RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Christians for a Sustainable Economy
Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times Sunday column praised John Stott, who died last week. That was good. Kristof also used the death to attack his usual suspects, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and to praise liberal evangelicals Rich Cizik and Jim Wallis.
Stott, of course, was all about the gospel. He rightly didn’t put politics first, and I’m tired of evangelicals who get more excited about politics than the gospel. I’m also tired of Wallis’s Sojourners, which claims biblical warrant for welfare spending that helps posturing politicians but not the poor.
A year ago Sojourners was embarrassed when WORLD and others publicized its record of funding from George Soros, Barbra Streisand, and others who don’t exactly have the gospel at heart. Nevertheless, Sojourners has been running down the field this year largely unopposed in its claim to represent evangelicals.
That’s why I’m glad a new group, Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE), is today scheduled to send a letter to President Barack Obama that sets the record straight. (I signed it.) The letter states, “Although they claim to speak for ‘the faith community,’ it needs to be clear that Jim Wallis and the ‘Circle of Protection’ do not speak for all Christians. However laudable their intention, the consequence of their action is to provide a religious imprimatur for big government and sanctify federal welfare programs that are often ineffective—even counterproductive.”
The letter continues, “We do not need to ‘protect programs for the poor.’ We need to protect the poor themselves. . . . We believe the poor of this generation and generations to come are best served by policies that promote economic freedom and growth, that encourage productivity and creativity in every able person, and that wisely steward our common resources for generations to come.”
The CASE letter argues that skyrocketing federal debt is a moral problem, and notes that “all Americans—especially the poor—are best served by sustainable economic policies for a free and flourishing economy. When creativity and entrepreneurship are rewarded, the yield is an increase of productivity and generosity.”
back to top24 Comments to “Christians for a Sustainable Economy”
Olasky wrote; “I’m tired of evangelicals who get more excited about politics than the gospel.”
I agree and I believe than in signing this letter from Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE) to President Obama, Olasky and others are NOT putting politics before the gospel. It is a reasonable thing to do in light of the gospel.
It is also legitimate for Christians to care about public truth and morality and social issues as well. But nothing trumps the gospel itself. It is the light we follow.
Report comment to moderator
“We do not need to ‘protect programs for the poor.’ We need to protect the poor themselves. . . . We believe the poor of this generation and generations to come are best served by policies that promote economic freedom and growth, that encourage productivity and creativity in every able person, and that wisely steward our common resources for generations to come.”
In other words, rip up the social safety net.
But what if the social safety net does encourage productivity and creativity in many able persons, even if not in every last lazy and slothful person?
More importantly, do we want these self-righteous sepulchers passing judgement on who is “able” or “deserving”? Not me.
News flash: soup kitchens are not encouraging productivity and creativity, if they even do much for nutrition.
Report comment to moderator
In the recent meeting that President Obama had with religious leaders from the left, I understand that Matthew 25 was cited as a moral imperative for government programs for the poor, who were equated with “The least of these My brethren” in that passage. I believe “My brethren” is key, since when the New Testament speaks of Jesus’ brothers, or similarly of the children of God, it refers to Christians. For example, Hebrews 2:11 “For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren…” Or Matthew 12:50 “whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” Or John 1:12 “as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name”. So then where are the Christians who are hungry, naked, strangers (in hiding) and in prison? Mostly in countries where they are persecuted. Such as North Korea, China, Iran, Afghanistan. Our first priority should be the household of faith (Galatians 6:10). See, for example, http://www.persecution.com for practical ways to help.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth – No one wants to “rip up” the safety net. I would think it is now obvious that the net is going to collapse of it’s own weight and sustainability demands intelligent limits as well as eliminating waste.
“More importantly, do we want these self-righteous sepulchers passing judgement on who is “able” or “deserving”? Not me.” – Ironic that you don’t want to determine who is “able” but are willing to condemn others as “self-righteous sepulchers.”
Report comment to moderator
The liberals aren’t concerned about the poor, they’re concerned about the programs.
Report comment to moderator
Ironically enough, I just got a book on the biblical view of politics from a friend of mine at the Cato Institute: BEYOND GOOD INTENTIONS, by Doug Bandow, who Marvin Olasky probably knows. I’m not so sure I’m comfortable with naming Wallis in that letter to Pres.Obama. Christians do have political responsibilities in the public square, just to varying degrees per individual.
I still struggle to distinguish between the clear areas of Christian responsibility and where we can simply act prudentially. Explaining and deciding where politics and Christianity should and shouldn’t interwtwine is good food for thought. Wish I’d started chewing on it earlier in life, so I try to encourage the younger ones to think about it now and spread the Gospel in all avenues of their lives, civic and otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
What is specifically Christian about this endeavor? Is God a liberal or a conservative?
The conservative Christians here make a good CASE against the misguided theology and disastrous economics of the left, but the title sounds like a Christian mission to fix a national budget. Is that what God would have us do?
The social gospel of liberalism is all about materialism — who has wealth, who deserves it and how it should be redistributed. Earning it has little to do with who should have it. The end game is economic ruin for everyone.
Whether some of these leftists under the banner of Christianity believe in God is irrelevant, since God is not needed. Government will take care of everything and create heaven on earth.
It is fine for Christians to engage politically and give sound economic advice. We are expected to be good stewards of resources and live within our means. We can pass along that understanding, but there is nothing inherently Christian about that. Good accounts could do precisely the same thing and never mention the Bible once.
It is fun to confront the insanity of national politics, but it sounds like Mr. Olasky wants to get serious about it. That is fine, but it should not be under the banner of Christianity which is concerned about eternal matters, but under the banner of sound economics.
As an example of the distinction, someone might say, “I paid off my mortgage because I am Christian”. That’s fine. But what are non-Christians to do? They should pay off their mortgages too, economically speaking, but it has nothing to do with Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
I’m tired of evangelicals who get more excited about politics than the gospel
Yeah, right. Or formerly, left. Or whatever this eternally purely political animal says about itself.
We do not need to ‘protect programs for the poor.’ We need to protect the poor themselves. . . . We believe the poor of this generation and generations to come are best served by policies that promote economic freedom and growth that encourage productivity and creativity in every able person, and that wisely steward our common resources for generations to come
So if am poor or crippled or generally unemployable I am supposed to rely not on “programs that protect the poor” but upon “policies” that allow me to starve and deny me medical
care or a place to live, while “promoting economic freedom”???
And whose “economic freedom” are these policies supposed to protect–the worker or the boss.
And I would love to know what the authors of this paen to freedom consider to be “our common resources” to be “stewarded”?
The air the poor breathe and the water they drink? The lead in the paint their children live with or in the gasoline we all used to use? A safe food supply? A smog free view of LA? Rivers that don’t burn?
I kind of think they are referring to economic resources. Which they have and the poor don’t. And therefore really aren’t “common”.
Another disgusting piece of sophistry from the intersection of belief and greed.
I’m not surprised Olasky is pushing it though. It has the stench of “compassionate conservatism” rising up from the paper it is written upon.
Report comment to moderator
What’s so great about “sustainable”? We sustained chattel slavery for 250 years.
Report comment to moderator
. . Ironic that you don’t want to determine who is “able”
No, I don’t want y’all to determine who is “able.” Speaking from my point of view as a taxpayer, I think conservatives are hostile, biased, and not to be listened to. Congress is already stingy enough in determining qualifications.
Report comment to moderator
Government spending during severe recessions isn’t supposed to be “sustainable.” If it were, we’d never get out of recession. The reason that government spending is unsustainable during recession is proper and legitimate — revenues are down and requirements are up.
Obama’s small contribution to the deficit was legitimate, and included something Republicans never talk about. Obama signed the largest middle class tax cut in history as part of the stim. The red ink is all Bush’s fault – tax cuts for the rich, unfunded wars, pharmaceutical give-aways, and a financial crash. When Obama arrived at the White House, Washington was burning.
Report comment to moderator
Too many liberals are less concerned about the poor than they are about power.
It is time for all to stop using “the poor” to demogogue agianst their political enbemies. I’m tired of those who demonize the other side as if they (the demonizers) alone are the only ones who care for the poor and those on the other side are heartless. That is as shallow a political ploy as they come and that cheap card get’s played over and over today. And it still works.
Report comment to moderator
The liberals enslave people by giving them things they don’t work for. That has nothing to do with people in need.
Report comment to moderator
#11 “Obama signed the largest middle class tax cut in history as part of the stim. The red ink is all Bush’s fault …”
The tax cut wasn’t really a tax cut, since everyone got $14 more per week even if they paid no taxes. That will buy a free lunch per week. It was a feinting tactic to make the largest tax increase in history two years later more palatable. It is deception 101, or what some might call good politics.
In other words, Obama spent twice as much as Bush in half the time and most of it was just wasted on non-existent projects and payoffs to Democratic districts, unions and campaign supporters.
Report comment to moderator
The tax cut wasn’t really a tax cut . .
XION should know better. According to the Inspector General, his assertion is untrue. Here’s a schedule of reals tax benefits under the stim:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Documents/TaxBenefitInformation.pdf
. . most of it was just wasted on non-existent projects and payoffs to Democratic districts, unions and campaign supporters.
Source, please? The IG has issued hundreds of reports on individual grants, and loans without reaching this assessment.
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/audit-reports-cgl.aspx
Report comment to moderator
“scroop? ?[skroop] verb (used without object)1.to emit a harsh, grating sound.” Pretty well sums up the Scroop Moth. Keynesian economics is dead except in the minds of liberals who would spend us out of existence if they get their way, higher taxes or not:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/03/the-disgrace-of-obamanomics
Report comment to moderator
“In other words, rip up the social safety net”
No, create a true safety net instead of a snare that traps multiple generations into an inescapable poverty.
And recognize that what we’re currently calling a safety net is going to tear irremediably fairly soon, such that strong steps are needed now to avert disaster.
Report comment to moderator
The difficulty with socialist programs to help the poor is the difficulty of design and execution, not financing. Paying for the programs is a minor challenge for our nation. Making sure they provide relief (their primary purpose) while also implementing the best that we now about human behavior and management (their necessary condition, due to all the grumblers and scrooges) is the real challenge. There’s good and bad socialism. There are only bad soup kitchens.
In a quarter of a century we’ll have to impose an immediate reduction of 23% in social security payouts.
Medicare and Medicaid have secondary problems which is not their fault. Blaming Medicare and Medicaid for the high cost of market medicine is blaming the victim. Judge them in relation the insurance industry, and they are the smartest thing our society has ever come up with. The “fairly strong steps” that Republicans have in mind will dismantle the programs without controlling costs, which will leave us worse off than before. Canada proves that single payer health care will avert the disaster. But Republicans don’t want to avert disaster, they want to exploit the possibility of a future disaster to impose an immediate disaster. Republicans are fooling nobody.
Report comment to moderator
PS. The last time I looked at the SS trustee’s report, it said that projections under some assumptions, which were not the most likely assumptions, wouldn’t require any reduction at all.
I’ve heard Evangelicals both on this blog and in Congress call SS a “ponzi scheme.” I’ve got to conclude that y’all don’t know what a ponzi scheme is and don’t care whether the points of identification that you attribute to our government are truthful or not. I’m a moral relativist, so I’m not going to judge you for sleeping around, cussing, or getting an abortion. But lying against our community is about the worst thing y’all can do, from my point of view, and I hear it done all the time. Next time someone here calls SS a ponzi scheme I’d like to hear an Evangelical object. SS doesn’t have to be a Ponzi scheme for you to oppose it. SS doesn’t have to have the smallest cloud of financial trouble for 75 years for you to oppose it. There are good reasons (reasons I disagree with but understand) to oppose SS without lying about the money.
Report comment to moderator
“The difficulty with socialist programs to help the poor is the difficulty of design and execution, not financing.”
Please clarify, do you mean execution like those carried out under the great 20th century socialists Mao, Hiltler, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Stalin? They were all great moral relativists who recognized that dead men don’t lie.
Report comment to moderator
#15 Xion: “. . most of it was just wasted on non-existent projects and payoffs to Democratic districts, unions and campaign supporters.”
Scroop: Source, please? The IG has issued hundreds of reports on individual grants, and loans without reaching this assessment.
Certainly! This is all a matter of public record now. The White House’s own handpicked Council of Economic Advisers just released their Seventh Annual Report which shows that Obama’s so-called stimulus package was a FAILURE. They go on to say that the economy would actually have been better without it!
As for where the money went, it went to a 40 year Democratic pet project wish list. Many of these projects as with Democratic projects in general are a huge waste of money. Nearly 2/3 of the money went to teachers unions. In many states, more than 80% of the money went to unions.
Here are some statistics:
* Unemployment rate before the stimulus: 7.3 %
* Unemployment rate after the stimulus: 9.1 %(It was supposed to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent.)
* National debt before the stimulus: $9.986 T
* National debt after the stimulus: $14.467 T(and rising)
Report comment to moderator
XION (It was supposed to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent.)
Are you saying the stim was supposed to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent as an absolute number?
How do you know the stim wasn’t supposed to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent in relation to baseline conditions before inauguration?
How do you know that the economic advisors didn’t say “all things remaining equal” when they explained 8%?
Report comment to moderator
My wife and I just started watching the group study DVD from the Heritage Foundation called Seek Social Justice. If you follow the link you can order it for free.
I like what I’ve seen so far and it has helped me understand how the term ‘Social Justice’ is used by Marvin Olasky and Anthony Bradley, both of whom are part of the video.
Basically the message is that Poverty isn’t about Money. Poverty is a condition or way of thinking. This explains the statement in the CASE letter,
Based on the DVD, I think what Mr. Olasky is driving at is spiritual poverty. In that case, that is right in the sweet spot of what the church should be engaged in, i.e. imparting wisdom, encouraging productivity, creativity and so on.
This is the polar opposite of what the left means by Social Justice, which has to do with eliminating inequities, such as wealth disparity and so on. They mean entitlements and programs for the nameless poor in order to ensure that they will always be dependent on government and vote Democrat. The only people who are really helped are the politically well connected, such as politicians, lawyers and bankers.
Report comment to moderator
If you review the Seek Social Justice website, you will see lots of facts about poverty, all in terms of money.
Previously I was mislead by this and missed Olasky’s extremely subtle point, but a very powerful one (if I am understanding it correctly) that poverty is not about money.
Poverty is a condition of run-down crime-infested neighborhoods rife with murders and drug and alcohol abuse and irresponsible parents and kids who aren’t cared for. Poverty is an environment of sin and neglect.
The government solution is entitlements which sustain the poverty and ruin the economy. Government is always starting failed programs which do little other than to help politicians get elected. I believe the point Olasky is getting at is what the Christian response should be.
Making poor people less poor is a meaningless endeavor. Christ taught that life consists not in what we possess. However, Christians can have a tremendous impact in communities by helping families learn the wisdom of God, to be responsible and disciplined, to care for others more than themselves. A side effect is that these people probably would become more wealthy. That’s great! But that should not be the Christian goal.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!