God's selective watching?

God Is Watching

So, the head Sojrone himself weights in on the budget issue, again. And, of course, he's not above invoking the eye of God when he wants to.

When it comes to the bitter and ultra-partisan battles over the budget, the deficit, and the fast-approaching deadline for America to avoid defaulting on its financial commitments, the whole nation and even the world is watching.

But God is watching too.

And, I guess, since Wallis has the audacity to name his little blog "God's Politics", then he must have an inside track on what God is watching for?

Today, Sojourners has a full-page ad in Politico with the message “God Is Watching” as a part of our series of print ads on the budget. This week our radio ads, recorded by local pastors, are playing in Nevada, Kentucky, and Ohio to remind politicians of the moral issues at stake. Faith leaders say God is biased in such matters, and prefers to protect the poor instead of the rich, and instructs the faithful to do the same. This is class warfare now, and when it breaks out, the Bible suggests that God is on the side of defending the poor from assault.

emphases mine

So, Wallis admits it--he's engaging in class warfare. And, of course, God is on his side.

God is biased in such matters? Really, care to show where in the Bible it says that? Rather, if I may quote myself...

God does not play favorites

To say that, in any aspect of justice, God favors any social or economic class or another, is to go against what God Himself told the people to do. Consider these passages.

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Leviticus 19:17

Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike...
Deuteronomy 1:17

These are the sayings of the wise: To show partiality in judging is not good:
Proverbs 24:23

So, I will contend here, that to say that "God favors the poor" is to say that God practices injustice. God Himself has said that justice should be given to both rich and poor without partiality, and to show partiality would be to pervert justice.

Wallis' statement is a clear misrepresentation of what God has told us concerning Himself. He cares very much for the poor, yes, and that they should be treated justly, but not at the expense of being unjust to anyone else. Wallis' statement that God is biased, that God shows partiality, is a lie. God does not do that, and He does not tell the faithful to do the same.

Plus, there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that the government must set up a vast, expensive, and cumbersome network of social giveaways to the poor, or else we are not caring properly for them.

One could, for example, look at what God commanded Israel in regards to harvesting and gleaning, that the reapers were to go over the field once and leave what remained for the poor to gather. We can see one example of how that played out in the book of Ruth. But there are some things about that situation that seem to be ignored by these socialism injustice folks. For example, the person who owned the field was to have first of the harvest, very likely the lion's share, while the poor were only allowed to collect what remained after the reapers had gone over it. The poor were not allowed to go in to the field, section off what they themselves thought was fair, and simply take with impunity from the man who owned the field, took the risk of sowing, and who rightfully earned the harvest.

Nor does Jesus insist that either the Israeli religious leaders nor the Romans set up a social net, passing legislation to take from the rich and give to the poor, to create a redistribution of wealth.

Looking at ways to either cut or eliminate wasteful government spending does not constitute an assault on the poor, Mr. Wallis, and shame on you and your class warfare rhetoric and mindset for saying so. You misrepresent, I think with intent, the Word of God for the sake of your own uninformed version of social justice, which is no justice at all, and if the US must experience economic failure because of it, well, better to keep taking and taking than not have your pet social programs not have the glut of funds you want them to have, right?