David Lumpkins; Post Katrina- What Now For The Church?

[Editor's Note: I invited David Lumpkins to be a Guest Contributor for the following series of three posts about the Church and poverty.  David Lumpkins is a former Managing Director with Morgan Stanley & Co.  After spending most of his career in the investment banking business, he started a petrochemical pipeline company where he now serves as Chairman.  He is also the founder and Chairman of the Board of Yellowstone Academy, an inner city private Christian school serving children from very low income families in the Third Ward of Houston.]

See Part II and Part III.

Amid the myriad of physical and economic effects Hurricane Katrina visited upon our nation in August 2005, there ensued an unexpected derivative development among observers untouched by the devastation. Day after day the television images of the people displaced by the disaster were brought into our homes; the human face of the tragedy was in our face. Those human faces, in New Orleansat least, were almost all poor and almost all black. Thus began an endless stream of commentary about poverty and race in America. The pundits and chain emails made the rounds on topics ranging from the failure of government on the one hand to the responsibility of the individual on the other, and everything in between. As near as I can tell no new ground was broken.

Thankfully, the Church rose up with a tremendous outpouring of money, helping hands and genuine compassion. Pulpits all over America weighed in on the crisis and the money poured in. In Houston, the most effective relief efforts were organized and administered entirely by churches operating in a coordinated effort. Congregations in numerous cities have supported evacuees for extended periods of time. It has indeed been a shining moment for the Church in the U.S.

In the aftermath, the question for the Church in America is – now what? Eventually, things will get back to normal. New   Orleans will be rebuilt in some fashion. The pundits and chain emails will return to the topics du jour.  But what of all those faces of the tragedy? Many will have resettled, albeit perhaps in a new location, and will have left our consciousness. We’ll no longer be confronted with their plight. Most will return to their normal life – their normal life of poverty, that is.

What of the Church? Will we return to normal?

Let’s face it. Normal life for the Church in America has little to do with the cause of the poor. Oh yes, we give our due. We know that Jesus had a thing or two to say about the poor. So we have our programs around the holidays. We have our food drives. We pitch in for clothing drop-offs. We may even squeeze an hour or two into our holiday schedules at Christmas time to lend a hand in the food line at the homeless shelter. And most importantly, we bring our children along on these activities to give them some perspective on how blessed they are. That’s all part of being a good Christian parent after all.

And from the pulpit our pastors will return to what we want to hear and what they’ve learned well how to give us – how being a good Christian is the best way to get our act together.

This all may sound like a harsh, cynical and unfair generalization of the Church in America. But here are the facts:  1) There is deep pervasive generational poverty in the inner cities in every major city in America; 2) There are hungry children living just a few short miles from our affluent neighborhoods in the richest country the world has ever known; 3) There is a whole segment of our society that has no concept of what we know of as ‘the American way of life’; and 4) The Church in America gets an F in its response to this crisis both in terms of method and degree.

The sad irony is that the Church is uniquely capable of addressing the root causes of poverty in ways that can make a difference. That is because at its core, poverty in Americais not due to a deficit of resources. Poverty in America stems from the moral, spiritual and behavioral deficits in the lives of those ensnared in it. And to the extent that the Gospel represents Truth - that is, the true reality; the way the world really works, and the way that individuals work in that world created by God – then the Church has the best answers for those for whom the world doesn’t work.

The fact remains, however, that the Church in America does a miserable job of putting that Truth into action in the lives of “the least of these.”  Here’s the good news though: There are signs of change and hope.

© 2005, David Lumpkins.

See Part II and Part III.

Comments

[David]

This is a deeply disappointing post.

The primary "harsh, cynical and unfair generalization" is your claim that "poverty in America stems from the moral, spiritual and behavioral deficits in the lives of those ensnared in it." I find it hard to believe that someone with the life experience it appears that you have had would think that this was the case.

The myth of the deserving poor isn't just out of whack with what the best empirical research tells us, it's rooted in deeply impoverished theology and an unsatisfactory reading of Scripture. You yourself note the "deep generational poverty" that plagues American cities, yet seem unaware that such poverty has at least as much to do with systems and structures of injustice, oppression and racism than it does with anything else. Sin affects every dimension of human experience: it's not just an individual problem but a societal problem. And the Gospel speaks not just to the healing of our souls but to the healing of our cities.

Do you not think that our country's brutal history of slavery and racism contributes to the poverty which plagues our city? Do you not think that many of those in this country who are afflicted with poverty are not only hard-working, virtuous people but also deeply faithful Christians? Why is it, do you think, that so disproportionately many in the country who are poor are African-Americans? Because they are less faithful Christians or don't have the work-ethic of their suburban counterparts? That's certainly what your line of thinking implies, or, rather, explicitly posits: if people are poor in America, it's entirely their own fault--it has nothing to do with history, with injustic, oppression or racism. That's not only false, but gives a smug sense of self-righteousness to those who aren't poor. It's a mindset that corrupts Christian charity and turns it into condescension. It's the mindset of those who are born on third base and spend their lives thinking they've hit a triple.

Obviously, this can't be what you think. It runs against the grain of Yellowstone's own purpose statement.

Don't you think it's tragic--a sin, even--that so many inner-city children have to rely on the good will of people like yourself just to get a half-decent education while the government (federal, state, local) sees to it that their rich suburban counterparts get the education they need? Isn't it a sin that each child isn't given an equal shot at a great education and some are given no shot at all? And whose fault, whose sin, is this? Certainly not the child's. Is it the parents' (or more likely, "parent's")? Well, they probably got an equally raw or even worse deal when they were kids, and their parents grew up in the world of seperate but equal and Jim Crow. The picture just isn't as simple as the one you paint.

I challenge you to try an experiment: for the next month, put your ongoing expenses to the side (mortgage, car etc.), empty your refigerator and try to live on the salary of a full time minimum wage employee. Only take public transportation. Have no personal access to a computer. Put up a $100 deposit for your electric bill and even more for a renter's security deposit. Budget with your time and money as though you were a single parent and had two elementary school age kids. Remember that if you're not home when they get home from school, no one else will be looking out for them--at least not in the good sense of the phrase. If you wanted to go all out you could actually spend those 40 hours working as a clerk at Walgreens but if you do apply for a job, remember that you don't have a high school diploma because you had to drop out to take care of your grandma who raised you and got terminally ill when you were 17. Do all of this and then tell us that people in this country are only poor because it's their own fault.

In your second post, you write, "having the government write checks to poor people with virtually no strings attached doesn’t work. It makes matters worse. The last thirty years of societal experimentation in that vein has demonstrated that beyond a reasonable doubt." Even if one thinks this is so, why think that exhausts the options? Giving out checks may not be the best idea, but why not force the government to provide the kind of schooling in inner-city D.C., Dallas and Birmingham that students in Northern Virginia, Park City and Mountainbrook get? It's not as though the government is so inept that it can't make a difference in these things! This is what the abolitionists understood, what Wilberforce understood, what MLK understood: With respect to justice, for the church to be the church is not only for her to start her own social justice initiatives but for her to call on the government--our government, the government of "we the people" of which we as Christians are a part--to do justice and love mercy as well!

It's truly great that you've started Yellowstone--unqualifidely great. But it's a sin--our society's sin--that at best only a small percentage of kids who need a school like Yellowstone will get one. And even if they become Christians and are thus able to endure with joy a very tough life, that doesn't mean they won't be poor. And, in the end, their poverty will tell us, indeed it does tell us, a lot more about us and our society than it will ever tell us about them.

[Shannon]

Hear, hear.

There's very little I can add to the former comment except the following anecdote: Two children who currently attend Yellowstone Academy have a brother, one year older, who is very bright. He was a fluent reader at 5, curious and enterprising, picked concepts up quickly. I wanted to get him out of the impoverished school he was in and into one of the city's magnet programs (still a public school, but a much better one). He had straight 100's on his report card, did very well on the IQ test, had great teacher recommendations, but the standardized exams he had to take revealed that, while he was scoring well, he was far behind his more affluent peers who were also competing for those precious slots in the best schools. They had had untold advantages, from well-educated parents to good early-childhood education to expensive educational toys. Michael was simply too far behind.

He was, at the time, six years old and in the first grade.

When we have effectively left children behind when they are six, regardless of how potentially bright and engaged they may be, and create a system where the children who get the best public education are the ones who need it the least, then it isn't the fault of the child, and it isn't the fault of poor parents. It *is* a moral failing, but the failing falls squarely at the feet of those with much, those who benefit from the prevailing powers and systems and are in a position to change them. The failing is ours.

[David Lumpkins]

David,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I will respond at length shortly. My intial reaction though, is that your misinterpretation of a minor point of the article has caused you to miss entirely the message of the post. More to come.
David Lumpkins

[Matt]

I'll have more blog talk on this later on my own blog, but David's citing of Mountain Brook is silly. That city has a great school system because it's a small system in a town with a very high per capita income and an outrageous property tax. And Birmingham? Ever read the Birmingham News? Find me a more corrupt and dysfunctional city and school system. New Orleans, but that's about it. Weak examples, my friend.

[Claire]

[Editor's Note: We welcome robust discussion and debate, but we do best if we engage in discourse graciously, winsomely. As Paul instructs Timothy, "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness."

Let's engage one another with open minds and hearts, seeking the other's best, and doing so in light of the knowledge that we're all fallen images loved by God. Whatever our various causes and positions are, let's try to love our conversation partners as much as we love our causes.

Word choices like "ridiculous", "silly" (Matt), and "preposterous" are perjorative and likely to inflame. One can disagree with another's position without resort to such words. Epistemological humility, and grace, should incline us to use kinder word choices in characterizing the positions of those who disagree with us. This should go for engagement with images of God broadly, but in particular can we not engage our brothers and sisters with gentleness, as Paul instructs? We have the opportunity to use the hermeneutic of charity so unless one can give me a good reason not to use the hermeneutic of charity....use it.

In accordance with the posted rules for CGO comments I'm editing this comment to conform to our stated desire for gracious, temperate interaction. I very much want Claire's contribution to the debate.]

"Poverty in America stems from the moral, spiritual and behavioral deficits in the lives of those ensnared in it."

Mr. Lumpkins-- were you really trying to say what the first commenter, another David, believed you were saying? Please tell me that you don't believe that the poor are poor because of their own laziness or lack of morality. Please tell me that you meant something else.

Assuming your comment does mean what it sounds like, I must agree with the first two comments that I am quite disturbed by what you write. Not only is the above comment itself dangerous, but it's inverse is dangerous as well. To believe that the poor are poor because of moral, spiritual, or behavioral choices indicates a converse that we who are rich and blessed are such because our moral, spiritual, and behavioral choices merit blessings. WOE IS ME if I get lured into thinking that I am blessed because of something I did... because I somehow deserved it! What I deserve is death and separation from God, but He gives grace.

So far, this discussion has focused only on poverty in America. Thinking that poverty is the result of poor choices-- moral, spiritual, or otherwise-- becomes even less tenable when we open the issue up to poverty worldwide. To say that a child growing up in rural Africa is poor b/c of choices he made is just completely baseless. And this isn’t a “generational sins” issue either. Many of my brothers and sisters in Africa shame me with their passion and devotion to the God we all serve. And again, to discuss the converse—the history of this country shows selfishness, not a Christ-likeness. We are NOT a country founded on Christian morals as so many like to claim. And our prosperity is in no way attributable to our morality as a nation.

I know you’ve only got three chances to write on this topic, but I hope that you might use part of your third entry to explain how you really weren’t trying to say what we’ve interpreted your comments as saying. I’d love to hear that you meant something, ANYTHING, else.

[David]

Matt,

I'm not sure why you think you're making an argument against my point rather than for it. Of course Mountain Brook has great schools because the folks that live there pay high property taxes and make lots of money. And of course the rest of Birmingham's public schools can't compare because they don't have the same level of revenue per child. That's exactly what I was saying and I have no idea why you would think this was a weak example, much less silly. You make precisely the point I want to make: The rich kids of rich parents get an excellent public education and the poor kids of poor parents get an inadequate public education. On what vision of justice does one child deserve a better public education than another? How is it right that one child should get $6000 of public money spent on his public education and a few miles away a different child, whose mom works for the first kid's dad gets $2000 of public money spent on his education? My point is that these are the things, among others, that contribute to generational poverty.

It doesn't have to be this way and the Church should not be okay with or indifferent to the fact that it is.

David,

I look forward to your response and truly appreciate and respect your efforts to call attention to the blight of urban American poverty. I do recognize that I did not focus on your central point, however it's possible to say something so offensive and wrong that it detracts from the rest of what one says and cries out for a response.

More than that, in what way did I misinterpret your quote? It doesn't seem like the kind of quote that admits of much misinterpretation: " That is because at its core, poverty in Americais not due to a deficit of resources. Poverty in America stems from the moral, spiritual and behavioral deficits in the lives of those ensnared in it." That's pretty straightforward. Indeed, it would take some serious effort to misunderstand it.

Finally, I'm not sure why you think I entirely missed your point. You want to point out that when it comes to poverty the church in America consistently and utterly fails, that that needs to change and that the church is uniquely situated to make that happen. I think you're right. However, at least in this post, I think your vision for the Church's role in working for justice and your understanding of the sources of poverty in America are constricted. To be the Church for the world in a democracy like ours means that the church has a key role to play in pointing out the structural, systemic injustices of society and pressuring the government to bring justice--the sort of justice a government is supposed to bring--to our fellow citizens.

[jd]

Once again, the David's of the world choose to ignore the fact that we have transferred trillions of dollars from the "rich" to the "poor", and still it's just not enough. What does it take to make people like David understand that LBJ's Great Society has not worked? You can accuse us all day long of not caring, of being ignorant of the suffering of those less fortunate, but it doesn't change the reality that taking money from one person and giving it to another via a government agency has not worked--and has done great harm in some communities.

And that is what we're talking about here, right? We need to spend more? We've transferred trillions of dollars through government agencies. We are told by David that in spite of all the spending the social injustice is still unacceptable--in fact, it's sinful. The rich are still getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And it might even be worse than David wants to admit: a case can be made that the spending has done more harm than good. So, of course, there is only one obvious thing to do: we need to spend more. That's not my idea of stewardship.

It's odd that David mentions Washington DC as a place to "force" the government to provide the kind of schooling in successful districts. The government has already been forced to provide that schooling. DC has one of the highest spending rates per pupil in the country. Yet it's failing miserably. There needs to be some other solution. Perhaps forced parenting classes, or forced marriage classes, or maybe forced busing.

David tells us not to blame the poor for their poverty. OK, let's not. Now here's another challenge for us: don't blame anyone else, either.

[David Lumpkins]

Thanks to all for thoughtful responses to my posts. Let me try to address some of the points raised.

First a minor point. David mentions the “myth of the deserving poor.” Where in my posts did I say anything that would suggest that I accept such a concept? I make no distinctions among ‘categories’ of poor. Jesus made no such distinctions and neither do I. At Yellowstone, we have children of welfare mothers who have no intention of ever supporting themselves, and children of mothers who work tirelessly to improve the lot of their children and themselves. All the families of Yellowstone children are ‘deserving.’

But now to the substance of David’s comments – His concern is that I am blaming the victim. Nothing could be further from the truth. I make it a practice to NEVER talk about blame. It is divisive and unhelpful. In talking about poverty in America people seem to feel the need to assign blame. “The fault lies with the government (too little, too much, or the wrong kind) welfare, racism, slavery, liberals, oppression, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans,” etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Spare me. I really don’t care whose fault it is. I only know this. It is not the children’s fault. I’m not about blaming anyone, I’m about finding solutions. I’m sick of all the talk on this topic from both the left and the right. It is time for action. The talkers seem to only create more division and move us further away from effective solutions. David may then feel the need to follow up with the observation that if one doesn’t effectively assign responsibility then one can’t find effective solutions. Nonsense. It is time to move beyond the blame game and get in the game of delivering solutions. Christians should be at the forefront of that.

David’s main objection is my characterization that poverty in America stems from “the moral, spiritual and behavioral deficits in the lives of those ensnared in it.” Is that blaming the victim? Here is where the misinterpretation ensues. I am not implying that those ensnared in poverty choose such a status. I think the term “ensnare” makes that clear. To me, ‘ensnared’ suggests ‘held captive,’ ‘entangled,’ ‘held against their will.’ It is anything but a choice. But let’s be clear. The life patterns that characterize poverty in America have moral, spiritual and behavioral implications.

Let me give an example. In my third post, I mentioned the “Shepherd Program” at Yellowstone. My family was assigned a child whose parents were both in jail at the time he entered the school. (Let’s call him Jamal.) He was living with his aunt along with her three children (from three different fathers) who were all in the school as well. One day the aunt’s boyfriend shot her in the head and killed her in the presence of one of the children. Sadly, the killer was yet another Yellowstone parent. While in jail Jamal’s mother had another child. Two years later Jamal’s mother got out of jail. Within six months of her release she was pregnant with yet another child, by yet another father. So now Jamal lives in a household with his mother, grandmother, some aunts and their children, his motherless cousins and other occasional relatives and adults. I can tell you with virtual certainty, that absent something radical intervening in the lives of Jamal, his siblings and cousins, they will all grow up in poverty and repeat the pattern as adults. Now you tell me. Are there moral, spiritual and behavioral dimensions to this scenario? Did Jamal “choose his plight? Certainly not. Did Jamal’s mother “choose” her plight? I think not. Based on what I know she’s merely reliving the pattern she grew up in. She knows nothing else. But once again, let’s talk about solutions. The only solutions involve moral, spiritual and behavioral changes in the lives of Jamal and his young relatives. Rehearsing the litany of racism, oppression and social injustice in the institutions of this country will do not good. It will only serve to reinforce the sense of victimhood among the poor which so undermines the progress of their advancement.

David’s post talks a lot about government. He asks, “why not force the government to provide the kind of schooling in inner-city D.C., Dallas and Birmingham that students in Northern Virginia, Park City and Mountainbrook get?” David, just how do you propose to “force” the government to do that? The government, through both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses, has been trying to do that for over 30 years. Just where do you think these great teachers are going to come from? Do you think that throwing more money at the problem is the answer? Just what is it that you are proposing? David then says, “It's not as though the government is so inept that it can't make a difference in these things!” Oh really? Well it has been trying for decades and it has utterly failed. Government run schools have done a wonderful job in suburban middle and upper class schools. The government has utterly failed in the inner city. More and more money and “Robin Hood” programs have made little difference. Inner city schools have become little more than jobs programs. Changing the lives will never be accomplished by someone just doing their job.

The thing that is most troubling to me about David’s emphasis on government’s role in the problem is that it seems to be shifting the responsibility away from the Church. If it’s the governments responsibility to take care of the poor then churches are off the hook and can continue to focus on the needs of their own little flocks. Yes Christians have responsibility to challenge government to be better in the tradition of Wilberforce, King and others. But I believe we are in a time when the Church’s most urgent need is to get in the game directly in the problem of poverty and get its hands dirty. The Church has in many ways become a “resounding gong and a clanging cymbal” in the halls of Congress, and has served only to bring discredit to the cause of Christ. We need to demonstrate that when Truth is put into action, lives can be changed. Yellowstone Academy is just a modest little attempt to do that.

David talked a lot about race in his post. We emphasize circumstances more than race at Yellowstone but if you are really interested in the topic the book to read is “No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning” by Stephan Thernstrom (Harvard professor, National Endowment for the Humanities) and his wife Abigail Thernstrom (Fellow at the Manhattan Institute)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743204468/commongrounds-20

This is not a Christian book by any means but it is the most thoughtful and comprehensive piece of research I have seen on the topic of racial underachievement in education.

David suggests that I was born on third base and think I hit a triple. There he is right. I was born on third base, as I suspect every person reading this blog was. This should not be a cause for guilt, however. Rather it should be a call for a sense of responsibility and opportunity. There is certainly no place for condescension in our dealings with the poor. What we Christian third basers need to do is to put the same level of creativity and commitment into our ministry efforts as we do into our jobs, educational pursuits and immediate families. We need to redefine who our neighbor is and learn to love him as we do our own spouses and children.

Finally, David suggested a little experiment for me to engage in. I don’t think I can practically do what he recommends, but I do have a suggestion for you David that you can and should do. In your community, seek out a young child from a different race and a very low income family. Commit to connect with that child at least once per month for life. Invest yourself in him. Grow to love him as your own. Get to know his family and his community. After you have done this for a year or so, send in a post to Common Grounds Online and tell us what you think about the sources of poverty in America.

Shannon makes some very good points about the disparity in educational opportunities between the rich and the poor in America. It saddens me that her example is the sibling of two of our Yellowstone students. I suspect that the reason he is not at our school is either due to his age or our waiting list of over 300. Yes there are disparities in educational opportunities. Some schools go out of their way to try to remedy those disparities in admissions by favoring minorities. Clearly it is not enough. We will never solve all the social ills that plague our broken world. Our duty is to address the ones in our sphere of influence that we can solve. I know of no institution that does that better than the one that Shannon works for which is the Star of Hope Mission in Houston, our across the street neighbor at Yellowstone. (Your email address gave you away Shannon.) The Star of Hope takes in homeless families and gives them spiritual support and job training and teaches them other skills they need to become self-supporting members of society. Most of the people there are homeless at least in part due to drug related problems. I must say though, the fabulous work of the Star of Hope is a shining example of my main thesis. The entire mission of Star of Hope is to provide correctives to the moral, spiritual and behavioral deficits that resulted in their clients becoming homeless in the first place. There is not a lot of pontificating about the blame for those deficits. This excellent ministry is all about solutions and it provides them more effectively than any other I know.

[Claire]

David Lumpkins, thanks for responding some about what that line in your post was misunderstood. I think it ironic that you hadn't actually bolded that line, but that an editor did and it subsequently drew so much attention! B/c it was in bold, it DID seem that you were trying to draw attention to it as one of your main points.

First, I think it is time to give you some affirmation! I praise God that he has touched your heart with his own passions for the poor (you mention some 300 verses on social justice and the poor-- the truth is that there are nearly 3000 verses in the Bible that talk about poverty and justice... compare that with the 7-8 that talk about homosexuality and reflect a moment on what were hear about in our Christian communities and what Christians spend time their time raising a racket in the government about.) Anyway, I digress… THANK YOU so much for not only allowing God to touch your heart but then also TAKING ACTION in response. The church needs more people like you!

I am encouraged to hear that you didn’t really mean what it sounded like in the “controversial comment” much discussed above. And I think you have interesting comments on “blame.” I agree with you that our focus should not be on blaming others for these problems. Unfortunately, because there is such a HUGE problem with poverty out there staring us in the face (not only in our own country, but around the world where 2 BILLION people in this world, or 1/3 of the total world population, live on less than $2.00/day), that any discourse of the issue, no matter how gracious in nature, sounds like blame. Take JD’s comment—he says he doesn’t want to assign blame, but that’s after he spent the preceding paragraphs talking about what a waste he believes our giving to the poor has been. It certainly sounded to me like he was blaming “the poor” for wasting what “they” had been given. And that is my point. Whether or not he was TRYING to blame “the poor,” it sure sounded like he was. The funny thing is, b/c we are all sinners living in a fallen world and making selfish choices day in and day out, we are all really to blame for what is going on. Which is why I agree that “the blame game” really is a silly thing to engage in.

Funny thing is, I think people engage in blaming b/c it is just so gosh-darned easier to do than to actually DO something to make a difference. I think people also engage in blaming b/c they don’t know WHAT to do or how they, one little person, can help. And I think very valid comments aimed at rich Christians who are comfortably living their lives without a thought to our brothers and sisters around the world living in abject poverty end up sounding like blame b/c these same people 1) don’t want to believe that a responsibility for the problems of “other people” in any way lies with them, and 2) are just plain being defense. That’s what happens when you tell rich Christians that they have a responsibility with their money to someone other than themselves and their own. (See my discussion on how, here in the US, practically ALL of us are “rich” Christians at http://www.extremestupidpoverty.com/blog/ under the post “Don’t Call Me Rich.”)

So I applaud you for being about finding solutions. That is where we all need to be. I HATE all the political diatribe I hear out there; it is getting us nowhere fast. Unfortunately, I think that no matter what you do, because you even CARE about the poor, there are plenty of people that are going to feel like you are pointing the blaming finger at them b/c it is in our selfish, sinful nature to be defensive when we see action challenging out comfortable selfishness.

Another thing I really agree with you about is the fact that the CHURCH has got to be at the forefront of this issue. AMEN BROTHER!!! I don’t think that we should necessarily give up on getting the Government to be properly involved either. I think government giving and involvement is an important part of the picture, especially since THE CHURCH IS NOT WHERE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW. A lot of organizations with really good programs (World Vision or International Justice Missions, for example) couldn’t be doing everything they are doing w/out government aid—and they could be doing a lot more with more government aid!! (And I think your line, “Changing lives will never come from someone just doing their job” is a little unfair—there are a LOT of non-Christians out there that are giving their all to help people less fortunate than themselves. The secular world has been putting the Church TO SHAME on the issue of social justice for many years. Granted, they cannot share Christ… but then again, maybe their actions are sowing a seed they don’t even know themselves b/c they have shown Christ, the origin of all things good, through their loving actions. So, yes, there are plenty of non-Christians out there who are changing lives for the good. But this is also why it’s SO important for Christians to be involved in social justice issues as well… because we can hopefully share the good news of Christ as well.)

But I agree that no matter what the government is doing, this shouldn’t detract from what the Church should be doing as well. You say, “What Christians … need to do is to put the same level of creativity and commitment into our ministry efforts as we do into our jobs, educational pursuits and immediate families. We need to redefine who our neighbor is and learn to love him as we do our own spouses and children.” AMEN to that! It’s time for Christians to immerse ourselves in a world outside of our comfort zone. It’s time for Christians to stop moving out to the suburbs. It’s time for Christians to really walk among the poor like Jesus taught us to do with our own examples. It’s time for Christians to learn a little about sacrificial giving (also something Jesus taught us through his own example on the cross) by giving up some of our comforts in order to better pour ourselves out on others. Has each of us taken some time to evaluate our spending habits? Do you NEED that $4.00 espresso every day? Do you NEED a new car every 3-5 years? Do you NEED that big house? Do you NEED the latest digital technology? Our own wealth is not something to feel GUILTY about, but with blessing and wealth come responsibility. Has each one of us thought about how we can better pour ourselves, our time, and our wealth into “the least of these”?

[Glenn]

My own questions are in the same overall vein as Lumpkins' and JD's to David DeCossimo.

But before I ask I want to acknowledge limitations of each of us-- I'm guessing JD is like DeCossimo, Lumpkins and me, not an expert in poverty, family, and education. Not only are we limited by what we have not immersed ourselves in, we are limited by the nature of a blog (it's not an in-depth academic journal), and by real life responsibilities more important than researching replies to comments.

However, even given those limitations, we can possibly have a productive, ongoing conversation that helps each of us in our thinking about this complex cluster of questions. For example, I'm not going to try to muster some coup de grace data that settles things (as if such data existed), nor are the questions I ask pre-supposing that if one can't answer them well then the other side has failed. I'm hoping for an ongoing conversation where learning and shaping continues to occur.

Questions that are relevant to me in trying to appreciate David DeCossimo's perspective:

What do you make of the massive wealth transfers enacted in Great Society programs? Public housing, welfare, and various school programs received massive spending allocations, starting in the 1960s.

My sense, without social science data at hand, is that there is a general consensus among scholars and policy people that those programs failed in terms of the goal of eradicatng poverty. Some indicators did improve, others worsened. I'm using mild language. Many of the pathologies that we associate with inner city poverty in the US worsened considerably in that time.

However, HUGE amounts of money were spent.

So my questions for David DeCossimo-- what went wrong? In spite of the huge wealth transfers, should even more have been spent? Would doubling or tripling or quadrapuling the spending have succeeded?

When we look at education spending per capita and education results by both standardized tests and by those tests that compare students from industrialized nations, the US has high (maybe near the highest) per capita spending and yet some of the worst results among industrialized nations. I have not seen the data excluding inner city schools-- maybe the high US per capita is skewed heavily by per capita spending in wealthy suburban schools. Until I can ascertain that, I do have a general question: what good does the high spending do if the results are low? I do think money is correlated to results to some degree, but when results are low and spending is high, it would seem that other variables are more robust.

There are similar dispiriting narratives to tell about huge spendng in the realm of housing and outright welfare. Again, the question comes to mind: would all this have succeeded if the social spending were doubled, tripled? Is there any amount of spending that would succeed?

I have severe doubts about the efficacy of federal agencies to address the problems of poverty. But, you (David D.) may have knowledge or data that I'm unaware of that addresses these concerns.

I have my own imaginative experiment, as you and the other David have suggested for each other. Mine would be this: let's pretend you are the HUD Director for Georgia (I think you grew up in Northern Georgia). Or whatever state you grew up in. Scenario I: Given the current rules, and a budget of $10 Billion, what would you do through HUD to combat poverty? Specifically.

Scenario II: if current rules are the problem, re-design the rules, programs and agencies in ways that would still be legal, specify the budget you would need, and tell us what you would do with your money and authority.

I confess to being deeply skeptical about government agencies' ability to address poverty, no matter the money. But I'm open to being persuaded if you can lay out the terms and conditions by which government would bring "justice."