The Institute (協会)

Reading Sowell's Economic Facts And Fallacies now and loving it.

This is what I love about your blog Anthony. I consider myself an emerging christian, but I am also a fiscal conservative who sees government programs to help to poor as just a big waste. Too often, emerging christians assume that conservatives are just one-issue voters and that an expanded welfare state is the only position for a christian to take. I see it as just an excuse to not truely help the poor. Thanks for speaking for guys like me.

matthew...whoohoo! I tell ya, man...take the jump and read his big book, 'basic economics'.

I think his 'knowledge and decisions' is going to be really seminal as well, but I haven't read it yet.

andrew...I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "liberal like Jesus". I wanted to vomit. Of course, I understand that draw to want that, as being against republicans, but good lord was that hideous.

Andrew said, "emerging christians assume that conservatives are just one-issue voters and that an expanded welfare state is the only position for a christian to take"

Dude, this profound. And the whole emo thing is another part (I'll have to blog about that again some other time).

Shawn, "Knowledge And Decisions" is a primary read if you're to understand other parts of Sowell's writings. I would read it before reading anything else of his. It sets up the framework for most of what he writes.

i grew up in the 60's and enlisted in the 'great society'... after over 30 years on the front lines as a social worker i can tell you that the promises of the welfare state are empty. Sowell speaks the truth as does Olasky (the tragedy of american compassion) and Schlossberg (idols for destruction). i really don't know what is meant by the term emerging xian but i hope they don't fall prey to the messianic welfare state ideology.... bs that took me years of experience to see through. if revelation is not clear enough, 40 years of experience should tell us not to go down that road!

'To be sure, Europe’s middle class is still larger than the number of people at risk of falling into poverty — and, by many measures, more protected than the American middle class.'

Did you read this bit of the article ??

Colin

'To be sure, Europe’s middle class is still larger than the number of people at risk of falling into poverty — and, by many measures, more protected than the American middle class.'

Did you read this bit of the article ??

Colin

Colin, do you actually have a point?

He must, he posted twice.

;)

Okay, that's it. Sowell's book(s) are now at the top of my reading this summer. I gotta figure this stuff out. I need some economic knowledge.

Well, Colin, when the goods and services available to the European middle classes are remarkably similar to that of the American lower classes, is it a good thing that they are secure in this position?

Anthony,

Help me out with a top 3 reading list. 2 on economics and 1 on integrating faith with economic positions.

I don't care if Obama/McCain raise taxes and don't believe this will automatically slow the economy - it won't come close to doing what the war has done. Nor do I believe in what I know about trickle down economics. I live in the bombed out hole that resulted from Reaganomics and believe the US evangelical church cares much more about getting richer than they do about the results of economic devastation in our urban centers, injustice in school systems and inequities in our judicial system. In short it seems like we want to sing Micah 6:8 but not live it. . . .

But I am open to persuasion, so how about a reading list?

Joel, raising taxes always slows the economy. There are many definitions to the word "slow" so sometimes pundits and books and others assume that their def of slow is already understood by the reader/listener. You may be right, but what do you mean by slow? But by almost every economic factor that is measurable raising taxes slows to some degree or the other the economy. It may take a decade or the raise may be very slight, but all things held steady, raising taxes is bad for the econ. As far as "what the war has done" I have no clue what you are talking about. Not that I agree w/the way we get $ to spend on the war, but you need to find out how we DO get $ for the war. Its in a different category if you are comparing raising taxes w/ the way we finance a war, impacting the economy.

Yep, I am way over my head here so go easy on me.

By "slow" I guess I would mean negatively effecting employment, interest rates, home sales and values, etc....

What do you mean by "bad" for the economy? Is that the same thing as "bad for the country"?

by what the war has done I mean the $1Billion dollars per day that we are borrowing to fund it plus the way the war has impacted gas prices by creating instability in the region and (again I could be off base here but. . . ) the increasing debt we carry has added to the slump in the dollar which pushes gas prices up and impacts nearly every sector of the economy. . .

ok. . go ahead but punch above the belt. . . .

I will let Anthony punch, he is the heavyweight, ha ha, I am a pacifist...

joel...there's other options, you know. I'm reading your comment and it seems like you're saying that your options are either obama or mccain. It almost doesn't matter who wins the presidency, because they will all do what the median voter wants, and the median voter doesn't know a thing about economics, so he gets bad economic policies promised (and slightly less bad policies enacted).

Check out some econ (read sowell's 'basic economics'...it's big enough for two other books, but a great and well written fun read), and then you can start to see why politics is not the answer.

As far as the one on integrating faith with economic positions...It comes more down to the evil of tyranny, and the injustice of forcing your position on someone of differing opinion via the political system than on integrating faith with economic positions, per se. You'll understand that more after you check out some econ and see how utterly ineffective the government (either in the executive or the legislative branch) is at solving problems, in spite of their promises. Hopefully you'll be become a libertarian, and seek to persuade people and help them from outside the immoral power orgy that is politics in the norm.

sorry, that's "hopefully you'll become a libertarian..." ...nix that 'be' in there.

I am very open to reading. . . my dad loves Sowell and I have read Race and Culture (a long time ago). . .. so i did just put Basic Economics in the cart at Amazon.

But I can't see how I could possibly take a libertarian position based on my theology. As a Christian I have to presume that the gov't must be involved in righting injustice where it is beyond the capability of the church. This means social policies (and investment) that address education, housing and health care among other things. There is no way market forces deal fairly with all of this as far as I can see.

I agree that in some ways all presidential candidates end up in the middle someplace. . . but the policies of Johnson through Reagan era devastated the urban centers of the country and invested heavily (de facto) in the burbs. I can't see libertarians addressing the remaining injustices. . . can I?

"As a Christian I have to presume that the gov't must be involved in righting injustice where it is beyond the capability of the church."

If you honestly think the government is that good at what it does, then please let me know if the rock you live under has room for one more. :)

joel...get through BE, and then let me know if you still think what you thought in that last comment. If Anthony's worldmag blog was still up, I could show you the place where I said almost the exact same thing two years ago (except you know more about the actual history of urban areas than I do...presumably because you're older than I am, but that's just a guess).

I started out thinking that the government was (reluctantly) a necessity to address issues of injustice. Now I see the immorality of political machinations, as well as what kyle's jokingly saying: the impotence of the political process, coupled with its natural and inevitable strangling of private charities that actually *could* do some good.

Kyle,

I am happy to say I may live under a rock but the only thing more criminal than what the government has done to my community (southside of Chicago) is what the church has not done.

By comparison the government has invested heavily in here; the church has run away. Gov't investment is not always effective to be sure. . . . but the church (both black and white) has largely abandoned the community (the infamous Trinity UCC being one of the exceptions!)

The nice thing about living under a rock is that you don't mind too much if people throw stones. .. . !

...keep looking, and you'll not be surprised that the church has left because the government has taken tax dollars and priced the church out.

that makes absolutely no sense. . . sorry. . .

I am with you on that one Joel! That makes no sense at all! So the government is why the church has left the urban centers of America. Wow!
I thought I had heard every excuse as to why the church "had" to "leave" but this one takes the cake.

Please do tell Shawn!

Joel, Shawn's actually right. Government has been undermining Christian charities since the 1960's. Welfare changes the incentive structures that actually encourage churches to leave. If the government is heavily "invested" in an area I would NOT expect to see charity or philanthropy. This is Europe virtually has no charities, government prices charities out.

Government programming works against and competes against the church--the intention is drive all needy people to government depedency not the formation of a faith-based charity. It's gonna get even worse with Clinton or Obama. Here's the equation: increased government funding, decreased charity. Michael Tanner at the Cato Inst. has a piercing graph that demonstrates this. The churches didn't run away. Why do something that the government's already doing? Church are often driven away as govern perverts the incentives.

Don't expect churches to be heavily invovlved where government is heavily invested and don't be quick to criticize churches because government has pushed them out of the "business" of providing social services.

Ant,
I trust you man so you are going to have school me on this one. Break it down for me man and help a brotha out! I really am listening because like Joel this is making no sense to me. Holla at me!

Peace

I certainly could overstate that, so let's just say that at least some of the church's/other private charities activities are negatively affected by governmental involvement. It's more than just a minor change at the margin, though.

For a baser discussion: "Wake up, wake up, it's the first of the month...so cash your check and come on..."

Bone wouldn't quite have been able to sing it that way if their checks didn't just show up at the front door w/o any responsibility, oversight, or other conditions attached to them, and virtually no private charity is going to freely hand out money like that, especially if they know what it's going to. If they did, their funding would dry up immediately. However, when the government does hand out cash like that, a private charity can't survive, because nobody wants to deal with the oversight/conditions, even if they're not going to use the money for what Krayzie, Layzie, Wish, and Bizzy did.

I believe that this topic is also covered in Basic Economics...but I might be wrong about that, maybe I heard a little of this here and there and pieced it together. I'm looking forward to seeing the Cato stuff Anthony mentioned.

Just to be clear, you've hooked my interest and I will certainly read and consider BE . . . but:

In the 60's and 70's the government funded the GI bill and built pathways to the burbs for people to move there. This economic infusion of investment in and to the burbs created the pathway for mass exodus from the city. So I would argue that the massive urban investment of the US government was in the burbs (not to mention all of the state, local and county investment in suburban infrastructure).

This economic policy along with the disinvestment in urban centers (Reagan cut the HUD budget by 85% -- did the church step up? not a chance!)

"The churches didn't run away" -- What?? You need to visit the hood brother. Not only did they run away they are still running. With the browning of the oldest suburbs the churches are moving again . . further out into the exurbs. . .

I don't think you can explain all of this in "government caused economics". At some point you are explaining away fear, racism, materialism, comfort, etc...

so, then, you're having a problem with the government funding of the flight to the burbs. I'm right there with you. You're actually stating my point: governmental interaction/meddling with the economy has unforeseen consequences, even if done with the best of intentions, and whether done by Democrats or Republicans. You're (seemingly) proposing to "fix" a problem "caused" by a Republican president with typically Democratic methods.

There will be unforeseen consequences to those, as well.

In the spirit of full disclosure, as I was saying to a friend today at lunch, removing welfare is probably the issue that I have the hardest time with as a libertarian. I believe that it is an immoral and moral hazard-creating system with a legion of problems. However, I am quite simply afraid that people would not step up to give without the government's guns pointed at them. Granted, it has worked in the past apparently, as there were many private charitable hospitals in London around the turn of the century...but I'm still nervous about the prospect.

That, however, does not stop me from being able to criticize government at large, and point out the failings of the well-intentioned programs, hopefully dissuading people from voting or championing a cause solely based on intentions.

As I believe Sowell has said, the essence of economics is asking "okay...and then what?"

Shawn,
Good explanation bro! I like the way you stated your case...

But is the "welare" issue even argued. I don't think anyone (at least here) is arguing that the welfare system is a good thing. I think most would agree that is hasn't served it's purpose and has failed in a lot of ways.

But to say get rid of it to me is a little harsh. Yes it has caused a problem but it also does "help" people eats on a very practical level.
Should we begin the process of eliminating it? Absolutely! But slowly and methodically.

Using Bone Thugs is a really bad example by the way. I think you forget that almost 7 (6 1/2) out of every welfare recipients are white and this direct linkage to black folks is disturbing to me as a man of color.

I just don't understand why you cant see that abruptly getting rid of welfare will not be very hazardous to our society. Get rid of it yes but immediately without due process is just crazy lacks compassion.

It's like the whole affirmative action stuff. Is this a good principle?... Choosing someone because of the color of their skin. Absolutely not but it is necessary. It is a historical fact that minorities were not getting hired because of the color of their skin therefore the law had to be enforced. Same with welfare. After all the indisputable housing, race, and occupational injustices that people were being railroaded by the welfare system had to be enforced.

I guess I am rambling on here Shawn but it seems to me these antidotes that are being thrown around just aren't rational or logical at all.

Anyway Shawn thanks again for the "BE" suggestion and for breaking down how you think and feel bro!

Grace and Peace,

well...1 out of every 1 song that i could think of referencing getting a welfare check is sung by a bunch of dudes who happen to be black. It makes the point regardless of who they are, though.

I don't really see where I'm proposing antidotes or solutions, just pointing out the tradeoffs, and stressing that there emphatically aren't solutions. I definitely didn't say it should be eliminated immediately, and I agree that if it *were* to be eliminated (which will never happen, because people want more to feel like "they're" helping than to actually incur a direct cost to themselves to help, and abolishing welfare would be seen as heartless, regardless of the wisdom of doing so), it should be done slowly.

Sowell's got some good stuff about affirmative action, as well...again, I'm not sure if it's in BE, but it may be...if not, there was an interesting discussion with Bryan Caplan on an Econtalk episode regarding the economics of discrimination; quite fascinating, I thought.

Aaron, Joel, one book that makes the case very well for Shawn & Anthony is "The Tragedy of American Compassion," by (a mentor of Anthony's, I believe) Dr. Marvin Olasky--one of the cofounders of World Magazine.

In a nutshell, prior to the Great Society and the War on the Poor (of all races of course), charity worked with the assumption that if you did not work, neither did you eat--unless you were truly disabled.

Afterwards, you got to eat whether or not you worked--those who insisted on work got no takers, and this includes not only church based charities, but also those who would employ people in poor neighborhoods.

Sound familiar?

Thanks Shawn for the input. I think I did read into your comments a little. Forgive me. I do think you make some assumptions about how this check is spent and yes I know that the "Bone" reference was partly a joke but at the same time I think you believe it somewhat... Am I right?

How do you know how welfare checks are spent? Just curious. I grew up in the south and my grandmother raised me and my two brothers. She used the "check" to feed our family and didn't spend it on useless stuff except an occasional beer or bottle of wine. That is not misuse but rather wanting to enjoy life occasionally by doing something that most people do on a daily basis.

Matter of fact in my 8 years in Chicago I don't think I met too many folks who were just "blowing" their checks. So again I ask how do you know these checks are being blown instead of well spent on the necessities?

Joel,
You have been in the urban centers now for a while (even though most welfare recepients are rural so I don't know why I am fallin into the trap of equating urban with welfare... yuck)what has been your experience with welfare recepients?

One of the best books that traces the change in welfare under the Clinton era's is called "American Dream". It is a fascinating look at 3 single moms "forced" to "begin working" in order to keep their welfare. It is a sordid tale but what is abundantly clear (that I also see here daily) is that (a) there was never a time when you either worked OR were on welfare. Virtually everyone on welfare ALWAYS worked to make ends meet but the welfare system required it to be "off the books" or the welfare was cut. It also showed that (b) the work that folks were forced into rarely paid enough to support a family.

I read Olasky and am ambivalent about his argument. There is a portion of his writing that is the classic critique of welfare and I read it thinking "of course" but there is another part that strikes me as a naive gloss designed to create good arguments to not provide needed support. Compassionate conservatism has done few favors for the urban agenda and certainly has not led (as far as I can see) to additional ecclesiastical engagement.

My biggest contention in this thread is just that suggesting that the church would in some way fill in where the government cuts out is just so far away from reality that it is incomprehensible to me that it could be argued cogently.

The comments back and forth with Aaron and Shawn are helpful to see that while Shawn theoritically supports reducing or removing government support he doesn't seriously think the church would do anything about it. . . certainly not what needs to be done to address poverty (I read Psalm 113 as God literally working to change the situation of the poor THROUGH his people . . . so I definitely think we should do it. . . )

I am curious why Shawn resists the consistency with libertarianism as it relates to eliminating the "Safety net". Is it out of a sense of compassion for those at the bottom or out of fear of the consequences. Would our urban centers explode with a libertarian implementation of economic policy? I would suggest that we've already seen that happen in the 80's in the projects across the country and the answer is yes. . . they blew up. . .

So I mean that not as a provocative q, but for real: what principle holds one back from advocating consistent libertarianism if it would be 'best" for our urban neighborhood?

...point is, it matters not in the slightest what they spend it on, and I really am not concerned how anyone uses their check: the issue is that if someone is getting "free" money, in the sense that it requires virtually no effort on their part, they will take that over money with strings attached, which is assuredly what church assistance would be, if they wanted to be wise stewards at all.

And so, to come full circle, THAT is how government welfare has taken tax money and priced the church out of charity.

I do not hve answers on how to fix the problems that exist, but I can point to the elephant (or donkey) in the room that's been at least *a* cause, if not the major source.

this isn't a case of blaming the poor: they're acting completely rationally, given the incentive structures that exist....again, who has set up those incentives?

Shawn,
You keep saying that when the church gives there are strings attached. Really? Should there be. When Jesus fed 5,000 where there stings attached? When the Acts church was facilitating the bread pantry for the greek widows was there strings attached? Why is it you think that "strings attached" is always the right thing and giving with no strings attached is bad "stewardship."

It has now gone from a government argument to a church argument. I am not talking about gov anymore. You keep talking about church assistance in the context of stewardship. I think this is a very middle class interpretation of scripture. So my challenge to you is show me biblically where strings are attached. And please don't use wisdom literature (proverbs, ecclesiastes,etc.) So many verses are taken out of context to suit our western understanding. Don't do it bro! Just show me this stewardship issue. I will tell you right now your argument is going to fail.

Year of Jubilee, harvest gleanings, are just a few examples throughout scripture where there are no strings attached. Please Shawn help me out here. Explain to me this "Wise Stewardship" principles that makes you say...

"...they will take that over money with strings attached, which is assuredly what church assistance would be, if they wanted to be wise stewards at all."

Do tell Shawn.

Shawn,
One more thing... I didn't mean don't use wisdom literature at all I just meant don't use it out of context. Wisdom literature is hard to decipher at times and because of this the western world has interpreted it through the lens of materialism and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" thinking.

All I am saying is don't take it out of context to prove your point. Trust me this is a temptation for me everyweek when I prepare for sermons and teaching bible studies so in no way am I attacking you here but rather I am asking that you use proper hermenuetics when arguing stewardship vs. mercy for the poor.

We don't have to do this here because clearly we have went a different direction so please feel free to comment on my blog or drop me an email. I really do want to walk through this with you.

Peace Bro!

crap! I can't post a comment w/o getting the middle-finger-spam warning!

man...there's too many things here to discuss...I'm going to have to find a category on my timesheet for 'blog discussions'...not sure a client would like to pay for that time, however.

Aaron, Jesus wasn't feeding just poor people at that feast; He was helping middle class and wealthy people get enough food in their bellies so they wouldn't collapse on the way back to town, and also validating His ministry.

I'm sorry, but I don't see ANY Biblical warrant for providing resources for people who won't work for them. Paul said that if a man will not work, neither shall he eat. Hunger is a God-given rebuke to the lazy man--Proverbs gets into this as well.

You look at the indicators of poor neighborhoods since 1965--marriage down (reversal from prior trend), working down, crime up, education down (reversal from prior trend). You see what paying people not to work does to them--it's lethal.

And patently unBiblical.

Bike that was a really simplistic, uninformed caricature of the urban centers. Only someone who spends no time in such communities could say that. The bible's warrant against those who "won't work" is quite different than "doesn't" or "Can't".

If you were educated in the average inner-city school in the US chances are you would not be able to read, let alone go to college or get a job that could support your family.

Not that this disavows responsibility of folks to work -- I am certain that Rev Wright would be happy to quote you on the role of hunger. I meant that seriously.

And I assure you that most poor folks work ridiculously hard for scraps. Often literally!

The context of the urban center is not caused by the welfare system . . in fact since 1992 welfare (ADFC) has changed (TANF) so that you must work to get it (including EITC). I am not suggesting that welfare has been a great help but that you caricature is just that.

Bike,
I didn't say that all he fed was poor people I just said he did it with no strings attached.

Nor am I saying that people shouldn't work. All I am saying is that you cannot tell me that the bible tells us to give only when folks work for it. Mercy is mercy period and my discussion with Shawn (not you!) went away from government to what does the bible say, hence my invitation to Shawn to discuss this topic over email. It doesn't suprise me though that you have stayed with the govt topic. I have had many blog wars with you and I am convinced that you and I will never see eye to eye and I don't think you have taken a good look at scripture when it comes to helping the poor.

You have butchered scripture as well. I knew you would use "wisdom literature" out of context as well. Anyway I will take the time to humor you and give you scripture references...

- Ex. 23:10-11
(Exhortation for the folks to work hard for 6 years and on the 7th year allow all that grows to be given to the poor)
- Lev. 19:10
(Don't take all the harvest but rather leave some for the poor and the sojourner)
- Lev. 25:35
(If your brother becomes poor then we shall support him and he shall live with you)
Deut.15:7-11 (Bike you need to read this one!)
(This deals with the "heart" of people who look down on the poor and the sin against God that it is)
Job 5:15-16
(Links poverty with injustice and righteousness to those who oppose the poor treatment of the poor)
Job 31:16-18
(Job saying that he has done right before the Lord because he didn't withhold anything from the poor, the widow, and the fatherless)
Ps. 112:9
(God Himself scatters abroad His gifts to the poor and needy)
Prov. 29:7
(Righteous people care for the poor)
Prov. 31:20
(A righteous woman cares for the poor and gives to the needy)

The whole book of Isaiah! Starting with chapter 1:17

New Testament
- Luke 11:41
(List of "woes" to the "religious" folks who were greedy and didn't give "alms" or to the needy.)

-Luke 12:33
(Sell your possessions and give to the needy and this is "Kingdom" work and all that you need shall be given to you...context)

I could go on and on... Rom. 15:26, Acts 9:36, etc. etc.

Am I sayin that one should not work? Absolutely not but your claims that we only give when folks work for it as you have said... "patently Unbiblical.

May God have mercy on "us" the Western Church for interpreting scripture through the lens of greed, injustice, and materialism. :)

Ant,
Sorry for hijakcing your blog man. I am done with this discussion. Especially since Shawn and I (and now unfortunately Bike) have gotten a little off topic. My bad homie!

Holla!

Yes, Aaron, individual people, and not the government, are commanded by the Torah to give to the poor. Now let's examine how it was done; very often by leaving a certain portion of grain and fruit in the fields for the poor to collect.

Sounds like they were called upon to work for a living to me. Sorry, Aaron, but there is no Biblical warrant for just giving something to someone who can, but will not, work. Jesus certainly isn't recorded as having done so, and Paul speaks explicitly against such practices in 1 Thess.

And Joel, exactly how is it wrong to cite aggregate statistics, and exactly what would change if I visited North Minneapolis more often? (as, ahem, I have spent a fair amount of time in such settings)

Sorry, but reality is reality; these things changed in poor areas (not just urban ones, either) when our government started paying people not to work (and to have children while not working to support them).

Doing what exactly? My point was knowing people, how they live, what they deal with etc... obviously that is not what, ehem, you meant. . . The problem with aggregate statistics is not the numbers but what you claim the numbers mean. your disconnect with the people makes your reading of the numbers way off base. Duet 15 (which Jesus quotes) says specifically not to harden your heart to the poor.

Jesus never said what??

Luke 6:30 "give to whoever begs from you" (and that is NOT the most difficult part of the passage). Its in Matthew also.

Sorry Bike but by you saying "sorry but there is no biblical basis for something" holds not weight. You have completely abused scripture to fit your own agenda and I am done talking with you. Gathering food is work huh? I have heard it all. So going downtown by taking two buses and the subway and standing in line for two hours to get a thanksgiving basket is work as well according to you.

And you need to quite saying these matter of fact statements about the Word that are not true. 1 Thess passage is in the context of the apostles/church leaders getting paid for their ministry and the accusations that had been brought against them. They wanted to be above reproach and not viewed as being paid or guilty of sedition (Acts 17: 6-9). Has nothing to do with the "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" theology that you are speaking of. They had already been accused of acting against the decress of Caesar and his authority and "kingdom economics" was dangerous. To avoid any confusion Paul says to love one another " more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on on one."

The greek word for "aspire" denotes the attempt to garner civic honor or recoginition through outward displays of generosity by the wealthy. But Paul flips it and uses it to exhort the Thessalonians to be zealous for the honor that comes not through self assertion or a show of personal greatness, but through humble, industrious, and unimpeachable behavior so that they would be beyond reproach considering the hostile accusations. This is the context by which these things were stated. The context started in the latter part of chapter 2 and continues on throughout the book which ends with Paul encouraging them in spite of their current afflictions to have hope in the coming of the Lord!

Stop butchering scripture!

I am done with you Bike, for real. If you want to carry on the discussion it will not be here. Email or over the phone if you wish. Here is my phone number and email address if you are interested.

aaron@sunergeo.org
510-691-7945

If you want to bring up the Bible please don't misuse it to prove a point.

Again you need to read your bible and stop saying emphatically that stuff is in there.

Peace,

Last thing Bike,
You said...

"Yes, Aaron, individual people, and not the government, are commanded by the Torah to give to the poor."

It was a theocracy! The torah was the government! Poor Bike!I would ask you to do a study of the word "poor" throughout scripture and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal His word to you about this instead of just reading the word deductively. Inductive is the best becasue we just take the work for what it says and not inject our own biases into it.

Blessings Bike!

Bike,
After reading my comments toward you I realize that it was a little demeaning. Forgive me but I am passionate about the Word (as I am sure you are)and I have to fight against bringing my own biases into the text on a weekly basis as I prepare for my Sunday sermons. So I am not trying to dog you here but I do know that we as the American church need to look at scripture with untainted lens'. For far to long this "baby boomer" theology has kept us from doing the work of the church which is to make disciples, care for the poor, the widow and the fatherless. For this is pure religion! (Book of James)

So again yes we need to be about empowerment instead of paternalism ( which I hate by the way) but it starts with compassion and mercy for we ourselves are "poor in spirit" if you know what I mean!

Great book on this is "Companion to the Poor" by Viv Grigg. Great book which looks at the word "poor" throughtout scipture and its different meanings and the context by which the word is used. It's an old book but very relevant becasue it deals with scripture instead of the "times."

Call me or email me!

No, the Torah was the law, not the government which imposed it. As Judges notes, every man did as he saw fit in many of those years, and effective government rested with the judges and then the kings.

Yes, we need to look at Scripture with an untainted lens. In that regard, there is no part of the Torah, nor is there any example in the books of history, of any judge of king of Israel using tax revenues for a welfare program. It was, and is, an individual responsibility, Biblically speaking.

And when government horns in, it is a disaster. Where you have high welfare payments, you have disastrous schools, disastrous families, disastrous economies, disastrous crime, and more. When are people going to clue in to the damage they've done by adopting an unBiblical model of charity?

Bike,
What are you talking about! There is no distinction there. A theocracy is governed by God and He sets the rules for right living. Hence all the laws by Him.

Your using Judges as your example! This is exactly what not to do hence the statement you quoted from the book which is stated several times throughout the book. Matter of fact that statement is the theme of the book. God's people had left his laws and commandments and began to do what was right in their own eyes. Wow Bike. This is what you called effective!

Please do share the biblical model of charity! I will be waiting and please don't use only Prov. 10 and some Eccl. quotes! Use good hermeutics please.

Remember scipture interprets scripture. Just joking!:)

let's try this again.

joel: would the church fill in where the government cuts out? well, that's a huge discussion there. We can both agree that they should, and I'm saying here that they certainly never will fill in, because they can't compete with the state, and they'd have no customers.

Also, I don't know what a libertarian implementation of economic policy is, if you're proposing that there's one answer. We could truly let a hundred flowers bloom, and utilize our greatest resource human creativity to come up with different ways to provide safety nets.

And...there's nothing that holds me back except lack of faith in the church, and therefore a lack of faith that Jesus really would kick our asses into doing something if the tyrannical government stepped out. I wish I believed that, and cognitively I do believe that, but my general tendency is away from faith in the power of the church to actually do anything, though I believe they have in the past. And, again, I'm willing to bet that when they were most effective in the past, there was not this large governmental disincentive to their doing the work of the kingdom, so if that negative incentive were removed.........who knows what might happen?

Aaron...first, it's been a pleasure talking about this with you (and you too, Joel). Do you think that church assistance would be the same methodologically as government assistance currently is? Again, letting a hundred flowers bloom (now, that's twice I've quoted Mao...), we certainly may have some churches or other charities that simply send money to people who meet some minimum standard of need, as determined by the church body. However, it's my suspicion that there would be more oversight, caution, and circumspection in simply doling out cash to people. There may be biblical reason for doing one or the other, but, again, we're not going to have the kind of thinking that's necessary to do good exegetical work (as well as situational experimentation and personal prayer) on this topic without there being a need to do so, and there is no need to do so at this point.

I'm not giving the church (or myself) a 'free pass' at this point to ignore the poor, but simply saying that it's rational that they would be underproviding in this area, given the reality that exists.

Finally:

Can we say that it is at least more plausible in your minds (aaron, joel, and anyone else) that the governmental (even well intentioned) welfare state has at least somewhat caused the church to remove itself from that area? I'm glad to continue a discussion about where to go from where we are, but let's focus on that one point for a second.

hilarious...if you try to type in "social" along with "ist" the spam filter goes off.

"social-ist" works fine...but remove that "-" and you're a spammer!!!

Anthony, is your blog being run by those people? :)

Shawn,
Point well taken. Great stuff! Let me say that I am not advocating giving money loosely to folks but at least be open to mercy and compassion that leads to empowerment. I feel you though Shawn!

Peace

"because they can't compete with the state, and they'd have no customers" -- ok, I'll take the bait on the last focus question but first I have to point out that any church that addresses the needs of the inner city through educaton, health care, housing, youth programs, vocational training etc.. is usually well attended. They would, and do, have plenty of customers.

Not sure if that is what you mean but can't imagine a church with open doors being unattended unless it preaches a gospel that ignores peoples actual physical needs. No wait, even those churches get people in the inner city as long as they preach a prosperity gospel!

Anyway, on your last point. . . I need you to explain that. I can't see how the government has caused the church to leave, other than by baiting them away from the city with the aforementioned investment in suburban infrastructure. The projects were built largely AFTER the church left. Welfare as we know it was being built up during the 70's but this is largely after the movement of the church out of the urban centers.

I would contend that the movement of middle class whites out of urban centers was largely (in Chicago. . . that is a big caveate admittedly) due to race. If you saw Raisin in the Sun (based on the Hansberry's case against restrictive racial housing covenants) this house is 1/2 block from our ministry center. Race was everything. So I would need someone to unfold the government economics case for me.

(PS what I meant by the libertarian economic policy was simply a removal of government supportive services outside of police, fire and infrastructure).

It is immoral, for you to take what I have earned and disseminate it to others as you see fit. Especially when I have gained/earned my living/$ legally, morally, and not at anyone else's expense.

That is the 'principal' I stand on and it appears aaron or Joel dont, b/c if they did then helping the poor through the Gov would be a bad idea. Maybe the tax code needs to be rethought, or something.

my mother and I have worked in the inner city and I see none of the points you 2 make ever helping the poor actually "rise up and out" of poverty. On the flip side neither do the policies in place today "keep them down and stuck". I think it has more to do with non-fiscal issues that usually place people where they are. What those issues are, are different all over yet eerily similar in some fundamentals. Bottom line, getting the gov more involved in the "poor" issue esp in the $ arena will NEVER solve the issues you guys see everyday. Thats our goal right? To solve it?

Aaron, do you use the Jim Wallis method of reading the OT or Ron Sider?

...this was the most (only?) productive 'discussion' i've had on a blog, so...hooray!

Joel, I would like to take the conversation in the direction you're asking, but BE (or maybe even 'Applied Economics,' a shorter but similar book, dealing with a few major issues and tracing the 'and then what' outcomes of them) would be a better basis for the discussion than I can provide.

In fact, I'm so excited that the two of you are interested in reading sowell that i'll buy the book for you...just email me your address. :) i've come to realize the centrality of economics to a multitude of issues we're facing (everything?), so I want to spread this (lower case g) gospel.

peace, dudes.

@shawn

re: the spam filter

Sorry about tagging your "socialist" comment. It is pretty funny that it got caught, and it took me a minute to figure out why. Turns out that the word "socialist" contains the word "ci@lis", which was the word that was intentionally banned. We get a lot of pharmaceutical spam, so we cracked down. Socialists were just collateral damage. I've made the filter a little smarter, so hopefully you won't have any more trouble.

"It is immoral, for you to take what I have earned and disseminate it to others as you see fit. Especially when I have gained/earned my living/$ legally, morally, and not at anyone else's expense."

Stork, that is a interesting and simple principle. I would have to give some thought to where you get "immoral" from in that statement. What I would say is (a) Christ said specifically "give to Ceasar (gov't) what is Ceasars" so I don't see how he read that as immoral. God has put the government over us and given them the power of the sword and taxation. So while we live in a republic that allows dissent and debate I think turning this phrase as your founding principle strikes me as a uniquely Individualistic-American-blind-to-ones-privilege approach to morality that I don't see reflected in scripture.

What do you have that you haven't been given? (your health? your wit? your breath? your school? your family? your social network? your safe home? your use of English? and if all of this was given to you how you can suggest that all that you have you earned yourself at no one's expense (and by inference with no one's help) is a distinctly unChristian view of one's wealth.

I'm not sure what points you suggest we are making that don't ever change the situation of the poor. Aaron and I are both fans of John Perkins (see CCDA.org) and spend much more time advocating for Christian people to engage directly in the inner city on issues of education (tutoring or schools) church planting, youth development (discipleship and mentoring) etc... These all make enormous differences in the lives of the poor and even though they often take a generation to see big economic living status change . . . there is change.

I think both of us are wrestling with the role of the govt and open to debate and reason but too often sense our brothers and sisters in Christ adhering to tax policies that simply make the rich richer. We haven't gotten into the realties of the broadening wealth divide between the rich and the poor in this country or its causes fundamentally.

What I think Aaron and I have in common is that we believe it is an absolute directive of scripture for God's people to be actively engaged in mercy, justice and discipleship. A believer who doesn't actively and personally engage with the poor but advocates for government disconnection on this point would be (by my reading of scripture) quite hypocritical and scornful of their own brothers and sisters. 1 Cor 12 has much to say about how we treat folks along this line. . .

Shawn, I have enjoyed this too and expect BE to arrive today so its a bit late. Send Aaron a copy though or send a gift to support his church planting efforts!!!

God didnt give me everything or anything I have. Well, maybe life, but other than that I am not really sure. I think that he blesses some people but mostly people bless themselves. I am more into natural law rather than seeing God behind every breath I take, every good school I got to go into and every penny I make. Bill Gates didnt thank/trust/ or pray for his cash, HE made wise choices and saw the consequences of cause and effect.

The Roman Empire didnt have God to thank, they had themselves. As far as the give to Caesar verse, I believe you are right. BUT... Its because the $ was Caesars, all of it! So was all the Land. There was an implicit assumption that everything belonged to the Roman empire and all private property, personal freedoms, etc, etc, where to be thrown out the door if at a certain time or for a certain cause it would benefit CEASAR HIMSELF/the empire. NOT so in the USA (at least theoretically) hence the term private property and freedom of speech, religion, etc etc... so you are wrong in trying to apply that verse to what situation we are discussing here. I mean imagine Jesus saying "give to George Bush what is George Bush's" or "give to the USA what is the USA's" ? ???? What? Sounds absurd. I get what you are saying. But my point is still valid. It is immoral to take what I have earned and disseminate it to others as you see fit. While I think it is immoral I voluntarily place myself under that and adhere to it. Its the best of the worst. Thats it.

People engage with the poor as they see fit. I dont care what you think about me being a sinner or what have you (what about not even being a Christian!) you have no right, through the Gov to take away my $ in order to help the poor. I think I should take away some of yours b/c if I could invest in my Company more I could hire 300 more workers and that will really help people in poverty. (thats purely hypothetical but your "directive" from scripture can be turned anywhich way) Plus your directive does not say that other people or other believers should be forced to help the poor! I am glad you are doing it, but maybe someone else hates the poor. Does that then give you a right to come take their $? This is basically what the Gov does, and its what I despise. Telling everyone that they (some non-descript entity), knows whats best for me and my $.

Stork,
I am going to keep this short and simple because you have completely misread my comments and made them political more than biblical, which I have no time for.

Here is my stance so please LISTEN!

I think the welfare system is horrible and I think it has hurt the poor in a lot of ways. I am all for welfare reform and hope that is happens soon. I think this needs to happen very methodically though and not just ENDED as some want it to be done away with tomorrow without due process.

I also think you have a very low view of God and His plan in the world (according to your response to Joel)and I can tell you that no where in scripture does it say that "God helps those who help themselves" so quit implying it.

I will not comment on your politically driven stupid question about whether or not I read the OT like Wallis or Sider. That is so funny!

Anyway Stork just keep on hording all that you have and feeling that YOU are the giver of good things to you and your family and call me what you want to call me. All I know is that I am a Christ follower who believes that I am to love the the poor and spend my life on them as they spend their lives for me.

Blessings to YOU and YOUR life that you have masterfully created and earned. YOU will do great and mighty things because YOU are in complete control of what happens to YOU so YOU have nothing to worry about but YOU and YOUR money that YOU have worked hard for and NOBODY is going to take that away from YOU.

Aaron! finally seeing the light! thank God. You truly do have an open mind. Maybe get Joel on board. Maybe even get Walllis and Sider on board! that would be awesome. Blessings to you too brother.

And God does help those that help themselves. I didnt say it was in scripture, I said it was part of the natural law. So please read more carefully. You dont think the only wisdom in living our lives is only found in scripture do you?

"God didn't give me anything I have". . . wow bro, now that's a conversation stopper! Our worldviews are then far enough apart that talking about morality makes little sense. You have no debate with me. . . it's the word of Jesus that's far more outlandish than mine. (I haven't gotten around to love your enemy stuff. . . )

I'm sorry for making the unfounded assumption that due to your earlier reference to morality that it as specifically Christian morality.

The traditional US use of natural law within a generic civil religion would always argue that there was a societal demand for compassion. In fact it is only relatively recently (past 80yrs) with the growing welfare system that classifications of "the undeserving poor" have been created.

I understand that you don't feel you owe anyone anything and assume that means that in the event of struggle, illness, difficulty, etc... no one owes you anything either. That is just not how I read life. As a debtor to the grace of God I just can't see the world through that lens.

As to economics I think that finding ways for the govt to be more effective and work with charities/churches might be where we find common ground. Hopefully this at least slows the growth of govt and makes the tax dollars stolen from you more effective. . .

how about the $1B a day war. . . can I have my portion back?

Hey Aaron the poor spend their lives for you? Wow maybe a diff ministry would be more lucrative for me :) Where are the poor most generous these days?

Hey Joel, nice track bac.. the war! ha ha, give to caesars bro... i thought God put Govs over us for a reason? Hilarious

glad we both had something to laugh about !! . . see you on another thread!

Im done stork. I just cannot go there with you anymore but to say you have no idea how the poor I have been blessed to do life with have blessed me and spent themsleves for me as the pastor. I just moved to California 4 months ago and already I have stories!

Peace Stork