Friday, 26 November 2010

Poverty is a Matter of Immorality

Not that poverty, as some would have it, is immoral in itself. Rather, poverty, as I have said many times before, is to a great extent a result of immorality. Here is more evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, as if any more is needed.
...the large majority—80 percent—of poor, unmarried couples were romantically involved at the time of their child’s birth. In fact, 50 percent of the couples were living together. Fathers almost always visited the mothers and children in the hospital and usually gave financial support. Even better, most of these new parents said that there was a 50/50 chance that they would eventually marry each other. They spoke highly of their partners’ commitment to their children and of their supportiveness.

But within five years, a tiny 15 percent of the unmarried couples had actually taken wedding vows, while a whopping 60 percent had split up.

Read it all here...
The problem is, of course, that the liberals and the left will never, indeed can never admit, that this type of sexual immorality, or what they might euphemistically call sexual freedom, (that is, a sexual relationship of any kind outside of marriage), is the primary cause of child poverty in our culture.

But the evidence is clear, and until it is recognized and addresssed, our Western culture and society will continue to circle and eventually go down the drain.

Take Care


Warren said...

John, I read and like much of what you write; but then I hit something like this:

"The problem is, of course, that the liberals and the left will never, indeed can never admit, that this type of sexual immorality, or what they might euphemistically call sexual freedom, (that is, a sexual relationship of any kind outside of marriage), is the primary cause of child poverty in our culture."

This is pure hyperbole and no more proveable than evolution. I sometimes wonder if you have a tidy list of "unacceptable" beliefs and, if a person holds to even one of those beliefs, you immediately judge them to be a liberal (which, it would appear, makes them a heinous sinner of the worst kind)? Maybe I'm being too harsh and should just ask you to give a concise definition of what a liberal is. I may discover that your definition is completely different than mine and that is the root of the problem. I defer to the Concise Oxford Dictionary by the way.

Anyway, when I read a gross generalization like the quote above - regardless of what end of the political spectrum it comes from - I stop reading. If an author has to rely on tactics like this, rather than build a solid case from logic and facts, I figure they're just blowing hot air like most politicians, and I can't take them seriously.

If you can make a case for poverty being largely caused by immorality, without hopping on your bully platform to castigate liberals, I'll tune back in. I just hope your case is valid for the billions of people around the world who live in poverty. I also hope you can explain why some very immoral people live in obscene excess.

Steve Finnell said...

you are invited to follow my blog

Warren said...

Steve, I was raised in pentecostalism and was steeped in Arminianism before I had ever heard the word. I now lean towards Calvinism. I'm not sure you want me.

Warren said...

John, I wrote my first comment late at night, and probably didn't consider my words as well as I should have. I struggle, though, with what sometimes appears to me an inconsistency in your commentary. Sometimes the emphasis is heavily on grace - we are all sinners and there is nothing any of us can do to earn God's favour. Then, as with this post, the emphasis seems to switch to a gospel of works - if only people would do x,y and z, our society would be a much better (and presumably much more Christian) place; we just need the proper political perspective and all will be well with the world.

If I could ask a small favour, how do you relate your current post to what you said last April:

Frankly, I take a fairly radical view of the separateness of these two kingdoms. If we are in the Kingdom of God; more accurately, if God has transferred us into His kingdom; if we have bowed the knee and confessed Jesus as our Lord and Saviour, then the kingdom of the world is foreign territory to us. Therefore, I don’t, when all is said and done, put too much worry into what happens in that kingdom. Do they allow same-sex marriage in the kingdom of the world? I don’t really care. Is there sexual immorality in the world? Again, so be it. In my mind, the only concern we Christians need to have about the world is how what happens there affects or impedes people from being brought into the Kingdom of God. Yes, we are called to defend and help the sick, poor and the defenceless, but I think the ultimate goal, even in that, is to bring glory to God and people into His Kingdom. The Kingdom.

I don't like to think in black-and-white categories of liberal and conservative. As your earlier post suggests, I like to think in terms of sinners saved by grace, and sinners who have yet to experience God's grace. Those who are citizens of the kingdom of the world, and those who are citizens of God's Kingdom. I'm sure that representatives of both groups can be found across the political spectrun. I'm also sure that many live in poverty as a result of their own immorality, and many also live in poverty because of the immorality of others who oppress them for economic gain. It is all sin.

John K said...

Hi Warren,
Perhaps I could have thought of a better category than, 'liberals', so as not to paint all with the same brush. Perhaps I should have spoken about the difference between the Kingdom af God and the kingdom of the world, but that again, is lumping everyone into particular categories.
First of all, I am speaking mainly as an observer of things, in this case, the state of our society which, although not our eternal home, is somewhere we still must live. My thoughts here have nothing to do with grace, or works, or salvation or lack of same. Second, I was addressing the issue of poverty, particularly child poverty in our western society. And I was speaking of society's general atttitude toward sexuality. Although I called it 'liberal', I guess I was more specifically referring to what I would just call a liberal attitude toward sexuality, as opposed to what many would see as the more 'restrictive' Christian position on the subject.
And in that regard, both from a statistical point of view and my own observations of people I deal with in life and work, the connection is irrefutable. Today's more liberal attitudes toward sexual morality, the number of temporary relationships resulting in single parenthood, and the ease and higher incidence of divorce are directly and dare I say even proportionally related to child poverty and all it's consequences.
And most of society, whether I call them liberal or not, just doesn't seem to get it. Much of society, and here I will refer to them as the liberal side of things, thinks the problem can be solved by throwing money at it, ignoring, deliberately or naively, the elephant in the room that is sexual morality.

Regarding our focus on seeing as many as we can brought into the Kingdom of God, that is our primary aim, but I believe society will change for the better as a result of more people returning to a Godly standard of living their lives.

And that's just the way it is. I'm not campaigning; just observing.

Warren said...

John, thank you for a very civil response. My argument is not so much with your basic thesis, as your making, with one broad stroke, scapegoats of many people in our society who may largely agree with you - but who hold to liberal ideas and values in other areas. These are people who otherwise may be willing to link arms with you in finding practical solutions to child poverty in your neighbourhood; but are turned away by the rhetoric.

I may be more sensitive to the liberal-conservative dichotomy because of where I'm living. I see stereotyping and labeling going on around me every day, and I'm increasingly convinced that it is counterproductive to the finding of truly helpful solutions. I also think that, when they get past the slogans and think things through for themselves, most people hold to liberal views in some areas and conservative ones in others. But, unfortunately, everyone tends to be pushed into one category or the other.

My sinful nature is problematic enough without it being fanned into flame by watching and reading commentary that is always looking to blame someone else for the woes of society. I also know that much of this commentary, be it from the left or the right, has more in common with the words of the Pharisees than with the teaching of Jesus.

I am a member of a very good church, and am blessed to be able to sit under high quality teaching every Sunday. Politics and patriotism is kept far in the background, but I know that, for some of the people sitting next to me (and who are nodding in agreement with what the preacher or teacher is saying), once they walk out the door their attitude and approach to their neighbours is more informed by their favourite TV commentator than by the Word of God they just heard. I'm prone to the same thing, but I don't want to be one of those people.

Warren said...

I commented on one of Steve Finell's blog posts a couple of days ago (see above), but it doesn't appear to have made it out of moderation. It wasn't rude, but I took Steve to task for a comment that was clearly a gross exaggeration. I'm starting to wonder if he isn't more interested in having his ego stroked than in honest theological dialogue.