A Spiritual Struggle

What difference does it make? The real issue is that he tried to change the subject, from policies that help the poor to get out of poverty to "economic redistribution," which is not only another topic entirely but also a "thought-stopper" that conservatives have always used to stifle any debate. It's the reason we have had a a hard time coming to a consensus on how to address it.

"In some cases we have to go out of our way to "do the right thing" to help those in need find our way -- and that can involve trying to influence the government."

So what can the government do that the citizenry aren't already doing other than force citizens to either (a) give up their money, or (b) do community service? I'm sure there are other options, but they all involve coercive means. I'm not for that. If the government wants to provide incentives, wonderful.

That was not an answer.

Your question: "And then what is your responsibility in the process?"

His answer (reformatted):
1. I trust that God can direct me in what I need to do to make the world a better place.
2. Then I clean my own house.
3. I do what I need to do to educate myself and better myself.
4. Then I help others.
5. I don't rely upon the government or another institution to do for me what I can do for myself.

It was an answer you didn't like, but it was an answer.

If you remember, most of the South -- which BTW has always had libertarian impulses -- fought it and still holds some resentment as a result, which is why it's today dominated by Republicans. In fact, William F. Buckley Jr. also opposed it because he didn't think the Federal government should have gotten involved to the extent that it did. (To his credit, he later changed his mind.)

That's not really what I'm saying, which is why I brought up the civil-rights movement. Discrimination laws really needed to be changed because government itself was directly involved in creating the injustices that led to poverty. However, in the 1980s the Reagan Administration led the way in trying to weaken the enforcement that made discrimination illegal, most notably voting rights. Now how does that help matters?

Don't worry, theoman, if BlueDeacon doesn't like your answer, he'll say it's not really an answer.

What difference does it make? The real issue is that he tried to change the subject, from policies that help the poor to get out of poverty to "economic redistribution," which is not only another topic entirely but also a "thought-stopper" that conservatives have always used to stifle any debate. It's the reason we have had a a hard time coming to a consensus on how to address it.

"In some cases we have to go out of our way to "do the right thing" to help those in need find our way -- and that can involve trying to influence the government."

So what can the government do that the citizenry aren't already doing other than force citizens to either (a) give up their money, or (b) do community service? I'm sure there are other options, but they all involve coercive means. I'm not for that. If the government wants to provide incentives, wonderful.

That was not an answer.

Your question: "And then what is your responsibility in the process?"

His answer (reformatted):
1. I trust that God can direct me in what I need to do to make the world a better place.
2. Then I clean my own house.
3. I do what I need to do to educate myself and better myself.
4. Then I help others.
5. I don't rely upon the government or another institution to do for me what I can do for myself.

It was an answer you didn't like, but it was an answer.

If you remember, most of the South -- which BTW has always had libertarian impulses -- fought it and still holds some resentment as a result, which is why it's today dominated by Republicans. In fact, William F. Buckley Jr. also opposed it because he didn't think the Federal government should have gotten involved to the extent that it did. (To his credit, he later changed his mind.)

That's not really what I'm saying, which is why I brought up the civil-rights movement. Discrimination laws really needed to be changed because government itself was directly involved in creating the injustices that led to poverty. However, in the 1980s the Reagan Administration led the way in trying to weaken the enforcement that made discrimination illegal, most notably voting rights. Now how does that help matters?

Don't worry, theoman, if BlueDeacon doesn't like your answer, he'll say it's not really an answer.

What difference does it make? The real issue is that he tried to change the subject, from policies that help the poor to get out of poverty to "economic redistribution," which is not only another topic entirely but also a "thought-stopper" that conservatives have always used to stifle any debate. It's the reason we have had a a hard time coming to a consensus on how to address it.

Is the "mobilization" given to ending poverty--or to get the government to appropriate money for a series of benefits to low-income persons.

I agree with both of the above comments. Theoman, I have written something similar a number of time and often get criticized by those who believe that the only sins are societal, and that it's judgmental for us to talk about other's personal responsibility. But you're right, it certainly is biblical and will help the needy in the long run to teach them how to fish rather than....I believe it's showing the most Godly love to the less fortunate.

We all must take personal responsibility as stewards of what God gives us, body, mind, spirit and our resources.

While it's a noble and ethical cause to aid and assist those who are poor, and even more important to enable those who can to rise out of poverty, it's not practically possible or realistic to 'end poverty'. There was no such movement by Christ nor any in Biblical history. Instead, the command to share, provide, aid, and assist those who are poor was given. Our best and most efficacious efforts will be made developing innovative programs for mentoring, rehabilitating, partnering, and revitalizing - so that those who become poor have a viable way out that is not undaunting.

Is the "mobilization" given to ending poverty--or to get the government to appropriate money for a series of benefits to low-income persons.

I agree that something should be done about poverty. However, giving people hand outs does not work. It is not sustainable. There are three parts that need to be addressed that the current social welfare system does not address. Education - those who do not know how to take care of themselves need to be taught how to do so. i.e. teach them to fish. Accountability - both of the teachers and of the students - they need to show that they are making progress to reach their goals. Action - those who need the help need to be responsible for their own education and doing the steps to get the things done that need to be done. The bible is pretty clear...if you don't work, you don't eat. Stop the free hand outs. Helping is not enabling.

I agree with both of the above comments. Theoman, I have written something similar a number of time and often get criticized by those who believe that the only sins are societal, and that it's judgmental for us to talk about other's personal responsibility. But you're right, it certainly is biblical and will help the needy in the long run to teach them how to fish rather than....I believe it's showing the most Godly love to the less fortunate.

We all must take personal responsibility as stewards of what God gives us, body, mind, spirit and our resources.

While it's a noble and ethical cause to aid and assist those who are poor, and even more important to enable those who can to rise out of poverty, it's not practically possible or realistic to 'end poverty'. There was no such movement by Christ nor any in Biblical history. Instead, the command to share, provide, aid, and assist those who are poor was given. Our best and most efficacious efforts will be made developing innovative programs for mentoring, rehabilitating, partnering, and revitalizing - so that those who become poor have a viable way out that is not undaunting.

That's not enough. The biggest problem we have in the American church is a lack of accountability to something greater than ourselves in that we don't consider how our choices -- of where we worship or spend our money, among other things -- affect society as a whole. In some cases we have to go out of our way to "do the right thing" to help those in need find our way -- and that can involve trying to influence the government. Constant harping on "economic redistribution" is not the issue.

You dodged the question. It's not really about "government doing for people"; rather it's about government removing barriers so that they can do for themselves. Unfortunately, that gets lost in the whole debate.