SPQR

I read Rich Christians in an age of Hunger when I was working in the Philippines during grad school. It is a great book and very thought provoking. Next year I will be facilitating a prayer group on campus that we are calling Justice Prayers and I'd like to use stuff from Rich Christians. Good read! What did you think of the book I gave you at Christmas? You should write a review.

Ron Sider obviously has a sincere desire to help the poor, and for that he can be commended. However, he (and many politically moderate and liberal Christians) fails to distinguish between people who are poor because they want to be poor and a person who is poor through no fault of his own. When you consider the following scenario, provided by Walter Williams, it's fairly difficult to imagine that many "poor" Americans are truly poor.

"Most jobs start with wages higher than the minimum wage, which is currently $5.15. A man and his wife, even earning the minimum wage, would earn $21,000 annually. According to the Bureau of Census, in 2003, the poverty threshold for one person was $9,393, for a two-person household it was $12,015, and for a family of four it was $18,810. Taking a minimum-wage job is no great shakes, but it produces an income higher than the Bureau of Census' poverty threshold."

I think Sider put it well. We should strive for a "guarantee that any American who works full-time responsibly would get out of poverty and have affordable health insurance"

And if these minimum wage workers have kids? What of the nation-wide sky rocketing housing costs?

Austina, I actually haven't finished it yet. It is among a number of great books that I am in the middle of. Among them, 'Guns, Germs, and Steel', 'God's Politics', 'Toward and Evangelical Public Policy', and a couple of others.

Well Nat, I think that the general idea is that the best way to get a good-paying job is to get a low-paying job and work your way up. Nobody earns minimum wage for their entire lives; the vast majority start at minimum wage and move up.

"(He) fails to distinguish between people who are poor because they want to be poor and a person who is poor through no fault of his own.

Poor because they want to be poor? Which is to say (implicitly) "through fault of their own".

That is one of the coldest statements I have ever read by an overpriveleged, overeducated, entitled white middle-class male who through his own efforts (not through fault of his own) was born in America, a healthy white male, to a family that valued education, loved him and directed him in the right way and in spite of all that adversity, managed to make it on his own.

How dare you be so smug?

Jeff, many people in the United States who call themselves poor are poor because they would rather work a low-paying job then to put the time and effort into aquiring the skills that would lead to a better job. As Walter Williams likes to say "in a free society, income is mostly determined by one's ability and willingness to produce goods and services that satisfy his fellow man." He also offers the following advice:

"I grew up poor in a housing project in North Philadelphia, and those weren't the lessons prevalent a half-century ago. My mother used to preach that 'We have a beer pocketbook but champagne tastes.' And my stepfather used to admonish, 'If you want to make it in this world, you have to come early and stay late.' Those messages are far more beneficial to a poor person than those of victimhood and pity. Personally, I like evangelical minister Reverend Ike's response when asked what should we do about the poor. He said, 'The best thing you can do for the poor is not become one.'"

I can't get over how venal and mean the new right has become. When I was a boy they used to sing "They shall know we are Christians by our love" where the new version sounds like "They shall know we are Christians by our adherence to punishment of the down trodden for being downtrodden".

Does the Bible mean anything to you when it veers from right wing dogma?

For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in,

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee?  Or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in?  Or naked, and clothed thee?

Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the king shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, in as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink:

I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison and did not minister unto thee

Then shall he answer them saying, Verily I say unto you, in as much as ye did not to one of the least of these, ye did not to me.

And they shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.

How the hell (sic) do you read that and feel free to blame the poor for their poverty?

Jeff, the Bible defines the poor as those whose needs are not met through no fault of their own. My point was that there is a difference between the Biblically-defined poor person and a person whose needs are not met because of either his own sinful acts or his own lack of action. My point was that the Bible calls us to help the former, but not the latter in that the latter is not actually a poor person.

I'm not blaming the poor for their poverty; I'm simply saying that a person who either refuses to work or who falls below the poverty line as a direct result of his own disobedience is not a poor person. He may live below the poverty line, but he is not poor, and the Bible simply does not command us to subsidize the sinful lifestyles of those who are not poor.

Where in scripture is this definition of "poor"? Where does Jesus make the case for discriminating between deserviung and undeserving poor? What is your scriptural basis for this assertion?

Visiting those in prison makes no distinction that only the wrongly imprisoned deserve visits.

Can you read the scripture I quoted and imagine that you are somehow going to avoid everlasting fire? You have asserted that the poor are primarilly undeserving or choose idle poverty. What is your scriptural basis for that? Was Jesus kidding when he said this? Is this part of the bible a joke? Are you calling Him a liar? What am I missing?

Please cite SCRIPTURE in your answer.

There was a frustrated young man. He had done all according to the rules set by God and society. He was distinguished in his town. He was a success. Yet he knew something was missing. A preacher had come offering more. This preacher had said you can rise above mundane existence and really experience a heavenly life. It sounded pretty much like the preacher said this life was available to people who behaved just like him. But what was he missing. So he went and asked the preacher how he could get it. The preacher told him that living upright was important, and I imagine his chest puffed out a little as he said: “ Check!” But then the preacher said there is one thing you lack.

Now, maybe all the rich, well educated well raised young men associated with this page do not feel they lack anything. BUT if you do feel there may be something missing in your life, I would like to suggest that you might lack the same thing he did. Jesus’ remedy throughout the scriptures is ONLY for those who want the kingdom of Heaven. He says the others have their reward here and now. AND his criteria for the kingdom of heaven is clear. ( Jeff quoted one example of his very clear entrance requirements)

I want to challenge you, Ben, that Ron Sider and Jeff are talking about Jesus, and his well expressed Kingdom of heaven. What kingdom are you talking about? The US? That is fine if so, but we need to clarify. If you are content in the other kingdom, so be it.

One thing I am pretty sure, is that you have to cut the bullshit about deserving poor and undeserving poor. The help you give might vary according to their true needs. Jesus was incredible at discerning what people really needed. But your use of scripture as a basis for defining poor….you are in danger. Jesus does not like his word getting that kind of treatment. Jeff’s ire reminds me of Jesus response: he didn’t use coarse language like I did…or did he? He was rough on a group of people. NOT the undeserving poor. Ultimately excluding them from his presence forever (how long is that? Do you think he was pissed?) because they did not do what he lists. I bet one of their reasons was they didn’t want to support people who wanted to be poor.

Other scriptures come to mind, like All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God, and Love your neighbor as yourself ( the definition was then given of “ one of those people” reaching across racial and cultural bigotry to render aid) I wonder if the good samaritan asked the man who had fallen among the thieves if he was in the wrong place at the wrong time because of his own poor choices? SEEK FIRST THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ( again, have you been listening to what you lack to be able to experience this?)

I for one appreciate Jeff’s truth, and sincerity. I think his ire, like that of Jesus, is because he truly cares about the poor. But also, because he truly cares about you too, Ben!

Please read my comment again, Jeff. I never said anything about deserving poor vs. undeserving poor. What I said is that while all poor are deserving, not everyone who lives below the poverty line is poor. The Church has always made that distinction; the broke drug addict who wanders into a church and asks the deacons to give him money will leave unfulfilled while the hard-working and faithful widow who just isn't able to support herself will be helped. The drug addict can certainly expect the Church to pray for him and assist him in cleaning up his life, but he can't expect to be given a check and pushed out the door so that he can go buy more booze and drugs.

The broke surf bum who you had imprisoned and upon whom you wished sodomy surely isn't in the same category as the widow, yet by your definition of poverty, they ought to be treated in precisely the same way simply because they both happen to take in less than a government-mandated amount of income. My point has been that the issue of poverty is a whole lot more complex than just a simple, blanket income level. The drug addict, the surf bum, and the widow can and should all be helped, but only the widow needs it to be in a financial form.

If income level is the only way to distinguish poverty, then a "poor" person (a person living below the poverty line) in the United States can hold a steady job, own property, own a vehicle, enjoy more free time than anyone at any other point in US history, have more food than he can possibly eat, and pay no income tax. In fact, not only is such a person not poor, if he continues to work 40 hours a week, in a year or so he will work his way over the poverty line. And he certainly doesn't need financial assistance to get there.

Ben's argument about the undeserving poor reminds me of a question I heard the great theologian RC Sproul answer some time back. The questioner asked if Christians should help those who have AIDS, because some of them received AIDS through immoral actions.

He was surprised that someone would even ask such a question, "Of course we should help the needy!" (or something to that effect). We are not to refuse assistance to anyone because they have not lived a fully virtuous life. (I am certainly thankful that I will not pay the price when I am ultimately judged by this criteria.)

We are called to help the least among us, period. No qualifications. If part of helping them is to assist them in seeing that they ought to change their habits, fine. That is a logical part of addressing the whole issue.

It seems that Ben and I were writing at the same time.

but not at the same spirit!

Ben- your earlier post contained this line, and it is what I have been responding to:

"it's fairly difficult to imagine that many "poor" Americans are truly poor."

That's a long way from there to:

"What I said is that while all poor are deserving, not everyone who lives below the poverty line is poor."

Once more, let me ask this really simple question- What is your scriptural basis? Not Walter Williams, not a thrice divorced drug addict with a talk show, but scripture. Where does Jesus discriminate about which kind of poor?

I'll admit that if that drug addict came to a church with you serving as a deacon, he'd be unlikely to get a penny. I don't recall any scripture that infers Jesus would do the same. I do recall scripture that says He would send those deacons to everlasting fire.

Jeff, both of those statements mean the same thing: there are not two classifications of poor, you're either poor or you aren't. But simply claiming to be poor does not qualify oneself as being poor. That's why I put the word 'poor' in quotation marks.

Scripturally, there is certainly a consistent image of the poor to whom Jesus refers: the people He calls poor all share, for the most part, the same basic characteristics: hard-working, oppressed, faithful, diligent, meek, and servile. In the United States, however, there are plenty of people who live below the poverty line who do not have any of those characteristics. In fact, many people who live at or below the poverty line in this country are still within the upper 90% of wealth when compared to the world's standards. I'm not saying these people don't need help, I'm just saying that they probably don't need it in the form of financial assistance.

BEN!!! You are describing the deserving poor. again...Whta scripture are you reading? My NIV, NASV and KJV Scriptures are against you on this one. The people Jesus was documented to have touched and was touched by were roman soldiers (oppressive rapists and murderers), tax collecters, fallen disreputable people and sinners. I can't imagine that if they had these atributes and also were poor, he rejected them.

Not to mention prisoners. One more time.

CAN YOU CITE SCRIPTURE ON DEFINING THE POOR?

Steve, yes Jesus helped them, but He didn't give them money, did He? He didn't force the Roman empire to subsidize their lives, did He? My original point was not that the poor don't need help (and I think I repeat that in almost every subsequent comment), it's that just because a person in the United States feels that he or she is poor it does not deductively follow that that person actually is poor and needs the American people to subsidize his or her life.

Jeff, I did. Since Jesus never explicity defines the terms of what constitutes poverty, the best Biblical definition of poverty is simply to look at the characteristics of those who Jesus identifies as being poor. If you're looking for me to cite a multitude of unrelated verses taken out of context, then you're going to be disappointed.

Ben, can you admit then that you misspoke in saying:

"Jeff, the Bible defines the poor as those whose needs are not met through no fault of their own."

we already are disapointed...but not surprised

I think the old testament defined poor as those who had lost their posessions or become endentured to fellow jews. I am sure bad decisions were involved in some of those cases. In the Gospels, I see no explicit definitions of poor by Jesus. BUT he does show a young man who wastes his wealth, and is a pure rebrobate. His need drives him to return to his father's house, and seek employment. The father's response is the Christlike. The Older brother doesn't get it. But this is personal, and not intsitutional, and BEN, your point is that the nation should not have to take care of dissolute. There is so much more going on in the economy of God than just Money, but it often reflects our overall attitude, and that is one reason God addressed it in the bible. I just came across a paper by a friend who reminds us of the way God thought a nation should handle the issue of the poor. This is by Timothy Stoner, an attorney in Grand Rapids Michigan.

Indulge me:

In the theocracy God established He wanted His people to understand that religious rituals were not the essence or pinnacle of spirituality. Knowing the natural propensity to substitute external ceremony for inward reality He established social/economic policies that would remind His people that what He wanted above all was for His children to reflect Him. He was not intent on sacrifices, on oblations, or even on Sabbaths for their own sake, what He longed for was a people who loved Him with their whole hearts and reflected His loving character to others. Thus, He says: "I desire mercy not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6, Mt. 9:13). "To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Pr. 21:3). The motivation behind the social legislation was to impress on the nation of Israel the reality that the people who truly know God (intimately, from the heart) will demonstrate it by doing what is right and just. King Josiah exhibited this type of deep, personal familiarity with God by consistently defending the cause of the poor and needy. “Is that not what it means to know Me?” asks the Lord rhetorically through Jeremiah, his prophet (Jer.22:16). Thus, in perhaps the best known socio-ethical imperative in the Bible, God declares that the preeminent good He requires from man is simply, "To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (Mic. 6:8).

God's economy was to be a system in which His character was put on display as a testimony to the surrounding pagan nations. Rather than elevating profit, or efficiency, or productivity, the highest good in the Israelite theocracy was loving-kindness, mercy and compassion. In this system, every seven years, God required successful entrepreneurs to surrender their economic advantage by forgiving all debts owed to fellow Israelites and releasing all Jewish indentured servants (Deut. 15:1,12 -- The Sabbatical Year), and, every 50 years, by returning all agricultural properties obtained from their fellow Jews (Lev. 25:28 -- The Jubilee Year) so that "there should be no poor among you" (Lev. 15:4).

last word...looking at all the ot sources:

Apathy is merely the civil, genteel face of oppression.

Perhaps, Jeff, I should not have used the word 'define.' It would have been better to use the word 'characterizes.'

Accepted. You had me scared that I was missing a translation somewhere.

As someone who has studied Torah quite extensively please indulge my humble 2 cents. First comes the direct mitzvah (commandmant) from God : "If any person among you is needy, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your needy fellow" ~ D'varim (Deuteronomy) 15:7-8.
Now you don't need a doctorate in philosophy to understand what that means. God does NOT command us to let the "undeserving" poor suffer by distinguishing between the "deserving" versus the "undeserving" poor. Second, I should like to point out that as long as there are never enough good jobs with health benefits to go around so that every working-aged person who needs and wants a job can be assured of getting one, there will be people left out - and as a result of being economically left out, they are poor and unable to get things like medical and dental care. Currently as it stands, a growing number of people down on their luck who do not have good jobs and health benefits are walking around with untreated health and dental problems made worse by the evisceration of what little safety net we used to have before the welfare reform laws of 1996.

Picture this scenario: You are a young woman without children from a poor family. You spent the first decade of your life working in low-paying jobs without any health benefits, always one stalled car or one rent increase away from destitution and one illness or accident away from destitution. You struggle to overcome the obstacle of poverty by incurring steep student loan debt so you can pay for furthering your education, the "ticket out of poverty". You begin to get cavities that you are unable to get filled because you cannot access dental care. While you continue to strive for a better life and work extremely hard to better yourself, some of those cavities turn into abscesses leading to blood poisoning that you FINALLY get treated by getting admitted to the hospital in the ER where your abscessed teeth get pulled. The near-miss with death from blood poisoning causes you to lose your low-paying job and you cannot get unemployment benefits because your earnings were too low or maybe you live in an "At-Will" state where employers can get away with firing you and denying you unemployment benefits - even for health problems that are no fault of your own becuase if you "choose" to buy health insurance and pay for dental care, you thereby choose to forego keeping a roof over your head and buying food. Now you graduate and seek to re-enter the workforce with your degree and marketable skills, but because of missing and/or rotting teeth, nobody hires you because of the poor image this creates. Since it is post-welfare reform, you as a poor single adult cannot get Medicaid while you continue to "keep on trying" and Medicaid no longer pays for dental care for poor adults anyway, even if you could get it. You are in a catch-22 because you can't get a denture (and your remaining teeth fixed - if you still have some left) without money and health insurance, but you can't get money and health insurance without a decent paying job. You are one of the "deserving" poor who has been harmed by laws and policies aimed at penalizing the "undeserving" poor. As a woman, even a chance for a meager $6/hr job as a convenience store clerk (hardly enough to become economically self-sufficient on) is out of reach for you when you have to walk around with missing or rotting teeth for lack of access to proper care and lack of a safety net. And if some nice, white male upper-middle-class prince charming didn't ride in accross the socio-economic class status divide to save the day for you by marrying you and whisking you out of your poverty-stircken life of misery and suffering and sweep you into the good life before you ended up with permanent damage to your health - loss of teeth, etc due to poverty and lack of resources, do you really think your chances will improve after it's too late? What does the Torah say? " Thou shall not stand idly by the blood of thy brother" ~ Vayikrah (Leviticus) 19:16. I think you get the point.