Audio: 'If You Don't Do Compassion, Mercy, and Justice, You Will Catch Hell'

What is the "us vs them" in the message you reference??

It's all they have, Ashleigh.

Here's a link to a book you may be interested in, The Tragedy of American Compassion. It shows how our attempts to help the poor went from a mostly biblical model (widows, orphans, those in specials situations like illness and injury, and rejecting help for able to help themselves but unwilling) to what we have now, where welfare is seen as a right.

http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassi...

And some excerpts, to whet your appetite and drive the regulars here crazy.

Such expansive thinking largely ignored, of course, the understanding that the key to poverty-fighting was, in the words of Christian social worker Richard Holz, "a renewal of character and a change of the inner man, which can be brought only by the grace and power of our Lord Jesus Christ.
p.132

Lyndon Johnson's economic advisors warned in 1964 that the poverty rate, in the absence of federal action, could be as high as 13 percent by 1980. After sixteen years of multibillion-dollar programs, the poverty rate at the end of that year was--13 percent.
p.185

In the 1960s, however, as governmental obligation to single mothers increased, marital obligations decreased. As no-fault divorce laws spread, women knew that husbands were allowed to be unfaithful without suffering much economic penalty...

...The reduction of social and finanial barriers to single-parenting made it seem logical to raise a child alone, even though the children of never-wed mothers often grew up not only materially poor--three out of five were in poverty--but emotionally impoverished as well. Their mother's husband, in essence, was the federal government...

Programs described as "compassionate" were thus actually the opposite, since they made affiliation less likely...
p.187

Were "homeless advocates" compassionate when they worked hard to develop the myth that the homeless are "people like us" who have been victimized by situations beyond their control? Most are not ordinary folk down on their luck, unless the "us" are alcoholics, addicts, shiftless, or insane.
p.209

Most of the homless--three-fourths of all men in a Baltimore study conducted by clinicians from Johns Hopkins Universtiy--are substance abusers. Many of the homeless alcoholics have families, but do not want to be with them. Those who have been married have often abandoned their wives and children. Many of the homeless have had jobs, but they just do not want to stick to them; some prefere the freedom of having odd jobs and being able to move around.
p.212

This shows the true story behind the failure of the War on Poverty and the Great Society. Highly recommended reading.

I've read that book and I don't recommend it. For openers, a large part of the problem is that (at least in the cities) people with means moved out to the 'burbs and took their resources with them, leaving the cities -- and the people who live in or were forced to move to those abandoned neighborhoods -- relatively destitute. (Marvin Olasky isn't about to touch that one, ever.) You remove the economic vitality from a neighborhood and you will have those problems regardless of timing; the Great Society had absolutely nothing to do with it.

--That's the real reason the right is going after ACORN.

Pardons me while I go laugh myself silly.

--Well, in the South when African-Americans rose up and started demanding equality, the powers that be became apoplectic, desperately trying to shut down the bus boycott in Montgomery, Ala. and elsewhere using the power of state and local law to deny them their Constitutional rights.

The point would have been, then, to make sure that the people had their Constitutional rights. The point was, then, to do the right thing, not "disturb the status quo".

--Have you noticed that conservatives have NEVER encouraged the poor to vote, run for office, become community activists or even buy homes?

No, I haven't, because, no, we don't do those things. I have heard Conservatives plenty of times encourage people to vote. Even a poor liberal can't run for office. You need only look at the recent Tea Parties and Town Halls to see Conservatives encourages the average person to get involved. And we encourage people to buy homes when they are able to afford them.

I will be about compassion, mercy and justice.

I agree with higaiimo.

The faith-driven-action encouraged and practiced by SOJO is inspiring and Biblical. Yes, we may not all agree thoroughly with every opinion in every blog by every author affiliated with SOJO, but we do not hesitate to vocalize our disagreements, and in doing so we are rude, disrespectful, and arrogant. The Bible is so revealing about these issues. Christ does not leave any gray areas about how we should treat the least of our brothers and sisters and that we should do it with extreme amounts of love, care, and grace.

Christianity is being tarnished by our self-righteous priorities and skewed beliefs.

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?

It's just so much easier to see everything as either/or, us or them, good or bad.liberal or conservative. It's as though putting a label on a question or issue answers everything. And how we do love to judge! Even though we are very bad at it.
All of that should change if we truly believe that we want God to guide our lives. What He wants us to do is very clear when we really want to know.
Maybe that's the problem. There's a lot more room for argument on the political side.

And I suppose the fact that the official Census Bureau figures showed the poverty rate at 14% when Reagan came into office in 1981 and 12.8% when he left in 1989 proves nothing, right? (if you allow for a one year lag for when his policies took effect, the reduction is even more pronounced--ie., the rate was 15.0% in 1982).

But I'll just take your word for it that the statistic you saw is the truth.

I'd have a hard time believing that, especially when it came to city-dwellers like myself.

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.

"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 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.

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.

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.

It's just so much easier to see everything as either/or, us or them, good or bad.liberal or conservative. It's as though putting a label on a question or issue answers everything. And how we do love to judge! Even though we are very bad at it.
All of that should change if we truly believe that we want God to guide our lives. What He wants us to do is very clear when we really want to know.
Maybe that's the problem. There's a lot more room for argument on the political side.

--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.

We also don't encourage prostitutes and pimps to evade the law and/or give them advice on how to smuggle in underage girls for the sex trade!!

We also don't accuse everyone who disagrees with us of being racist.

We also report the news, and we don't sit on stories (hint, hint... VAN JONES) for days until we can no longer avoid reporting it w/o showing our true Obama-worship.

I'd have a hard time believing that, especially when it came to city-dwellers like myself.

As a wise person noted, right belief is one thing. Believing rightly something all together different. You can have "right belief" and wield it like a sword destroying your "opponents." Or you could "believe rightly" which causes ones actions to be formed and shaped by belief and does not take a king of the hill approach. Let us pursue believing rightly for the sake of the world. "Look how they love one another." Can that be said of us?

Another libertarian bucket of hogwash.

If you had any viable solutions to offer, a substantive response would be warranted.

You've been watching too much Fox Noise.

I think a lot of the debate so far under this blog post could have been resolved by a better representation of Rev. Smith's sermon by whoever at Sojourners wrote the commentary. Without listening to the sermon it's easy to draw a conclusion that the Pastor was making a political speech essentially saying that anyone who doesn't support President Obama's health care plan is going to catch hell. If one were to just read what Sojourner's posted you'd definitely get the "us vs. them" vibe that LadyJess mentioned. I did.

But I encourage people to listen to the sermon. It's so much more than that. He's critical of people telling lies and using angry rhetoric on both sides of the political aisle. He talks about his church helping people get health care in its community and in others. He says their church is about health care regardless of what the government does. This is good and to be lauded by people on all sides of the political spectrum.

(On a side note, I think Rev. Smith misinterprets/misstates what Gov. Pawlenty said about the 10th Amendment so I think his criticism of him is off the mark. But the quote Sojo posted - "How can you say you're going to fight against health care for people that don't have it