Jim Wallis

John Couretas: Protect the Poor, Not Poverty Programs

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 388

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 394

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/public.php on line 400

Source: Acton Institute | By John Couretas

One of the disturbing aspects of the liberal/progressive faith campaign known as the Circle of Protection is that its organizers have such little regard – indeed are blind to — the innate freedom of the human person.

Their campaign, which has published “A Statement on Why We Need to Protect Programs for the Poor,” equates the welfare of the “least of these” in American society to the amount of assistance they receive from the government — a bizarre view from a community that trades in spiritual verities. Circle of Protection supporters see people locked into their circumstances, stratified into masses permanently in a one-down position, thrown into a class struggle where the life saving protection of “powerful lobbies” is nowhere to be found. And while they argue that budgets are moral documents, their metrics for this fiscal morality are all in dollars and cents.

Not only does the Circle of Protection group appear to be oblivious to the power of private charity and church-based outreach to the needy, but they seem to have no hope for the poor outside of bureaucratic remedies. This is a view of the human person not as a composite of flesh and spirit, but as a case number, a statistic and a passive victim of the daily challenges and troubles that life brings.

In response to the Circle of Protection campaign, another faith group has formed with a very different outlook on the budget and debt debates that will consume the political energy of the country in the months ahead. Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE) argue for policies that are focused less on protecting poverty programs and more on protecting the poor (I am a supporter). In a letter to President Obama, CASE wrote:

We need to protect the poor themselves. Indeed, sometimes we need to protect them from the very programs that ostensibly serve the poor, but actually demean the poor, undermine their family structures and trap them in poverty, dependency and despair for generations. Such programs are unwise, uncompassionate, and unjust.

This is what Fr. Peter-Michael Preble was getting at when he observed that “… the present government programs do nothing but enslave the poor of this country to the programs and do nothing to break the cycle of poverty in this country.” This is not, he added, an argument to eliminate all government assistance but rather for “a safety net and not a lifestyle.”

In discussing the relative merits of the Circle of Protection and the Christians for a Sustainable Economy campaign, Michael Gerson wrote that “the Circle’s approach is more urgent.” Arguing against “disproportionate sacrifices of the most vulnerable,” he asserted that “public spending on poverty and global health programs is a sliver of discretionary spending and essentially irrelevant to America’s long-term debt.”

It’s a big and growing “sliver.” According to a Heritage Foundation study of welfare spending, of the 70-odd means-tested programs run by the federal government, “almost all of them have received generous increases in their funding since President Obama took office.” The president’s 2011 budget will increase spending on welfare programs by 42 percent over President Bush’s last year in office. Analyst Katherine Bradley observed that “total spending on the welfare state (including state spending) will rise to $953 billion in 2011.”

Instead of more billions for failed poverty programs, CASE argues that “all Americans – especially the poor – are best served by sustainable economic policies for a free and flourishing society. When creativity and entrepreneurship are rewarded, the yield is an increase of productivity and generosity.” Underlying this is a belief that the human person is able to freely and creatively anticipate what life may bring, rather than wait around for a caseworker or a Washington lobbyist to intervene.

That freedom explains why some people, even in difficult economic times, can move up the income scale despite assertions that they are among the “most vulnerable.” A U.S. Treasury study showed that “nearly 58 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile (the lowest 20 percent) in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005. Similarly, nearly 50 percent of the households in the second-lowest quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005.” In an analysis of income inequality and social mobility, economist Thomas Sowell wrote that there is a confusion “between what is happening to statistical categories over time and what is happening to flesh-and-blood individuals over time, as they move from one statistical category to another.”

Income mobility is debated endlessly by economists, but it is the existential reality for countless Americans who have ever strived for something better — or suffered a setback in their hopes. Yet the one sure thing that will stifle this mobility is an economy in decline, with job creation slowed, and encumbered by ever higher federal budget deficits and debt. And that’s what we’ll get more of if the Circle of Protection’s prescriptions for a “moral budget” hold sway.

When economic systems break down, as they are now unraveling in some European welfare states, those who will be hurt first and hardest will be the poor, the working family living from paycheck to paycheck, the pensioner – those operating at the margins. If we fail to come to grips with the reality of our potentially ruinous fiscal trajectory, we will all learn, as other countries are now learning, what “truly vulnerable” means.

Christians for a Sustainable Economy Challenge Jim Wallis and “Progressive Christians”

7 Comments

In response to Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourner’s Magazine and leader of the Christian wing of Progressive activism, several conservative Christians gathered recently to form the Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE). We intend to counter what we see as the unjustified and irresponsible appropriation of the authority and vocabulary of the Christian moral tradition in service to ideas and policies that threaten the fiscal and cultural fiber of American society.

The “Christian Progressive” movement conflates the biblical mandate to care for the poor with the policy prescriptions of big government and deficit spending. Recently Wallis led a highly publicized White House visit of Progressive religious leaders to create the impression that any objection to the spending of the Obama administration was de-facto a threat to the poor. Needless to say he got plenty of attention. (Hear Wallis explain the purpose of the visit at the Huffington Post. Read a critique of the visit by the Institute of Religion and Democracy.)

The White House visit was a public relations gambit geared to shift opinion against bringing Congressional spending under control. Wallis formed the “Circle of Shared Responsibility,” a statement that literally bathes in the language of scripture but calculated to deliver the religious vote to Obama. How do we know this? Because George Soros, no friend of religion or nation states, funds Sojourners. See: Why Is Jim Wallis Denying that He Receives Grants from Deep-Pocketed Leftists like George Soros?

Should we Orthodox even care about these issues? Yes. Each of us owes $42,500 on the national debt. This debt will pass on to our children and grandchildren unless we stop our profligate ways. If that doesn’t worry you, visit the National Debt Clock to see how fast we are spending the money!

Further, several influential people in Orthodox circles who have jumped onto the Progressive bandwagon. one is Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky, Director of External Affairs and Interchurch Relations for the Orthodox Church in America, who signed the Wallis proclamation (download pdf).

In a small way I contributed to the formation and direction of CASE and am one of the early signers on a document urging more prudence about budget deficits. I also repudiate the notion that only Progressives speak for Christians. They misappropriate the Christian moral lexicon and there is no reason why we should stand by and allow it. I invite all readers to read the document and consider adding your name to it.

Also, please link to this article on your websites and Facebook and Google+ pages.

Rev. Robert J. Sirico: The Church as the Bride of Caesar

1 Comment

Rev. Robert J. Sirico

Rev. Robert J. Sirico, president of the Acton Institute criticizes Rev. Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourner’s Magazine. Wallis, the “self-appointed chaplain to the Democratic National Committee” as Sirico calls him, was recently revealed to be taking money from George Soros, a charge he denied at first but was finally forced to confirm as more proof was offered. Sirico correctly critiques Wallis for his conflation of religion into politics, particularly using the poor to justify financial bloat and the imposition of debt on future generations.

Jim Wallis

Source: National Review Online | Rev. Robert J. Sirico

It is telling that the Washington Post report on the religious Left’s Circle of Protection campaign for big government describes the effort as one that would “send chills through any politician who looks to churches and religious groups as a source of large voting blocs,” because, in fact, this is not an honest faith-inspired campaign to protect the “least of these” from Draconian government cuts, as claimed. It is a hyper-political movement that offers up the moral authority of churches and aid organizations to advance the ends of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress.

The Circle of Protection, led by Jim Wallis and his George Soros-funded Sojourners group, is advancing a false narrative based on vague threats to the “most vulnerable” if we finally take the first tentative steps to fix our grave budget and debt problems. For example, Wallis frequently cites cuts to federal food programs as portending dire consequences to “hungry and poor people.”

Which programs? He must have missed the General Accountability Office study on government waste released this spring, which looked at, among others, 18 federal food programs. These programs accounted for $62.5 billion in spending in 2008 for food and nutrition assistance. But only seven of the programs have actually been evaluated for effectiveness. Apparently it is enough to simply launch a government program, and the bureaucracy to sustain it, to get the Circle of Protection activists to sanctify it without end. Never mind that it might not be a good use of taxpayer dollars.

It is also telling that the group’s advertised “Evangelical, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, African-American, and Latino Christian leaders” who are so concerned about the poor and vulnerable in the current budget negotiations have so little to say about private charity, which approached $300 billion last year. To listen to them talk, it is as if a prudent interest in reining in deficits and limiting government waste, fraud, and bloat would leave America’s poor on the brink of starvation. It is as if bureaucratic solutions, despite the overwhelming evidence of the welfare state’s pernicious effects on the family, are the only ones available to faith communities. This is even stranger for a group of people who are called to “love the neighbor” first and last with a personal commitment.

Although the Circle of Protection has been endorsed by a few Catholic bishops, the predictably left-leaning social justice groups, and Catholic Relief Services, the Catholic Church in America has long moved beyond the heady (and increasingly-distant) days of the 1980s when knee-jerk opposition to any reduction in government spending was the norm. That still holds, even if some of the staff and a few of the bishops at the Bishops’ Conference still imbibe such nostalgia.

The actions of Wallis and the co-signers of the Circle of Protection are only understandable in light of political, not primarily religious, aims. Wallis, after all, has been serving as self-appointed chaplain to the Democratic National Committee and recently met with administration officials to help them craft faith-friendly talking points for the 2012 election. And when Wallis emerged from that White House meeting, he crowed that “almost every pulpit in America is linked to the Circle of Protection … so it would be a powerful thing if our pulpits could be linked to the bully pulpit here.”

Think about that for a moment. Imagine if a pastor had emerged from a meeting with President George W. Bush and made the same statement. I can just imagine the howls of “Theocracy!” and “Christian dominionism!” that would echo from the mobs of Birkenstock-shod, tie-dyed, and graying church activists who would immediately assemble at the White House fence to protest such a blurring of Church and State.

But in the moral calculus of Jim Wallis and his Circle of Protection supporters, there’s no problem with prostrating yourself, your Church, and your aid organization before Caesar. As long as he’s on your side of the partisan divide.

Rev. Robert A. Sirico is president and co-founder of the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Wallis & Colson: Conviction and Civility

8 Comments

Source: Christianity Today | By Jim Wallis and Chuck Colson

We should not lose this moment for moral reflection and renewal.

We are both evangelical Christians who believe that our treatment of the poor, weak, and most vulnerable is how a society is best biblically measured. Yet we usually find ourselves at opposite poles politically and often differ with each other. We believe these political differences are normal and even to be expected among citizens expressing their faith in the public arena, for God is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

In the aftermath of the horrible and senseless shooting in Arizona and some of the troubling responses to it, we, as leaders in the faith community, affirm with one voice our principled commitment to civil discourse in our nation’s public life. The President rightly said that no act of incivility can be blamed for the profoundly evil shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the tragic killing and wounding of 19 of her constituents. Nonetheless, we should not lose this moment for moral reflection and renewal. We must re-examine the tone and character of our public debate, because solving the enormous problems we face as a nation will require that we work for a more civil public square.

We live in a world where evil is very real and, in Arizona, we have just witnessed a brutal example of human depravity that has broken our hearts. Yet, at the same time, the nation has been inspired by the heroism of so many ordinary people who rose to that terrible occasion and demonstrated our most noble human virtues. This tragedy reminds us that we always have a choice to appeal to our “better angels” or our worst. We believe that the faith community should lead by example and model the behavior that is informed by our biblical teachings—behavior that also essential to the survival of democracy.

First we affirm the politics of conviction. Conviction is not inconsistent with civility, which is far deeper than political niceness, indifference, or weakness. We recall the example of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who could never be accused of a lack of passion; yet he persisted in the non-violent treatment of his adversaries, hoping to win them over rather than to win over them.

Where moral concerns lie beneath our political debates, we should be firm in conviction yet also open to genuine dialogue (as Dr. King always was), and be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James 1:19).

The obligation to show respect for others does not come from a soft sentimentalism but is rooted in the theological truth that we are all created in the image of God. How we speak to each other should reflect the honor and respect we owe each other as fellow human beings.

That means that when we disagree, especially when we strongly disagree, we should have robust debate but not resort to personal attack, falsely impugning others’ motives, assaulting their character, questioning their faith, or doubting their patriotism. It also means recognizing in humility that “we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” (1 Cor. 13:12). In other words, when it comes to policies and politics, we could be wrong.

We must be ever mindful of the language we use and the spirit of our communication. Arrogance and boasting are indeed sins, and violent language can create a poisonous and dangerous public atmosphere. We must take care to not paint our political adversaries as our mortal enemies.

The working of democracy depends upon these virtues of civility. Standing for principle is crucial to moral politics, but demonizing our opponents poisons the public square. Therefore we must strive for both truth and civility. To be able to pursue the common good and to preserve the peaceful transition of political power means a commitment to both moral and civil discourse.

The scriptural admonition to pray for those in political authority is more than a religious duty, it promotes good civic behavior. It is more difficult to hate someone when you are praying for them. Jesus’ commandment to love our enemies, including those with whom we politically disagree, is even more challenging and defies the ideologies of both left and right.

These commitments are as demanding as they are necessary to the integrity of the faith community’s witness but also, in their secular forms, to the working of democracy. Therefore we call on all citizens to model better behavior in the public square—in word and deed.

This could, and should, become a moment of reflection for the nation. The only redemption that might come from the horror we have seen in Arizona, and some of our worst partisan reactions to it, would be a renewed civil character in public discourse, and more restraint and respect in the halls of government and our media channels, moving us toward a kinder and gentler public square. That would be a fitting tribute to those whose lives have been lost or forever changed by this tragedy.

Jim Wallis is president and CEO of Sojourners and author of Rediscovering Values.

Chuck Colson is a former aide to President Nixon and the founder of Prison Fellowship and the Colson Center for Christian Worldview.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/genesis/lib/functions/image.php on line 116
class="post-7531 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-blog-archive tag-center-for-american-progress tag-george-soros tag-jim-wallis tag-orthodox-church tag-politics entry">

Jim Wallis and the Soros connection

6 Comments

Jim Wallis

For years I’ve been critical of Jim Wallis, the self-styled “prophetic voice” (his term) of Progressive politics in the American public square. “Prophetic voice” is a term that borrows from the Christian moral lexicon to lend moral authority and offer religious cover to secular Progressive ideology. Wallis operates in the mold of the National Council of Churches (NCC) and conflates Christian thinking with Marxist social dogma.

Like the NCC, Wallis was lost in the wilderness for decades. “Christian Progressives” are dogged by a sense of their own irrelevance. An ideology which unequivocally dismisses religion doesn’t have much room for professional religious types like Wallis or the NCC. He seemed to have found his voice after the Obama election however, rising to become one of Obama’s “religious advisers” and all around gadfly on the Progressive speaking circuit and occasional appearances on MSNBC.

But there’s trouble in Wallis land. It turns out George Soros has been pumping cash into the Wallis organization, maybe millions. Marvin Olasky of World Magazine has been scouring the Wallis records and uncovered the uncomfortable dalliance. Wallis denied it as long as he could but had to issue a “clarification” a few days ago admitting it was all true. You can read about it here and here.

Soros spends his considerable wealth supporting hard-left causes (Moveon.org for example). He also funds the Center of American Progress, the Progressive think-tank at which Pat. Bartholomew spoke last year during the Mississippi Riverboat Cruise promoting global warming. The trip ended in a Patriarchal admonition to support the Geneva Accords that advocated the centralization of the economies of each EU member member state under one bureaucracy.

The diplomatic effort collapsed after the leak of emails from East Anglia uncovered that much of the global warming “research” was fraudulent. The EP squandered considerable moral capital on the trip, and has wisely refrained from making any statement about global warming since the collapse. Maybe he learned something Wallis has not: You cannot serve God and mammon.

Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58