The evangelical organization Sojourners is enlisting the help of religious leaders in an ad campaign to remember the poor in the debt debate:
The group’s Web site poses a question designed to send chills through any politician who looks to churches and religious groups as a source of large voting blocs: “What would Jesus cut?”
Bishop Ricardo Ramirez told Pres. Obama:
“There seem to be several ‘givens’ in this debate,” Ramirez said, according to an e-mail from his office. “For Republicans, no new taxes is a given. For some Democrats, no cuts in Medicare are a given. For others, no cuts in military spending is a given. For your administration, some additional revenues are a given. Sadly, if you listen to the debate it seems that protecting the poor and vulnerable is not a given. That is why we are here.”
The trillions in proposed cuts are likely to hit the poor the hardest.
Jesus certainly showed compassion for the needy. He instructs us all individually to care for them. I’ve never noticed instances of him instructing us to abdicate this responsibility to the government.
The question posed starts from a false premise.
Oh for crying out loud, contrarian. Your position has colored your take on this. Let’s pretend you are homeless (but you know that will NEVER happen)–no family–maybe even a bit mentally unstable; just who do you prescribe should step in and see that you, this destitute child of God. is not allowed to fall through the cracks? Is it your religious opinion that with no help in sight. maybe you deserve your Fate and that because it’s probably God’s will (or else you wouldn’t be in this predicament in the first place), the future of your condition should be left well enough alone. If that is NOT your opinion, then just how many people in this world do you think have one iota of concern about Christ’s instruction to care for the needy and are stewards of this good earth?
Our world is a little larger than Morenci.
From Richard Anthony’s “The Lawgiver”.
In Anthony’s endeavor to convince us that there is only one lawgiver and that is Christ–not the government, he unwittingly makes a case for government intervention, and that is when government becomes servants of God. He says:
“”We shall not be subject to governing authorities UNLESS those in “power” are servants of God and His people. Read what Jesus said after he told his disciples that earthly princes, rulers, and kings will not have authority over His chosen:
Matthew 20:26-27, “…but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:”
Mark 10:43-44, “…but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.”
Luke 22:26, “…but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.”
Of course, you probably have a different perception than do I but it seems to me that Christ is definitely appealing to those in power to become servants of those in lesser circumstances.
Your comment that “the question posed starts from a false premise” sounds like a statement right out of academia, but in truth, is only an attempt to deflect from what is actually something in which Christ would be very interested. The popularized 90′s phrase that emanated out of the Evangelical Christian’s repertoire (WWJD) could easily be translated into WWJC–only a letter’s difference but the interpretation is the same.
Sybil- I’m truly surprised by your take on this. You are knowledgable of scripture yet I believe you’ve missed the context. The scriptures you quoted are not talking about those that would be great in our eyes (our leaders as you put it) but those that would be great in God’s eyes.
Jesus doesn’t tell the rich young ruler to give his money to the government he tells him to give his money to the poor.
Care for the needy is an individual’s responsibility as well as the church’s call. We abdicate our responsibility in part because we think that it is the government’s job. The church should do more and I think would do more if the government did less.
We are instructed to pay our taxes and in our system of government we have little control over how those funds are used- whether to fund a war or help someone in need. In having more control of my money, (less tax) I can choose to help those in need.
I cannot rebut because I’m very aware that you are more gifted where scripture applies. I am not truly knowledgeable, obviously.
I believe your self deprecation is a gracious way of saying perhaps we agree to disagree. I certainly do not hold a high opinion of my knowledge of scripture. My knowledge is embarrassingly slight. I am working on that.
I also recall a story where God used an Israelite to work through the Egyptian government to provide food for everyone in more than one country during a famine. I doubt God considers your possessions or my possessions. He probably figures they are all His.
It’s one thing to say we have individual, not collective (government) responsibility to help the poor. It’s another to say we should stop helping the poor through the means of government — which is the upshot of everything the Republicans are doing now. If we’re playing the game of wondering what Jesus would favor, would he want us to support a system that fosters the concentration of all wealth at the top?
I still think it’s an excellent question to ask.
There are so many directions this topic could go. Mr. Green- Instead of asking the question, (again) why don’t you offer your answer? I offered my own which you evidently believe is insufficient.
Flint- That is an interesting point. To my knowledge, the only reference we have as to what Jesus would do would have to be recorded in the scriptures. I would welcome insight from you and Mr. Green whereby you point to scripture that indicates it is the government’s responsibility to care for the poor.
Part of the overall question about how the poor should be treated would be to define “poor”. I doubt very many people within the United States would qualify as poor compared with the poor who are discussed in scripture.
All that being said. I don’t want to eliminate all programs that help those in need. I would like those programs scaled back so that only the basic necessities for those that are unable to care for themselves are addressed. I believe our capitalistic society can build wealth for any family unit if those families work at it. It is not instantaneous, but over generations you can raise the standard of living for your family. We do not do families any favors by making them dependent on the government.
My point is not scriptural, partly because religious dogma and belief should not guide public policy: Our government is not a theocracy and should not operate as one. My point is that the government *does* care for the poor and serve the public good in innumerable ways. Republicans want that to stop in favor of policies that demand sacrifice — real and painful sacrifice — from everyone except the richest Americans and corporations. Bring it back to religion if you wish: Is there one out there that supports that kind of system?
Flint- I agree we do not have a theocracy nor do I want one. Therefore the original question “wwjc” is irrelevant and in my view is only used for a dig on fiscal conservatives.
My earlier post describe how I think the poorest are most likely to earn their way up the economic ladder.