You miss the point. When people first moved to suburbia they did so to get
away from those that they felt were "beneath them." I grew up in a "white
flight" neighborhood, very comfortable, had professional people living in it
and not part of the "'hood" in any way, but when the black folks moved in the
white folks moved out. That was an exception, but there's no doubt that, as
property values dropped, those city neighborhoods began to see decay because
the people who moved there had no place to go. So now, those folks who moved
away or never lived there in the first place have the audacity to tell the
poor how they're supposed to live (and don't even give them or tell them how
to get the resources to do it)? That's not particularly compassionate. BTW,
the rural poor actually have more than city-dwellers, in large part thanks to
electrification that took place in the 1930s.

That's fair. The choice is not between the proposed plan and the better plan. The choice is between the status quo, the proposed plan or a better plan that someone actually places on the table.

Absent a better plan on the table--the choice is status quo or proposed.

Opposing the proposed plan is an advocacy of the status quo--unless one puts an alternative on the table.

Opposing the proposed plan because the president doesn't promote it the way you like--seems not a real good basis to make the best choice we can.

Out of the "plenty" of persons you know--could you choose one and describe them to me--and how they fulfill the profile?

You are making a substantive argument overall about the role of government and churches in poor communities.

I am making an argument back to you that I do not believe it adds up.

I do not think you are hearing my argument back. I am sorry I do not write more clearly so that you can hear anything beyond judgment and accusation.

"You want the church to go live where it is safe and comfortable."

Could you please quote where I said anything even remotely like this... that I "WANT" the church to live where it's safe.

I said nothing of the sort. I explained to you the reasons why people left/leave cities.

You're reading too much between the lines and assuming things you don't know. You don't even know whether or not I live in the city. I have never hinted at where I live.

You said, "Those with the skills/capacities to lead and address issues--get out so they can get their's. Just as the white church did."

You are speaking VERY judgementally of people, condemning your Christian brothers and sisters for their choice of where they live. And that is just seriously wrong.

There are sooooo many reasons people leave, or do not live, in the inner cities. I already explained some, but there are even more. How about farmers? Ranchers? Park rangers?

How about Christian policemen, like my uncle, who live in very small towns? Don't those places need police men, too? And teachers? And churches?

You seem to be very preferential towards those in the city, but you know, there are people in small towns, rural places, subburbs, etc... and there are plenty of reasons for them to be there, and for you to judge them for it is just completely wrong.

You also make comments that sound very racist towards whites, and I clearly get the message that you have a great desdain for white Christians and you believe that they are very unloving, and that it was only blacks who got things done and who cared.

"Yes there are many "in the city who would love to get out" because that is what is held up as the idea."

No, they want to get out because they want to live in a place where they don't have to fear drive-by shootings, or where they can live by a stream or mountains or ocean. Or maybe they want to not have to commute so far to work so that they can be home when their children get home from school. Maybe they want to live on a farm where they can both make a living and raise their children in that setting. Maybe they want to leave the city so their teenagers aren't constantly hassled by drug dealers.

Who knows! But just because you live there and your church is doing good things there... doesn't give you the right to judge those who don't.

"I challenge persons to care for the city that God loves."

He also loves those who live in rural areas or in jungles or in the countryside or yes, even in the subburbs.

"And I am not being condescending in saying the following."

Yes, you most certainly are. You've blamed white "evangelicals" for most of the ills of the city and of blacks.

You know, btw, Billy Graham lives in the moutains of South Carolina, on a peaceful little place. And yet, this WHITE EVANGELICAL has spoken to millions and has led MILLIONS of people to the Lord. And yet, he is white... evangelical... and he lives in the countryside.

So, tell me, how can that be, or do you think he is just some hypocrite like all the other white evangelicals who "fled the city" so they could attend "shopping mall" churches?

Also, could you please provide some Scripture to back yourself up? Where in Scripture does it say it is sinful/wrong to be rich? Where does it say it is sinful/wrong to live anywhere you choose to live, as long as you are doing the will of God? And please tell me where in Scripture it says that it is okay to judge your brothers and sisters, and to condemn them for not doing what you think they ought to do? Oh, and please tell me also where it says that racism is okay?

"Olasky doesn't talk about wealthier people moving into deprived neighborhoods and making those problems their own, which is what's actually needed,"

Again, I haven't read Olasky, but just want to address wealthier people moving to deprived neighborhoods.

That is something that truly has to come from a person's heart and convictions. There are reasons to not move to the city, which I mentioned in other comments, and I suppose they might seem selfish to someone like yourself, but we aren't to judge a person like that because it's not a sin for them to live in a town or a subburb or the country, etc.

And also, keep in mind, there are poor everywhere... in fact, some rural areas (e.g. West Virginia) are just as poor as some of the inner cities. And, not everyone is called by God to go to the city. His will for you might not be His will for someone else.

I see it in the liberal media/Hollywood. I see it among many liberals. And I see it with some posters here, not all. And, as of now, I have yet to see Jim Wallis question one thing with regards to Obama. Every blog I read by him makes him sound like Obama's p.r. man, or as if he is campaigning for him. I might've missed a blog where he has actually questioned or addressed concerns with something to do with Obama, but as of yet, I've seen nothing but "blind loyalty."

"I understand it has one of the lowest percentages of uninsured in the country."

It also always has cities (like St. Paul) on "the Best Places to Live" lists.

AND... its unemployment rate right now is 8% vs. the nation's overall rate of 9.5% and my state's (CA) rate of a whopping 12.4% (much higher in some counties and cities).

As well, most Minnesotans LOVE living in Minnesota (althought they might wish it were a little less cold in the winter).

So, um, I'd say Pawlenty must be doing something right.

I'd suggest that "Scat" come to CA and get a taste of what a truly bad governor/state government is like. When your state government starts issuing IOU's... um... then let's talk bad governance.

Oh, surely you can think of a few. I find it impossible to believe that everyone you know truly cares for and/or helps the poor, unless you only surround yourself with certain people or have a very small circle of people that you associate with.

You ask, "How many persons are on that list that you refer to?" Plenty. But then I associate with and befriend people from all walks of life... Christians, non-Christians, "conservatives," "liberals."

No, I do not believe the present health care system is the best we can do, but the problems are not easily or quickly "solved." Just like education. Just like unemployment. Just like pollution.

My point is... this world is plagued with problems, suffering, injustice, and less-than-ideal situations... and we've got to face the fact that we are never going to save every life or create some sort of utopia here on earth.

Doesn't mean we don't reform and do what we can to help all that we can, and Christ calls us to do so, but I do not like the way that Obama speaks as if his plan is going to create this all-wonderful health care program that will not have some sort of negative consequences in some manner, whether it's higher taxes, rationing of care, less quality of care, etc. He promises more than what any human can deliver.

And any time anyone opposes the plan or points out these things, he dismisses them and calls them liars who are spreading misinformation.

So, I disagree that this plan is "the best decision."

I'd say the only other option is anarchy, but not injustice. Even with government administering "justice," there is still, and always will be, much injustice, and sometimes, injustice can even be caused by government systems.

This world is a sinful world, and government is run by sinful people. Government was only instituted by God as a consession for man's sin. But injustice, poverty, etc. will never be completely eradicated until the Lord returns and we are with Him in heaven.

And I agree with you about the purpose of taxation; however, governments can abuse their powers and can be corrupt, etc. There have been plenty of government leaders past who have done so, and plenty in the present who also do so. And over-taxation can become tyranny and enslavement.

Read 1 Samuel 8 where the people demanded a king, so finally God gave them one, but he warned them of how they would be enslaved by him, and part of that would be due to how he would take from them.

And basically, God says that the people have "rejected me as their king." They prefered to have a human king... an earthly government... even though that very government would place burdens on them, stifle their freedoms, and take from them, in ways the Lord would not have.

We are not much different today in which much of our society seems to prefer government vs. God and believes that government is their only "hope."

1 Samuel 8:17, 18
"He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

"If he does run I only hope the press does its job and exposes his record."

Are you from Minnesota? What percentage of Minnesotans are without health care? I understand it has one of the lowest percentages of uninsured in the country, as does my state of Wisconsin. Why should "responsible" states have to pay for irresponsible states?

You can choose to see the world through this grid if you so desire. I am just suggesting there might be a reason they are going after ACORN rather than the voter registration card incidents and that they got someone to bite on the pimp/prostitute setup. If you want to interpret it that way--maybe you are right.

On the other hand you might want to consider what and who ACORN represents and why they find it an attractive target. And how that fits with your understanding of a Kingdom agenda.

In fifteen years the majority of children in the United States will not be "white non-hispanics." In 2042 the same will be true for the entire population. I really can't get into the mindset of conservative Republican strategists who seem to seize every opportunity they can to seek power by running the majority of folks into the ground. I don't know if they think they can get rid of the election process or what.

I understand there are poor persons at the Tea Parties--and I haven't uttered a negative word about them. It is possible for powerful interests on any side of a political spectrum to attempt to manipulate portions of the electorate they ultimately look down at. That has to do with the nature of the leader. A long proven strategy is the nursing of grievances, wedge issues, etc. It is powerful white land owners stoking the fears and hatreds of poor white persons in order to gain control of whole states through racial fear. You'll have to judge the forces behind the tea parties. I don't know them.

And you can buy the lie that the financial collapse was due to the government requiring banks to make bad loans. But you might consider it is not true; and that there is cynical and knowing political intent in telling the lie.

as our Lord once said, "don't make no nevermind tuh me!"

To my knowledge, Olasky doesn't talk about wealthier people moving into
deprived neighborhoods and making those problems their own, which is what's
actually needed (and which is actually happening in the neighborhood where my
church is located). Back in the days before the Great Society, "compassion"
was, really, about neighbor helping neighbor due to some close connection,
which is why church "welfare" programs (such as Ladies' Aid societies and
other diaconally-oriented women's groups) were cheaper that government
largess. You don't really have that today because, especially now, the
"haves" and the "have-nots" don't live in the same area; also, because of the
transient nature of the 'hood you usually don't have the opportunity to build
a close relationship with neighbors. Olasky thus makes some assumptions about
contemporary poverty that represent only so much nonsense, especially to
someone like me who's been through it and still sees it up-close.

I wish I could remember, but I saw that about five years ago. Perhaps on this
website.

Let's remember, however, that not even Jesus helped everyone that came His way. I think you hit the nail on the head in referring to "seeing persons with dignity" -- which is what the miscreants in your neighborhood lack -- before any real and lasting action can take place.

--I'm talking about changing the economic culture so that people can make their own way without depending on government handouts.

Oddly enough, that's what I'm talking about, too. And what Olasky says in the book is that government welfare and the thoughts behind it have hurt that.

He talks about how viewing welfare as a right has caused people to lose incentive to better themselves, how blame society has caused people to view themselves as victims how can demand a handout. This is much different than what charity and compassion were before.

I'm all for helping people make their own way without depending on government handouts. There is certainly a place for charity (widows and orphans, people who through illness or injury need temporary or even permenant help).

May we ask where you got those stats?

--It would be very much in the self-interest of conservatives to reflect on why they are going after ACORN.

Umm, let's see...voter fraud, helping pimps set up businesses, advocacy of liberal politics and politicians. There's a good start.

--"Oh, no. The poor people are organizing."

Nope. The poor people are going to Tea Parties and Town Halls, and scaring the pants off of liberal politicians.

--I think conservatives have quite systematically advocated for home ownership. They have not shown great interest in demanding that the powers that control actual access to home ownership act responsibly and justly to actually deliver the opportunity.

I would have to ask what you mean by that. One cause of the current economic problems was banks making home loans that people were simply unable to pay back, and the government encouraging and mandating the banks do so.

Ashleigh--you don't want government intervention; you don't want arm's length charity; you want care to be delivered by the church; and you want the church to go live where it is safe and comfortable.

And you are surprised that some find this equation to not add up; and some to expect that you really do not care about that which you contend you do care about.

Frankly, I know all kinds of Evangelicals who work/minister in poor communities because that has been my life. I know none that see government as the centerpiece of salvation for poor communities. And I know none that overtime have not come to recognize the legitimate and necessary role of all sectors--including government and churches.

Yes there are many "in the city who would love to get out" because that is what is held up as the idea. The net result of such a value system is an exit of capable leadership. Those with the skills/capacities to lead and address issues--get out so they can get their's. Just as the white church did.

BlueDeacon addressed the systemic result of the pulling of resources from a community. In my community there is somewhere between 500,000 - 1,000,000 s.f. of retail that has exited the community in the last five years. And it will not return. Populations with the greatest needs get concentrated--and the resources get sucked out. At the same time at least 15 pay-day loan (loan sharks) businesses have gone in which absolutely exploit and drain cash out of poor communities.

White Christians did not start all the christian schools in this city because they wanted to raise their children in healthier environments. They started them in the early 70's when Federal courts intervened and ordered school integration.

I have not judged one soul for "leaving the city"--I challenge persons to care for the city that God loves--and to plant themselves where God leads--and to not assume we are all called to whatever is most comfortable, pristine, and safe.

Systemically, I identify the white church as being segregationist, having fled the city, pursued an image of church that is a hybrid of shopping mall and country club, and failed to think/theologize in ways to confront the issue of urbanization. And this has made us largely impotent as we look at a world with 6.5 billion persons of which some 5 billion are completely disconnected from Jesus.

And I am not being condescending in saying the following (because we all have areas of knowledge and understanding with which God has entrusted us to share with others--and need to be responsible to do so): I hope you keep commenting on these things, but that you would open yourself to the possibility there are some persons on this site who have been around the block quite a few times on these issues and might add additional dimensions to your perspectives. It ain't all about politics!

A wise pastor that I worked for taught me an important lesson. This was in the poorest neighborhhood in the city I lived. We had steady flows of people coming through the doors 'playing the system.'

He talked about a young drunk man being in the church one day soliciting funds and how the Pastor smartly denied any assistance. The man responded, "It doesn't look like Jesus to me."

You can interpret the situation different ways. But the elder pastor was teaching my young self a lesson about how to look at people and treat people.

I am angry right now at a group of young gangsters who are running around my community stealing cars, breaking into homes, threatening neighbors, ad nauseum. There are zero churches on the ground in position to intervene. I call 911.

It is hard to see these young men with compassion--and yet it is exactly what the church needs to deliver. Government must be involved. But it certainly will not deliver a compassion and dignity greater than the church does.

A neighbor called 911 on a young man. The police arrested him. Booked him. And he was back in the neighborhood two hours later threatening her. Often the young men case the neighborhood during school hours--when they ought be in school--but are not because they are on suspension. There is no kind of diversion programs that intervene when kids have first encounters with police.

My church is attempting to establish a presence. Attempting to create context in which Christian households and neighbors can stand together in love; and can leverage the resources of police, social services, etc. that will be brought to bear in a way of compassionate mercy.

The best case scenario right now is that the community and police stay on households and criminals until we drive them out or they are arrested and thrown into the pit of Alabama prisons--which is simply criminal graduate school--from which they graduate back out to us.

There are absolutely many ways in which government is involved systematically in unproductive ways. But they must. Christian engagement must not occur simply on the level of individual compassion, but on building a framework of seeing persons with dignity, and then leveraging the power of churches and government to play appropriate roles.

All the language arguing against government engagement often makes valid points. But it is the equivalent of my pastor smartly refusing to help the young man. It doesn't look like Jesus. And in the end it makes it harder to wage a battle against real sin and real death.