Friday, December 16, 2005
Can't Hold My Tongue On This One
The Washington Post had piece yesterday on the role of Christians in the current congressional debate on poverty relief cuts, particularly liberal Christians including my own PCUSA. Despite quoting both sides, it clearly tries to paint those of us that support the cuts as less than charitable. Ally Cheat Seeking Missles had some intersting thoughts particularly when it comes to Christian liberal spokesperson Jim Wallis. Wallis is a good target here because he creates avenues for stuff like this. From the WaPo piece
What truly hacks me is with his organizational skills differently applied, how many poor people could Wallis get fed? The man is good if he was just aimed a little better.
Secondly, Wallis is focused domestically, when by comparison to the world no one in this nation is poor. I'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he was worried about sending aid to Dafur, or some of the other war-torn and poverty-stricken regions of the world than being worried, as I heard him discuss on the Michael Medved show a few months back, whether people in this nation could afford to buy the home they rented for 20 years. -- I mean a little perspective, please. Towards the end of the WaPo piece they even cite a liberal Christian that makes the same point - one with whom I am typically loathe to agree.
There is a difference between having your faith inform your politics and doing politics in light of that information and putting your politics in front of your faith.
Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders "have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees," he said. "They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical."I tend to be very circumspect in what I say about Wallis, he is a Christian brother, but this is too insulting not to address quite sternly. The fact of the matter is that judicial action has increasingly limited the freedoms of religious practice we enjoy, which includes the church's ability to feed the poor. There is nothing in the deal he cites so spitefully that says anything unbiblical or about not taking care of the poor, it simply gets the government out of the middle and lets the church do what it is supposed to do. Late in the article they cite a conservative Christian making this point, but far past the point most people read.
What truly hacks me is with his organizational skills differently applied, how many poor people could Wallis get fed? The man is good if he was just aimed a little better.
Secondly, Wallis is focused domestically, when by comparison to the world no one in this nation is poor. I'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he was worried about sending aid to Dafur, or some of the other war-torn and poverty-stricken regions of the world than being worried, as I heard him discuss on the Michael Medved show a few months back, whether people in this nation could afford to buy the home they rented for 20 years. -- I mean a little perspective, please. Towards the end of the WaPo piece they even cite a liberal Christian that makes the same point - one with whom I am typically loathe to agree.
There is a difference between having your faith inform your politics and doing politics in light of that information and putting your politics in front of your faith.
