocate for themselves as being greedy beggars who wont work to help themselves or others. They are pursuing one avenue to seek solidarity with the needs of the poor. This does not mean that everything they suggest are the best answers and solutions. But many on the left are actually engaging the idea of the WE in both how they see government and how they see the least of these among us.

Let me also affirm though part of your point that if we think by the way we vote we have done enough than we are missing out in the way we should identify with the poor in other areas.

Unfortunately though I am afraid that rather than pointing out this nuance that it takes more than voting to make a difference in identifying with the poor many on the right turn it into an accusation toward those on the left that they are somehow "passing the buck" to government to do what they should do. Ironically such an accusation also is a way to "pass the buck" by those on the right side of the isle. It is easy to say "it's not government's job" but rather the churches, but those on the religious right in "God's Own Party" haven't done much to advocate for solidarity with the poor outside of government beyond the few (perhaps more so than on the left) who occasionally will right a check. Like I said before though, charity as we commonly understand it today falls short of the solidarity of the gospel.

So then we are falling short on all sides and passing the buck to one another by arguing only for what we each feel is the more comfortable least common denominator. The gospel cuts both ways though and always challenges and transforms us regardless if we are starting from the left or right politically.

Jim, you know me a little now from many conversations here. You know that I believe in promoting social justice as one way of living into the holiness the gospel redeems us to. You know that I believe the Church is where the body of Christ is, and so if I as part of the Church am given a vote I will vote in ways that discourages the marginalization of the least of these by the powerful. You know also though that I don't stop pursuing holiness and justice by how I vote, I also try and "vote" with how I spend my money as I try to live out what it means to be the church in our economic systems too. Finally you know that I have worked with the poor personally, tried to roll up my sleeves, get to know them, and help them face to face. So then, I do not see the one small way I engage government is not about asking "the government" to do what we are called to do.

[John Kennedy]

I wonder if there is anyway for this not to be a right/left issue.

Maybe they can work on that right after that first bar mitzvah at the new mosque.......

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, you know me a little now from many conversations here. You know that I believe in promoting social justice as one way of living into the holiness the gospel redeems us to. You know that I believe the Church is where the body of Christ is, and so if I as part of the Church am given a vote I will vote in ways that discourages the marginalization of the least of these by the powerful. You know also though that I don't stop pursuing holiness and justice by how I vote, I also try and "vote" with how I spend my money as I try to live out what it means to be the church in our economic systems too. Finally you know that I have worked with the poor personally, tried to roll up my sleeves, get to know them, and help them face to face. So then, I do not see the one small way I engage government is not about asking "the government" to do what we are called to do.

Yes James I do know this and I appreciate your holistic approach to this.

I am not attempting to villainize those who advocate for all forms of social justice. In fact I agree with you in many of these areas. I do feel compelled to point out, and please feel free to ignore me if you wish, that those who wish for things to be taken away from others harbor the sin of covetousness in their hearts.

My passion is against those christians who are duplicitous in this regard. They cry for the poor only so that they will not have to spend or care or take the time to look at them. This conversation reminds me many times of the narrative given in John Chapter 12. We must take this as our own call personally, and I know that you do this. We must lead by example, and not by so much braying or nagging. The only one who nagged about the poor was Judas.

Linda makes some very good points regarding that aspect of social justice that brings the best relief of all, a changed heart and eternal life! Larry also makes god sense when he speaks of the need to share the gospel as part of this. We must never forget that we will be ineffective sharing the gospel if we do not respond personally to the call to solidarity with those less fortunate.

If we really are irrelevant with today's society as some have said, it is because we talk the talk without walking the walk. I think that Dale repeated this a while back when he said "Less talk and more walk". We are hypocrites when we beg and plead for the poor without rolling up our own shirtsleeves and digging into our own pockets, and the world is well aware.

And I'm now rambling.

[Shea Zellweger]

The main principle of biblical law is that “if anyone will not work, neither let him eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10). The
Biblical law is geared toward responsible action on the part of individuals and families. The Old Testament doesn't show that Isreal was a wel-fare state.
Thanks
Larry

"If anyone will not work" is a far cry from "if anyone cannot work." If there are no jobs that a person is able to perform, I'm pretty sure that's not what Paul was getting at. And yes, the Old Testament does show that Israel was a "welfare state"- several laws were established which, if enacted today, would more than pay for every current welfare program and then some.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I just wonder how much of our beliefs about social justice and caring for the poor can be traced to our indoctrination into the corporate capitalist economic system. A system that is defended by those who hold on to the brand “Christian” and which is defended as the American (and Christian) way. In this system of Laissez Faire or trickle down economics the greedy and selfish corporate entities (personhood was granted to corporations in 1886 in an effort to further insulate the human owners from the liability that the corporation incurs) and that as they reaped profit at the expense of the exploitation of the workers, by their resultant spending the money would trickle down from the ultra rich to the masses. It is the system advocated and defended by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged and really has no place for the love of Christ. A system that defends the oppression of the many. While denying the ugly truth about oppression—the oppressors are held in bondage by their very acts of oppression. Oppression, even in the guise of consumerism grounded in corporate capitalism, which gleams brightly and seems so attractive, is insidious and seems to me to be a great form of evil due to its seductivity.

When we hold on to this relatively new economic system and defend it as biblical it is no wonder that we are apt to view the poor as lazy and unwilling to work. I remember a day, not that long ago we used this stereotype for entire races, but racism has become passe (or admitting to racism) so we apply the same arguments to all the poor. Funny thing is that this corporate capitalism won’t work with out the poor, won’t work without a criminal class. (See the bodies of work by Noam Chomsky, Paulo Freire, and others).

So are we informing our faith and our biblical exegesis with our ideas from emersion in our economic system? We need to remember that the system we are currently in did not exist when the biblical authors wrote. They lived in agrarian societies as did we until the 18th or 19th century with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. the tension betwixt the two societies led to the American Civil War—industrialization won. But we went from an industrial society to a service society and even that has passed away and we are now in a consumerist society. Consumerism has been adopted by the church and we even defend it in an incredible fete of eisegesis as being biblical.

So, if our consideration of how we treat “the least of these” is a result of our belief, either pre- or subconsciously, then we really need to consider and correct for our economic system of belief. I certainly do not think that we can adequately defend as biblical or intended by God a system that is rooted in selfish greed.

[James Diggs]

But if I did all that, and did not share the gospel with him, I would be worse than a murderer. A murderer can only kill the body. Focusing on saving bodies without focusing on saving that which will live for ever is inflicting far more pain than poverty ever can.

Linda this is another perversion of Jesus’ teaching. Again it leans Gnostic as it views bodily needs as part of our human condition as somehow unimportant compared to escaping this life for some future spiritual afterlife. Remember Christianity believes in the resurrection not some spiritual out of body afterlife.

Jesus did say something similar in places like Luke 12:4 and Matthew 10:21. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” But the context of this was NOT aimed at some kind of prioritizing earthly needs from spiritual ones in a way that encourages us not to worry about the starving people as if it is more important that they go to heaven when they die than eat. NOT AT ALL.

The context of Jesus’ statement was about persecution - the kind of persecution that came to the “least of these” and those who defended the “least of these” from the powerful. The kind of persecution the OT prophets faced when they stood up to Kings for the injustice they placed on the people. And Jesus did not want his followers to lose hope under this kind of persecution or give in to fighting back and engaging in power plays and revolts in the way the world fought for power. No, real power was in the foolishness of the cross and the Way of the Kingdom he taught according to the Sermon of the Mount. What matters was embracing our own humanity, the humanity of the least of these, and even the humanity of those that persecute us- even if it means some may take our lives for taking such a stand.

Jesus encouraged a Way in the sermon of the Mount, that he lived out himself in the Way of the cross (calling us to follow after) of confronting evil and injustice in a way that affirms our own humanity when others try to rob us of it while also giving those attempting the robbery an opportunity to see it and be redeemed themselves. This truly fulfills the law of loving God and loving our neighbor (even those who persecute us) AS ourselves.

This Way is hard, and often (just as it was for Jesus) it lead to being killed. Jesus then in the verse above encourages us that if in turning the other cheek and living into the way of the cross we are killed than we have not lost our soul, we have not lost our humanity, as we await the resurrection from the dead.

In other words we should not fear losing our lives for standing up and embracing the redemptive way of the cross and the Sermon of the Mount. The alternative is to engage in worldly power plays which deceives us into thinking we are defending our humanity but in reality we simply beat our oppressor to the punch; not only robbing him of his humanity as he tried to do to us, but also sacrificed our humanity as God intended for us too. We may have one the battle, but we have lost our very soul. Again, what does it profit us to gain the world in this way and yet lose our soul?

Because of the resurrection Jesus tells us it would be better to die at the hands of our persecutor while living out the Way of the cross like Jesus, valuing our shared human condition even with those who would kill us, than to out of fear fight worldly fire with fire and reject the Way of the cross.

It is also noteworthy that the word for “hell” Jesus uses is "Geenna", which is an actual place near Jerusalem the Jews considered cursed and was essentially a garbage dump. Not that Jesus did not use some creative word play to imply some eternal aspects of this idea, but the reference is meant to bring to mind being tossed out as something that that has lost the properties it was made for; like salt that becomes tasteless.

Notice that Jesus says that both soul and body are lost in this place. It is a place where we have lost our identity in what we were created for as humanity created in God’s image; rendering what our bodies and souls are created for useless and lost. This is what we should fear, losing our identity as people made and redeemed in God’s image. We need not fear death because of our hope in the resurrection, but we should fear not living into life as God intended humanity to live.

Linda, your statement at the top of this post perverts this whole idea. It betrays the gospel by devaluing humanity created in God’s image rather than embracing it. The way of the cross embraces the humanity of others, even if it means we must suffer with them. It is about solidarity with the human condition and our shared humanity not indifference.

The kind of "Christianity" you speak of compartmentalize salvation apart from the very humanity God desires to save. It makes salvation something it is not and leans into a soft Gnosticism. Jesus did not compartmentalize eternity from the importance of doing things like feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked, and caring for our fellow man in the here in now. In fact he was pretty clear that redemption begins now in how we love God and neighbor as ourselves within our human context today which also has eternal implications for tomorrow. Just read Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats and you can clearly see that. Talk about solidarity God found with us and calls us to have with each other- as much as we do, or don’t do, to care for the least of these, is as much that we do, or not do, for God. There is no separating the two.

Again, I want nothing to do with this soft Gnosticism that tries to separate our humanity from our salvation. The kind of Christianity you speak of is preaching salvation as an escape from humanity rather than the embrace of it we find in the incarnation of God in Jesus, the Way of the cross, and the resurrection of our bodies.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The kind of "Christianity" you speak of compartmentalize salvation apart from the very humanity God desires to save. It makes salvation something it is not and leans into a soft Gnosticism. Jesus did not compartmentalize eternity from the importance of doing things like feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked, and caring for our fellow man in the here in now. In fact he was pretty clear that redemption begins now in how we love God and neighbor as ourselves within our human context today which also has eternal implications for tomorrow. Just read Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats and you can clearly see that. Talk about solidarity God found with us and calls us to have with each other- as much as we do, or don’t do, to care for the least of these, is as much that we do, or not do, for God. There is no separating the two.

Again, I want nothing to do with this soft Gnosticism that tries to separate our humanity from our salvation. The kind of Christianity you speak of is preaching salvation as an escape from humanity rather than the embrace of it we find in the incarnation of God in Jesus, the Way of the cross, and the resurrection of our bodies.

Again James, thank you for stating this so eloquently.

[Kevin Rector]

This thread has been interesting. It's been particularly interesting watching people continually speak right past each other. Perhaps there is a via media that is really much more palatable for us:

1. God wants us to care about the poor and the oppressed.
2. God does not want us to provide a form of charity that keeps the poor in their condition.
3. It is not theft when the people governed by the people choose to redirect funds from one place to the other for the benefit of society at large.
4. In a representative government people should advocate the government to do what they would individually do - and then they should also do it.
5. We should stop making blanket statements as they only inflame those who see things differently.
6. We should seek the salvation of all people's souls.
7. We should seek the promotion of holistic wellness for everyone.
8. Some people can work and don't and will take advantage of the charity they are offered - we shouldn't punish the other poor for their theft.
9. If you are generous you will be taken advantage of - that should not stop us from being generous.
10. Pundits - on the left and the right - are a really bad place to get your theological training.

[David Pettigrew]

This thread has been interesting. It's been particularly interesting watching people continually speak right past each other. Perhaps there is a via media that is really much more palatable for us:

1. God wants us to care about the poor and the oppressed.
2. God does not want us to provide a form of charity that keeps the poor in their condition.
3. It is not theft when the people governed by the people choose to redirect funds from one place to the other for the benefit of society at large.
4. In a representative government people should advocate the government to do what they would individually do - and then they should also do it.
5. We should stop making blanket statements as they only inflame those who see things differently.
6. We should seek the salvation of all people's souls.
7. We should seek the promotion of holistic wellness for everyone.
8. Some people can work and don't and will take advantage of the charity they are offered - we shouldn't punish the other poor for their theft.
9. If you are generous you will be taken advantage of - that should not stop us from being generous.
10. Pundits - on the left and the right - are a really bad place to get your theological training.

Wow, you already have your sermon written by 9:16? Go to the head of the class!

[Benjamin Burch]

I just wonder how much of our beliefs about social justice and caring for the poor can be traced to our indoctrination into the corporate capitalist economic system. A system that is defended by those who hold on to the brand “Christian” and which is defended as the American (and Christian) way. In this system of Laissez Faire or trickle down economics the greedy and selfish corporate entities (personhood was granted to corporations in 1886 in an effort to further insulate the human owners from the liability that the corporation incurs) and that as they reaped profit at the expense of the exploitation of the workers, by their resultant spending the money would trickle down from the ultra rich to the masses. It is the system advocated and defended by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged and really has no place for the love of Christ.

Paul,

Many Calvinists I know (and if I took the time I could find youtube videos which say the same thing) credit Calvin, Calvinism, and Reformers with starting a movement which led to Capitalism and America. I was always confused by this but I think I understand.

That theology assumes that man is absolutely and uncontrollably evil and that the majority will not and cannot be brought into salvation. Therefore, an economic system should be created which utilizes that greed to help everyone else. You can easily read the rest of Laisse Faire Capitalism from there.

It's Calvinism dressed up as economics.

[David Graham]

I am working in a denomination that is recognised within the wider society as a major advocate for social justice. Indeed we not only advocate for the poor and disadvantaged but work actively in the area with organisations like Blue Care, Uniting Care and Life line being household words meaning "charitable care" for many Australians. Even in our Conservative Evangelical Synod here in Queensland we have advocated the following key commitments within our mission statement: "Uniting in Care; Acting in Love; Living with Hope; Witnessing in Faith; Working for Justice."

However, in saying this, I do not believe for a moment that we should demand that these ideals should be "funded" by our Governments, even though they are Christian ideals. The responsibility primarily for funding Christian social justice projects falls first of all upon the Christian community. And while I'm sure that we'll be happy to receive money from almost anywhere to assist in the funding, it diminishes our Christian witness to beg others for help when so many of our people have the means to help themselves, but for whatever reason do not give. In this regard, judgement begins at the house of God, and we need to have those discussions among ourselves before we criticise our Governments for their apparent inaction.

With regards to our western capitalisic systems, I wonder if we are coming to the end of an era?

A prominent and well respected Businessman, self made Millionaire (or perhaps Billionaire) and notable philanthropist in my country by the name of Dick Smith believes that we are, and that capitalism will have to change. He says that we are addicted to economic growth, yet in the face of rapid human population growth and an equally rapid decline of our natural resources points, such growth will not be reflected in our living standards long term. And here he is not speaking about dimminishing mineral resources, but resources of fuel for energy production, fresh drinking water, productive farming land and reduced or plateaued levels of food production.

While he is particularly pessimistic about the future outlook of our society, his solution is for Governments and private businesses to focus upon living and working sustainably within a world of limited resources and to reduce our human population overall for the (mostly) improved living standards of everyone.

But given the Chinese record with regard to population control and the western obsession with gaining more and more, I don't think that such a scenario will ever be achieved. Yet nonetheless I think that he may well be right. Yet, in the short term at least, the Japanese have their population under control (in fact they have reduced their population) which provides for us a glimmer of hope..... perhaps???

Cheers,
Dave

[Larry Parsons]

"If anyone will not work" is a far cry from "if anyone cannot work." If there are no jobs that a person is able to perform, I'm pretty sure that's not what Paul was getting at. And yes, the Old Testament does show that Israel was a "welfare state"- several laws were established which, if enacted today, would more than pay for every current welfare program and then some.
as you know in the Old Testament they had this idea call glenning which would help the poor to have something to eat. Glenning wasn't easy work. Gleaner got the left after reaper were finish harvesting. They had another idea if someone got hungry they could go into field and eat as much as they want but they could take anything out. To me I would call that being on welfare as we know it. I don't mind for you to give me some scripture that would show me that was wel-fare state.
Thanks
Larry P

[Jim Chabot]

as you know in the Old Testament they had this idea call glenning which would help the poor to have something to eat. Glenning wasn't easy work. Gleaner got the left after reaper were finish harvesting. They had another idea if someone got hungry they could go into field and eat as much as they want but they could take anything out. To me I would call that being on welfare as we know it. I don't mind for you to give me some scripture that would show me that was wel-fare state.
Thanks
Larry P

Maybe this is another subject altogether. But a discussion regarding the tithe, or tithes, their origins and uses and how they were allocated to public welfare would be a very interesting discussion. I think that the end result would show that we expend far more today than was decreed and practiced back then.

One has to make some assumptions to come alongside the teaching of the triple tithe. I used to listen to a TV evangelist who went to great lengths to explain and justify this as a way of fleecing his flock. He would add the two tithes together without regard for proper application, then he would introduce the one in three year tithe on top and lets not forget first fruits. Then without regard for the instructions for distribution, this fellow would demand that his flock submit this to him.

[John Kennedy]

I used to listen to a TV evangelist who went to great lengths to explain and justify this as a way of fleecing his flock. He would add the two tithes together without regard for proper application, then he would introduce the one in three year tithe on top and lets not forget first fruits. Then without regard for the instructions for distribution, this fellow would demand that his flock submit this to him.

Just goes to show you don't have to be Jewish to have chutzpah.

[Shea Zellweger]

as you know in the Old Testament they had this idea call glenning which would help the poor to have something to eat. Glenning wasn't easy work. Gleaner got the left after reaper were finish harvesting. They had another idea if someone got hungry they could go into field and eat as much as they want but they could take anything out. To me I would call that being on welfare as we know it. I don't mind for you to give me some scripture that would show me that was wel-fare state.
Thanks
Larry P

LArry,
Gleaning is a perfect example of welfare. Collecting wheat that had already been cut down- and also wheat that had already been threshed, since gleaning extended to the threshing floor- might have been a little more difficult than having money directly deposited into one's account, but the society was a trade and barter society, and it predated checking accounts by several thousand years. Being told that you could go and collect wheat from someone else's fields as they were harvesting, and also that you could wander through their gardens and eat as you wandered... in the mind of an Israelite, that's no more work than it would be for you and I to be told that we could eat whatever we wanted in the grocery store, so long as we didn't bring any with us when we left.

[Jim Chabot]

LArry,
Gleaning is a perfect example of welfare. Collecting wheat that had already been cut down- and also wheat that had already been threshed, since gleaning extended to the threshing floor- might have been a little more difficult than having money directly deposited into one's account, but the society was a trade and barter society, and it predated checking accounts by several thousand years. Being told that you could go and collect wheat from someone else's fields as they were harvesting, and also that you could wander through their gardens and eat as you wandered... in the mind of an Israelite, that's no more work than it would be for you and I to be told that we could eat whatever we wanted in the grocery store, so long as we didn't bring any with us when we left.

I believe that one had to wait until the harvest was finished to pick from the gleanings, same with the threshing floor. And no, I don't believe that one could freely pick from goods brought to market. Was it welfare, yes I think that would be a fair assessment, but it was also an admonition against greed. These old testament lessons make great sermon material, sadly they run counter to our culture and we rarely hear this sort of thing preached. The lesson I have learned from this is to give away my excess, rather than try and sell it.

[James Diggs]

The Biblical law is geared toward responsible action on the part of individuals and families. The Old Testament doesn't show that Isreal was a wel-fare state.

This just goes to show how we can twist the whole purpose of it all when we start with a political belief and then try to work our faith into it. I am not sure how much we can consider ancient Israel a welfare state or not (maybe I am not sure of the boundaries of what makes something a welfare state), but I find it interesting that in arguing against Israel as a welfare state the conclusion is made that "the Biblical law is geared toward responsible action on the part of individuals and families."

Not only did the biblical law also clearly extend beyond just individuals and families but also to how the Jews conducted themselves in business and to those in government (rulers and Kings), I thought our biblical law was geared toward loving God and then loving our neighbors AS ourselves. Reading the law with any other lens of purpose or emphasis would certainly bring different conclusions than what it was really intended for.

[Hans Deventer]

This just goes to show how we can twist the whole purpose of it all when we start with a political belief and then try to work our faith into it.

It shows that too often political views come first, and then the Scriptures are like a supermarket: what fits the previously established structure is taken, the rest is not.

So therefore it simply cannot ever be that government has any responsibility whatsoever regarding social justice. Has nothing to do with what the Scriptures say, but with the political view that precedes it.

[Jim Chabot]

This just goes to show how we can twist the whole purpose of it all when we start with a political belief and then try to work our faith into it.

Yes we can. However it also works the other way around. I can tell you unequivocally, that in my case it is certainly faith first that has steered me toward my political beliefs. And actually thinking this through.

I can agree that we haven't established boundaries as to what would constitute a welfare state, but I am willing to go along with the term regarding Israel because I think that it is secondary to Shea's point. Hopefully we can agree that God intended his people to care for one another and also to notice and help those less fortunate. I like the term that you have brought to the discussion "solidarity", for I think that this is the key to our understanding.

That said, I can see Larry's point where responsibility is also key to God's design for our loving relationships with one another. We must be careful to "help" those who are less fortunate, while being wary lest we "enable" them to continue in their condition. I think that is why I resonate with your term "solidarity" because it calls us to a greater purpose, one that extends beyond a simple handout. It required that we truly love and care for those less fortunate, and that we strive to improve their condition if possible. With our ultimate goal being that at some time we may celebrate with them as they rise out of their misfortune and become fellow givers. If we miss the call for responsibility, I think that we shirk part of our calling. Responsibility should not be an excuse not to help.

[Jim Chabot]

It shows that too often political views come first, and then the Scriptures are like a supermarket: what fits the previously established structure is taken, the rest is not.

So therefore it simply cannot ever be that government has any responsibility whatsoever regarding social justice. Has nothing to do with what the Scriptures say, but with the political view that precedes it.

I have to disagree with you Hans. I think that you are painting far too broadly here. I can agree that sometimes this is the case, I don't believe that it is the majority. You need to make room for the thought that those of us with different views just may have been led by both scripture and the spirit as well.

[Hans Deventer]

I have to disagree with you Hans. I think that you are painting far too broadly here. I can agree that sometimes this is the case, I don't believe that it is the majority. You need to make room for the thought that those of us with different views just may have been led by both scripture and the spirit as well.

You're welcome to disagree, Jim, but this is what I see. And it shows in the heat. Theological discussions never create as much heat as political discussions do. So though admittedly spoken with broad strokes, I think it is true.

The interesting thing is that is also goes to show how strongly we are influenced by our culture in how we read the Scriptures (and I include myself). Which shows again that the fundamentalist tendency to seek "objective truth" in propositions and statements is an elusive goal by definition.

I guess the NazNet discussions have made me increasingly post modern: truth appears to be very much contextualized.

[James Diggs]

Yes we can. However it also works the other way around.

I agree completely that it can work the other way around, and even that it often does. HOWEVER, let’s not act that this means that we have reached some kind of unreasonable stalemate and deal with generalities.

I pointed out the very specific way Larry has viewed the intent of the biblical law through a political lens which limited it to just “individuals and families” as he said the whole thing was “geared for responsibility” rather than being geared for love of God and neighbors as ourselves.

If you have specific ways you think that scripture and Christianity has been twisted to fit views in the other direction by anyone here please let us know what they specifically are.



I can tell you unequivocally, that in my case it is certainly faith first that has steered me toward my political beliefs.

Well I can tell you that (to the best of my ability) this has been my motivation too. In fact my faith has turned the political beliefs I started with on its head.


Hopefully we can agree that God intended his people to care for one another and also to notice and help those less fortunate. I like the term that you have brought to the discussion "solidarity", for I think that this is the key to our understanding.

I think we can agree on this and it is vital that we do so. Thanks. I appreciate also that you have allowed the idea of “solidarity” to influence the conversation- I think the word really describes what it means to love our neighbor as if we were loving ourselves. It speaks to how our humanity is linked to the humanity of others, and the reality that as it goes for them it really goes for all of us. Jesus brings redemption by entering into humanity too and finding solidarity with us-restoring us to his image- now what we do to one another is even more so what we do to God; not just because we are God's creation made in God's image but also because God himself became the Son of Man in solidarity with humanity.



That said, I can see Larry's point where responsibility is also key to God's design for our loving relationships with one another. We must be careful to "help" those who are less fortunate, while being wary lest we "enable" them to continue in their condition. I think that is why I resonate with your term "solidarity" because it calls us to a greater purpose, one that extends beyond a simple handout. It required that we truly love and care for those less fortunate, and that we strive to improve their condition if possible. With our ultimate goal being that at some time we may celebrate with them as they rise out of their misfortune and become fellow givers. If we miss the call for responsibility, I think that we shirk part of our calling.

Jim, you make a lot of good points, but I think there is some important nuance here that can easily teeter us off in the wrong direction.

Larry’s point made “responsibility” the foundation of righteousness under the law (what it was geared for) rather than solidarity. It isn’t that responsibility is not a top subcategory of solidarity as we all should be responsible, but the primary emphasis was always on “love thy neighbor as thyself” making room for grace and redemption when responsibility waned. It’s not that there wasn’t accountability when responsibility waned either, but redemption from solidarity allows enough grace for us to restore what is lost.

Our need to extend beyond just giving a “simple hand-out” isn’t just based in hoping that those we are helping will be responsible with what they are given and thus change their lives for the better. But we need to move beyond a simple handout to the point that OUR lives are also changed; as solidarity moves us beyond charity as the world understands it and no longer allows us to engage the world from a lofty position over others.

When we find solidarity with the least of these we find new perspective and we may find that the poor are not always poor because they have been irresponsible, but also in many cases (at least partly) because we have been irresponsible.

This is why the good news of the gospel places solidarity above responsibility. Christ died for us while we were ALL sinners. Loving our neighbors AS ourselves calls us to empty ourselves of being first and embrace the life of the other who is last. This can change our perspective concerning love and responsibility. It is a gospel that cuts both ways and transforms us ALL more into the likeness of Christ who emptied himself and identified with ALL of us by embracing the incarnation and the cross despite how we have failed in our responsibility to love one another.


Responsibility should not be an excuse not to help.

Amen!

In fact I think it should be the reason we help as we should allow our understanding of the idea to be turned on its ear much like how Jesus responded to those wanting to find a loop hole in who they had to love by asking “who is my neighbor”?

The best definition of responsibility I have ever heard is simply the “ability to respond”. If you are able to respond (regardless of others who also may have responsibility), and you don’t, then you are not being responsible. Of course this leaves lots of room to determine whats the best way to respond, but if we are responding in solidarity our response is going to change how we view our own responsibility and change us as much as we hope it changes others. So then, I believe we are responsible to our neighbor as unto ourselves to the degree that we are able to respond. This can sound too radical for many, but I think it is very consistent with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

[Mike Schutz]

It seems that we often confuse compassion with social justice. Compassion is the response to the needs of others, while social justice is addressing the root cause and systems that leads to the need. While they are different, it is impossible to move to social justice without having a heart of compassion. Therefore,

I wonder if we could all agree on this simple statement, that is included in my prayer with our volunteers each week prior to greeting our neighbors who have come for food and clothing:

"Lord, help us to recognize that we are blessed to serve our neighbors. Help us to show them grace and respect, and show them that there is no shame in needing and receiving help from your neighbors - and that the only shame is to have a neighbor in need and to be able to help, but to choose not to help."

[Larry Parsons]

It seem to me there are different meaning when it come to Social Justic. I think some people put Social Justic with Statism Those who do are trying to make the rest of us feel guilty if we are not living on the bare necessitic of life. If all the Nazarene is living on the bare necessitic of life then we could forget work and witnes mission work. I have been on a few w&w trip and gudss what it wasn't free and six month from now I'm going on another one to help build a medical clinic and I will be paying my own way like everyone else that I will be going with.
Thanks
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

It seem to me there are different meaning when it come to Social Justic. I think some people put Social Justic with Statism Those who do are trying to make the rest of us feel guilty if we are not living on the bare necessitic of life. If all the Nazarene is living on the bare necessitic of life then we could forget work and witnes mission work. I have been on a few w&w trip and gudss what it wasn't free and six month from now I'm going on another one to help build a medical clinic and I will be paying my own way like everyone else that I will be going with.
Thanks
Larry

You're not required to live "on the bare necessities," Larry, that's not what Social Justice is about. It is, to some extent, about seeing that nobody is living on less than the bare essentials, but very few social justice advocates believe that the bare essentials are a maximum amount- most see it as the minimal starting point.

[Larry Parsons]

You're not required to live "on the bare necessities," Larry, that's not what Social Justice is about. It is, to some extent, about seeing that nobody is living on less than the bare essentials, but very few social justice advocates believe that the bare essentials are a maximum amount- most see it as the minimal starting point.
Shea,
I don't think, I was saying that we are require to live "on the bare necessities. What I was trying to say there are people who would like for us to feel guilty if we are not. If we as Christians believe in the great commision then it is our duty to work toward social reform and justice which include love,mercy, justice and ect. But I don't believe the federal goverment should be the one that force us to practice it, it should come out of a heart that fill with God's love.
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

I have to disagree with you Hans. I think that you are painting far too broadly here. I can agree that sometimes this is the case, I don't believe that it is the majority. You need to make room for the thought that those of us with different views just may have been led by both scripture and the spirit as well.

The quote here (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?1612-Congregations-Gone-Wild&p=22813#post22813) seems to support my view, especially the last sentence.