Christian Responses to Poverty: Shane Claiborne & Peter Greer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- On March 3, 2015, Azusa Pacific University's Department of History and Political Science welcomed Shane Claiborne, founding member of The Simple Way, and Peter Greer, president of HOPE International, to discuss their different approaches to helping the poor. The debate focused on having a heart and mind for those in poverty as well as examining domestic policy implications and global poverty.
Christians are challenged to model charity and love the poor, but varying interpretations of love and its responsibilities can lead to different outcomes. Are Christians called to have not just a heart for the poor, but also a mind for the poor? In a globalized world, what implications might different understandings of love have on poverty-related domestic and foreign policies?
Meet the Panelists:
Shane Claiborne is a founding member of The Simple Way, a faith community in inner-city Philadelphia that has helped connect radical faith communities around the world.
Peter Greer is the president and CEO of HOPE International, a network of microfinance institutions operating in seventeen countries around the world, serving more than 700,000 clients.
Video credit: All rights are retained by Azusa Pacific University. Shared by permission.
Shane is on point. You cannot love your neighbor if you ok with him being in need while you have more than enough. Excuses don't fly.
I long to see the love of the church that we as followers of Christ are not disconnected from our neighbours. Maybe because Im not American I could clearly hear Peter, stating and being blind to his love of empire in the gospel brought to you by the empire. Not radical, not news, just works, for some. Shane's message sounds like a life full of what God calls us to as believers.
It’s easy to find reasons to keep more. Paul says, having food and clothing, with these we will be content.
Sell what you have and give to the poor.....
Sell what you don't (need)
Don't buy what you don't (need)
Live simple and spend your life helping those in need.
That is the way of Christ.
We can't save the world but we can help one person at a time. Love is always an action.
Matthew 6:19
cannot serve Yah And money...
You can fix and end poverty the exact second following the elimination of stupidity.
It seems to me, generally speaking, there are two versions of the Gospel butting heads out there: The me and mine one and the we and us one. Which is it? I don't see Jesus as me and mine at all. It is a question of the heart. The Acts model is very much we and us. The American way as based on the way we do economics is very much me and mine. How do I know that? Our whole economic system would fail if our habits of consumption focused more on what we actually need and way way less on what we want. We do, let's face it, live in a greed-based economy. Lastly, it is a system based on destroying the planet and lots of cruelty toward other beings we share the planet with, both nonhuman animals and other humans.
1:06:41; what bullcrap.
This is a terrible argument; the problem with this analogy is not that the rich are accumulating frisbees. They're accumulating money from people who give it to them in exchange FOR frisbees that the rich produce. It also goes back to producing other stuff like more frisbees, shoes, refrigerators, you name it....AND it lowers the costs to produce those goods (and the price via competition with others selling some of these other items. Oh yes, and to produce this stuff, they must pay people (who buy these things) to produce them and then they can buy their other necessities.
It's a crap analogy, and he has got to stop teaching kids this stuff.
Friend, you're right that the analogy doesn't work to describe how all the "product" got to where it is. The point, however, is to physically illustrate where those processes have led. It is, undeniably, where we are, regardless of how we got here. Can we at least agree the current ratio is not desirable?
@@dallasswoveland4466
I appreciate your response, but how we got here (as compared to inequality of other countries) was largely through free exchange: people exchanging their money for things they wanted. So what's wrong with how we got here if how we got here was through freedom to buy and sell as we see fit?
So frustrating to listen to. Bro. Shane missed points i would have thought he would make: there is a such a thing as illiberal, capitalist democracies that creates the corruption, unjust land rights, etc Grear oppososes. In his wholesale acceptance of capitalism, he misses the point that there's more to human flourishing than the pursuit of materialism which capitalism necessitates. He also doesnt address the China problem: a communist nation that has witnessed astounding material poverty alleviation. China doesnt fit well in the capitalist narrative.
In their talk about accumulation of wealth, nothing is said about impact on environment. In talk about helping people become independently wealthy, nothing is said about those who cannot become independent (e.g. some people w/ disabilities). In talk about healthcare, nothing is said about Scandanavian countries who have imbibed a much greater sense of community which in turn supports health for all. In talk about Christians leading fortune 500 companies, theres no talk about such companies prostituting themselves to their investors to maximize profits at all costs and stimulating destructive materialism. Peter doesn’t sufficiently question American capitalism. The fact that the data he references in support of capitalism is purely materialistic indicates a blind spot that is killing Gods creation, our own souls, and the peoples being "evangelized" by it. Look at Americs today. Full of wealth yet full of division. Capitalism needs Jesus as much as socialism and both will fail to produce their promised results this side of heaven. But Peter gives capitalism a pass. Shane should have called him on that. Maybe a representative from a illiberal democracy would have provided a more well rounded perspective
If you love people you will preach the truth about Sin, Repentance and Hell...if you love people you will preach, share, witness about Salvation. . .if a man or women want to bed with a full belly... because of somebody loving them...but die in their sins during the night, because no one told them about the gospel of salvation...did we really love them . . .What good is it if a person gains the whole world, but loses his own soul? Or what can you give to get your life back if you die in your sins? Why are these two men not talking about people's salvation? Why isn't being saved, Born Again more important that if somebody has something to eat? Eating is campral, Salvation is External...
Peter had great things to say, but I wish he would have pushed back on Shane's comments about sharing, which never really dealt with the charge Peter was making that we don't live in a zero sum universe. If the pie can be grown, then what constitutes appropriate generosity and what actions create dependency? Shane should have been challenged to answer that question IMO. He can talk about being neither a Marxist or a capitalist, but how does that work in the real world in solving poverty?
I use to look up to Shane so much. He is the face of a radical socialist Christianity that I can no longer support. I love him as a brother and a image barer but I can't back his philosophies. People with these ideas make me regretfully vote for Trump.... What choice do we have?
He starts off with "...a Christian academic institution...." and ".....we are perusing truth". I can't watch any more of this excrement.