Adventists Join Statement Opposing Lawmakers Vote to Eliminate Food Stamps Program
by AT News Team
In the aftermath of a vote last week by the United States House of Representatives to delete the "food stamps" program for the poor while retaining agriculture subsidies for farmers and large corporations, the Seventh-day Adventist Church was represented among a long list of Christian leaders who issued a statement on "why we need to protect programs for the poor." The statement recognized that in the face of "historic deficits" government has a responsibility to reduce spending, but stated that to make these cuts in programs essential to the basic needs of the poor is not moral.
"As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare," the statement said. "We look at every budget proposal [in terms of] how it treats those Jesus called 'the least of these' (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources."
The statement signed by more than 5,000 Christian leaders came as Congress is planning to take a lengthy vacation, starting August 5, before addressing a number of items vital to the poor as they consider the nation’s fiscal challenges. The "pastoral letter" urges lawmakers working to reduce the national debt to maintain a circle of protection around programs that effectively alleviate hunger and poverty in the United States and internationally. It advocates against balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and disabled.
The statement thanks President Barack Obama for his efforts to reduce the deficit while limiting cuts to programs serving poor people, and it asks lawmakers from both parties to work together to end hunger and poverty "by engaging in respectful, bipartisan dialogue and by ending brinksmanship." The Christian leaders signing the statement ask lawmakers to develop a plan that finds revenue and savings without increasing poverty and to frame budget discussions in terms of moral choices understandable to the American people.
The statement does not oppose changes in programs. They "should be made as effective as possible, but not cut. … We are committed to fiscal responsibility [and] we are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity and rights of poor and vulnerable people." The statement addresses both domestic programs and international humanitarian and development assistance.
The religious leaders backing this statement include both liberal and conservative figures. Galen Carey, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, is among the signers, as is Richard Stearns, president of World Vision, the largest relief organization among conservative Protestants. It was also signed by Kathryn M. Lohre, president of the liberal National Council of Churches, and Jim Wallis of Sojourners.
Surveys have shown that the majority of Adventist churches in the United States offer an emergency food pantry for needy families in the community. Most of these get some assistance through the regional food bank in their area which is, in part, funded by some of the government programs currently being debated. Middle class Americans in general are not aware of the extent to which government funding is involved in volunteer community service activities and tend to believe that these services are entirely funded from private donations and church funds.
United States government funding is also key to the work of the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA). Nearly 80 percent of its efforts would have to be ended if all government funding were removed from the international projects ADRA implements.
My my the bed is so comfy.
It sounds like these ministries are depending more on government than God.
I am dismayed – no, incensed – that the SDA Church has apparently taken a position on a piece of legislation that has much in it besides funding food stamps for Americans, who will neither go hungry or starve simply because SNAP, which logically has no place in a Farm Bill, was carved out of the Farm Bill, to be dealt with as a separate and distinct legislative issue. SNAP has not been eliminated, and will not be eliminated. Congress simply decided that a Farm Bill ought to be about farms, not a welfare program that dwarfs unfortunate government welfare to favored entities in the farming industry. Food stamp spending, which was nearly three-fourths of the proposed Farm Bill, has risen 70% in the past five years. Elimination of SNAP from the Farm Bill was nothing but a political skirmish, and I am shocked that the SDA Church chose to waste its religious authority on a statement that was nothing but pure political posturing.
Tempted as I am to analyze the bill, discuss whether one-seventh of Americans really need to be on food stamps, and comment on the corrosive effect that government dependency has on character development, I want to question what standards the SDA Church, qua church uses for deciding when and how to use its moral authority in the civic arena. This strikes me as a crucial question for the Church, as we see legalized moral anarchy increasingly threatening both religious freedom and the very legitimacy of the role that subsidiary institutions that have historically assumed in guarding and promoting moral values.
Why is it appropriate for the Church to promote a complex, pork-laden bill containing a controversial provision for funding food stamps, but not appropriate for the Church to promote a Constitutional amendment affirming marriage as applicable only to a man and a woman? I scarcely know where to begin and where to end with the various political fights that the Church could use to soil the banner of Christ and divert attention from His message to the political passions d'jour. Why did the Church not support the constitutionality of traditional marriage when the issue was before the Supreme Court? Why doesn't the Church take a stand on free breakfasts to all kids in public schools? I thought the Church stayed out of political and legal battles that do not involve First Amendment freedoms.
Who was it that signed the statement on behalf of the Church, and what was his/her capacity? What SDA Church entity authorized endorsement of the the statement? If this is the rail that the SDA Church is headed down, as opposed to a poorly considered aberration from its historic position of non-involvement in political battles not involving religious liberty, I will be soon finding/creating another Adventist rail that resolves to keep its focus on Christ, and resists the siren call to spend the Church's moral capital on political battles in earthly kingdoms.
Who said food stamps are for the poor? They have doubled for politics….buying of votes..
Other than freedom of religion-the church should stay out of politics.
What a poorly written and devoid of facts article! Was this written by a committe? Surely you can do better.
I agree with you JaNe. I just didn't want to address the question of whether true poverty and need have driven the metastasis of food stamps to one-seventh of the American population. My question is why the Church is endorsing a political statement.
As to whether the article is well-written, Burt, I wouldn't judge. It certainly is devoid of what I believe are important facts for Adventists to know. But it is very newsworthy. Every Adventist should be aware of instances where the Church officially speaks out in the political arena.
Whatever politcal reasons you have for not wanting the church to be involved, I won't go into nor should I. However, I do not want my church to be persented as an organization against providing food for the poor. The SDA church is already generally thought of as fundamentalist, right-wing, even pro-gun and capital punishment too much for my comfort. I do not like this association. We should be independent and nonpartison but speak to moral issues. (Think back to prohibition.)
Who said the church only gets involved in religious liberty issues? Who decided that they stay out of morality or any sort of other freedom issue? It is shameful that we were not involved in the civil rights issues, yet our ancestors were abolitionists. And tell me why we should take away the freedom of choice for those who are not in our belief system? (DOMA) Are we only for freedom and liberty when it impacts our group??
Our corrupt government is always adding bills to legitimate needs legislation to get their agenda through. Morality, honesty, and ethics need to start there!
We have a very serious problem that is about to sink the ship. JaNe is correct,this is vote buying. Over 50% of children born in the USA are born outside of marriage. Every child born to an unwed mother gets an additional payout, to the mother, until the age of 18 years, plus food stamps, medical, dental, education, etc. It is not unusual for unwed mothers in some communities to have as many as 10 children. And there are now over 3 generations of welfare families. There is
no stigma to many being freeloaders. The youth of many of these families rarely
see the cash, they drop out of school, hang with gangs, get involved with drugs &
crime, and brag of their conquest with the ladies, and another generation of free-
loaders is born, (wait until i hear back on this), but its true. And these votes are
bought and paid for. If a person is hungry in this country its because they are too
lazy to walk to it, or phone to have it delivered. Its all political, and the bleeding hearts are eating it up. The public media are shouting it from the rooftops.
Ella, who are the poor? And what impact do food stamps have on hunger or poverty? I have two son-in-laws who are very involved in helping the poor. They see families wasting their EBT cards on incredibly expensive, individually pre-packaged food – usually junk food with little nutritional value. They tell me of families receiving $1,000 a month in SNAP who come to them 2 to 3 weeks into the month telling them they are out of food stamp money. So they get food coupons that can be used for liquor and tobacco. That's the way government compassion works. Stores in a particular section of town advertise that they pay cash for coupons and EBT cards. Do you think the Church should be supporting such fraud and abuse?
Why do you accept other people's perception of what the SDA Church is? What is your church like? What expertise does the Church have in legislative policy? Why should the Church get involved in supporting what you concede is often corrupt, pork-laden legislation? Do wealth transfers prove that people or churches care? I resent the implication that those who don't support legislation that enables and perpetuates dependency do not care about the poor? Did politicians in Detroit care more about the poor? Do politicans in other failing, poverty-stricken, dependent, depravity-filled cities in America care more about the poor because they have redistributionist policies that facilitate graft and corruption, and kill the golden gooses of capitalism that have fueled their recklessness? Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for the rest of his life; take away the fish caught by another, and give it to the man, and you can count on his vote for the rest of your political career.
I don't have political reasons for not wanting the Church to get involved. Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." The Church should be about revealing and building God's Kingdom. The best ways to eliminate poverty and to make this world a better place are highly debatable. It is far from evident that liberal policies puportedly designed to eliminate poverty actually work or that their minimal benefits outweigh their moral costs. But they do get politicians elected. Where do you find Jesus raising His voice to advocate the policies that Caesar should adopt? Where do you see Jesus enlisting the power and resources of the state to advance the Kingdom?
For the Church to get involved in these issues would cause great internal strife, and detract from its witness. If the Church is united on a particular political issue, as it was on issues like abolition and prohibition, I have less problem with it using its moral voice. But I still think it must be done very carefully.
I believe that the best way to reduce poverty is to take away incentives that encourage people to remain in poverty – to enjoy food, shelter, and clothing at the expense of their neighbors without working for them. I believe that able-bodied people who will not or cannot work for a living should be moved to work farms, where they will lose their freedom in exchange for having their basic needs met, as long as they undergo training to develop the life skills and habits that will enable them to provide for themselves and their children. What's wrong with that? Take away autonomy and discretionary cash, and most people will figure out a way to make it without dependency. At a minimum, those who cannot support themselves or their children should be limited to obtaining healthy staples at government food centers where they cannot get junk or pre-packaged food. But that's just my opinion. I certainly wouldn't want the Church to advance my political beliefs.
Even though much of what you say is true. I have heard all this stuff. Pres. Johnson, I believe it was, broke up families with his one-parent home funding, there are things that need to be done before taking away food stamps as an immediate solution. People don't change overnight, and to expect them to seems cruel.
The inner-city culture and those who can gain access to it must begin change there. A major concern is the nonexistent family unit. This seemed to begin with Johnson and then the media/movies/Hollywood and 60s mentality made it fashionable to have babies without marriage. They were rich enough to handle it, but the poor Blacks couldn't and didn't. It became profitable and acceptable, as did the drugs. (much of it sold to White customers who keep it going). This is what I am hearing from those historians who have studied culture.
Change must begin with the people, and food stamp dependence can gradually be phased out. These people don't even have grocery stores where they live and businesses bringing jobs won't invest there! Education that teaches values and morality is needed; teachers' unions are largely to blame for poor schools.
We will always have the poor, but food could be handled more effeciently with low-cost stores or warehouses of excess produce in poor areas.
Again, I do not want my church opposing help for the poor; call it bad PR or whatever you want.
Ella,
You are hopefully aware that (according to the Fiscal Year 2010 Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Quality Control sample) at least 35.7% of those on “food stamps” are ‘White, not Hispanic’ by household head; whereas (minimally) 22% were ‘African American, not Hispanic.
In other words, there are a lot of white folks who are financially challenged. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that many whites are under the incorrect impression that the majority of people on ‘food stamps’ are African Americans.
In the 1930's in the USA, the Roosevelt Admin. put in motion several programs to alleviate hunger and unemployment. The WPA (Works Project Admin), THE CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps),where the men folk were organized into work parties, housed in camps, some given uniforms. They built roads, parks, many infrastructures. They earned stipends and their families were able to withdraw foodstuffs from Govt. organized warehouses that also provided jobs for those distributing the food. The staples were rice, beans, lard, cheese, flour, grains, sugar, oleo, peanut butter etc, little or no cash. There were many fraternal organizations that provided emergency stocks of food & clothing, as well as most church organizations. This may be a neccessity, again, in the cities.
This makes a lot of sense, so I suppose it won't happen. Common sense went out decades ago.
I agree with you, Elaine. Who said anything about the church opposing help for the poor? Jesus' way is not the government way. Who are the poor? Why are they poor? What are the best ways to bring them out of poverty? These are important questions in the earthly kingdom. Jesus passion was to reveal the Heavenly Kingdom. "Why worry about what you are going to eat?" "Take no thought for tomorrow." "The birds have nests; the foxes have holes…" "Who made me to be judge or divider over you?" "Blessed are the poor." It is in personal, selfless acts of mercy and love for His sake and in His name that we serve the Kingdom and follow Christ, not in perfecting the earthly kingdom through the political process. And that should be the exclusive focus of the church. Against that there is no law; and no law can mandate that. We are strong as we remain united in that conviction. We are weak when we dissipate our energies and passions in debate over the political cause d'jour.
A major question that anyone involved in ministry must at times ask is: What is the true source of the resources we use to do what we do? The Bible doesn't say "And your government will provide all your needs according to the imagined riches in D.C." When we use resources provided by the government we are at the mercy of that government, which can be utterly capricious and demand that we compromise or surrender our faith if we are to continue receiving their assistance.
Fortunately, God is utterly amazing and promises to provide all our needs. That includes providing all the needs in our ministries. I saw Him providing again yesterday and today in my ministry. We were helping a family with an older house needing a lot of repairs, overgrown shrubs in the flowerbeds and massive trees needing a lot of trimming for both safety and appearance. We had eleven people working and the results were dramatic. One man and a teen brought two truckloads of mulch for the flower beds. A woman spent the entire time shampooing the carpet. We left a pile of tree trimmings for the city to pick up that measured four feet high and more than 20 feet long. This morning I was back to check on a leaking laundry drain. It wasn't actually leaking, but backing-up because of a blockage and overflowing when the washer drained. We needed a plumber with a root cutter to clear the drain. The family didn't have the money to hire a plumber and I didn't. But a man who came on his first project yesterday was back today to spray weed killer. After he heard about the drain the next thing I knew he was calling a plumber he knows to come and deal with the situation.
Experiences like that keep me wanting to depend on God first, foremost and always.