Monday, March 29, 2010

Social Justice Rejoinder

Here’s my response to two comments made on my previous post:

While God calls us to do those things, there is also 2 Thess. 3:10 that says if a man doesn’t work, he doesn’t eat .... as well as Proverbs 29 that talks about true justice coming from only God. While Glenn may have made sweeping generalizations, the point is a church that focuses on the social justice verses but ignores the responsibility verses - is in sin and disobedience. many churches do this. and as blessed as we are in America, there are very few within our borders that are genuinely voiceless and “poor”. The “poor” in our country are richer than most of the world. So keep that in mind…

Posted by Ben on 03/27 at 08:39 PM

The confusing part about the social justice debate always takes me back to Luke 10:30-37(a priest and a Levite passed him by on the other side or maybe even went and told someone what they saw).However the Samaritin took action,bandages,oil and wine and housing.The priest and the Levites in those days were the “good guys"the advocates for the masses if I may.So who helped the man in need.Sometimes I think people confuse guilt with compassion and pass some by hoping to advocate for him to the government.I am not as concerned about what you think of the poor but more about what you do (like the Samaritin).And its amazing that those that advocate for the poor often saying we all could pay a little more to Ceasar to help the poor.They sit under tax exempt status groups that pay no federal tax,maybe its time that be re-examined imagine how many poor people could be helped if they just started paying their fair share.

Posted by Samaritin on 03/28 at 08:57 AM

You mention that churches that focus on social justice to the exclusion of “responsibility verses” are in sin and disobedience. So I must ask - where are these churches? Are there specific churches you have in mind? Because I don’t know of any myself. I think if you actually look for such examples, you will find very few. I think you would find it much easier to find churches that NEVER preach social justice, and only preach an individualistic gospel about getting souls into heaven. Are these churches also in sin and disobedience?

I ask this question because I suspect that the real issue for Beckists and politically conservative Christians is not that social justice is preached too MUCH, but that it is preached AT ALL. Moreover I believe it is the assertion that God may care more about how we vote in ways that go beyond abortion and gay marriage bills that really bothers Beckists. I am not saying this is true of you, but I believe that it is true of Beck.

I have to say I think y’all’s exegesis is pretty thin. You mention Proverbs 29 (I’m assuming verse 26) which says that many seek the favor of a ruler, but it is from YHWH that one gets justice. It is preceded by verse 14 and verse 4 (and many others, some of which I listed in the original post - by the way, how do you interpret those?), which suggest leaders and their nations are still held accountable for doing justice to the poor. Even if true justice comes from God (as do true love, true beauty, and truth itself) does that then mean it is not our duty also to do justice (Micah 6:8), even if it “approximate” justice? Do I no longer have to love my neighbor if true love comes from God?

As for the parable of the man robbed on the Jericho road - do you really think the priest and Samaritan passed by because they thought the Roman occupiers would take care of the beaten man? How do you think the original hearers of that parable understood it? How would you react if Jesus said that a conservative Christians passed by, a liberal Christian passed by, but then a gay Muslim stopped and helped the beaten man? Would that rankle a bit?

However, I do take your point. Liberals who think they can abdicate personal responsibility to love their neighbor by passing the buck to social service government agencies are not loving their neighbor. But neither are conservatives who practice conscience-salving individual acts of charity that do nothing to address the structural problems that keep people poor. In Alabama, we pay very little property tax, but sales tax on groceries is 10%. This means in a given year, the poorest people in the state are still giving to the government the equivalent of 1.5 months of groceries. So the poor are subsidizing the property of homeowners with their food. We are taking food out of the mouths of the poor to pay for education and local service for the wealthiest people. But I find that many Christians are happy to bring canned goods to food closets rather than the far less sexy and far more boring work of calling their representatives to advocate for the poor. So who really loves their neighbor?

While you can certainly go serve a meal in a homeless shelter, that doesn’t help them get or keep a job. Until you get to know the people who are homeless and learn about their stories, you can maintain the illusion that they are poor “because they don’t work.“They DO work, many of them, but their jobs do not pay enough for them to have safe and reliable housing. Many of them also do not have reliable transportation in a culture that requires cars. So people who advocate for social justice also advocate for public transportation. So they CAN get to work.

So, no, I don’t buy the argument that social justice is a cop out for loving your neighbor. Much the reverse, in fact.

The final point you want me to keep in mind is that the poor in America are better off than the poor in some countries. That is true. I have been in developing countries where the poor have no social services whatsoever. But you can also make the counterpoint that the poor in developed nations are MUCH better off than the poor in our country. They have public health care, for example. And the longevity and health statistics in those countries are much better than the averages in ours.

I would also argue that poverty is not measured in absolute terms. Poverty is not just how much money you have, but how much access you have to political power, how much access you have to employment opportunities to change your station in life, etc. Poor people in the US are far less upwardly mobile than in some other developed countries because they don’t have access to those social services. Again, you have to own a car in many cities in order to hold down a job. That’s a big hurdle for many. While they may be better off than someone without a job in Bolivia, their prospects for changing their future may be about the same.

That, in my opinion, is why Micah 6:8 says we should do mercy AND justice. We don’t merely bandage people’s wounds - we try to stop people from robbing them.

I think we should do the one and not leave the other undone.

When a denomination such as ours has member’s average contributions to the church at 2 to 3 percent of income, our advocacy of government action rings with hypocrisy, love the poor with other people’s money. 

There is also a question of efficacy (call me a pragmatist).  It is very hard to make a difference in the lives of the poor.  My ideal model is Habitat as their approach to doing good lets no one off the hook, if you don’t work you don’t get a house.  You also won’t be oppressed by usurious loans that manipulate the poor into a purchase and then squeeze them out when it suits us!

However, I don’t think Beck is right.

Government is called to justice and the church is called to justice and that justice will be fully realized in Christ’s kingdom.  The fact that justice will only be partially realized in this world is no excuse at all for delaying what we are able to do.  Francis Schaeffer said we should expect “substantial Healing” in this world, he was right.  Wesley’s optimism should also motivate us.  We cannot and should not limit what God is able to do in this life in our own personal sanctity and in society. 

The principle of redistributive justice is enshrined in the Jubilee laws of Israel.

I am torn at times as I am very cynical about the government’s ability to bring positive change.  It is at root a coercive power (Rom. 13) and yet it is God’s creature and is accountable. 

Christians will disagree on the best path for doing justice in this world.  I don’t think we can disagree that it is part of our task.

The Samaratin did stop and help.You said the Samaritin and the priest passed him by.However it was the priest and the Levite.The story of the good Samaritin is the reversal of sterotypes and the question is who among these three was his neighbor?It could have been any of the other stereoypes YOU mentioned. The lawyer who Jesus ask this question could not even say the word Samaritin and lend credence to to the reversal of sterotypes.I would like to address the tax exempt status(you didnt).Are these tax exempt organizations (churches included) taking money from the government that could be used to help the poor?If the government is one of the solutions and many religous groups who advocate for the government to help the poor. These groups pay no(or very little) federal tax.It doesnt matter who you think should help.But it does matter if you think the government should help and we all could pay a little more to help the poor,thats ok but if you sit under the tree of “tax exempt”  and suggest we all could pay a little more that is another thing.You mentioned low property taxes(most churches in Alabama dont even pay property taxes,so if you think the government can help why dont the churches stand up and say we are going to pay our fair share in taxes so the government can help the poor.I disagree that economic engineering can lead to social justice.However, if you do. Dont sit under a tax exempt group that advocates the government could help and we all could pay a little more when you (not you in specific) pay very little or (none at all in taxes).Now back to the Samaritin in Luke he took out 2 denarii gave them to the inkeeper and said take care of him and what ever more you spend I will repay you.He didnt give lip service about the poor or strategy that might help he just helped.The irony is is that scorned Samaritin knows how to show love to his neighbor,whereas the priest and the Levite who had intimate knowledge of Gods Law did not.Micah 6:8 this speeks of the underlying attitude that must accompany all true worship.In my opinion hard to read social justice and economic engineering into that.Poverty is not measured in absolute terms?It is by the government who base most all social services on a percent above or below the poverty level,which they have established (fair or not) ever heard someone say “I draw ten dollars a month to much To qualify for medicaid”.Sounds pretty absolute as far as the government is concerned.Now I dont agree in these absolutes they establish but thats why I dont agree the government is always the solution.

“You mention that churches that focus on social justice to the exclusion of “responsibility verses” are in sin and disobedience. So I must ask - where are these churches?”

I have seen and experienced a few with this problem, but I don’t find it necessary to disclose names.

“I think you would find it much easier to find churches that NEVER preach social justice, and only preach an individualistic gospel about getting souls into heaven. Are these churches also in sin and disobedience?”

To that I would say absolutely. There are both extremes to this.

My reason for using Proverbs may not have been needed because my point was one that you mentioned, we must take personal responsibility for reaching the poor.

“How would you react if Jesus said that a conservative Christians passed by, a liberal Christian passed by, but then a gay Muslim stopped and helped the beaten man? Would that rankle a bit?”

My reaction to this, although probably not pertinent to this conversation in the first place, would be that the gay Muslim acted more Christian than the others.

I do agree that God wants us to be effective, and addressing the structural problems is needed. My pastor has worked closely with a local Haitian that is currently fighting that battle.

The rest of your points are very valid and I will think and pray on them. I don’t doubt that many do social justice with a Christ-like love. My defense of the “Beckists”, as you call them, stands on the point that we have to make sure we don’t ignore certain parts of the Bible while focusing on the side that sits better with our political leanings. Which, of course could be a sentence used against my argument.

Oh, and I second most of Samaritan’s post

Lewis, I really appreciate your ability to bring clarity to the subject!

Careless error on my part, Samaritan. Yes, I meant to say Levite and priest.

Referring to groups of people is not stereotyping. Stereotyping would involve making statements about what liberal and conservative Christians and gay Muslims are like.

I didn’t address tax-exempt status because I’ve heard the argument before, and I felt it was a rabbit trail. My assertion is that churches should preach social justice. Their tax-exempt status is of no concern to me. I’m not sure how that works practically, from a policy standpoint. How do you distinguish between religious and non-religious non-profit organizations? Do you think Civitan should also be taxed? The Boy Scouts? If churches were taxed, do you think that would be more or less effective than the money they already spend to help the poor?

Like Lewis, I believe that if Christians tithed and gave more than 10%, this wouldn’t be an issue.

I don’t believe “economic engineering” alone can lead to social justice - but I would assert that we are already doing economic engineering! In my Alabama sales tax example, we’re siphoning money from the poor to subsidize people who own real estate. Is this not economic engineering? Should this not be addressed politically? Poor people are paying a greater percentage of their income in taxes than rich people. That is economic engineering.

I’m still confused about your reading of the Samaritan story. I agree that it’s a story about how an “outsider” seems to get it while the “insiders” don’t - although how we parse that would probably be very different. To me, this is a story that Jesus tells in order to shock the lawyer into understanding that anyone - including Samaritans - qualify as “neighbors” who often understand God better than those we think of as “good religious people.” Hence my substitution of “Christians” of different varieties for priest and Levite, and “Muslim” as someone considered an “outsider” by those groups. Christians today are not scandalized as Jesus’ audience would be at a Samaritan being the hero. They would be scandalized by someone they consider an outsider. I do not believe this is just a story of how we should behave as individuals, although you can certainly read it that way. And if you do, I still don’t see how that precludes social justice. It’s not the only example of how we should behave.

There are plenty of other stories in the Bible that also illustrate social justice. Moses confronts Pharoah in order to free people from slavery. Elijah confronts Ahab over his unjust claim of someone else’s property. The entire book of Amos, about half of the other prophets, the repeated claims by Paul, James, and Luke that “God shows no partiality” are all about God’s challenging the claims of one group to be superior to another or the right of the powerful to oppress the poor.

But I’m afraid that your individualistic theology is just so different from my understanding of God that there’s not a lot of common ground, there. To me, if you write social justice out of the Bible you’re not left with much. What do you do with the Magnificat? I’m not even sure we’re reading the same book.

Finally, the federal poverty line doesn’t determine what is poverty in Bolivia, or Ukraine, or Zambia. So, no, poverty is not measured in absolute terms. That’s why I said I don’t think it’s appropriate to say, “the poor in our country are better off than in other countries.” Better off how? In their access to health care? Education? In their ability to move out of poverty using their own hard work and talents? The poor in the U.S. are better off than in some countries, and worse of than in others. That’s what I mean by poverty not being measured in absolute terms. There’s an excellent book on the subject by Bryant Myers, former VP of WorldVision.

I think that the church falls short in its efforts to help the poor.  We find it tough to really offer the gift of Salvation though the Lordship of Christ to those in need while at the same time coming alongside them to help with their physical, emotional and intellectual needs.  It is as if we truncate the person into manageable pieces.  Does anyone know models of truly holistic ministry among the poor by local churches?  I mean by this a church that has found success in addressing needs while actually incorporating their neighbors into the life of the faith community…I sincerely would like to see some models of this.

Dave,

The poor in our countries have access to food stamps/wick, unemployment checks, at least a high school education (although with it being run by governments, not much can be said about the quality in many states) and will not be turned away from an emergency room if they need it. While many of your ideas and points are considerable, America’s “poor” are absolutely better off than those 3rd world countries. Up until last year, I went without health care since I left my parent’s house. I did without because I didn’t have the money to pay insurance every month. If I needed a doc or dentist, I paid for it. I don’t consider myself in poverty because of that. This summer, my youth group will be helping some of the displaced near the gulf coast of Alabama - so yes I think there are people in need in our own country. But, like you wonder if Samaritan is reading the same Bible, I wonder if you are living in the same America and same world that I do. America is a country where you have the freedom to attain almost anything you want with hard work, but there is also a freedom to fail. That’s the rub about freedom. Now, in these other countries, there is only freedom to fail, not to succeed. (part of that is because of their leadership) That’s what separates us.

Good point Ben

I recently spent two and one half years in close proximity to Third World Poverty.  America’s poor are better off in terms of material goods.  I don’t think that means they deserve “” as if they are not truly poor.  (that is what I took the “” to mean)  America provides amazing class mobility, though that apparently is diminishing some.  Hard work generally pays off.  It usually does. 

However, America falls far short of equal opportunity.  Entire segments of our nation (rural and urban poverty areas) provide substandard education, medical care, food, air and water.  Children growing up in this start at a different place than I did.  Exceptional people climb over the barriers before them but most of us are not exceptional.  Could it be that God calls the richest Christians in history to use their wealth and power to create community and opportunity for the least among us?  I obviously believe the rest of the world has a claim on the love and service of the church but our near neighbors certainly do. 

The government has a role to play but as MLK said, the government cannot make you love me.  Christ can.  What would Jesus do?  Who would Jesus hang with?  What would he keep and what would he share?  I shudder to think.

Lewis,you ask for an example of a church that serves the needs of the poor while incorporating that into a faith community.The first thing that comes to mind is THE SALVATION ARMY.their first priority is helping the poor and then the faith ministry kinda falls in place.Most modern day churches are truly member centered with a little help for the poored cramed in(the exact opposite of the Salvation Army).I believe the Salvation Army is a great model of a church taking scripture and applying it.Some may deny the S A is even a church but thats ok with the S A.

I like them too and they are definitely a church.  However, their work is not integrated into the local church where I am, I guess that takes place where they have a local church but When i interned with one in seminary the church folks were separate, at least when I was there..Celebrate Recovery is a step in that direction and seems to lead people into the church.  I might find it at larger churches than mine, I’m just not satisfied with what we do, we spend money to help folks but we could do better at both ministry and walking with them as neighbors..

Lewis, while I agree that the average giving is far below a tithe, you and I both know that the loudest voices for social justice in our own conference are those who have given not only their income but their lives to mercy and justice for their neighbors, even when it was unpopular. You’re one of the dozen or so that I would put on that list. While I’m sure there are liberal elitists somewhere who pat themselves on the back for being theologically correct… I’m drawing a blank because I don’t know any personally. 

I think you can make a case that there is hypocrisy in social justice when you compare the giving of evangelical vs. mainline Protestant denominations (http://www.adherents.com/misc/giving.html). But although evangelicals as a group tend to give more than mainliners, when you control for regular worship attendance, that difference disappears. Another influence is income level - the wealthier the person, the less likely they are to give. The difference seems to be in demographics, not in political or theological affiliation.

I’ve gotten a lot out of reading Bryant Myers’ Walking With the Poor as a holistic model. Have you read it? I’ll loan it to you if you want.

Samaritan, I’m not exactly sure where you’re going with the parable of the Good Samaritan. I don’t think the original hearers would have identified the religious leaders as being those who advocated social justice or government intervention. Painting them as advocates of social justice is pretty thin. I could just as easily identify them as Republicans or Glenn Beck listeners, if I just want to make people I disagree with the bad guys. We clearly have different understandings of what’s going on in that story, but it seems a red herring anyway. I’m not sure how it pertains to my assertions in the original post or my follow-up. Calling leaders to make provisions for the poor does not preclude acts of mercy like helping them individually.

Ben and Samaritan, I also just don’t know many Christians who talk about social justice who also aren’t intimately connected to ministries of mercy. Those who talk about social justice most often are those who are running ministries to the homeless and who work closely with the poor. I like specifics, not talking points and abstract assertions, so I will name some for you: Shane Claibourne. Don Mosely. Tony Campolo. Jim Wallis. These are nationally-known people who do both. I would list dozens of local people who are my friends, but their names wouldn’t mean anything to you. They lead churches and organizations like Birmingham Hospitality Network, M-Power, the Community Church Without Walls, Urban Ministry, SIFAT, Church of the Reconciler, Alabama Arise, to name just a few.

Again, find me someone who uses the language of social justice who doesn’t put their faith into action, and I will find you 10 who talk about getting souls into heaven who don’t even know any poor people. I’m just not seeing it, guys. Rick Warren, for crying out loud, talks about social justice. Mike Slaughter at Ginghamsburg in Ohio. These are multi-million dollar churches who are not particularly left-wing or radical who do both mercy and justice. It’s not like this social justice talk is particularly new or radical.

My gripe is that Glenn Beck and many other conservative Christians act as though it is. While I am probably significantly more left-wing than you guys, I believe that free markets are generally good, and I have no desire to live in a planned economy. But I also believe in hard data and specific examples. Sure, people have “the freedom to fail,” and bad choices will make you poor. But are there no poor people in Canada? No poor people in Switzerland? How does believing that health care should be a public service like fire departments and police stations make someone a socialist, a communist, or, for crying out loud, a Nazi? (I’m not attributing these comments to you, but these are Beck’s words, and the inspiration for my last several posts).

Again, I ask for hard data and specific examples. Let’s compare apples to apples: the data suggest that poor people in other developed countries (not third world!) are better off than they are here. Now, I don’t believe we are called to be more like France, but I do believe we are called to make the system as just as we can. People are free to fail in other developed countries which do provide better social services than ours. There are poor people in other developed nations, but they tend to be healthier, better-educated, and they live longer. These countries also spend less per capita than we do on health care (and health insurance lobbyists, and wars, and corporate subsidies, and…).

I’ve veered pretty far from the content of the post which inspired this discussion, so let me return to it for a moment.

Here are my claims:
First, there is injustice in the world which is sinful and opposed to the reign of God. This injustice is systemic and the people who profit from it will find any excuse they can not to address it. I’ve already given one specific example: the fact that my state taxes the poor at a higher rate than the rich. I would like to know whether or not you would consider that particular policy a sin? We may disagree on to what degree the poor are kept poor by bad social policies, but it’s hard for me to see how anyone could disagree that high sales taxes (on groceries, no less!) and low property taxes are just.

Even if you disagree with that particular example, I could probably list examples of injustice you would not argue with: civil rights, Jim Crow laws, human trafficking. All of these support this original claim: there is injustice in the world.

Second, there is no individualistic answer to these social injustices. None. You cannot fight slavery by voting with your wallet and not buying slaves. You cannot fight Jim Crow laws by being nice to people and giving to charity. You cannot fight sex trafficking by just deciding not to sleep with prostitutes. It requires political action, as distasteful as that is to some people. In the same way, you cannot stop predatory lending simply by not taking out bad loans. You cannot address these systemic problems by any means other than motivating Christians to take specific action as a group. This is the “social” part of social justice. We have to apply pressure to change systems as a group.

Third, there is a Biblical mandate for Christians to not be silent and to act on such issues. For predatory lending (Amos 8:6), for polluting the living environment of the poor (Ezekiel 34:18-19), and so on. Therefore churches should preach social justice.

While we obviously disagree about what constitutes poverty and what specific policy issues need to be addressed in America, I don’t actually hear anyone objecting to these claims. So I’m not sure why preaching social justice needs to be qualified. Churches should preach social justice. Period. If they do not, they are not being faithful to the Bible on which they base their faith claims. There is no continuum where churches that preach personal responsibility more should have to preach social justice less. John Wesley said “all holiness is social holiness.” The Christian life should be a seamless unity between how I conduct myself privately and how I conduct myself as part of a social group or class.

From these 3 claims, I will assert further that it is un-Biblical and un-Christians for Beck to tell people to leave their churches if their leadership proclaims social justice.

As for specific policy issues, I will also acknowledge that systems will not save us. Bureaucracy and government will not save us. Policies can have unintended consequences, and sometimes addressing one injustice creates another. But I also believe, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, that God calls us to get our hands dirty. We don’t get out of this life without making morally ambiguous choices, and if we try we are probably sinning through inaction. 

There are, of course, plenty of verses that advocate personal responsibility as well. I take these to heart, and attempt to preach them regularly. There are certainly people who are poor because they are lazy and shiftless. They don’t have the willpower or strength of character to improve their situation. Others of them have learned to be helpless, and others have chronic addictions or illness, mental or otherwise. In other words, they’re a lot like middle-class and rich people.

But some are kept poor by unjust structures or by where they were born or the color of their skin. I will continue to believe that it is our Christian duty to challenge those systems, and where necessary call our leaders to repent of self-serving excuses for inaction.

Dave I am simply amazed as you respond to these comments.(some slightly from another opinion point than yours )you resort to labeling and assumtions that we have to be Beckest,Christian Conservative,or Liberals or Progressives.That is the problem with this debate and why it gets nowhere.Its assumed if you have an opinion it must put you on one side or the other.That is simply not true.“Open Hearts, Open Doors,Open Minds (in no particular order).I opposed the Christian Rights claim to all the solutions during the past 8 years as you probably did also .However the Christian Liberal(you were the first to use the label in this post Christian Consevative so I Guess there must be Christian Liberals)have now taken a play right from the Christian Conservative play book.And the line is drawn again.NOT PRODUCTIVE.Most canidates are carried across the finish line by Independent Voters. Are they Christian Independents?

<bq>My gripe is that Glenn Beck and many other conservative Christians act as though it is. While I am probably significantly more left-wing than you guys… [snip]  ....(I’m not attributing these comments to you, but these are Beck’s words, and the inspiration for my last several posts).

...Even if you disagree with that particular example, I could probably list examples of injustice you would not argue with…

...While we obviously disagree about what constitutes poverty and what specific policy issues need to be addressed in America, I don’t actually hear anyone objecting to these claims….</bq>

Hmmm. I actually feel like I’ve pretty studiously avoided attributing any views to you other than what you’ve already expressed. Can you point to a place where I labeled you? In fact, I have labeled myself based on our disagreements on specific policy issues, i.e. economic justice for the poor, taxation, etc. Is that what you object to? That I claim a label for myself?

I do have a problem with Glenn Beck - which is the point to which I keep returning - asserting that churches should not preach social justice, or that churches that preach social justice should somehow do so more carefully or with more qualifications than any other church that preaches an individualistic gospel. Beck - not you - has claimed that socialists who have infiltrated the church are using social justice to teach their ideology. I am certainly one of the people he fears, though I am no socialist.

And it isn’t labeling or stereotyping to assert that Glenn Beck is conservative, or that people who listen to him tend to be, or that evangelical churches tend to be more politically conservative than mainline protestant churches. I can provide data if you would like. If you felt that I included you when I gestured to Beck’s listening audience (and it is against his ideas I am speaking… not yours), then I apologize.

Samaritan, everyone likes to maintain that they are independent thinkers, and I believe people do have more nuanced and complex ideas about the world than are summed up in the words “conservative” and “liberal.” But nobody gets to make assertions about the appropriateness of preaching justice for the poor and then hover above the messy realm of political labels. That’s like saying, “I don’t believe we should ever fight a war, but don’t call me a pacifist.” If preaching social justice gets me labeled a liberal, it is a label I will happily wear

Again, I keep bringing the discussion back to social justice and specific issues. Any time you want to talk about specific policies and their relation to social justice, and whether or not they should be preached, I’m ready.

Ben                                   Here are some stats from U.S. Census Bureau 2002 report(supports some of your post)35 Mil identified as living in poverty in U.S.Facts 46% own their own home(average size 3 bdr 1 1/2 bath and a garage and a porch.76% have air conditioning(30 years ago,only 36% of the entire U.S. had AC).75% own a car, 30% own 2 or more cars.97% have color TV 50% have two or more TVs.78% have a DVD player.62% have cable or satellite TV.73% own a microwave oven.33% have automatic dishwasher.30 % own a personal computer and 30% own a cell phone.Only one tenth own no phone at all.75% of poor children live in single parent homes;each year 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock.The median value of homes owned by poor households in 2001 was 86,600 (70% OF THE MEDIOUM VALUE OF ALL HOMES IN THE US)This is from Census report released in 2003 will be interesting to see if this changes with the new report.

Just a follow-up: I’ll say again, I don’t think either you or Ben really disagree with the idea of preaching social justice. It’s just the parameters of what is preached, or specific policy issues that we might disagree about.

Would you say that’s a fair assessment?

Agree,however I am afraid partisan politics as we have seen in the past from both political parties do little more than divide and conquer.And it appears the the Christian community has fallen into the same partisan pit and the results will be the same and that is sad.Maybe churches can just indentify themselfs like politicians First United (D) Grace Alive (R)St Marks (I).

I thought I had already posted this: I really don’t think it’s fair for you to use Heritage Foundation material (the stats in the post from 4/3) and then gripe about partisanship. Maybe that’s not where you gleaned those from, but it sounds like their work: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/01/Understanding-Poverty-in-America. I’ll quote Jim Wallis, and will be happy to wear whatever label that earns me

I’ve got more to say about how we measure poverty, but I think I’ll save it for another post.

As for the Heritage foundation stats,I verified from .gov and census 2003 they are the same, they are facts that the Federal Government posted.Also similiar stats are posted at Dept of Health and Human Resources.Also various Housing and Urban Developement sites publish the same stats.I dont think Heritage made them up.You may not like letter but dont slap the mail man.

Dave are you there? Hello Hello

Yep, just swamped   I’m headed to Africa in a couple of weeks and haven’t had a lot of time to do blogging. I haven’t forgotten and will reply soonish.
Peace,
Dave