Jim Wallis: Make Work Work
Minimum wage initiatives are winning in Missouri, Ohio, and Arizona, and winning handily. In Missouri the proposal to increase the minimum wage is winning by almost three to one. Voters are saying that work needs to work; and that if you work hard and full-time in America you shouldn’t be poor. That’s one of the main points of our Covenant for a New America.
In each of these minimum wage campaigns, people of faith and many congregations were vitally involved. Fair wages for workers is a biblical issue and a family values issue. The landscape of faith and politics is changing in America. It’s not just abortion and gay marriage anymore; its fair wages for hard work—just like the prophets talked about.
In each of these minimum wage campaigns, people of faith and many congregations were vitally involved. Fair wages for workers is a biblical issue and a family values issue. The landscape of faith and politics is changing in America. It’s not just abortion and gay marriage anymore; its fair wages for hard work—just like the prophets talked about.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
The minimum wage will increase inflation and unemployment. It is hardly fighting for the poor.>
Posted by: HAC | November 8, 2006 5:23 AM
I have mixed feelings about these types of initiatives, they probably do little harm when times are good like now, but as soon as as a recession starts and the labor market tightens up, minimum wage laws can price those who are most vulnerable (low-skilled, disabled, the young, etc.) out of the market, creating unemployment.
It takes a specal kind of hubris and conceit to assume one can determine what is the appropriate wage rate in the future.>
Posted by: timks | November 8, 2006 5:28 AM
To Jim Wallis (if he reads this):
Since you're excited about minimum wage increases, are you also disappointed that the abortion ban in South Dakota didn't pass? Why or why not?>
Posted by: HAC | November 8, 2006 5:34 AM
No, like many pro-life people in South Dakota, I opposed the extreme abortion ban which would criminalize a desperate choice with absolutely no exceptions, even for rape and incest--which is why the ban was ultimately defeated.>
Posted by: jim Wallis | November 8, 2006 5:46 AM
What do we plan on telling the residents of these states 5 years from now when they can't find a job because the cost of doing business with an $8 minimum wage is too high for their employers? HAC and timks are right, these initiatives (specifically the annual cost-of-living increases) will drive inflation and ultimately put people out of work. Of course, the left will be able to blame it on tax cuts, and get even more votes next time, so I guess it's a pretty good plan.>
Posted by: Elmo | November 8, 2006 6:22 AM
Minimum wage increases as a tool for fighting poverty is a fantasy: most low-wage earners are teens living in middle-class families. Most poor families would be above the poverty line with one adult working full-time.
What really needs to be done to make work work is to improve education in inner-city schools. That in turn will require us to reign in teachers unions. Way too much work. Much simpler to wave a magic wand and decree higher wages.
On the other hand, Biff McPrepster extends his thanks to Sojourners. With the minimum wage increase he'll be able to buy a new Playstation 3 in a month or so.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 8, 2006 6:40 AM
Dear Elmo,
I think the question should be, "Why did Toyota(for instance)decide to build a new factory in Canada rather than in the United States?" It was because Canada has National Health!>
Posted by: greg | November 8, 2006 1:30 PM
I understand the philosophy of wanting to help the working poor. However, a minimum wage imposed by the government won't do it. Most companies pay above minimum wage simply because of market pressures. Those that don't will simply eliminate jobs so that their payroll will not increase. Finally, $6.85 (in Ohio) results in $14,248.00 annually which is still creating a working poor. Mr. Wallis - I saw you speak in Bluffton, OH and agreed with most everything you said, but I don't believe this is the best solution.>
Posted by: Jim Z | November 8, 2006 1:37 PM
To Jim Wallis (if you're still reading):
Do you support any legal protection of unborn children? Penalties to doctors who perform abortions, rather than women who obtain them? If not, please explain why you continue to call yourself "prolife" when everyone else would say you are prochoice. This seems very dishonest to me.
Any comments on the "clone and kill" bill that passed in Missouri? Did you oppose that bill or the false advertising done on its behalf?>
Posted by: jessie | November 8, 2006 1:45 PM
Wolverine,
I agree with the need to improve education in inner-city schools. However, I must take exception to your following comment:
"most low-wage earners are teens living in middle-class families. Most poor families would be above the poverty line with one adult working full-time."
On what facts do you base this comment, or is it that the only low wage earners you know are teenagers from middle-class families?
Because the facts are that a full time worker making the current federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour working 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year would make $10,712 without benefits and no health care. Who among us could feed and clothe our families on that? Or afford child care so we could work 5 days a week 52 weeks a year?
Now tell me again how most poor families would be able to live above the poverty line with one adult working full time.>
Posted by: CKC | November 8, 2006 1:47 PM
"On the other hand, Biff McPrepster extends his thanks to Sojourners. With the minimum wage increase he'll be able to buy a new Playstation 3 in a month or so."
--Wolverine, hilarious!>
Posted by: jessie | November 8, 2006 1:47 PM
By the way, not every teenager who works does so to blow their money on clothes at the mall or a new video game.
When I was a teenager I worked my minimum wage job, as many others do, to help my working class parents pay for college. And of the working poor families I know, often their teens work to help contribute to the family's general fund.>
Posted by: CKC | November 8, 2006 2:00 PM
Well the so-called "fantasy" of minimum wage exists in countries like Canada, where, due to the added benefit of a national healthcare and social security system, 30 million people can live in relative peace of mind when it comes to the necessities.>
Posted by: badmash | November 8, 2006 4:21 PM
Roughly 1/4 of minimum wage earners are teens, and half are under 25. The remainder includes a large number who have a second job. Of course, there are certainly single mothers and the like, but Wolverine is correct in his main point, which is that a substantial portion of those receiving increased wage will be teenagers who don't need it.
In Canada, they have higher unemployment, so there is a tradeoff of jobs for wages.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 4:45 PM
A good portion of minimum wage earners are also not the primary income earner in the home. Thus, $10k as a second income earner added to, say, $30k from the primary income earner is a significant benefit. Raising minimum wage will reduce the lower paying jobs, thus hurting poor people the most.>
Posted by: HAC | November 8, 2006 5:07 PM
Jim Wallis: No, like many pro-life people in South Dakota, I opposed the extreme abortion ban which would criminalize a desperate choice with absolutely no exceptions, even for rape and incest--which is why the ban was ultimately defeated.
I guess I'm not surprised. Stop calling yourself pro-life. Your position is like someone who calls themselves pro-minimum-wage, but opposes a minimum wage increase because it has a provision that doesn't increase the minimum wage for high school students.
You'd rather err on the side of children dying. Again, stop calling yourself pro-life.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 8, 2006 5:14 PM
In Canada, they have higher unemployment, so there is a tradeoff of jobs for wages
By less than a percentage point.>
Posted by: badmash | November 8, 2006 6:11 PM
"By less than a percentage point."
It's 6.2% in Canada and 4.4% here. That is substantial. If you want to make a case that higher minimum wage et al... is worth it, fine, but you cannot simply pretend that it has no negative impact on the unemployment rate.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 6:25 PM
Paying poor people a living wage is not bad for poor people, it is good for them. If companies can not see there way to being decent on their own, the government is just going to have to help them.>
Posted by: Leonard Porcano | November 8, 2006 6:55 PM
"Paying poor people a living wage is not bad for poor people, it is good for them."
It does if we set a living wage at a rate that is higher than employers are willing to pay. We can't make companies hire people.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 6:57 PM
Those are all pathetic excuses for the abuse of American workers by cheap labor Republicans.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 8, 2006 7:46 PM
No, cheap labor Republicans are devoting their energies to amnesty and guest-worker programs.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 7:47 PM
which is just another form of jim crowism. But i digress if republicans were about helping the immigrant they would be all for granting amnesty and actually being just.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 8, 2006 8:00 PM
Kevin - I've been checking around with different sources online and for this year I'm seeing 6.2% in Canada and 4.7% in the US. it has increased since the last time I saw the comparison (I think 2003) when the difference was within one percentage point. The UK (which has a minimum wage) unemployment rate is currently at about 5.5%, again less than a percentage point of difference with the US.
So yes, there has been much work done documenting the correlation between minimum wages and decreased employment and sure there is a difference between the employment rates of countries with a minimum wage and without. But it it isn't as significant as critics of minimum wage make it out to be, it is influenced by other factors and overall as you say, the costs/benefits are still open to debate.
On the other hand, there is the very serious issue of justice when it comes to paying people a decent living wage.>
Posted by: badmash | November 8, 2006 8:30 PM
Of course there are other factors at play in the discrepancy (American UR is 4.4%, but why quibble?). High taxes and other programs serve to augment the problem. But anyway...
Okay, say we impose an $8 per hour minimum wage. I think we can all agree that nobody wants to live off of $8 per hour for the rest of their lives. But now, labor is more expensive. Companies have to recoup expenses somehow. How do they do it? Here are some ways.
a) They cut jobs. As a result some people lose their source of income entirely. That's no good.
b) They cut wages for middle-management. These are the jobs that offer hope to lower-level employees. It is possible to work your way up to middle-class wages at most companies. However, thanks to belt-tightening, these opportunites are harder to come by. Thus, the minimum wage worker is working for minimum wage.
Of course, the benefit is that minimum wage workers make more. This is where the data on teenagers and second job holders is relevant. We have a government mandated rule that creates a benefit that extends to a large population that has very little need for it.
Teenagers and college students do not need upward mobility at, say, McDonalds. They simply use the job to pay for education (or PS3s or whatever) and then move one once they have determined a career path.
Now, you can argue that the benefits of increasing the minimum wage outweigh these caveats (and I haven't even begun to address the perverse incentives arguments). You can also make a reasonable case, from a logic standpoint, that minimum wage should be tied to inflation.
However, to simply say that increasing the minimum wage is a moral imperative is empty demagoguery.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 9:48 PM
We have had a minimum wage over here since Labour came to power in 1997. We had exactly the same alarmist nonsence from opponents that appears in this discussion.
As at October 2006 our unemployment rate is 5.5%. In early 1997 it was 6.2% and had risen as high as 10% in the mid 1990s. In October 2006 29 million people were in work which is a record.
I am an employer and it made ansolutely no difference to our recruitment policy.
The truth is - over here, over there or anywhere else is that workers are entitled to be paid a fair wage. For Christians to argue otherwise beggars belief.>
Posted by: steve cornforth - uk | November 8, 2006 10:07 PM
Nobody is arguing for unfair wages. What we are arguing for is policy that benefits the poor, as opposed to seeming to benefit the poor, but not.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 10:44 PM
as you have noticed record prophets have been had by many different industries in the last few years. I have a hard time believing your alarmist claims Kevin because our economy is more resilient than that.
It can absorb this w/ some transition but it will do it.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 8, 2006 10:51 PM
So what is a fair wage? Minimum wage at least allows for there to be a democratic process by which people can determine that for themselves.>
Posted by: badmash | November 8, 2006 10:54 PM
Payshun,
Stop throwing the racist card around (which is just another form of jim crowism). It doesn't get anyone anywhere.
To everyone else:
Could it at least be a possibility that some are opposed to things such as minimum wage with all the same good intentions that those who support a minimum wage have? Those like me believe it benefits everyone - including poor - to not have a minimum wage. Baseless character assassination destroys any form of intelligent debate.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 9, 2006 12:13 AM
Here's the real scoop on the minimum wage:
First, most beneficiaries of minimum wage increases are not poor:
Many support raising the minimum wage because they want to help low-income Americans get ahead. But while some minimum wage-earners do live below the poverty line, these workers are far from representative. Only one in five minimum wage-earners lives in a family that earns less than the poverty line. Three-fifths work part-time, and a majority are under 25 years old. Minimum wage-earners average family income is almost $50,000 per year. Very few are single parents working full-time to support their families no more than in the population as a whole. It is not surprising, then, that studies show that higher minimum wages do not reduce poverty rates. Instead of raising the minimum wage, Congress should look at other ways to aid the working poor that actually focus on providing help to those who need it.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm
Second, the main challenge facing poor families is not low hourly wages, but a shortage of steady work:
Among poor families with children, one-quarter to one-third have zero employment throughout the year. Over one-fourth of poor families have full-time employment through the year (2,000 or more hours of paid labor) but remain poor. The rest have some employment but less than full-time/ full-year. Overall, among all poor families with children, the median hours of adult employment are between 650 and 1,000 hours per year.
...
The fact that nearly three-quarters of all poor families with children have less than full-time/full-year employment indicates that child poverty could be sharply reduced if adults in these families worked more. Indeed, if all currently poor families with children had full-time adult employ ment throughout the year (at least 2,000 hours), the child poverty rate in the United States would be cut by 72 percent.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda-03-01.cfm
That's what magic-wand economics gets you: Your campaign for a minimum wage increase boosted Playstation 3 sales more than it helped the working poor.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2006 12:30 AM
Thanks, Wolverine. That says a lot.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 9, 2006 12:33 AM
For the record, I'm not opposed to a minimum wage in principle, but we need to think through just what we are doing whenever we change it.
Good intentions are not enough. As things stand right now, at least, minimum wage hikes are at best a clumsy, ineffective way to assist the poor. We need to be smarter.
In one sense, however, I'm glad that the states are acting on this. The federalized one-size-fits-all minimum wage was never a good idea because local conditions can vary so much in terms of both costs and the availability of work. In time we'll see more flexibility and more ability to adapt the minimum wage to local conditions. If there are to be minimum wages they should be set by the states.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2006 12:40 AM
The Heritage Foundation is a right wing "think" tank with a reputation for spreading disingenuous propaganda in support of heartless Republican social policy.
Heritage employs pseudo academic researchers to produce bogus arguments.
None of these hacks have ever had to work for a living.
The Heritage Foundation has an agenda - "starving the beast".
Anything coming from Heritage needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 1:21 AM
HAC,
Race and money are always linked in this country so until that stops being the case I will remind people of that. Also it would get people somewhere if they could deal w/ it. But oh yah that's asking too much. LOL
To answer your first question I don't believe for a single second that many conservatives are concerned for the poor in the inner city.
It always odd to me that folks like yourself ignore history. We have had a history throughout the western world about what happens when there is no minimum wage. Heck we can see that in other countries now and all that happens is more oppression. Is that what you want?
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 9, 2006 1:49 AM
Wolverine,
In one sense, however, I'm glad that the states are acting on this. The federalized one-size-fits-all minimum wage was never a good idea because local conditions can vary so much in terms of both costs and the availability of work. In time we'll see more flexibility and more ability to adapt the minimum wage to local conditions. If there are to be minimum wages they should be set by the states.
I'm OK with this.
It's interesting that the Federal government already has a regionalized minimum wage system that applies to all projects using Federal funds.
It's called the Davis-Bacon Act.
It's interesting that the first thing Bush did after Katrina was to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act for all Katrina clean up and reconstruction operations.
This makes it possible for Halliburton to profit from no-bid contracts, using cheap labor and keeping skilled local tradesman out of the operation.
By the way, Katrina aftermath is still a great big mess.
The people are suffering while Halliburton is bloated with profit.
Just business as usual for the corrupt Bush administration.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 1:53 AM
Justin -
"The Heritage Foundation is a right wing "think" tank with a reputation for spreading disingenuous propaganda in support of heartless Republican social policy."
That's poisoning the well. It's beneath you.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 9, 2006 1:59 AM
Gordon,
The Heritage Foundation made their own reputation, not me.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 2:12 AM
justintime,
The Davis-Bacon exemption in the Gulf Coast was withdrawn quickly under labor-union protest. Whatever it was that went so terribly wrong down there happened with prevailing wage laws in effect.
Say what you will about conservative think-tanks, but a Heritage "hack" wouldn't have made that mistake.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2006 2:34 AM
There you go again, Wolverine.
Now you blame the Bush administration's incompetence on union labor.
Davis Bacon never would have been reinstated if Dems and moderate Reps had not forced Bush to do it.
Read the real story here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102601706.html
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 2:53 AM
I got a question how can you poisen a well that's already toxic?
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 9, 2006 3:03 AM
justintime wrote:
There you go again, Wolverine.
Now you blame the Bush administration's incompetence on union labor.
No, I did not. I simply observed that the prevailing wage was in effect for nearly all of the reconstruction effort.
You tried to allege that Halliburton used the absence of prevailing wage to win no-bid contracts, which is a total non-sequiter because prevailing wage does not change the basic bidding process. (That is: competitors can bid regardless of whether or not Davis-Bacon is in effect.)
And you were wrong.
Honestly, do you bother to read my posts? Are you aware of the words that you type yourself? Or is this some sort of flow-of-consciousness thing?
Have a good night. I have more important things to do, like hunt down some UM-OSU tickets.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2006 3:15 AM
Whatever it was that went so terribly wrong down there happened with prevailing wage laws in effect.
Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on September 29, 2005.
Bush suspended Davis-Bacon immediately thereafter.
Bush was forced to reinstate Davis-Bacon on October 27.
What went so terribly wrong?
Under their no-bid contracts, Halliburton and others hired illegal immigrant labor, and shut out local workers who had just lost their jobs and their homes due to Katrina.
What is still going terribly wrong is Halliburton profiteering with little or no oversight by the Bush administration.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 4:15 AM
And if it had been up to the Heritage Foundation hacks, the Davis-Bacon Act would be history.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 4:19 AM
Payshun,
Racial equality will not be fully implemented in this country until people stop focusing so much on race. Isn't that what matters? It doesn't matter if you're black, white, etc., only the content of your character. As long as the left keeps pushing racial issues as if we're still in the 60s, it will segregate America. It only causes more problems. You keep playing the race card, which is a childish tactic in my mind.
I'm sorry you believe conservatives don't care about the inner city. I don't believe this is true at all. I believe conservatives care about everyone in this country, and since liberals focus so much on the inner city, it seems that conservatives don't care. In fact, they care less relative to liberals, because they realize that the inner city is not everyone, that this country is diverse and everyone matters. But conservatives still certainly care about inner city people, and just as much as they do those in the suburbs. Politically speaking, conservatives have been mostly ousted from those locations, leaving inner cities to be run by Democrats (who have done a swell job [read sarcasm into those words]).
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 9, 2006 6:37 AM
HAC,
The left focusing on these issues doesn't segregate America silly. What segregates America are the underlying issues of race and injustice. The left focusing on race did not create white flight (which is still all the rage,) or a backlash against affirmative action. Fear from white men and women created that all on their own.
Ofcourse you would consider the race card childish as you really would not know how to have an adult conversation about race in the first place.
But you are right the content of a person's character does matter more but I see nothing wrong in enjoying the food, dance and beauty of another culture. I am sure you have a great love of Pauline theology.
You would do well to look at the distinctions of race and gender of his day and see that he dealt w/ all of them head on instead of pretending like they don't exist or are not problems.
Race is not the biggest deal in the world but it is a factor and the sooner you can actually admit and deal w/ it (along w/ gender, class, and other social identity factors) the sooner this discussion will actually be something more than partisan talking points.
We are talking about identity and for some reason you seem to ignore that when it comes to race. Martin was all about honoring a person's character but never at the expense of seeing the beauty in which God created them.
We were talking about immigration and sorry but race, class, gender and nationality play a factor in it.
Good nite.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 9, 2006 9:03 AM
'It does if we set a living wage at a rate that is higher than employers are willing to pay. We can't make companies hire people.'
I just don't buy the argument that companies will stop hiring people and shut down if they have to pay people a living wage. But for the sake of argument, what would you say to offering 2 choices:
1) pay a minimum living wage
2) the highest paid employee or owner can make no more than 5x what the lowest paid employee makes.
It would seem that would allow companies to stay in business by paying below minimum wage, as long as the management and owners were willing to live at ONLY 5X what they pay the workers in the field.
My guess is that not one company would choose the second option, and would find a way to make option 1 work.
There is something very sick about a society which sees no problem with CEOs making 500x what an entry level worker makes.
Let me pose a hypothetical situation:
A wealthy man finds himself drowning in a lake. A fisherman in a boat comes along and has the means to pull him out, however instead of immediately reaching out to help the man, he begins to negotiate the fee for the service of pulling the wealthy man out. The fee he demands is everything the wealthy man owns, up to and including the food in his house and the clothes off his children's back. How should society view the fisherman? How should society view the wealthy man?>
Posted by: Leonard Porcano | November 9, 2006 3:38 PM
Interesting concept, Leonard.
Haven't heard that one before.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 4:15 PM
justintime,
A simple observation: for all your snarky comments about Heritage, you have yet to produce any evidence to counter it. Surely someone out there would have done a study rebutting the "Heritage Hacks" by now.
As far as the drowning man scenario goes: the man in the boat is a damned fool, but what this has to do with the minimum wage is quite beyond me.
As far as the 5x rule goes, it has a certain superficial appeal, but to enforce it would require a police state.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2006 6:19 PM
Wolverine
the drowning man scenario has a lot to do with minimum wage, price controls on medications, and free markets in general. The lake is a perfectly free market. The fisherman is charging what the market will bear, the inverse of this is paying what the market demands.>
Posted by: Leonard Porcano | November 9, 2006 7:20 PM
Leonard,
Your scenario assumes a monopoly -- there's only one guy with a boat. Real markets are more likely to feature several guys with boats bidding each other down.
And yes, that applies in reverse with the labor market -- there will most likely be several employers that an unskilled worker can apply with.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2006 7:39 PM
Wolverine,
I can only say I haven't seen any useful, progressive ideas come out of The Heritage Foundation, considering the size of their budgets.
They have corporate benefactors with bottomless pockets.
Such as Richard Scaife, billionaire alcoholic neoconservative and the Coors beer dynasty.
Naturally, Heritage is for more corporate power and no breaks for American citizens.
They're work product consists of facile arguments designed to defeat progressive legislation.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 8:28 PM
Payshun,
If you look hard enough for anything you can "find" it. You see a lot more racism in America than what is really there because you're looking for it. Your views serve to divide races in our country, not unite them.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 10, 2006 5:41 AM
Wolverine
For the foreseeable future at least, there will be more people looking for jobs than jobs. That in effect allows employers to push wages lower and lower. That is exactly what we have seen happening. The question is not whether the powerful are capable of exploiting desperate job seekers, they definitely are. The question is whether it is right, and whether the law should limit this.
It is interesting that God addressed everything from usury, to collection methods, to social welfare programs, to debt forgiveness in the law which was handed down after the exodus thousands of years ago. God did not promote free markets, instead he laid down a bunch of laws.>
Posted by: Leonard Porcano | November 10, 2006 1:31 PM
'If you look hard enough for anything you can "find" it. You see a lot more racism in America than what is really there because you're looking for it. Your views serve to divide races in our country, not unite them.'
An ostrich can not really make the world go away by sticking his head in the sand, and in the same way hiding from racism won't make it go away. Racism is real, and it is more harmful than you can imagine. People today still suffer from the racism that was perpetrated 50 years or 100 years ago or more. I have come to the point that I think reparations really need to be made to the families of those who were enslaved in this country. We could never afford to offer a fair reparation, but I think it is something that needs to happen if we truly want to heal the wounds we inflicted. Look at the price Egypt paid for enslaving the Jews, and count ourselves lucky that we have not paid an even higher price for our enslavement of Africans.>
Posted by: Leonard Porcano | November 10, 2006 1:40 PM
HAC,
That's a load of crap and I won't be nice about this because I have heard this argument before. It's hollow, empty and devoid of any reality.
I don't know where you live and I don't know what you do. But from your posts its' pretty easy for me to surmise that you live a pretty homogenic world? Please correct me if I am wrong.
My views actually heal this land and have been for nearly a decade. The Spirit and I have liberated whites, blacks, Asians, the LGBTQ community and others from prejudice, racism, pain and death. Have you?
Your views of a color blind society are the problem here. We need to celebrate color, culture and other ways of doing things. It's the only way to see the beauty and complexity of God's kingdom.
Besides that you don't have to look hard to find it. Maybe if you got rid of your privelege of not being able to see it you might actually become strong enough to face the underlying problems that still face our society. But hey what do I know? I have only been doing this ministry of reconciliation for a while. While you have not even come close to starting.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 10, 2006 6:16 PM
Getting back to the minimum wage issue: Intentionally keeping full-time adult workers in low wages is immoral.
It's immoral because it institutionally creates environments where pain and suffering inevitably exist (the result of not being able to afford the things of value necessary for maintaining healthy and safe lives).
Low wage labor is immoral because it institutionally OK's the pain and suffering of some (minimum wage earning adults) for the benefit of others (employers and comfortable fearers of inflation).
Institutionalized low wage labor dismisses and sanctions the pain and suffering of workers as necessary "collateral damage" for the economic comfort of others.
Low wage labor is immoral because it sanctions a worldly survival of the fittest approach to work (evolution rooted economic policy).
Any job that requires 8 or more hours to perform should pay enough for those performing that work to survive in the economic environment in which that work is being performed. If it does not, then either the employer's profit margin is too high, or they shouldn't be in business.
Too often we give businesses the "stuff of the divine." We see them as the hand of God and give them the essence and discretion of God in the roles they play in society and the economy.
Business is actually "authentic" business when it funtions with honor. Less than that is the stuff that comprises "those who lay in wait to pounce and devour the desperate and weak."
Capitalism (business) becomes a vessel for immorality when it thrives and succeeds as a result of ill gotten gain - the kind of "ill gotten gain" achieved when hours of employees are owned beyond what they are healthfully capable of giving and the compensation for those hours is not enough to even minimally sustain them and their families.
Capitalism (business) can be a beautiful blessing, but when its driven by its baser instincts (exploitation of labor) it just becomes another economic whore.>
Posted by: Sandra Dufield | November 11, 2006 3:17 PM
The Spirit and I have...
That seems a little arrogant, don't you think?
Anyway, you have made a lot of unfounded assumptions about me, and I don't feel a need to defend myself. Your views seek to divide races by looking for racism where it isn't. I have no doubt you have helped specific people reconcile. That has nothing to do with my point, which is that the general viewpoint you have regarding race:
Your views of a color blind society are the problem here. We need to celebrate color, culture and other ways of doing things.
brings more problems to our society than it solves. I desire to be color blind. You do not. One of the purposes of Christ was to bring unity (not diversity) to all peoples, or e pluribus unim (as we have on our coins): "from many, one".
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 11, 2006 8:15 PM
HAC
That seems a little arrogant, don't you think?
It's only arrogant if I believe I did it on my own believing I am one w/ the father and his spirit is what Jesus said we are. If that's arrogant so be it. I remember the Pharisees thought the same thing about Jesus and I am no Jesus. There is nothing wrong w/ testifying about the awesome things the spirit and I have done.
HAC:
brings more problems to our society than it solves. I desire to be color blind. You do not. One of the purposes of Christ was to bring unity (not diversity) to all peoples, or e pluribus unim (as we have on our coins): "from many, one".
Just as a heart has a different look and function then a lung so too does the body of Christ. I seek to see people as equal in value. In that way I see things as color blind because all are equal.
But I seek to honor the unique cultural expressions of faith found in the body and that means honoring race and redeeming it thru the power of the cross. You say there is no racism I say there is especially in immigration policy, among students (I used to teach I could tell you stories,) and in the structures of our society. How you can ignore something that Jesus and the prophets fought against is beyond me. It saddens me to be honest.
You are truly blind and far more under it's power than you know. But enjoy your ignorance and know that justice and loving the difference and similarities that make us all unique will go on w/o you.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 12, 2006 1:46 AM
Payshun,
I continue to be amazed at how well you know me by a few things I've said, that I am blind and under "it's [sic] power". I have not ignored anything Christ or the Apostles taught by seeking to be color blind. Yes, the body of Christ has many differences, but for the purpose of edifying the Church. Differences in race are good only when we are unified because the unity in spite of the differences is what matters. I have no desire to "honor race" because we should honor people as people, not because of their race.
Let me ask you what is better: unity or diversity?
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 12, 2006 9:28 PM
HAC,
They are not separate. Unity and diversity are one that means everything race, religion, creed, gender, nationality, ethnicity are all one. God honors ethnicity (in so far as he says it's beautiful.)
The most telling scene in scripture is the end of Revelation. There are plenty of worshipful scenes in that wonderful book that describe unity and diversity. All nations worshipping in their individual languages and cultures (and yes race) are displayed for John and others to see.
God doesn't strip their physical identity away from them quite the opposite he brings all together. That's unity not this color blind white ideal of a color blind society.
I apologize for pretending to know you and for lumping you in w/ others that think like you.
I had the pleasure of meeting a lot of men like you over the years and your arguments are all the same. THe only violent act Jesus ever did had to do w/ Jewish nationalism and racism. They rightly believed that God had set them aside for a purpose but they let that turn into greed and pride not allowing the world to worship God in the court of the gentiles.
Jesus visited once saw what happened went back again and cleaned house. If God did not care about race, or ethnicity then Jesus would not have cared about clearing the temple or having the world worship him in their languages from their own ethnic and racial perspectives.
You will learn more about worshipping God from being around different people that worship God in different ways. The Gospel tradition that comes from the black church is one example. I don't know if you have been to a first world people's worship session but let's just say the tribes of America worship God in unique and amazing ways same thing w/ the liturgy from Catholics and the Latin songs from Orthodox. God wants unity but not at the expense of diversity. He loves it all and wants it all for his glory.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 13, 2006 5:45 PM
God honors ethnicity (in so far as he says it's beautiful.)
Where does he say that? The beauty is in the unity of all peoples - that Christ is the Savior for ALL, regardless of race, sex, etc. I do agree that God made men different, and that these different characteristics reflect God's glory, but they can only do that when we are unified in worship. If diversity were more valuable, why did God biologically make all of mankind from ONE man, and why did he call Abraham (one man) the father of many nations?
All nations worshipping in their individual languages and cultures (and yes race) are displayed for John and others to see.
Of course. The point, again, is the universal availability of Christ for all men - that God's intent is to save men from all peoples. The beauty is that different people can unify in following God. There would be much less beauty if the people weren't different, agreed, but there would be NO beauty if they were not unified in worshiping God.
They rightly believed that God had set them aside for a purpose but they let that turn into greed and pride not allowing the world to worship God in the court of the gentiles.
Now wait a second. It doesn't record anywhere that this had anything to do with race. Jesus cleared out the temple courts because they were selling there, not because of race. I think you're reading too much into the text.
God wants unity but not at the expense of diversity. He loves it all and wants it all for his glory.
I agree to an extent. Having men from all peoples reflects God's glory. God wants men to worship him out of their hearts - from who they are. If I had to worship God in, say, Chinese, and follow Chinese customs, this would not be a genuine form of worship for me (a historical example would be how the Catholic Church required Latin services).
There is beauty, I'll agree, in worshiping God with different languages and styles because it shows a form of genuine heart, and reflects God's glory in different ways. The value, however, is the unity in worship, not the diversity in style.
May I also add on a different note, I see a huge difference between race and culture - that they are not synonymous. Perhaps that is an area of confusion in our discussion.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 13, 2006 9:04 PM
HAC,
Youre right if you just focus on Luke's account.
But let's look at another from Mark 11:15-17.
15(A)Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves;
16and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple.
17And He began to teach and say to them, "Is it not written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS'? But you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN."
Verse 17 reveals the heart of the passage and why Jesus cleared the temple. Nationalistic and greedy merchants would not allow the gentiles in. Read your bible more. You would be surprised how much race, gender and ethnicity play a role in it.
My house shall be a called a house of prayer for all nations. That's about nationality, ethnicity and race. The Merchants were not allowing that because they wanted to exploit visitors.
Let's keep going.
Actually worship in Chinese could be genuine if you gave your heart to it. It would feel awkard, strange but if you let the spirit open your heart more you experiece more of the spirit.
Worshipping w/ indigenous peoples in a drum circle was awesome and not fake but from my heart. As you kindly said it is about the heart. The heart can expand past it's traditional worship experiences but only if you allow the holy spirit to do it. you can't do it on your own.
But that's the thing about your example, I have worshipped from a Latin Mass and it transformed my life. It all depends on one thing and that's GOd's spirit. The form is not as important as the love communicated. The form can be important to open us up to more of his spirit but for God it's not as important as people being real.
Where does God say that he honors ethnicity?
Good question. One can see it all throughout the bible. It's what got the Jews to in trouble in the first place (along w/ idol worship.)
God set apart one group through father Abraham to bless all the nations. 400 years of forced labor showed that God loved one people group enough to free them and keep their culture and language intact despite being destroyed a few times.
God in his mercy spoke Psalm 139 into effect thru David and David wrote it in Hebrew from the culture he grew up in. Context is important.
The Spirit and David penned those texts and wrote the song to illustrate the beauty of God thru him and his culture. He was not thinking about a universalist human mindset where we are all human he was thinking about being born thru a Hebrew woman from a Hebrew man and praising God for it.
That ends in the exclamation: I am fearfully and wonderfully made. So feel free to read Psalm 139 from a hebrew perspective.
YOu see God honoring race thru paul's message of how he is a jew to a jew and a greek to a greek. If race and nationality were not important Paul would force his way of following Christ on the people's instead he let the people keep their culture intact.
One can also see this in the story of the Ethiopian eunech among other things. Then there's Jonah. Jonah was sent to the Nazi's of their day, a bloodthirsty viloent race to speak a message of repentance and love.
It's interesting to note that God brought his nationalistic race based ideology to its knees by sending a Jew to speak to them. It would be like God sending a black man to the south during the 1950's to remind them about repentance. I could add more but that's enough of that for now.
Your question at the beginning of your comment reveals something. God did make many nations and chose one man to unite them but not obliterate them. If national ethnic identity were not important he would never have made Abraham the father of 3 distinct nations.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 14, 2006 6:58 PM
Youre right if you just focus on Luke's account.
Actually, Matthew, Luke, and John all exclude the Isaiah passage. The focus of Jesus was clearly on the "house of worship" part, not the "all nations" part.
Read your bible more.
I've read and studied it since I could read. I've read every single word of it, and I continue to read it nearly daily. I guess I could read it more, but I'm pretty sure I know it quite well.
I understand the issues it speaks to regarding different "tribes" and peoples. I still stand by my previous point, that unity is better than diversity.
I think you make a good point regarding experiencing different forms of worship. I see nothing but good in this. Again, however, the point is WHO you're worshipping, which speaks to unity of worship, and your heart's place in it.
Where does God say that he honors ethnicity?
Good question. One can see it all throughout the bible. It's what got the Jews to in trouble in the first place (along w/ idol worship.)
I don't really see this as a theme in Scripture, and it's certainly not why the Jews got in trouble. God actually gave commands in the OT regarding not associating with non-Jews. There are parts of the OT that speak to God's primary concern being the heart of man, not his nationality (Jonah is an example that you mentioned), but it is also clear that the Jews were God's chosen people. Even Christ said he came to preach to the Jews, not the Gentiles (he called them "dogs", in fact).
As I said before, God's concern is for all peoples to hear the gospel, and for people from every tribe and nation to belong to the Kingdom. This theme is certainly in the bible, but I think it has little to do with "honoring ethnicity". Rather, it speaks to God being the God of everyone (again, unity under God is more important than diversity).
If race and nationality were not important Paul would force his way of following Christ on the people's instead he let the people keep their culture intact.
No, I don't think so at all. It's the other way around. Since race and nationality are not important, there is no need for one to "change" theirs (as if you could change race). That is a problem that a lot of Christian missionaries to Muslims have encountered: the idea that one has to change their name, etc. to follow Christ. This is not necessary, because race and nationality do not matter.
If national ethnic identity were not important he would never have made Abraham the father of 3 distinct nations.
I assume you refer to Christians, Muslims, and Jews. True, they all claim him, but biblically speaking, only those who follow Christ are true children of Abraham (Rom. 9:6-8, John 8:39).
Basically the essence of my point can be summed up in a somewhat rhetorical question: Would God rather have people united in their worship of him, or people diversified in their worship of whatever they so desire? I know it's extreme, but it makes the point that diversity, while it has value, is less valuable than unity.
I appreciate this discussion and hope we have both been able to be clear on our beliefs. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree, to use the clich phrase.
And for what it's worth (this is completely off topic, but I thought it was interesting), Israel did not have 400 years of forced labor. Rather, there were 430 years from the time Abraham received the promise, to the time Moses received the Law (read Galatians, and compare with genealogies in the Pentateuch). Israel was in slavery, more realistically, for maybe 100-200 years.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 14, 2006 11:27 PM
We will have to agree to disagree. Jesus used dogs as a metaphor to test her faith not as a statement about her people. If that were the case he would never have revealed his idenity to the Samaritan woman at the well.
I believe diversity and unity are one. I understand why you don't. I think the bible makes it very clear. It can't stop or get in the way of God's love for us but it can be divisive if used for wrong purposes but so can your idea of unity w/ no race. That's the part that you don't see.
Race, as w/ gender as w/ every other social identity construction died w/ Christ and I personally believe Jews, Muslims and Christians share in Abraham's promise as the children of faith. I have an idea about what you are going to say to that but I will leave who is and isn't a child of God to God alone.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 14, 2006 11:52 PM
The Jews chosen status did not give them higher status than other peoples. "God is no respector of nations." But he loves ethnicity as long as it doesn't get in the way of people experiencing his love. If it does then he will crush it just like any other idol.
It just set them apart for god's purposes. God makes this clear in the old and new testament. As a matter of fact the fact that the jews thought they were better became a major issue for God when he disciplined them for all their various sins.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 14, 2006 11:56 PM
I certainly agree that we are all the same in Christ, and that race, etc. break down before him. That is the beauty that I see. Jews, Muslims and Christians share in Abraham's promise to the extent that they follow Christ (read the Romans reference I gave).
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 15, 2006 6:03 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?