"You wouldn't be suggesting that Christians should support taxing the rich to finance the poor (income-redistribution), now would you?"

If he isn't, then I will.

Posted by: carl copas | June 23, 2008 3:00 PM

I think he's just trying to say that voting shouldn't be the pinnacle of social/political involvement for Christians.

Instead, voting is just one of the many ways that we struggle and advocate to bring the Kingdom of God into the world.

Posted by: Anna | June 23, 2008 3:11 PM

Russell -

You are expressing the classic libertarian position, which you apparently see as the only alternative to socialism. Unfortunately, it's not the biblical position.

The Bible makes it quite clear that, though, earthly governments are fallen powers, they are also agents through which God can and does work whenever possible. Here is how N. T. Wright, a leading New Testament scholar, puts it:

"The New Testament reaffirms the God-given place even of secular rulers, even of deeply flawed, sinful, self-serving, corrupt and idolatrous rulers like Pontius Pilate, Felix, Festus and Herod Agrippa. They get it wrong and they will be judged, but God wants them in place because order, even corrupt order, is better than chaos. Here we find, in the Gospels, in Acts and especially in Paul, a tension that cannot be dissolved without great peril. We in the contemporary Western world have all but lost the ability conceptually—never mind practically—to affirm that rulers are corrupt and to be confronted yet are God-given and to be obeyed. That sounds to us as though we are simultaneously to affirm anarchy and tyranny. But this merely shows how far our conceptualities have led us again to muzzle the texts in which both stand together."

The full article from which this quote comes may be found at http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4862, and I strongly recommend that David, Russell and others read it in its entirety before continuing this discussion.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 23, 2008 3:29 PM

"Create platforms centered on prophetic Biblical visions, and require the politicians to endorse the positions."
js, i really like this. interestingly though, on most issues i think this would take us even farther than where most of the religious left is today.

Posted by: nad2 | June 23, 2008 3:58 PM

"We all seem to be forgetting that giving to the poor and denying our selfish desires (including money) is to be done out of personal love and obedience to Christ."

This is a lame excuse to look the other way, and Jesus had a low threshold of tolerance for legalistic, lame excuses. A truly Biblical point of view defines "private property" differently than a post-Enlightenment, secularized point of view. In the former, all property is owned by God and people are simply "renting," or "borrowing" it. It isn't necessarily held in common, but whether held in common or divided up by individuals or families, there is no Lockean sense of humans "owning" it. That's why it was supposed to be distributed according to the rules of the Jubilee every 50 years. Think about the Jubilee, and you'll realize it essentially was an all-rent economy with God as the landlord.

The modern, libertarian notion of property so beloved of American conservatives owes more, ironically, to the SECULAR Enlightenment than to the Bible. No, I don't like Marxism any more than you do, but at least I realize that NEITHER secular Marxism nor secular Lockean libertarianism have anything to do with a Christian worldview.

Posted by: Hans | June 23, 2008 4:12 PM

My first post was suggestive, but still non-committal. Now that there have been explicitly affirmative posts, albeit none by Tim, himself, I will put my own thoughts on record.

I am sorry to see support for governmental programs of taxation and income-redistribution, especially by Christians doing so in the name of Christ. I hope it is only a result of an intellectual wrong turn in the pursuit of understanding Scripture.

Within our system of progressive taxation, where 70% of the tax receipts are collected from 10% of the taxpayers, it reminds me of the allegory of the 9 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Our legal system permits it, but cannot make it just: it remains theft. I cannot in good conscience condone it. Nay, I must speak out against it.

No matter how much such a vote, or such a program may be "dedicated" by Believers to the work of Christ, it cannot be, in fact, part of His work, for it is unjust.

Keep in mind that the politicians who promise such programs would be surprised at the suggestion they were doing God's Work--they just see it as buying votes to stay in power.

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 23, 2008 4:19 PM

David -

Did you read the N. T. Wright article?

The very fact that the upper 10% have enough money to pay such a large proportion of taxes is the injustice. You may disagree, but, as Hans points out, there is nothing biblical about your argument. It's Lockean liberalism in its purest form.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 23, 2008 4:46 PM

Moderatelad: "OK carl - let's tax the $%&* out of the rich and give it to the poor. Now - how are you going to do that to the likes of the Kennedys and Kerrys of our country that have moved their fortunes off-shore a long time ago so that they would not have to pay taxes on their money?"

First of all, I didn't say "let's tax the $%&* out of the rich." I actually said "let's tax the *&%$ out of the plutocrats, robber barons, running nabobs of capitalism, and parvenu moneybags."
More seriously, the wealthy benefit from a system that is in all sorts of ways rigged to allow them not only to perpetuate, but also to exponentially grow, their wealth. They get a lot from the system; they can give a healthy chunk of it back to those who don't do so well. They will still have more money than 99.9999% of the rest of the world.

It's interesting, Moderatelad, how you only pick on wealthy people who are Democrats, esp. those like Kerrey and Kennedy who could sit back and live like Oriental potentates off the interest of their savings accounts. Instead, they see an obligation to public service, as do some wealthy Republicans. (Certainly John McCain isn't running for president because he needs the money.) Why don't you join the fight for legislation that would make it harder for wealthy people to shelter their money in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere? or for legislation that would close tax loopholes?

On a different note, I'm sure that, regardless of their politics, many others who post on here join me in praying for you to find a decent job soon Moderatelad. I've been there, as have a lot of the regulars here on God's Politics--it's no fun looking for work.

Posted by: carl copas | June 23, 2008 6:08 PM

I support taxing all the same percentage . Not sure if this makes me less Christian then those who tax the poor to give to the rich , or those who promote taxing the rich while not giving enough to the poor now . Or those who are perfect in every way .But my understanding is we are to treat the poor equal with the rich . I believe the example the Apostle Paul gives is not kissing up more or less to the rich man in church , then ignoring the poor man . I always took it not treating the rich man less then the poor man also . A rich man deserves no more or less fairness then a poor man in how the government treats them with their property .

But I will leave that to poltical humans to be the judge , which I believe has been the problem and always has .

Posted by: Ron | June 23, 2008 6:35 PM

Ron:

I believe you're on to something--

"A rich man deserves no more or less fairness then a poor man in how the government treats them with their property."

--and, again--

"...poltical humans to be the judge , which I believe has been the problem and always has."

I interpret the latter to be a reference to politicians as being, and having been, the problem.

Do I hear, "Amen!"

I am not rich, by US standards--barely middle class, with not enough accumulated assets to promise a retirement (SS will be a nice raise)--but I, for one, am grateful there are rich people. Sure, they make a mistakes, and their hearts aren't any more pure than those of the poor people I know, but rich people have found ways to fund and operate the companies that have employed me, so that they show a profit, stay in business, and mostly provide me with some level of job security.

Paul wrote about folks who were preaching the Gospel out of spite, apparently, in hopes it would make his situation worse. He said, in effect, "Bring it on! I don't care what their motivation is, the Gospel is getting preached."

I look at rich folks the same way. Many of them are motivated by self-centered interests--ego, wealth, fame, whatever--but the by-product of that is that they tend to the management of businesses with a passion. That keeps us employed (mostly); and that's a good thing. So let's have more wealth and more wealthy people!!

Be blessed!

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 23, 2008 7:58 PM

Tim Kumfer,

In an era when the power of Caesar is far more popular than the profound gospel of Jesus, your commentary is refreshing.

The Religious-Right will likely never be the same after the devastatingly brutal Bush years...will U.S. Evangelicals relinquish their devotion to the power of Caesar's horses and chariots? Will they once and for all surrender to Jesus' gospel?

As a so-called "young progressive" who's appalled by Bush and his Evangelical followers, I pray that U.S. christendom will begin thinking beyond the harmfully narrow horizon of American nationalism.

Posted by: Quetzal | June 23, 2008 8:34 PM

Interesting quote of Matthew's Gospel seeing that Gays and Lesbians do indeed desire more than anything to lord their political power over all. They are no scapegaots.

Posted by: Just seeing | June 23, 2008 9:42 PM

Ah!, Those gays and lesbians and all that ill-gotten political power imposing their agenda on all us poor victims. What to do, what to do.
Ever heard of Bayard Rustin? He seems to come close to what Jesus was talking about regarding wielding political power through inconspicuous service. He sacrificed personal prominence for the rights of others. Was he a follower of Christ or did his sexual orientation cancel out his Christ-like behavior? His story makes me consider the idea that "homophobia" is the final frontier in the war on racism.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 23, 2008 10:27 PM

I am sorry to see support for governmental programs of taxation and income-redistribution, especially by Christians doing so in the name of Christ. I hope it is only a result of an intellectual wrong turn in the pursuit of understanding Scripture.

You should know that was the exact same justification for maintaining apartheid in South Africa; that system was supported (if not invented) by some theological cousins to the Puritans. In other words, "economic redistribution" is beside the point -- the real issue is "who's the boss"; who makes the rules for the benefit of whom. I believe, and Scripture suggests, that the political system should be changed to benefit the poor -- but that means that the rich will lose at least some of the authority they crave. That's what this fight is about.

Posted by: Rick | June 23, 2008 10:55 PM

I have said this in earlier posts but it needs repeating. Jesus said in Matthew 25 that you go to hell if you fail to provide food, water, clothing, shelter and medical care to anyone you see who needs it. That is a more direct condemnation of the capitalist - every man for himself and the devil take the hindermost - system the right wing worships than anything Marx said.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2008 10:59 PM

Kevin: Generalizing doesn't become you.
I'm a registered republican and most often vote that way. The republicans and democrats are not the monoliths you suspect. You being a stickler anecdotal evidence, I thought you'd appreciate that. BTW- I concur wholeheartedly with your last sentiment. As Derek Webb sings "We'll never have a savior on Capitol Hill".

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 23, 2008 11:23 PM

So david of fox lake, you don't seem to think that God can provide honest work to individuals and communities without the pursuit of " self-centered interests--ego, wealth, fame," which you concede often characterizes the rich." This is rather a tame gloss of the history of the rich and powerful. A great deal of murder, theft, and torture is also part of the cost of all systems where wealth is controlled by a few.

The more socialized countries may have fewer of the wonderful rich who supply the great lower middle class with the no retirement existence you seem to cherish so much, but they have better health, less violence, fewer wars, and are not frightened about their old age. Now what is so great about insuring the prosperity of the few at the expense of the many? Could you explain this in a little more detail, because I think a lot of us are shaking our heads?

And Russel what are you talking about "a Free State"? Is this the country that has legitimized torture, spying without a warrant and the loss of the Magna Carta and U. S. Constitution's right of Habeas Corpus? Because These things are not happening in the socialist countries of Europe but in the U.S. So where is this free country again?

Posted by: jonabark | June 23, 2008 11:31 PM

I find it interesting that many Liberals think it's ridiculous to use a verse from Leviticus when talking about homosexuality in modern times, but think it perfectly logical to use a verse about the year of jubilee to talk about redistribution of wealth. The year of Jubilee was instated in a time when land was the only means to wealth and power. And since land was a finite resource there was injustice in the society for those that do not and never could own land. I think almost everyone would agree that nations with little property rights have the most injustice.

I've looked for a verse where Jesus has advocated helping "the least of these" by means of coercion. I am yet to find one.

When Liberals invoke Jesus' name to advance their government redistribution programs, it seems that they often forget how much Jesus valued freedom. It reminds me of The Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers K. The Grand Inquisitor was telling Jesus how foolish he was for giving people freedom and free will. "Enslave us, but feed us!" The Grand Inquisitor rationed that he was quite justified controlling the wealth of the people and distributing it as he saw appropriate. The people were far too pathetic to do it themselves.

I'm not against taxes or all government programs. But I do reject the liberal reaction to assume that mistakes are the fault of society and can only be fixed by society. Jesus would not approve of this societal victim hood.

Posted by: DITE | June 24, 2008 2:01 AM

To those of you fretting and sweating about big bad government "coercively" taking your property away, has it occurred to you that in the United States, "liberal" programs like the New Deal, Square Deal, Great Society, etc., were passed by CONSTITUTIONALLY ELECTED presidents, senators, and representatives? Moreover, most of the architects of those programs (FDR, Truman, Johnson, innumerable liberals in Congress) were RE-ELECTED, sometimes by large margins.

This may or may not have been bad policy, but to call it "coercion" is simply to betray your ignorance of what a truly coercive society looks like. Something like Iraq under U.S. occupation perhaps ...

Posted by: Sarah | June 24, 2008 3:00 AM

"has it occurred to you that in the United States, "liberal" programs like the New Deal, Square Deal, Great Society, etc., were passed by CONSTITUTIONALLY ELECTED presidents, senators, and representatives?"

Taxes are not voluntary. If you are forced to do something involuntarily, what would you call it? Our government does run by a majority. But in this country we do not allow the majority to infringe on the rights of minorities. So, even the hated rich people have rights. See David's example of 9 wolves and 1 sheep.

I would be fine with redistribution if it actually worked. Yes, we need some safety nets. Our current entitlement system, however, is way too big and does not make enough of an attempt to actually lift the poor out of poverty. It attempts to make being poor more comfortable. It provides incentives to remain poor. So, long story longer, I am against mass redistribution not because I'm worried about the feelings of rich people. I am against it because it hurts the poor by creating dependency and a culture of victim hood.

Creating wealth alleviates poverty, not redistributing wealth. When you create wealth you understand the value of the money you earned. You are able to see the mind and effort that went into your paycheck.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2008 7:32 AM

"I would like to point out that the early Christian communities were socialist in nature. Don't forget that the Holy Spirit slew two who did not share fairly with the community in
Acts."

There are people that live in America that aren't Christians. If your congregation wants to live that way, you are free to do so. The problem is the government can't mandate its citizens to share equally. Believe me, various Marxist regimes have tried. Human nature is flawed.

Posted by: DITE | June 24, 2008 8:20 AM

The religious right does not openly declare its obedience to the conservative orthodoxy. Rather, one can glean said allegiance from their rhetoric, and the writers here have done so.

You obviously haven't read World magazine -- it does so in practically every issue.

Now, I admit to not having researched this myself, but I believe that, notwithstanding its place in the instructions for the Promised Land, it was never actually implemented a single time. Does anyone have information to the contrary? And, what significance does that fact have for you, if it was not actually carried out?

Israel went into captivity for 70 years -- which just happened to be the amount of years "owed" to God for not carrying out His edicts.

Is it bad to act in my own behalf, if I am rich, but good to act in my own behalf, if I am poor? How about acting on my own behalf, while pretending to act on the behalf of others, if I am a legislator?

That misses the point. The question is: Do you, as a rich person, use the authority your wealth affords you to lift those of lesser means? I'm not just talking about alleviating misery; I'm talking about changing their actual state. Do you support, for example, making it easier for them to vote, networking to get them better jobs, running for office and other things that give them a sense of authority? If not, you aren't really doing anything for the poor no matter how much money you give or think you do, and your resentment about "economic redistribution" just doesn't fly. As I mentioned before, that was why Nelson Mandela was hated.

Creating wealth alleviates poverty, not redistributing wealth. When you create wealth you understand the value of the money you earned. You are able to see the mind and effort that went into your paycheck.

There is no such thing as "creating wealth" because you have to get it from somewhere. In fact, that's why God instituted the "Year of Jubilee" for ancient Israel -- resources are finite.

Posted by: Rick | June 24, 2008 8:51 AM

"I thought we lived in a free country, not a socialistic state. Call me crazy but taxing the rich to finance the poor is socialism."

More importantly, it's Biblical. Which is probably why it chafes at those who worship money more than God.

Posted by: RJohnson | June 24, 2008 9:42 AM

I can see where there was shared distribution in the Biblical accounts. However I don't see Jesus mandating that radical reform be instituted into government to force it to conform to the ideals of the " new religous." Jesus was a teacher to men as men not men as current/potential governmental enforcers. He said to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars...relating to tax(governmental) money, and in other instances in regards to obeying the laws that are in place. The cost of obeying those laws were not "now we have the power" but often resulted in beatings and floggings and incarceration. Jesus never said become the new government and my ways will rule. He left the government to Ceasar. Jesus never taught to "take over the government and then force my laws in place." He spoke of a higher kingdom. Joseph saved the nation of Israel by buying and selling using God's guidance. Then even in a famine he SOLD the stored resources back to the Israelites, saving them from starvation. God never instituted a "free food" program for the hungry. Jesus taught to share and to give and to fast and to pray. But he never said try and get those elected that will force the people to live under these mandates. Jesus taught higher ways in order to learn and understand God's principles. Kingdom principles.

Posted by: TruthNBible | June 24, 2008 10:13 AM

I find it hard to stomach this mass movement to the Democratic (Socialist) party by young Christians. Do you really think God finds it any more platable to be so sold out to a party that is beholden to Planned Infanticide, Big Hollywood, and the radical gay agenda than a party that is beholden to big oil and defense contractors???? Really?

You protest the war in Iraq, yet are vowing to vote for a man who voted against a ban on partial birth abortion (we will abort more babies today than we've lost in the entire Iraq war - and tomorrow, and the day before that, and the next day...) and has ties to Bill Ayres, an unrepentant, admitted terrorist who blew up bank buildings in the 60s.

Leviticus isn't the only place in scripture that condemns homosexual activity. It's in the New Testament too - you probably skipped over that part.

Jesus said we (the church) are to provide for widows and orphans. He never said we are to give it to caesar, who will then siphon 90% of it off the top before returning 5-10% of it to the actual widows and orphans. He also never said we are to support able-bodied men who refuse to provide for their off-spring or practice a modicum of self-restraint over their penis. In fact, Paul's pretty clear even within the (admittedly socialistic) church if a man doesn't work, he doesn't get fed. Oh yeah, you probably skipped over that part too.

Posted by: Brad Jones | June 24, 2008 10:57 AM

re-read all those "The Kingdom of God is like..." in the gospels, then you will understand the magnitude of the shift we as christians are called to work toward spiritually, economically, politically & in every other vein. "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH..." The kingdom principles are for us here & now, they point to what the world would be like if it were indeed god's kingdom & not the kindgoms of rome, america, etc. & they are hard & radically egalitarian & make our notions of justice seem horribly petty. & for followers of jesus, they are "the way" & the social structure we fallibly seek to enact, they are our ethic.

Posted by: nad2 | June 24, 2008 11:04 AM

"interesting question kevin. i liken it to asking a confederate soldier whether or not his family owns slaves."

That's, um, reasonable. But taking your analogy, the responses here would be akin to accusing a confederate soldier who does not own slaves of fighting for his love of owning slaves.

I am not surprised that you would scratch your head. To be honest, you strike me as the type of person who cannot understand why anyone would disagree with you about anything.

"Considering its actual influence, that's no excuse; plenty of people I know (and probably you too without realizing it) read World. "

I would hazard to guess that very few people I know read it.

"based on its review of "God's Politics," which based on your posts you would have written."

I found God's Politics to be poorly written, dishonest and repetitive. If the writers of World magazine agree with me, they are hardly alone in that assessment.

But that doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I asked you to cite an instance wherein World Magazine has openly declared its obedience to the conservative orthodoxy. They do so in every issue, so a quote will be easy to find.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 24, 2008 12:01 PM

"I'm giving you the link because even if I did you wouldn't believe me or say I was taking it out of context (which I never do)."

You almost never cite specific examples at all, so how would I know whether you cite them out of context?

"So be a "Berean" and check it out for yourself. "

I did just that and could not find what you describe. There is an article on domestic oil drilling that states Republicans could have a potentially hot political issue in November.

From this, it is safe to say that the publication favors Republicans. From the post by Sojourner's COO (above this one), it is safe to say that Sojo holds a favorable view of Democrats.

Which was my point.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 24, 2008 12:38 PM

"You're not looking hard enough, nor do you intend to."

Well that's true, given that it was your blanket accusation. My broader point about Sojourners stands.

"Except that World has always promoted itself as the voice for Biblical thought and conviction, disregarding even the likes of CT (and of course Sojo)."

I don't care if World magazine is disingenuous. I didn't say it wasn't.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 24, 2008 1:31 PM

I don't care if World magazine is disingenuous. I didn't say it wasn't.

Well, you claim all kinds of bias with Sojo, but I've told you about the even clearer bias in World, which doesn't even allow any voices but its own in its pages (but which supports the conservative agenda to a T). I would think that you would be concerned in the name of fairness.

Posted by: Rick | June 24, 2008 2:05 PM

The crime is lower in "equal" countries because there is less to steal if you know no one has anything. So taking from the rich to distribute to the poor is okay because then there will be less people in jail. Jesus said The poor you will always have with you. Libs think that gov can make people financially responsible. Libs believe and I guess are now wrapping it in religion, guilt must be over, that giving poor people money is equal to educating them, overcoming generational curses of poverty, and overcoming addction. Just give them money. So much of what the left proposes is done so... clearly because it makes T H E M feel good. Come with me downtown to the major metropolitan city I live in to our hunger feed and tell me after about 10 min. of meeting and observing, how giving cash to these individuals will help them. It will help them get high, help them get drunk, help them get laid. Poverty is a spiritual disease, even education can't always help. The best way for the poor to be dealt with was as Christ said, feed the poor, clothe the naked, house the shelter. That means Y O U do it. You will be judged! THe government won't be judged. If you drive pass 100's of homeless,(in your Prius) on the way to attempt to have legislation passed to increase spending on the poor, you are going to have to answer to the Lord on why Y O U never helped. And Y O U will be judged. Even if laws are passed, you are still going to have to leave your trendy restored and over-priced community, and go downtown to feed the poor, in order to be obediant to God's Word.

Posted by: Miss Abbey | June 24, 2008 4:00 PM

said The poor you will always have with you.

As usual, that quote is taken out of context -- it should be completed with "...but you will not always have Me." In effect, He was telling Judas, "You can help the poor any time you want." He was not at all saying "it's not worth doing so."

But again, my point is that they are simply opposite sides of the same coin. Sojo exclusively advocates Democratic causes and World Magazine, presumably, exclusively adovcates Republican causes.

Not so fast -- World's editor, Marvin Olasky, a journalism professor at the University of Texas, was an adviser to GWB when he was governor. Wallis, on the other hand, never had that kind of access to the corridors of power. Besides, Olasky (and I have read his books as well -- or tried to) has zero respect and regard for other viewpoints, even when they come from other Christians; Wallis has worked with conservatives in the past and has said he will continue to do so. Given the choice between an ivory-tower conservative and a grass-roots "liberal," I'll take the latter anytime.

Posted by: Rick | June 24, 2008 5:13 PM

Muerig,
You can't really compare countries such as scandinavian countries that have never allowed immigration to countries that have millions of 'poor seeking more' pouring over the border...your brand of socialism can not work here in the US. I lived in England, Paris, and Berlin so I know a little bit about life outside the US. Have also travelled extensively throughout eorope the mediterranian, Israel, Egypt, Sudan, etc.
Rick- are you saying that there is a chance that we as humans can create a condition to which "the poor we will no longer have?" In which case the quote is true Christ is right in B O T H contexts "The poor we will always have with us." The bible is more that one dimensional.

Cheers...

Posted by: Miss Abbey | June 24, 2008 10:29 PM

"There is no such thing as "creating wealth" because you have to get it from somewhere."

We have had this discussion before, Rick. I am still waiting for you to provide some sort of study or report that goes with this line of economic thought. Why are all the economic text books wrong? Are the text books wrong when they say that specialization and technology lower input costs which lowers prices and increases profits? If the consumer pays less and the producer has a greater profit, where is that extra money coming from if it was not created?

"As I've had to point out recently on another thread, this is not at all what liberal Christians believe."

You do understand that Liberal is an ideology? I never said that all Liberal Christians believe that. In my opinion the general Liberal ideology does believe that.

"Now, if you look at crime rates in the developed world, you will find that they are highest in the most unequal societies, and lowest in the most equal societies."

Not entirely true. The Persian Gulf nations, India, and East Asia all have large income gaps and low crime rates. Your theory pretty much only works if you only use the US compared to Europe. Part of the reason the US has a large income gap is because we take in so many poor immigrants.

But you have to be careful when you make assumptions like yours. What you did was make a comparison with two changing variables: income gap and countries. If you remember back to science class it is most effective to change one variable and keep the others constant. So, it's more useful to use one country and examine how an increase or decrease in the income gap has affected crime rates. If we look at the US over the last 10 years the income gap has increased while the crime rate has decrease. Crime rates have also decreased as incarceration rates have increased...weird, huh?

Posted by: DITE | June 25, 2008 2:23 AM

Consumers get the money to buy products in the first place because they are also producers (if they have a job). If they don't have a job they do not create wealth. Drug dealers get their money from selling drugs. If you don't have customers you don't create wealth.

Do you need a numerical example to demonstrate how wealth creation works?

Posted by: DITE | June 25, 2008 8:12 AM

As long as there is sin, no -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. While there is no moral superiority in being either rich or poor, the truth is that struggling to meet basic needs and handling responsibilities does take its toll, especially between husbands and wives. (It's a reason why African-American families have been in such dire straits for the past three generations.) That's why I have a hard time with the interpretation that we shouldn't seek to alleviate poverty -- what if it were your family that was struggling through no fault of your own?

I agree to one extend. That poverty is devastating to homes, families and marriages. But I believe that answer is not in governmental handouts...I'm not speaking politically, I believe poverty is demonic and generational, and through knowledge and a sincere relationship with Christ that He can deliver those bound in poverty, and set them free. I work with homeless, addicted, bridge dwellers, runaways etc. I never pray that God gives them money. I know what they would do with it. I pray that God draws them to His Son Jesus Christ. You can't even educate some of these guys. But I have witnessed Jesus fixing some people and seeing them leave the street learn the Word get a job. I feel that He who the Son sets free is free indeed, so I believe it is a deliverence issue. Whether it is an individual or a community or a nation.
The thing about liberals is they have a hard time "letting God do it" They would rather let man (the government) do it. Then man (me, you, us) gets the glory..not God. Then WE can feel good. It will never happen. Again Christ is right. MAn can not fix the problem, because it is not physical...it is spiritual. The proof is in poor Christian nations, and communities past and present...like China, there is no struggle in marriages and families when Christ is FIRST in their lives. God will provide, they know this. They don't feel poor. You are telling them they are poor and that "man's" government should help them. Don't depend on God.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2008 10:08 AM

Consumers get the money to buy products in the first place because they are also producers (if they have a job). If they don't have a job they do not create wealth. Drug dealers get their money from selling drugs. If you don't have customers you don't create wealth.

Which totally blows up your argument. Retail store owners understand that, which is why (where I live) so few of them are located in anywhere but suburbs or exurbs. You have to go where people have money to buy your products; therefore, wealth is never being "created," only shifted because whatever you earn you actually take from someone else. My own business -- journalism -- is funded primarily on advertising, which is often targeted to certain groups to get (hopefully) maximun profit; our marketing department actually maintains charts detailing which areas have higher income levels.

I believe poverty is demonic and generational, and through knowledge and a sincere relationship with Christ that He can deliver those bound in poverty, and set them free. I work with homeless, addicted, bridge dwellers, runaways etc.

My church, which is in a run-down neighborhood, deals with those and more, and we can tell you from experience that a regenerate heart is only the beginning; we also need, among other things, to change perceptions of people who live in certain areas. During a recent sermon my pastor preached he mentioned that a black member of the congregation had a job interview, and the interviewer, noting his address, said, "You're from [that part of town] and you've never been to jail?"

You see, we risk folks slipping into those old habits unless they get the kind of support they need and a different environment. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this quite well, saying (my paraphrase) that often conditions need to change so that the "saved soul" can have a chance.

Posted by: Rick | June 25, 2008 10:36 AM

Miss Abbey -- I am reminded of a line in one of my favorite movies, "Cry Freedom," during which a South African newspaper editor whom the government had banned was talking with his wife about fleeing the country: "I'm not God, but we know what this country is like now. And we can't accept it or wait for God to come and change it. We have to do what we can."

The point is that God generally does not, and probably will not, simply change things like magic -- usually He uses people to work the change He wants. God is indeed sovereign but desires to use folks He created, to glorify Him. There would have been no need for an MLK Jr., Billy Graham, William Wilberforce et al. if that weren't the case. You don't think it takes human effort, admittedly empowered by the Holy Spirit, to preach and teach the Gospel? Come on -- there has to be some involvement!

Posted by: Rick | June 25, 2008 3:16 PM

Thank you jonabark for using scripture to support your stand. I have a memorization problem but can easily recall at least ten examples of Jesus preaching on the need of the rich to share their wealth with the less fortunate. Alas, I could not give you book and verse.

If there ever was a time for an International Year of Jubilee, it is now. Thank God there is a bipartisan effort right now to pass a "Jubilee Law" in congress.

those who think it is godly to store up wealth and not share it are idolaters. those who fail to tithe fully rob God. If the churches fail to aid those who are unable to care for themselves, they are the no different than the rich man who cries to "Abraham" from the torments of Hades.(Luke 16: 19-31) That scripture I do know!

Posted by: Paul (the liberal Christian) | June 26, 2008 3:08 PM

I think we're missing a huge concept here. It's not about Socialism, Marxism, or Libertarian. Jesus' teaching and life was all about a kingdom. Realizing that we operate under kingdom principles and philosophies which no philosphy on earth can compare. Yeah, some get close. But if we're not kingdom-minded, we've got it all wrong.

Posted by: Amanda R | June 27, 2008 10:59 AM