My Americhristian Conservates to poor: "Drop dead" post got a little attention.

I don't think John at Blogotional got past the title, unfortunately...

Can't Hold My Tongue On This One

The Washington Post had piece yesterday on the role of Christians in the current congressional debate on poverty relief cuts, particularly liberal Christians including my own PCUSA. Despite quoting both sides, it clearly tries to paint those of us that support the cuts as less than charitable. Ally Cheat Seeking Missles had some intersting thoughts particularly when it comes to Christian liberal spokesperson Jim Wallis. Wallis is a good target here because he creates avenues for stuff like this.

..."stuff like this" being my post. Unfortunately, Jim Wallis' quote had nothing to do with the analysis I did. It had everything to do the priorities of the Conservative Americhristian Church. Furthe explanation coming up, but let's see what bothers John so much about Mr. Wallis that John ties him to my post.

From the WaPo piece

Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders "have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees," he said. "They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical."

I tend to be very circumspect in what I say about Wallis, he is a Christian brother, but this is too insulting not to address quite sternly. The fact of the matter is that judicial action has increasingly limited the freedoms of religious practice we enjoy, which includes the church's ability to feed the poor. There is nothing in the deal he cites so spitefully that says anything unbiblical or about not taking care of the poor, it simply gets the government out of the middle and lets the church do what it is supposed to do.

Notice:

There is nothing in the deal he cites so spitefully that says anything unbiblical or about not taking care of the poor

John is a Deacon and Elder of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)...and he acknowledges the very deal Jim Wallis "cites spitefully." I'd say that's proof the deal exists.

Also notice:

judicial action has increasingly limited the freedoms of religious practice we enjoy, which includes the church's ability to feed the poor.

No one can find a single judicial action that limits the religious freedom of anyone. No one can find a single judicial action that limits the ability to feed the poor.

Not. One. 

I find the whole "gets government out of the middle" argument pretty absurd. It's like he's saying the Church's job is not only to feed the poor but to stop anyone else from doing so. And what about churches that serve wealthy communities? What purpose to they serve?

And if all hunger, all poverty was eliminated, what would the purpose of the church be?

Meanwhile, as I said, my "Drop dead" post, as I said, had absolutely nothing to do with Jim Wallis. It was exclusively a reaction to Paul Hetrick of the Dobson Boys plainly stating his organization prioritizes a couple hundred (at best) third trimester abortions over literally millions of people in poverty to the degree that they support the undermining of those people's ability to eat. As John says,

I mean a little perspective, please.