What is the Circle of Protection?

Your comment is the same old tired defense of the economic system that is gamed to reward the wealthy on the backs of the poor and middle class, the people who actually work in this country. This initiative simply echoes the God-given words of Isaiah and the other prophets:"'What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?' says the Lord God of hosts." (Isaiah 3:15).

My comment said nothing in defense of our current economic system.

Had you read any comments I've made many times over on this website and others, I am very much against the current economic system for the same reasons you just mentioned. The difference between me and (apparently) those who write for Sojourners are they are economically clueless and have no idea exactly why the wealthy are rewarded off the backs of the rest.

(P.S.

If a budget is a moral document, perhaps we should all look at our household budgets and ask whether we are allocating enough to help the poor, before we demand that the taxpayer take up the slack.

If this is a Christian ministry, why doesn't it first look at how churches are "morally" spending their budgets? Why don't these Christian leaders commit to supporting the poor with a certain percentage of their own ministry budgets? Why does Sojourners focus most of its attention on how our government spends money when Christians should be most concerned about how churches spend their money?

Had no idea that so many church leaders had the expertise to make recommendations on the U.S. budget and the nation's debt load!

"Moral" apparently is the new synonym for "nanny government." Suggest that the religious leaders expand their contribution nets so they can give to the poor and hungry. Or perhaps they could apply for funding to some of the 110,000-plus private U.S. foundations that are already supporting the poor, the hungry, and community causes.

@Frank_Ruiz:

That is a truly bizarre comment. It is primarily the churches in the this country (and some synagogues and mosques) that provide soup kitchens, food pantries, homeless shelters, and other services for the poor, hungry and homeless, usually using quite a large percentage of their budgets to do so. If your church (or those you know) do not, they are the exceptions. I can tell you that here in NYC, if it were not for the churches, many more homeless and hungry people would die each year from lack of food and services.

Peace.

I don't think his point was that the churches do nothing, just that it's possible they don't do enough. If churches in my town spent less money on recreational facilities for the congregation, perhaps they would have more resources to serve the poor.

OTOH, if we posit that the churches are already making a heroic effort to serve the poor, then it is either effective or it is not. If it is effective, why should we demand income transfer as a solution? If it is not, what reason do we have to believe that tax-funded programs will be any more effective?

I think that was part of the point of his argument, it is the church's responsibility to care for the needy, and our participation in that responsibility should be the focus of Sojourners, not a state-run coercive entity of redistribution.

But the prophetic condemnation of hardheartedness toward the poor is directed toward the social/political order. We don't make our idols of gold and silver anymore, but we do idolize the rich and the systems that reward them on the backs of the poor. As someone who ministers with the working poor and the disabled poor, I can tell you that they may work as hard as they might, but their poverty is directly related to the wealth of those who are enriched by providing slum housing, substandard food and who begrudge every mouthful of public assistance to those off whom they live and prosper. The dirty secret no one wants to admit is that our comfortable middle class and upper class existence is the flip side of their poverty.

Contributions by millionaire households in 2009 accounted for 52% of the national total of contributions, which was equal to about $126.15 billion. I have to assume those contributions were made not only to social causes but also to arts and scientific causes. And that's not counting the money donated by Mr. Obama's newly minted "millionaires," those families with incomes of $250,000.

I don't connect the social order with the political order. Maybe I should, but I see a unique difference between society and the state.

Your examples of why some people are rich while others are poor is directly related to the unjust rules and legislation enacted by the government. It is well-known in economic studies that rent control creates slumlords, which create communities of poverty that hardly invites any sort of economic growth or incentive for producers of quality food to sell their products in those communities.

We're on the same team, here. I'm as against unjust economic systems as you are. But over the past three years I've learned quite a deal about what makes some poor people poor and what makes some people wealthy. It is not a dirty little secret that some people are wealthy (or middle class) because others are poor. Indeed, sometimes this is the case, and if that's all you observe, you'll be inclined to make that conclusion (just as I only observed lazy poor people in my community growing up, I had to realize that some poor people aren't poor because they were lazy).

learnliberty.org is a great resource for basic economic thinking. Steven Horwitz and Art Carden are people with whom I've had personal correspondence and they are personally committed to reducing poverty and eliminating unjust economic systems.

The point needs to be made that there is such a thing as the undeserving rich and the deserving rich. If you make a profit because others are in squalor, or if you are a rent-seeking corporation who would decidedly lose on the free market but are kept in business because you have political connections, then you are the undeserving rich.

But if you make a profit because you have provided something beneficial for those around you through free and open and voluntary trade, you are justly wealthy and should be responsible for stewarding that wealth resourcefully.

It is EVERYONES responsibility to help those less fortunate. Churches, Charities, Wealthy Individuals, Middle Class Individuals, GOVERNMENT (Since WE are the government - we elected those who represent us) Steal from the Wealthy? LOL when most of them do not even pay taxes by using tax breaks. In fact several of them have gotten together recently and asked to be taxed more saying they want to share in the sacrifice for the good of our country. Oh yes morality crosses religious, government and personal lines. We are ALL our brothers keeper. If you do not believe that, read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead by Ayn Rand who believed that selfishness was a virtue. Ayn is Paul Ryan's hero and we don't need a tax cut for the wealthy and the removal of safety nets for the poor and middle class to pay for it.

LOL when most of them do not even pay taxes by using tax break

The top 5% pay 95% of the tax burden (or roughly that; even if my numbers are off that directly disproves your theory).

Since WE are the government - we elected those who represent us
Totally false. Since when were you able to make an arrest, seize the property of somebody, or perform any other function "the government" purports to be responsible for?

In fact several of them have gotten together recently and asked to be taxed more saying they want to share in the sacrifice for the good of our country.
They could have written a larger check to the government voluntarily, but they didn't. I wonder why not.

I am so tired of Sojourners and other "socially minded evangelicals" misquoting Matt. 25:40, "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' Why do you always conveniently omit the later part of the verse where Jesus qualifies WHO "the least of these" are that He's referring to? He calls them His "brothers and sisters".

Are we to believe that "His brothers and sisters" are all of the poor and needy of the world, as Sojourners suggests? That is not an honest interpretation. Why? Because Jesus tells us in Mark 3:31-35 WHO His brothers and sisters are. According to Christ, they are those "who do the will of God". Does every poor and needy person "do the will of God", or is that description reserved for the true Christian who is actually in union with Christ, by grace through faith? You answer the question.

Jesus said unmistakably in Matt. 7:21-23 that those who do not do the will of God, but practice lawlessness, are not His friends, or brothers or sisters. He will tell them to depart from Him in the last day.

"Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of
heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then will I declare to them, I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness".

Will someone please tell me why it is necessary for so many proponents of the social gospel to misquote this bible verse to provide some kind of rationale for Christians to be concerned for the poor? It really weakens your case and makes your motivation suspect. Jesus gave us enough motivation to reach out to the poor and needy - both Christian and non-Christian - without having to resort to twisting His words.

It's about time that people begin to point this out. Thanks xfree9.

Williamwheeler: here's a news flash for you. I've worked hard and I fall into the class of the so-called rich. If you think that people in my category pay no taxes, you have no idea what you are talking about. Stop spouting the usual talking point: it's just not true.

xfree9 writes: What kind of "good news for the poor" is a gospel that can't persuade a society to do this voluntarily, but rather needs the force of the state to confiscate the wealth of others?

Duh is wondering:Are all taxes, by definition, theft through violence? Or, are there some taxes that are legitimate for the good of the local and national community?

I ask to better understand your perspective.

For example, should there be such a thing as "public education" (K-12)? Should there be a Food and Drug Administration, making sure that what we consume is safe? Should we pay for police (who may use violence)? Should we fund prisons? Should we pay for national defense? Do we need an Environmental Protection Agency? Or, should we let the market take care of all of these things? Are all government programs that provide a "social safety net" illegitimate?

Also, if I believe in "peace," is it theft to "confiscate my money" to pay for the military?

When you write, I'm hearing that "all taxes are illegitimate". However, I'm not certain that is really what you mean.

Peace, Duh

According to Ayn Rand if you aren't a Super Rich or Too Big To Fail Corporation, you are a moocher. Now I don't think you are super rich like Gates or the many Super Rich families in America and around the world who pay very little in taxes, if any, according the the Wall Street Journal or CBS. So I apologize I meant SUPER Rich. In fact unless you are making over 10 million a year you would not qualify for my vent you would just be a moocher like the rest of us.. LOL

Because the message has been unchanging from Genesis to Revelations. From Job, who predates the law yet was counted as righteous by providing justice and basic needs to those who came across his path, to the heathen of Ninevah and Sodom and Gomorrah who were being judged in part because of their injustice and wanton disregard of the poor, to God's chosen people within the Law, whom Jesus reminded to take what was in the cup and give to the poor and thereby fulfill the cleanliness rituals of the Pharisees, we hear the same message. For those of us redeemed with God's laws written on our hearts, the message still is, Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself!

The Sojourners, or those stranger to God's chosen people were entitled to the gleanings in the Old Testament. These were people without legal or spiritual rights as part of the Jewish Law, yet God cautioned his people not to forget that they were once Sojourners in a strange land and to insure hospitality, shelter, clothing food and justice to even these as they came to work or passed through the area.

My neighbor may not be my brother in Christ, but if Christ would feed him, care for him and provide spiritual and physical healing, then we too must do so.

Christ healed all who came to him regardless of whether they ever believed in him as the Messiah. He fed all who sat at his feet regardless of whether they were listening to His sermon or not.

We are inheritors of the Good News by virtue of mercy and grace. In the same way as the debtor, who is forgiven much we in turn show mercy and grace to those who do not as yet see or accept the Good News.

In short, practicing lawlessness is as much about practicing injustice. And that may be as much about failure to feed the poor as it is about breaking the law.

MikeSw, first off, I rejoice in your good fortune. I'm sure you have worked hard for your money and are well-deserving. If not, well I rejoice in your good fortune anyway.

What I would like to know is, how do you see equitable tax laws enforced. I too think everyone should pay their fair share and often wonder if it is possible with our current tax laws. It truly seems to me that the person best able to use tax laws and loopholes is the one who comes out on top.

This was true of the farmers where we lived, as families incorporated and wrote off big expenditures. It just seemed the more they made, the more they could make. While little family farms who were just sweating to eat, couldn't ever rise up enough to get their heads above water let alone invest.

There just seems to be that middle person that gets squeezed the most. No freebies cuz they aren't poor enough, yet no tax write-offs for investments cuz they are barely able to stay afloat.

The bigger corporations swallowed them up at bank sales. It seemed sad to watch as many of those farmers had been generational farmers losing their inheritance.

It is like we are all describing a different part of the elephant without seeing other's perspective. I'd be frustrated if I had earned my money only to see it given away to someone who didn't want to work!

No offense, but I really don't believe you are honestly inquiring, given your history of comments on this blog. If you are truly interested in learning about these things, you can research it. Murray Rothbard is a good place to start. All of his books are available for $0 online.

You also have to remember that you mentioned the agencies because you presume they are beneficial for society. Government education has failed despite the enormous expense. The FDA is an unjust institution that prevents millions of people from receiving medications and herbal remedies they are forbidden to acquire. Our prison system is built on a philosophy of retribution, not justice. But for "national defense," at least that's the one constitutional purpose of taxation. Police do use violence, but appropriately they do it in response to violence already committed.

As for "social safety nets," personally I'm against the ethic of forcing somebody at the point of a gun to do something they haven't chosen to do willingly. But from a practical standpoint, such a small portion of the national budget goes to such programs, I'm willing to concede their existence until the government reduces all the other spending by about 90%.

Constitionally, some taxes are legitimate. On the other hand, if we had a sound money system not manipulatable by an unchecked central bank colluding with the state to rob from the poor, and if our federal government didn't spend $1.40 on every dollar it receives in revenue, the welfare system would be much less needed and (where needed) it would be much more effective.

And if you believe the military (as we currently have it) actually promotes "peace," you are sadly mistaken.

@jeffholcomb

I too find the social gospel quite a strange use of Good News of the Gospel . I can understand the belief of using government for helping people, but I do not undertand the liberal refusal to accept that
Christ healed all who came , but he never hid behind a government that was ashamed or not allowed to use His name or recognize who HE was. . Good news and mercy are also used by the Angel of Light . The Middle East is a prime example of terroist components using aid and comfort to the poor and using that power it is given for evil . From my own personal experience being taken in sometimes and defending republican policies because they also supported life and were not afraid to use the name of Jesus at a meeting where politics was also discussed . As if because you support helping the poor paying more taxes will actually get the job done is a bogus claim .

Actually Sojourners lost its ability to be a political player when they started mimicking the evil rich good poor and the class warfare theme and refusing to accept the whole church . Its obvious from the bloggers who write that it is not Evangelical or even at times Christ centered . Traditional beliefs not only questioned but at times mocked.

Policies that help the poor , setting our priorty on accountable and efficient government would have gotten an Evangelical base besides the progressive declining emergent group and mainstream protestants who were democrats anyway .

Supporting liberal policies because of personal political views is much different then because you are using a Christian world view.
Using paying taxes to the United States as a means of promoting Christianity is cult like .

I have no argument with the examples you bring forward. Practicing social justice along with repentance, faith and all of the other moral requirements given to us in the Old and New Testaments is EVIDENCE of a heart right with God. I believe I said that "Jesus provides us with ample motivation to reach out to the poor and needy - both Christian and non-Christian".

So I feel like you missed my point. You assumed that I was arguing that "we don't have a biblical warrant as Christians to address the needs of the less fortunate, even if they are not believers. Quite the contrary.

What you did not address was the pervasive misquoting of Matt.25:40 among progressives and liberals to try to make this point. There seems to be such an aversion to addressing the heart-breaking personal and moral issues of the day -- calling them "ideologically driven, hot-button issues" -- in deference to this social agenda driven by a careless approach to Scripture.

We must remember that "out of the heart flow the issues of life", and unless the heart is changed by grace, the righteous pursuit of social justice will be little more than Pharisaical, outward performance, and will not be blessed by the One who sees the heart. To use a verse like Matt.25:40 to marshal support among a host of disparate groups who may or may not share our saving connection to Christ, is clearly not what He intended.