Sunday, October 30, 2005
Dealing With Poverty
First I saw this
Then I saw this post from Common Grounds Online.
Remember one of the things that our Constitution is really about -- separation of powers. That is the key. The establishment clause is not about abolishing the power of religion in our nation, which is what many people seem to think it is, rather it is about separating the legitmate powers of government from those of religion. It was based on the fact that historically, the state had usurped the power and authority of religion for its own purposes.
A society needs both power centers. Religion, as an institution, is the only thing that can grant moral authority, and as Glenn's piece points out, absent a reasonably coherent moral standard, and some authority to give it credence, the results in society can be disasterous. Separating that power from governmental power does not, by the way mean stopping intereaction between the two powers. It simply means that the powers intereact with intention and process and not simply assume each others powers.
To me, the important question is whose fault is the erosion of authority that religion has suffered? In the end, I am afraid it must belong not to those that seek to push religion out, but to those that have failed to demonstrate the real power of religion. Which to me means those that have practiced religion without genuine faith.
Why has poverty become a state issue? Because religion failed. Why did religion fail? Because not enough people in religion truly believed in what they were doing. I know, I am sounding a bit like Jim Wallis here, and it is making my skin crawl, but here is the difference. Wallis wants to use the authority of religion to make the state deal with poverty. I want religion to deal with poverty directly. The other difference is that Wallis wants religion to deal with poverty through handouts, while this data makes plain that dealing with poverty must also include a component of morality.
So where do we start? Revivial. We need to stop building churches and start making disciples. And, by the way, that does not mean we make disciples here in the burbs to go to the poor folks and feed them -- it means we make disciples of the poor folks. That will, as Glenn's post shows, lift them out of poverty. Sure, we may give them a little financial help along the way, but in the end it's not about relieving the poverty, it's about making them disciples.
Battling poverty is not "a ministry" - it is part-and-parcel of the ministry. We don't need deep pockets to battle poverty, we just need the Holy Spirit.
Then I saw this post from Common Grounds Online.
In our society, the poor are not restricted to any ethnic group. However, there is a disproportionate representation by African-Americans among the persistently poor. Caucasian poor are still more numerous, but there is greater mobility into and out of poverty by Caucasians. (Interesting fact: the most intractable poverty in the US is not inner city poverty but Appalachian poverty.)Glenn over at CGO is actually trying to make a case that some moral issues rise above religion and exist purely for the good of the greater society. He's right, but it also begs a question about the role of religion in society, if not in government.
This is not about blame but about dealing with what social scientists are coming to see as one of the chief variables (some say it is THE chief variable): single mothers in the African-American community. Are out of wedlock births issues for other racial and ethnic groups in the US? Yes, of course. But as a matter of proportion, the African-American community is disproportionately affected.
Remember one of the things that our Constitution is really about -- separation of powers. That is the key. The establishment clause is not about abolishing the power of religion in our nation, which is what many people seem to think it is, rather it is about separating the legitmate powers of government from those of religion. It was based on the fact that historically, the state had usurped the power and authority of religion for its own purposes.
A society needs both power centers. Religion, as an institution, is the only thing that can grant moral authority, and as Glenn's piece points out, absent a reasonably coherent moral standard, and some authority to give it credence, the results in society can be disasterous. Separating that power from governmental power does not, by the way mean stopping intereaction between the two powers. It simply means that the powers intereact with intention and process and not simply assume each others powers.
To me, the important question is whose fault is the erosion of authority that religion has suffered? In the end, I am afraid it must belong not to those that seek to push religion out, but to those that have failed to demonstrate the real power of religion. Which to me means those that have practiced religion without genuine faith.
Why has poverty become a state issue? Because religion failed. Why did religion fail? Because not enough people in religion truly believed in what they were doing. I know, I am sounding a bit like Jim Wallis here, and it is making my skin crawl, but here is the difference. Wallis wants to use the authority of religion to make the state deal with poverty. I want religion to deal with poverty directly. The other difference is that Wallis wants religion to deal with poverty through handouts, while this data makes plain that dealing with poverty must also include a component of morality.
So where do we start? Revivial. We need to stop building churches and start making disciples. And, by the way, that does not mean we make disciples here in the burbs to go to the poor folks and feed them -- it means we make disciples of the poor folks. That will, as Glenn's post shows, lift them out of poverty. Sure, we may give them a little financial help along the way, but in the end it's not about relieving the poverty, it's about making them disciples.
Battling poverty is not "a ministry" - it is part-and-parcel of the ministry. We don't need deep pockets to battle poverty, we just need the Holy Spirit.
