|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Social action as part of revitalising the image of "church"
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Our little church in a village has managed to survive on about 2 dozen people attending services over a period of at least 40 years.
But many of those years were dominated by the people who demanded "the way we have always done things" More recently, we have shifted away from that to a more open style, becoming less worried about simply paying the bills and doing the same rote stuff over and over. Once we started to look outside our little almost-closed-in group, everything became possible: people no longer spoke through clenched teeth, services became more interesting, and "outreach" became something one did rather than talked about.
And, oddly enough, paying the bills and increasing the number of "regulars" soon became just what happened, rather than something to be desirable but unlikely.
Potluck suppers which included many from the low-rent district around the church; significant giving to (and volunteering for) the food bank; odd missionary efforts like "Little Dresses for Haiti" or assistance in the street mission in the nearby city; all sorts of things became do-able and actually done - and our church community is thriving as a group, and suddenly recognised in the village at large, as never before.
Now I notice Andrew Brown, in the Guardian, saying How evangelical Christians are using social action to revivify church brand
I would say that this is actually a theological statement, in the terms of the Two Great Commandments, rather than a "plan of action" or whatever. If one concentrates on "being saved", the fate of others around you is irrelevant; all too often, that "other" is blamed or denigrated for not being willing to jump into line with the church-group's groupthink.
If one allows for social interaction, the rest - growth in numbers of the church, personal growth, theological understanding - falls into place.
We've had more than a generation of North-American-style evangelicalism which has tainted the reputation of church as being anti-gay, misogynistic, political-party-oriented and generally a Bad Example. In particular, too many evangelicals have followed the political need to demonise the poor (Harper Tories in Canada are no better than the GOP on that one)
Is there a reasonable chance that the evangelicals can "earn their stripes" again on social action which relates to their theology?
Yes, some do that social action: but the ones we hear about are the naysayers and almost-terroristic voices, the ones who appear to have removed whole chunks of the Bible (about social action) from their reading list. Can that image deficit be overcome?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
To my mind, it is not about "social action", it is about the approach changing from "lets preserve what we have and what we do" to "lets look at outside, and see what we can do for and with others"
As soon as there is willingness to change, there is a hope of progress.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
The cynical side of me suspects that at least some evangelicals (the more hardline conservatives) are aware of the damage done to the brand by DH issues, and want the public to be distracted by Nice Christian Stuff. The less cynical side of me wishes Anglo-Catholics could remember our strong history of social action and spend less time arguing and more time doing.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
We've had more than a generation of North-American-style evangelicalism which has tainted the reputation of church as being anti-gay, misogynistic, political-party-oriented and generally a Bad Example. In particular, too many evangelicals have followed the political need to demonise the poor (Harper Tories in Canada are no better than the GOP on that one)
Is there a reasonable chance that the evangelicals can "earn their stripes" again on social action which relates to their theology?
Yes, some do that social action: but the ones we hear about are the naysayers and almost-terroristic voices, the ones who appear to have removed whole chunks of the Bible (about social action) from their reading list. Can that image deficit be overcome?
I am unsure how you arrived at such a characterization of American evangelical churches. Speaking as someone how was raised in one, nearly all of them have a great focus on social work. This is for a number of reasons:
1. Without an established church, the notion of territorial parishes is foreign here. Instead, there is a "free market" of religion that requires churches to reach out actively to the community at large.
2. Being evangelical churches, their primary focus is evangelism. This is not merely overt religious overtures, but also doing the sort of good works that exemplifies a Christian group from a secular one.
3. In those evangelical churches that tend towards the conservative end of the political spectrum, they are often the most active in outreach and social work. You have mistakenly conflated their opposition to government social welfare programs with a repugnance for the poor. Rather, the disagreement is not whether we should help the poor, but what is the best and most efficient way of doing so. They generally believe:
a. Government social programs are less efficient than private charities.
b. Forcing others to give their money to certain causes through taxation rather than from their own free will creates both resentment towards the groups to be helped and indifference to their plight in the assumption that the government already takes care of everything, so their social obligations are fulfilled.
c. Providing social welfare through the state rather than through private groups like the Church, masks the Christian values behind their impetus. Therefore, there is a free rider problem where Christians are indistinguishable from the rest of society, diluting the efficacy of social work as a means to communicate Christian values and thus attract new believers.
I am also unsure why you believe that evangelical churches have some sort of completely separate focus for social work than other churches do. Their efforts are mainly targeted towards the poor, needy, and oppressed, just like any other church. Their beliefs stem from the same Scripture after all.
Now, I have no knowledge of how evangelical churches tend to operate in Britain, so it is possible that they are guilty of your grievances against them. If so, however, the source of their beliefs and attitudes is not "American-style evangelicalism," but something of their own invention.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
GCabot, conservative evangelicals in the UK tend to not to have much of a problem with the welfare state/NHS/government programmes existing.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
GCabot, conservative evangelicals in the UK tend to not to have much of a problem with the welfare state/NHS/government programmes existing.
I am unsure, then, what exactly Horseman Bree is referring to when he says that they "demonise the poor."
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Horseman Bree is most likely to be writing about Canada rather than the UK, since that is where he lives.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
GC: I am quite aware that many evangelicals and their churches are seriously involved in outreach and social action.
BUT, as the World Vision fiasco just proved, there are many evangelicals who have the political clout to force their blinkered view of morality on the various players in that field, to the detriment of many of those who should be served.
The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in opposition to Abolition, for instance, and still has trouble separating their racist subconscious views from the need to reach out/evangelise. That is disguised by dog-whistles about "lazy welfare queens" (understood to all be black, of course) as an excuse to avoid doing anything much for large groups of fellow citizens.
Try the blog of Slacktivist, here, for instance
or go to
Rachel Held Evans (if necessary, read back a few posts)
or try
"Dear White Christians"
These are the issues that are seen in the mainstream, not the quiet good works that many do actually perform.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Horseman Bree is most likely to be writing about Canada rather than the UK, since that is where he lives.
Canadian Evangelicals don't have a problem with the welfare state either. According to one of the Evangelical magazines my church gets, the NDP (the most left-wing and explicitly social democratic party) is the party of choice for 40% of Canadian Evangelicals. It's also the one that has the clearest tradition of clergy in politics.
The Christian Left in Canada is bigger and has had more political influence than the Christian Right has ever had. The Social Gospel gave Canada its Welfare State!
You can take the Social Gospel from my cold, dead hands!
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm inclined to believe that the mainstream churches need to focus on beefing up their own social programmes and getting some good PR. The conservative evangelicals will do what seems best to them, in their own good time, but only by winning the PR war will the mainstream be able to change the 'image' of the church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
There are several goals a Church might have;
reviving the Church by doing things
helping its members
helping the poor
membership recruitment
reviving the church brand.
The last unfortunately can be done by spin and Public Relations rather than doing the other things. In the article cited washing the feet of the passing doesn't really qualify as helping the poor all that much even if it is a traditional gesture. Think of all those politicians trying to revive the party brand with speeches and photo opportunities about compassion. I think the public has well developed immunity to empty gestures.
So if you want to do the rest of the list as inconspicuous charity and perhaps reap good will towards your church as a minor benefit, fine and good. It will take a lot longer than public relations symbolic gestures but in the long run will be more effective.
[ 19. April 2014, 17:39: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
a. Government social programs are less efficient than private charities.
b. Forcing others to give their money to certain causes through taxation rather than from their own free will creates both resentment towards the groups to be helped and indifference to their plight in the assumption that the government already takes care of everything, so their social obligations are fulfilled.
c. Providing social welfare through the state rather than through private groups like the Church, masks the Christian values behind their impetus. Therefore, there is a free rider problem where Christians are indistinguishable from the rest of society, diluting the efficacy of social work as a means to communicate Christian values and thus attract new believers.
I am also unsure why you believe that evangelical churches have some sort of completely separate focus for social work than other churches do.
Because points a, b, and c are all simply, strictly, factually incorrect. And all three fallacies are things that undermine what is important
a is a case which has been disproved by every single welfare state in the world. Private sector charity does not and never has worked with the efficiency of a welfare state, and healthcare is worse. This is basic history and economics.
b isn't actually true either. The pain of giving for people above the breadline is felt at the point of giving. Losing your money out of your paycheck isn't felt half as keenly as having to do your own tax return - unless you need that money for survival.
c is not just untrue but uncharitable and dangerous. In point C the purpose of charity isn't actually to help people. It's to show off what a good Christian you are by helping people. It's the same dangerous and harmful mindset that leads to referring to the poor as "Opportunities for compassion" and the idea that "The poor shall always be with you" is a reason not to try to end poverty. (No, those aren't straw-examples). You aren't providing charity to help those that need it. You're providing charity to show what good Christians you are. It is exactly this perversion of charity that leads to Matthew 6: 1-4
quote:
Matthew 6:1-4
6 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
And if that isn't an explicit chapter and verse refutation of the idea that " Therefore, there is a free rider problem where Christians are indistinguishable from the rest of society" actually being a problem I don't know what is.
So given that the evangelical points a, b, and c you listed reject in order the idea of effective charity, the idea of painlessly effective help for the poor, and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth in the bible itself, this is why evangelical churches are considered to have a separate focus from people actually trying to help the poor.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
a is a case which has been disproved by every single welfare state in the world. Private sector charity does not and never has worked with the efficiency of a welfare state, and healthcare is worse. This is basic history and economics.
I am not going to get drawn into an interminable argument over this, but your blanket assertion is demonstrably incorrect. Medicare in the U.S., for example, is clearly less efficient than the private sector when one looks at each's true cost.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
b isn't actually true either. The pain of giving for people above the breadline is felt at the point of giving. Losing your money out of your paycheck isn't felt half as keenly as having to do your own tax return - unless you need that money for survival.
This statement is nonsensical. Taxpayers in modern democratic societies are quite aware of how their contributions are being apportioned out and actively harness their political power to affect how such money is spent. For example, the entire notion that conservatives "despise the poor" stems from the idea that they resent the state taxing them in order to provide welfare benefits to the poor. It has also been scientifically shown that there is a direct negative correlation between state welfare spending and private charitable giving.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Matthew 6:1-4
6 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
quote:
And if that isn't an explicit chapter and verse refutation of the idea that " Therefore, there is a free rider problem where Christians are indistinguishable from the rest of society" actually being a problem I don't know what is.
You are clearly misappropriating Scripture. The passages you cite warn against the practice of overt personal piety in order to be lauded by others. This was arguably the main sin of the Pharisees.
The use of good works for evangelism is directly supported by Scripture:
Matthew 5:14-16
"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
1 Peter 2:12
"Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So given that the evangelical points a, b, and c you listed reject in order the idea of effective charity, the idea of painlessly effective help for the poor, and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth in the bible itself, this is why evangelical churches are considered to have a separate focus from people actually trying to help the poor.
Even if one were to assume your assertions were true, they still would not support your conclusion. If the beliefs of Evangelicals were shown to be incorrect, this would suddenly render their desire to help the poor disingenuous. My original point was that their goal is the same, but they disagree on the methods.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
BUT, as the World Vision fiasco just proved, there are many evangelicals who have the political clout to force their blinkered view of morality on the various players in that field, to the detriment of many of those who should be served.
I am unsure how the "World Vision Fiasco" proves anything. How have the poor been harmed by World Vision's internal staffing policy reversal?
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in opposition to Abolition, for instance, and still has trouble separating their racist subconscious views from the need to reach out/evangelise. That is disguised by dog-whistles about "lazy welfare queens" (understood to all be black, of course) as an excuse to avoid doing anything much for large groups of fellow citizens.
Try the blog of Slacktivist, here, for instance
or go to
Rachel Held Evans (if necessary, read back a few posts)
or try
"Dear White Christians"
Your description of the SBC sounds like a caricature and leads me to believe you are basing your opinion on second-hand or third-hand information. Although I am not a member, I have personally known many of them and have visited a number of SBC churches in the past (as a non-White). The modern SBC looks nothing like the racist regional church of eras past.
Citing the actions of a few fringe elements provides no bearing on that denomination as a whole. Furthermore, the spectrum of evangelicals if far broader than merely the SBC.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Well, if removing promised aid to 10, 000 poor children isn't directly affecting the poor in a negative way, I don't know what is.
Second, the aid to the poor had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of gays being legally married in the US. I suppose you would prefer that World Vision used their donated money to fight lawsuits about firing or refusing to hire people who were legally married.
And, third, if driving spokespersons for the evangelicals into the wilderness is part of helping evangelicalism, I think there is a problem. The ever-larger group of non-churched see those desperate negative action against people they know* and become firmer in their rejection of church - not a good evangelising strategy.
But carry on ignoring the problem - I'm sure that most of the people you actually meet are good people, whether churched or not.
*I still teach in a small rural high school. The general feeling among the students there is that there are some GLBT people around, who are seen as people, not objects of scorn and ridicule. When these students come to voting age, an anti-gay candidate has little chance.
The more extreme elements of the evangelical movement have connected themselves with the GOP in the US (and the Harper Conservatives here), which is going to die on the banners of anti-gayness (let alone the weird idea that wrapping oneself in the flag is a religious act). Harper, to be fair, does understand this. But, then, we've had marriage-for-all since 2006, across the country.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I am not going to get drawn into an interminable argument over this, but your blanket assertion is demonstrably incorrect. Medicare in the U.S., for example, is clearly less efficient than the private sector when one looks at each's true cost.
This is simply a false assertion. Medicare takes care of the elderly - those 65 and over. Which means that it takes care of the people that are expensive to treat - last time I checked 60% of the NHS budget went on those over 65. And that doesn't take into account the people with chronic health conditions and disabilities who are also hideously expensive to treat.
The private sector only seems competative to Medicare becasue they cook the books by not treating the people that would cost them money. That's not a sign of efficiency. Medicare actually provides medical treatment to those who need it most which is why it is so expensive. Using this as an argument that private insurance is more efficient is ... counterfactual.
quote:
This statement is nonsensical. Taxpayers in modern democratic societies are quite aware of how their contributions are being apportioned out and actively harness their political power to affect how such money is spent.
Asked to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid the median estimate is 25 percent. Asked how much they thought would be an "appropriate" percentage the median response is 10 percent.
In fact just 1 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid.
Your statement is a clear counter-factual.
quote:
For example, the entire notion that conservatives "despise the poor" stems from the idea that they resent the state taxing them in order to provide welfare benefits to the poor. It has also been scientifically shown that there is a direct negative correlation between state welfare spending and private charitable giving.
There are two factors here that show up in the correlation. Firstly, where there is less welfare there is more need for charity. Second is the hidden factor - giving to a church is classed as giving to charity when it is in fact giving to your social club. Take that out and things even up. People in the Northeast give the most, providing 1.4 percent of their discretionary income to secular charities, compared with those in the South, who give 0.9 percent.”
That doesn't sound to me like your claim holds water. Instead it sounds as if people are giving money to the churches and that giving money is actually taking away from any good works they would otherwise do in the same way those wristbands replaces giving to charity.
quote:
You are clearly misappropriating Scripture. The passages you cite warn against the practice of overt personal piety in order to be lauded by others.
The difference between personal piety and overt religious giving is one that would take splitting hairs.
quote:
The use of good works for evangelism is directly supported by Scripture:
Good works at a personal level and alms are separate. Giving to charity is under the heading of alms. No one is saying that Christians shouldn't wear crosses where they actively help out. Which is what the not hiding your light under a bushel is about. (At least not unless the cross is e.g. an infection risk). What they are saying is that refusing to give to secular charities where they help is a bad thing.
quote:
1 Peter 2:12
"Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."
And this is an exhortation against a common form of evangelical "charity". Be honest. Help people because they need helping rather than because they are people to proseletise.
quote:
Even if one were to assume your assertions were true, they still would not support your conclusion. If the beliefs of Evangelicals were shown to be incorrect, this would suddenly render their desire to help the poor disingenuous.
If their desire is to help the poor but their actions (dismantling social provisions that actually help the poor, and promoting giving to churches as a superior alternative to helping the poor) actively and demonstrably harm the poor, as they do, their intentions aren't worth anything.
quote:
My original point was that their goal is the same, but they disagree on the methods.
Indeed. Evangelicals think by your assertions that the purpose of charity is evangelism rather than helping those that need it. This is a huge disagreement on principle. The disagreement on methods is just as deep; if Evangelicals are trying to hurt the poor by shattering the social safety net and divert money away from charity focussed on the poor and into the coffers of their churches does their intent matter?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I am unsure how the "World Vision Fiasco" proves anything. How have the poor been harmed by World Vision's internal staffing policy reversal?
10,000 sponsorships revoked. Now admittedly sponsoring children is a crummy way to do things - it's more to make the givers feel good than the systematic reforms needed. But 10,000 sponsorships were lost because World Vision tried to treat gay people like ordinary people.
quote:
Your description of the SBC sounds like a caricature and leads me to believe you are basing your opinion on second-hand or third-hand information. Although I am not a member, I have personally known many of them and have visited a number of SBC churches in the past (as a non-White). The modern SBC looks nothing like the racist regional church of eras past.
Here I'm going to agree with you and point out that in 2012 they elected Fred Leuter Jr., a black man. The SBC might be the church founded with the worst reason in history (and that includes Henry VIII wanting to marry someone else) but they do seem to be getting over their racism.
quote:
Citing the actions of a few fringe elements provides no bearing on that denomination as a whole.
And here you're reaching. "A few fringe elements" includes an official spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention and a lot of supporters of World Vision. It also includes e.g. Richard Land who was for fifteen years president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
The core problem here is that there are definite evangelical gatekeepers and things that evangelical Christians are not allowed to say. But the gatekeepers only look one way.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
If the beliefs of Evangelicals were shown to be incorrect, this would suddenly render their desire to help the poor disingenuous. My original point was that their goal is the same, but they disagree on the methods.
And while on a roll I'll respond to this separately.
There is a group of people I hold utter contempt for. Far more than I do for the Evangelical Christian notion of charity. Their goals are admirable. Their methods on the other hand kill children and spread epidemics, directly threatening my friends and family. Those people are the acolytes of disease otherwise known as the anti-vaccination lobby. They are trying to help - but they are so incompetent at it that kids are dying due to their actions. So I don't care about some platonic intent - their methods lead to kids dying.
As for your other points about the goals being the same and the methods being shown to be false, if the goals were the same then Evangelical Christians would not care whether things were attributed to Christianity or not so long as they worked. The intent is shown to be to take credit. And there is nothing sudden about the methods of Evangelical Christians being shown to be ineffective. This has been known for decades. But because Evangelical Christians are more interested, by your own words, in the credit than in helping people (thereby destroying the idea that their goals are the same) they don't care to look at the research. Instead they are trying to destroy the methods that actually work - and are looking to take credit for their inferior methods.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
This is simply a false assertion. Medicare takes care of the elderly - those 65 and over. Which means that it takes care of the people that are expensive to treat - last time I checked 60% of the NHS budget went on those over 65. And that doesn't take into account the people with chronic health conditions and disabilities who are also hideously expensive to treat.
The private sector only seems competative to Medicare becasue they cook the books by not treating the people that would cost them money. That's not a sign of efficiency. Medicare actually provides medical treatment to those who need it most which is why it is so expensive. Using this as an argument that private insurance is more efficient is ... counterfactual.
You clearly do not understand how the Medicare system works. It is pointless to continue this discussion until you do, instead of relying on erroneous generalizations.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Asked to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid the median estimate is 25 percent. Asked how much they thought would be an "appropriate" percentage the median response is 10 percent.
In fact just 1 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid.
Your statement is a clear counter-factual.
You are drawing from the abstract. No, if you ask a thousand people the exact apportionment of a state’s budget, of course they will have wildly incorrect notions of what the particular numbers are. That is irrelevant. People generally have no idea what those numbers mean in terms of policy in any case. What matters is that citizens know that their taxes are used for X purpose, and that they disagree with whatever the current amount of support for it is. Taking your example, people in the U.S. clearly believe that we currently spend too much of our budget on foreign aid, regardless of what that might be either relative to the rest of the budget or in absolute terms. They are telling politicians that they disagree with current policy, which is a direct refutation of your claim that taxpayers are indifferent as to how taxes are spent.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There are two factors here that show up in the correlation. Firstly, where there is less welfare there is more need for charity. Second is the hidden factor - giving to a church is classed as giving to charity when it is in fact giving to your social club. Take that out and things even up. People in the Northeast give the most, providing 1.4 percent of their discretionary income to secular charities, compared with those in the South, who give 0.9 percent.”
That doesn't sound to me like your claim holds water. Instead it sounds as if people are giving money to the churches and that giving money is actually taking away from any good works they would otherwise do in the same way those wristbands replaces giving to charity.
Your analysis is mistaken. First, you make the assumption that charitable contributions to churches are merely for internal benefit, which is clearly false. Every church I have ever attended or heard of devotes enormous resources towards helping the poor. Second, you are also ignoring that the majority of secular charities are focused on issues other than helping the poor. When you take both of these into account, my point still stands.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The difference between personal piety and overt religious giving is one that would take splitting hairs.
Good works at a personal level and alms are separate. Giving to charity is under the heading of alms. No one is saying that Christians shouldn't wear crosses where they actively help out. Which is what the not hiding your light under a bushel is about. (At least not unless the cross is e.g. an infection risk). What they are saying is that refusing to give to secular charities where they help is a bad thing.
And this is an exhortation against a common form of evangelical "charity". Be honest. Help people because they need helping rather than because they are people to proseletise.
As for your other points about the goals being the same and the methods being shown to be false, if the goals were the same then Evangelical Christians would not care whether things were attributed to Christianity or not so long as they worked.
You seem to believe that any charitable work done by a church is solely done for the insidious purpose of proselytization. Rather, the question is, if one is to do charitable work, is it not better to simultaneously witness for Christ rather than for some nebulous secular cause? Christians do not perform charitable works in order to be acclaimed for doing so, but rather because we are taught to do so by Jesus Christ Himself. Compare to giving to the poor because one feels some vague sense of guilt or feels pity for them – the “why” of giving is clearly important. Indeed, if one truly wanted to avoid the sin you are so concerned about, giving to secular charities is far more dangerous. Most secular charities loudly and publically recognize their generous donors, whilst an individual will never gain plaudits for the good works done through their donations to the Church. Instead, the glory goes to God alone, which is exactly the point of the two passages I cited, versus those you cited.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If their desire is to help the poor but their actions (dismantling social provisions that actually help the poor, and promoting giving to churches as a superior alternative to helping the poor) actively and demonstrably harm the poor, as they do, their intentions aren't worth anything.
Indeed. Evangelicals think by your assertions that the purpose of charity is evangelism rather than helping those that need it. This is a huge disagreement on principle. The disagreement on methods is just as deep; if Evangelicals are trying to hurt the poor by shattering the social safety net and divert money away from charity focussed on the poor and into the coffers of their churches does their intent matter?
Now you are making two separate arguments. The former is that evangelicals, regardless of their intentions, hurt the poor through their actions. That is a completely separate discussion.
The latter is the original assertion I was addressing – that evangelicals actively seek to hurt the poor. As I have repeatedly shown, this is clearly false. They seek to help the poor in the ways they feel are most effective. You can argue over the efficacy of their methods, but to conflate that with the claim that evangelicals hate the poor is fallacious.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And here you're reaching. "A few fringe elements" includes an official spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention and a lot of supporters of World Vision. It also includes e.g. Richard Land who was for fifteen years president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
These are indeed fringe elements. World Vision sponsors 4.3 million children. Supposedly, 10,000 sponsorships were withdrawn during the controversy. That is .2%.
As for Richard Land, it appears he is being judged solely from his remarks on one incident regarding Trayvon Martin, for which the denomination both rebuked him and immediately cancelled his radio show. I do not see any long racist history in his background. Indeed, he was one of the first to praise the election of Fred Luter, the first African-American SBC president. So, this would appear to be a single fringe remark, duly disavowed by the denomination as a whole.
And again, the SBC still remains just a small part of the evangelical movement, in any case.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There is a group of people I hold utter contempt for. Those people are the acolytes of disease otherwise known as the anti-vaccination lobby. They are trying to help - but they are so incompetent at it that kids are dying due to their actions. So I don't care about some platonic intent - their methods lead to kids dying.
I am unsure why this is relevant to the discussion at hand.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Well, if removing promised aid to 10, 000 poor children isn't directly affecting the poor in a negative way, I don't know what is.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
10,000 sponsorships revoked. Now admittedly sponsoring children is a crummy way to do things - it's more to make the givers feel good than the systematic reforms needed. But 10,000 sponsorships were lost because World Vision tried to treat gay people like ordinary people.
Both of you are making the assumption that those sponsors eliminated their aid to the poor. The most likely scenario, however is that they found an alternate aid organization to contribute to. Thus, the actual harm to the poor in general, if any, is likely minimal. One may not agree with the views of these evangelicals, but they have the right to channel their aid through organizations that share their beliefs.
I am unsure as to what your point is in the rest of your post, Horseman Bree. Both are entirely tangential issues to the original discussion.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
My question was "Can the image deficit be overcome?", referring to the appalling lack of compassion on the part of a noticeable group of evangelicals for the actual problems of the world.
It is one thing for the church to be unhappy with certain behaviours of gays. The Bible is not clear on those activities, but is clear on the need for loving relationships between people.
But for church people to run screaming from the idea that gays have civil rights along with all the rest of us makes the church look, at best, foolish, and, worse, unloving.
The 10,000 MAY have moved their money to some other organisation (which I, personally, doubt) but it is a huge negative on the church for them to withdraw the promise of support for a destitute child, especially when done on an irrelevant issue.
My other posts deal with similar issues that groups within the evangelical movement get wrong. This leads the public - remember? those people who are to be evangelised?- to withdraw from any contact with "those nasty Christians".
This group of evos may be a minority, but they get the publicity. Quoting Ron Sider:
quote:
Gallup and Barna’s polls demonstrate that evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually immoral as the world in general. Divorce is more common among born-again Christians than in the general American population. Only six percent of evangelicals tithe. White evangelicals are the most likely to object to neighbors of another race. Sexual promiscuity of evangelical youth is only a little less outrageous than that of their non-evangelical peers. Alan Wolfe concludes, “The truth is, there is increasingly little difference between … the … entertainment industry, and the bring-‘em-in-at-any-cost efforts of evangelical megachurches.”
So I repeat: Is there a way to reverse the image deficit?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
You clearly do not understand how the Medicare system works. It is pointless to continue this discussion until you do, instead of relying on erroneous generalizations.
You clearly don't understand health economics at all. So we are definitely at an impasse.
quote:
You are drawing from the abstract. No, if you ask a thousand people the exact apportionment of a state’s budget, of course they will have wildly incorrect notions of what the particular numbers are. That is irrelevant. People generally have no idea what those numbers mean in terms of policy in any case. What matters is that citizens know that their taxes are used for X purpose, and that they disagree with whatever the current amount of support for it is.
Apparently being off by a factor of 25,000% isn't a problem. Right. You're spinning hard.
And you really think that people know everything all their government does? Riiiiight.
quote:
They are telling politicians that they disagree with current policy, which is a direct refutation of your claim that taxpayers are indifferent as to how taxes are spent.
I'm not saying they are indifferent. I'm saying that in most cases they don't know.
quote:
Your analysis is mistaken. First, you make the assumption that charitable contributions to churches are merely for internal benefit, which is clearly false. Every church I have ever attended or heard of devotes enormous resources towards helping the poor.
Every church I am aware about makes a huge song and dance about how much it devotes to the poor. What they actually do is a whole lot less than that. Taking one clear cut example, the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints trumpets donations of $1 billion between 1985 and 2008. Sounds like a lot. Also sounds like 0.7% of its budget.
Some churches are better. The Methodists gave 29% of their money to religious causes in 2010. Which is pretty good. Average church operating expenses amount to 71% of their income. And what they do with the rest varies. So we can divide money given to churches by 3 (being generous) because 2/3 of it goes to upkeep on the churches.
quote:
Second, you are also ignoring that the majority of secular charities are focused on issues other than helping the poor. When you take both of these into account, my point still stands.
And that religious charity is also not devoted to helping the poor however big the song and dance made is.
quote:
You seem to believe that any charitable work done by a church is solely done for the insidious purpose of proselytization. Rather, the question is, if one is to do charitable work, is it not better to simultaneously witness for Christ rather than for some nebulous secular cause?
Until the second they come into tension, possibly. But it stops right there. Rather than being the open credit-grab that a lot of religious charities are.
quote:
Christians do not perform charitable works in order to be acclaimed for doing so, but rather because we are taught to do so by Jesus Christ Himself.
Whereas most people give to charity to help those in need.
quote:
Now you are making two separate arguments. The former is that evangelicals, regardless of their intentions, hurt the poor through their actions. That is a completely separate discussion.
It's one you opened with your attacks on the effectiveness of the public sector in providing services.
quote:
The latter is the original assertion I was addressing – that evangelicals actively seek to hurt the poor.
I don't care whether it's through ignorance or malice. I just want them to stop. You've already tried to use the ignorance defence - which does not excuse their actions.
quote:
They seek to help the poor in the ways they feel are most effective. You can argue over the efficacy of their methods, but to conflate that with the claim that evangelicals hate the poor is fallacious.
Some do. Some refer to the poor as opportunites for compassion. Others preach the Prosperity Gospel straight up.
quote:
These are indeed fringe elements.
As normal you are ignoring evidence that goes against you.
quote:
As for Richard Land, it appears he is being judged solely from his remarks on one incident regarding Trayvon Martin, for which the denomination both rebuked him and immediately cancelled his radio show. I do not see any long racist history in his background.
Anyone who can refer to "Race Hustlers" has issues. Lots of them. He also had no doubt the majority of Southern Baptists agreed with him. Yes, he stepped down as ethics lead after the outcry. And promptly became President of the Southern Evangelical Seminary. Hardly the mark of someone utterly disgraced.
quote:
And again, the SBC still remains just a small part of the evangelical movement, in any case.
The SBC is the largest evangelical grouping in America. 16.3 million members (the Pentecostals are 13 Million and no one else comes close). Do you want me to start on Rick "Purpose Driven Life" Warren next?
quote:
I am unsure why this is relevant to the discussion at hand.
To show how pointless your "They are trying to help" excuse is.
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Both of you are making the assumption that those sponsors eliminated their aid to the poor. The most likely scenario, however is that they found an alternate aid organization to contribute to.
1: Show me the evidence that that finding an alternate aid organisation is more likely.
2: Even if they did, they've smashed the networks used to get the aid to people. They've wrecked World Vision's one - and they've glutted the other charity with an unexpected windfall, which can not be spent as effectively as steady income.
Money might be fungible, but aid networks aren't. Setting one up has a capital cost, and having one wrecked has a knock-on effect.
quote:
One may not agree with the views of these evangelicals, but they have the right to channel their aid through organizations that share their beliefs.
Oh, absolutely. And as is normal they don't seem to care about colateral damage. Or have any idea of infrastructure or efficiency. Removing their funding because World Vision wants to treat all their employees like people is their right and I do not deny that. But it is a pretty clear indication of their priorities. That hurting gay people comes ahead of actually helping people.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Medicare in the U.S., for example, is clearly less efficient than the private sector when one looks at each's true cost.
If that's the case then why does the US, with a predominantly private health system, spend nearly 18% of GDP on healthcare (private + state), whereas the UK, with a predominantly statist system, spends more like 9.5% of GDP on healthcare (private + state) and has a higher life expectancy? (Healthcare spending stats; life expectancy stats.)
Nor is it just the UK; the stats for pretty much any European country are similar.
(And as Justinian says, it's pointless to compare Medicare cost per patient to US private cost per patient because the two systems serve different constituencies with not a lot of overlap.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This group of evos may be a minority, but they get the publicity. Quoting Ron Sider:
quote:
Gallup and Barna’s polls demonstrate that evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually immoral as the world in general. Divorce is more common among born-again Christians than in the general American population. Only six percent of evangelicals tithe. White evangelicals are the most likely to object to neighbors of another race. Sexual promiscuity of evangelical youth is only a little less outrageous than that of their non-evangelical peers. Alan Wolfe concludes, “The truth is, there is increasingly little difference between … the … entertainment industry, and the bring-‘em-in-at-any-cost efforts of evangelical megachurches.”
So I repeat: Is there a way to reverse the image deficit?
This is the problem with religious movements that expand until they include almost everyone; they lose their distinctive edge. It sounds as though American evangelical culture and popular American culture have more or less merged, because they both involve many of the same people. It'll be hard for the less numerous 'mainline' Christians to claim for themselves the job of representing the definitive version of Christianity as a socially tolerant and engaged religion when there are so many Christians representing other things in the culture already.
In Britain 'social action' of some sort is almost routine for churches of all kinds. (The government encourages this and provides funding in some cases.) I think the long-standing process of secularisation means that churches simply have to be socially involved if they don't want to be completely invisible to their local communities. However, many churches are quite small and even if their social projects are ecumenical it's hard for them to do enough to make themselves really stand out. Some non-worshippers complain that 'the church' doesn't do enough in the community, but they seem to forget that the church is the people, and a handful of old ladies, some overworked younger folks and a vicar can't do it all on their own!!!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is the problem with religious movements that expand until they include almost everyone; they lose their distinctive edge. It sounds as though American evangelical culture and popular American culture have more or less merged, because they both involve many of the same people. It'll be hard for the less numerous 'mainline' Christians to claim for themselves the job of representing the definitive version of Christianity as a socially tolerant and engaged religion when there are so many Christians representing other things in the culture already.
In Britain 'social action' of some sort is almost routine for churches of all kinds. (The government encourages this and provides funding in some cases.) I think the long-standing process of secularisation means that churches simply have to be socially involved if they don't want to be completely invisible to their local communities. However, many churches are quite small and even if their social projects are ecumenical it's hard for them to do enough to make themselves really stand out. Some non-worshippers complain that 'the church' doesn't do enough in the community, but they seem to forget that the church is the people, and a handful of old ladies, some overworked younger folks and a vicar can't do it all on their own!!!
One huge advantage the larger churches should have is a pretty huge pulpit. The Archbishop of Canterbury can easily make headlines in the same way the Pope can. The previous ABC didn't seem interested (and the previous Pope made them for all the wrong reasons).
But at present when Justin Welby chooses to put his weight behind a cause it seems to be one of three things. Firstly his expanding list of justifications for homophobia. That's what he's spending his political capital on. The lost cause of trying to maintain discrimination. The second is backfiring political stunts that show how deeply in bed with the establishment the CofE and the former oil executive is (see the battle with Wronga and the fact the Church was not only invested in Wronga - but it hadn't disinvested five months later). The third is admittedly talking about things like food banks and poverty - good things to talk about. But it's not where he's using his political capital although it is good to see someone with a platform talkinga bout such things.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I started my OP with an example. The two dozen "regulars" in our parish have made an impression for the good on a significant part of our community, enough that I am being stopped on the street to be given compliments on this work by people who aren't directly affected. We also have a little extra to help keep a youth center open, to subsidise a space or two at the pre-school, and to give significant amounts to the local food bank.
No, we can't do much more.
But the "big" Baptist church nearby spent $4 million building a new edifice on a greenfield site about a kilometer away from their former very-visible-on-Main-St. location. We are the only religious presence that is visible in the center of the village. I'm sure that the $4 million was well-spent as to the building, but it now involves a car to get there. This does nothing to help people who can't afford cars. And the had the gall to be "surprised" when we picked up some of the slack that they were not catering to in the first place.
No, it doesn't make a difference globally: but it does make a difference to the neighbours who have become our friends.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
My question was "Can the image deficit be overcome?", referring to the appalling lack of compassion on the part of a noticeable group of evangelicals for the actual problems of the world.
The question of the image problem of evangelical churches is legitimate. The assumption that evangelicals are callous and uncaring is not.
Justinian - since you continue to employ oblique attacks rather than addressing the issue at hand, I see no further reason to attempt civil engagement.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
The question of the image problem of evangelical churches is legitimate. The assumption that evangelicals are callous and uncaring is not.
The problem isn't that evangelicals don't care. It's that they set out with their own ideas of what are going to work - and don't care what the evidence says. Even when the ideas are well known to be counter-factual and where carrying them through would cause great harm (such as the idea that the private sector is better at healthcare than the public sector on this very thread) evangelicals still want the credit for their intentions and not to be criticised for not caring enough to investigate the actual outcomes.
quote:
Justinian - since you continue to employ oblique attacks rather than addressing the issue at hand, I see no further reason to attempt civil engagement.
You accused me (a statistician and analyst who works in healthcare) of "clearly not understanding how the Medicare system works" while maintaining your utterly counterfactual idea that "Medicare is clearly less efficient". It's not clear. It's flat out counter-factual that it's less efficient, and if it's so clear you could have provided evidence to support your assertions. You never did.
(And for those interested the sort of contortions you need to have medicare as less efficent with numbers backing it involve Forbes pointing out that the generally sick people medicare treats have 10% higher admin costs than healthy ones and claiming that this means that the admin must be less efficient - as if illness doesn't add to paperwork)
Civil engagement requires engagement. I engaged with your points, showing them to be almost invariably false. The only time you have, so far as I can tell, engaged with any of my points rather than reprising your own was duelling bible quotes. Oh, and pointing out that Richard Land stepped down after making some very bad statements - only to become Seminary President (hardly the mark of someone in disgrace).
And pointing out that you are basing your assertions on false premises is not an oblique attack.
That said, I apologise for apparently splitting evangelicals into those who refer to the poor as opportunities for compassion and those who preach the prosperity gospel straight up. I intended to make it explicit that there was a group that did genuinely try to help the poor although my wording there was clumsy.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'm always amazed when folk suggest that the most desperate needs in society be met by voluntary donation rather than an organised welfare system. We tried that, we called it Victorian Britain and a certain Mr Dickens wrote a number of novels about how it didn't work.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I started my OP with an example. The two dozen "regulars" in our parish have made an impression for the good on a significant part of our community, enough that I am being stopped on the street to be given compliments on this work by people who aren't directly affected. We also have a little extra to help keep a youth center open, to subsidise a space or two at the pre-school, and to give significant amounts to the local food bank.
No, we can't do much more.
But the "big" Baptist church nearby spent $4 million building a new edifice on a greenfield site about a kilometer away from their former very-visible-on-Main-St. location. We are the only religious presence that is visible in the center of the village. I'm sure that the $4 million was well-spent as to the building, but it now involves a car to get there. This does nothing to help people who can't afford cars. And the had the gall to be "surprised" when we picked up some of the slack that they were not catering to in the first place.
No, it doesn't make a difference globally: but it does make a difference to the neighbours who have become our friends.
Maybe the Baptists feel that you're already doing good work as the 'Christian presence' in the village and that it would be unnecessary for them to duplicate or compete with that. Maybe most of their members already come from elsewhere, in which case they don't need to be in the heart of the village. Their departure might be a blessing in disguise for you!
I was going to suggest that the two churches might still be able to collaborate on some social projects despite one being further away, but I don't know if you have that kind of relationship with the other church. It doesn't sound like it.
[ 22. April 2014, 12:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We tried that, we called it Victorian Britain and a certain Mr Dickens wrote a number of novels about how it didn't work.
Actually, Dickens' novels are more positive about private charity (see Cheerybles, Scrooge reformed) than they are about state provision (see Mr Bumble).
Not that I think Dickens would have been against the modern welfare state; but what was on the cards in his time was the workhouse.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
True, but my point was that we have tried this provision by private charity method, and it doesn't work. If anyone can point to a country where poverty, including medical care, provision for the disabled, as well as providing for the unemployed and low paid is effectively addressed by private charity I'm listening, but I know of no such place.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Svitlana: we actually get along pretty well. I am going to a meeting there next week, for instance.
Like many in their congregation, I feel that they have deliberately moved away from some significant evangelistic opportunities in favour of preaching and singing to the converted
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just to bump this up, I offer this pungent comment from The Guardian in relation to the visible disconnect between the moral imperatives of Christianity and the public statements of some of the religionists, in Australia.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In an example of what the OP discusses
Rick Warren announces mental health initiative in conjunction with the Roman Catholic Diocese and the National Alliance on Mental Illness to involve the Church in treatment of mental illness.
As the article notes, this comes a year after his son committed suicide.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
