Posted on 10/27/2013 4:32:49 PM PDT by Kaslin
Previously, I talked about the Sojourners-sponsored ad headlined "What Would Jesus Cut?" The ad, signed by Jim Wallis and more than two dozen leaders of the Religious Left, urged our leaders to ask themselves what Jesus would cut from the federal budget.
Called "the leader of the Religious Left" by The New York Times, Rev. Jim Wallis has a long history of denouncing his own country. In Agenda for Biblical People (1976), Jim Wallis refers to America as a "fallen nation." In an article in Mission Trends, Wallis approvingly predicted that "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes" and that "so-called 'young evangelicals' . . . [will] see the impossibility of making capitalism work for justice and peace."
During the 1980s, Wallis defended the U.S.S.R. and blamed the U.S. for Cold War tensions, claiming, "At every turn, U.S. policy-makers have chosen to assume the very worst about their Soviet counterparts." He denounced the U.S. government which was trying to halt the spread of communism in Latin America in the 1980s, and supported Communist factions in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
In a 2006 radio broadcast, an interviewer asked, "Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?" Wallis replied, "Absolutely, without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about." Actually, no, that's what The Communist Manifesto is all about.
The organization Wallis heads, Sojourners, has received grants from the Open Society Institute totaling nearly a third of a million dollars. OSI is the foundation created by far-left atheist billionaire George Soros to fund his socialist, globalist agenda. Wallis first denied, then admitted, that Sojourners took the Soros money, claiming the amounts were "so small that I hadn’t remembered them."
Another signer of the "What Would Jesus Cut?" ad is sociologist Tony Campolo, quoted by John Oliver Mason in The Progressive (August 2005) as saying, "To be a Christian in today's world is to be opposed to America. Why? . . . America says, 'Blessed are the rich.' Jesus said, 'Woe unto you who are rich, blessed are the poor.'"
As an African-born American, I worked my way to this country. I paid for my education and was glad to do so. Unlike many people who were born in America and take its blessings for granted, I know how rare those blessings are in this world.
I don't see America as a "fallen nation." To me, America is a lighthouse of liberty, a shining city on a hill. May God bless my adopted homeland and may He open the eyes of those who deplore and oppose what God has blessed.
What's the best way to lift people out of poverty? America has spent trillions on anti-poverty programs—yet, as Jesus said, we still have the poor among us. These programs don't end poverty. They just incentivize it.
The best way—in fact, the only way—to lift people out of poverty is by creating jobs. How do you do that? With stimulus spending? When Congress passed the $787 billion Stimulus Bill in February 2009, unemployment stood at 8.2 percent. Before the end of the year, unemployment topped 10 percent; today it's at 9.1 percent. Clearly, "stimulus" spending doesn't work.
The only way to create jobs is to set the private sector free by cutting taxes and cutting government red tape. (I don't say that's what Jesus would cut; it's common sense.) The most effective anti-poverty program ever devised is a job, and most jobs in America are created by small businesses. When a businessman puts his capital at risk and hires employees, he's fighting poverty.
Writing in The Huffington Post, Wallis said, "I don't believe, as the Republicans keep saying, that the best way to help everybody is to keep helping the super-rich." Who are these so-called "super-rich"? Many are small business owners, the ones who create jobs, pay taxes, and support charities that fight poverty. Wallis's Marx-inspired policies would stifle opportunity, kill jobs, discourage donations, and increase poverty.
Shallow Marxist thinking supposes that the way to end poverty is through coercive income redistribution—confiscating wealth from the "haves" and handing it to the "have-nots." But true compassion seeks to expand liberty and opportunity—not government.
I don't claim that those on the Religious Left aren't true Christians. But we must be discerning about their message. The "social gospel" is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. The supporters of the "What would Jesus cut?" message are on the wrong side of the biblical mandate. Jesus did not say, "Go and tax your neighbor and transfer his wealth to the poor." He said, "Go and make disciples" (Matthew 28:19).
One reason Christians should not mix the gospel and the government is that true compassion for the poor should always be motivated by the love of Jesus Christ. When the poor receive help, Jesus should get the credit. How is the Great Commission fulfilled, and how is the Gospel proclaimed, by a government check from a Washington bureaucrat?
To use the name of Christ to advance a socialist ideology is to abuse His name. Jesus is Lord and Savior. His Kingdom is not of this world. He left the glories of heaven to be crucified, to rise again, to conquer hell and the grave—not to become a mascot for a worldly political movement.
Jesus would tell them to
“Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”
God helps those who help themselves, the rats have enslaved thier masses and made them lazy and needy
Leftists are nothing but liars through and through.
Progressives don’t like it but the Gospels celebrate capitalism and the creation of wealth. They of course encourage human decency but by no means do they endorse socialism.
"This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.
-- Walter E Williams
What Would Jesus Cut? is a nonsensical, meaningless question. Men and women have free will to give or not to give. The federal budget, if there is one from the Democrats, spends money collected from taxpayers, borrowed, or just printed. There is no free will for a taxpayer.
The writer and many others do not trust the people, do not accept a world of personal responsibility to do good because they believe that they know better than God, or they are self-appointed decision makers, contrary to your free will.
Sojourners have been twisting Jesus’s words for years. They are actually quite devious and deceptive, facile liars. Many faces which hath pleasing features.
I'm surprised God hasn't struck the "Reverend" Wallis' ordination papers with lightning. The man is truly an evil leftist.
Wallis’s latest Project is pushing amnesty for illegal aliens, with more Soros money of course.
Jesus’ teachings on wealth are in my opinion one of the most misunderstood.
Most of it is based on Jesus’ interaction with the rich man. After asking the rich man to give up his riches and refusing saying “it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven”
Socialists and Communists love this passage of scripture.
Wealth was always seen in the old testament as a sign of Gods favor, so what happened? what changed?
NOTHING.
huh you say?!?
How can you say that? I can say it because God never changes.
To argue that God hates wealthly people is the same as saying God hates those who love their children.
HUH!! you say!?!?
The interaction of Jesus with the rich man was a TEST, and the rich man failed the test.
This is EXACTLY the same test God gave to Abraham when he asked him to kill his son Isaac.
The test is whether you will put God first.
To argue that God wants rich people to give up all their wealth is to also argue that God wants parents to kill their children. When nothing could be further from the truth. God just simply wants us to put him first.
bump
Farmers in the Bible are instructed not to harvest every last bit of wheat and not to pick every last grape from the vine, but to leave some for the poor. The interesting part to me is that the poor are then expected to come and pick the grapes themselves. The Bible doesn’t tell the farmer to pick them and then deliver them to the poor so that they can sit home all day watching Oprah and go clubbing at night.
I think there is a good balance of charity and personal responsibility.
I would like the government to get out of the charity business and leave it to the individual citizens to handle charity. There is nothing in the Constitution about charity or education or healthcare.
A government that can’t put together a website in 3-1/2 years has no business running the healthcare system, the education system, or any charitable organization.
Paul wrote about Ananias and Sapphira in the early church that was communal. Sold everything to share. Not all churches were to do this, however, but if you took the vow, you better keep your word. :) Acts 5. Marx was impressed by it. The thing is, it is a one time deal. Once you sell everything, how do you do it again without working to replace it.
To use a better Scriptural analogy, it is important to note that in John 21:17 when Jesus says 'feed my sheep', he is not talking to government, but rather to Peter. It is absolutely incumbent on the Christian to help the less fortunate. That is Christ's command. But it is not, nor did Christ ever intend for it to be, the role of government based upon John 21:17/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.