The message we hear in the sermons is that they love and serve for one reason: because Jesus did. Whatever change it causes in the lives of the recipients is not their concern. If people convert, fine; if people become more generous people, great; if they live more peaceful lives, good. But, the point is to be faithful to the model outlined in scripture by sharing grace, mercy, and generosity; the point is not to work to get people to believe a certain way.

That sounds awesome. So glad you found them.

However, over the past few years, my wife and I have been introduced to a group of Christians (aka, a local church near our house) that really seem to love and serve people just to love and serve them. The message we hear in the sermons is that they love and serve for one reason: because Jesus did. Whatever change it causes in the lives of the recipients is not their concern. If people convert, fine; if people become more generous people, great; if they live more peaceful lives, good. But, the point is to be faithful to the model outlined in scripture by sharing grace, mercy, and generosity; the point is not to work to get people to believe a certain way.

This approach has revolutionized my wife’s and my faith.

“Government programs” to fight poverty are doomed to mediocre success at best — far better to encourage private individuals and charities to do more of what they do: donate their resources to good causes. Government programs will almost *always* be prone to abuse, management issues, and waste; it’s the nature of bureaucracy.

I’m a Republican, but I give to deserving charities as often as I can. The cumulative effect of these $35 and $40 checks is important.

Besides, there’s no real sacrifice (or nobility) to forcing-*others*-to-give-to-charity (viz higher taxes on “the rich” to pay for social programs).

The notion that conservatives need to “pay more attention to the poor” is absurd. Everyone wants to help the poor to some extent; the question is what the best way to do it is: Goverment programs or private works?

On a more serious note -

“There has long been a stream of evangelicals who believed in social change…” What manner of social change? More religion in government? One religion in government?

Go visit the poorest places in the world and you will probably find more Christians actively involved in helping the poor and needy than you will the so-called progressive types (with the notable exception of Brad and Angelina). The evangelical community is very active with many missions in these places. I know of tiny little country churches that send substantial funds overseas to support these efforts and the totally dedicated Christians that live there and do all the hard work. You have to respect that.

There is a slight problem. The most important part of all this is to spread the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ. Some may call this brainwashing. But from what I’ve seen, it is the power of Christ that not only gives the selfless missionaries the will to bear the horrors of these places but also to completely change the lives of destitute people they try to help.

You can’t take the Gospel out of what they do. It just won’t work. So I say to the more liberal democrats, stop fearing something you don’t understand. Embrace it instead. Judge their work honestly. I think you will see that we have much in common. But liberal democrats cannot expect only the Christians to give in order to close the big gaps. They are going to have to make an effort too.

If the Democrats were to make progress on this issue, they could forge a majority to last dozens of years because it would unite conscientious religious people. Had President Clinton outlawed partial-birth abortion (a barbaric procedure opposed by the vast majority of Americans) when he had a chance, Al Gore would have been elected in 2000. Clinton’s overture would have been just too good for a left-leaning pro-lifer to resist.

I guess I’m hoping that Jim Wallis’ efforts do two things: warm Republicans to the plight of the poor and warm Democrats to the plight of the defenseless.

I can’t resist: http://www.democratsforlife.org/

However, I am skeptical that the same old issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, will remain at the forefront because that’s they way republicans win elections, and they know that.

Not to sound all rules-lawerly and “well not EVERY republican thinks that way”, but I’d warrant to say that there are a lot of other folks like me who fall to the right of the political spectrum that are pro-choice (at least up to the point of viability) and pro-gay-marriage (or at least not con).

Getting through Iowa and New Hampshire is all it takes these days, though, and those folks you’re painting in your picture are the ones who come out in droves to vote in the primaries. The same is true of the left, as well…it’s the “red meat base” that determines the parties’ candidates.

I find it so maddening that the primaries are over after two states. The whole national dynamic, with these same two parties, could be so completely different if as many folks that participate in the general election were to help craft and mold their parties in the primaries, not just the rabid few.

So your point still stands (I just wanted to put my own asterisk next to it, hehe).

Together the attendees all prayed in concentric circles, sang John Lennon’s “Imagine� (with the line “and no religion too� tastefully amended), and meditated while eating vegan boxed lunches.

Sounds like quite a party. I don’t think I would’ve fit in, though.