Yes I’m quite aware of churches adopting neighborhoods and this is a GREAT approach. While it could be late to the game, if we stick to it, then surely we can be a global force. In Virginia I helped start a nonprofit contingency that now has the blessing of the City Council, the Mayor’s office, and the City Police; all in the most violent neighborhood in the area. It’s about empowering people and giving them access & education to where they wouldn’t have had it previously.

And frankly, I don’t mind the government assisting in that process so long as there is oversight & accountability until the church as a whole steps up to the plate. The next issue becomes to what degree and there’s our argument. We like infrastructure, certain bureaucracy, education (didn’t know that education at one time wasn’t publically funded WOW), libraries, military. These are all social programs & services that we all agree on. So it’s not as if we don’t believe in them…

We need to encourage oversight from our government to avoid corruption, but we must also embrace goals that are good in spirit – that is, those that truly help our neighbors….and the Church can step up to….and I believe she is.

So the question really is about the approach. Do we approach this on a global scale, expand government even more so and give them power to redistribute wealth, or do we start small and focus on our community.

One program that has yielded great results this year is the adopt-a-block that many area churches have been involved with. I assume you’re familiar? We’ve taken on the trailer park behind the lion’s den, and began building relationships as well as helping them out with basic needs — wheel chair ramps, book bags and school supplies, food, even free hair cuts from my wife. All of these things we do without any attempts to evangelize, but we’ve gained some church members and new believers anyway.

The differences come in defining who are brothers are. Conservatives & Christians tend to think that brothers can be of the Christian circle or those who need help but only those who help themselves.

Liberals might expand that definition in terms of who needs help. Working in a “social” program I get to see the good and the bad. Some people really need help, they work hard, but daggone-it, they’re poor and will always be poor unless someone can remove a barrier. And since the Christian community doesn’t do enough to remove those barriers, then yes, government programs can help those people.

Sides disagree on how to help those people as well and to what extent. As everyone has perfectly alluded to, if the Christian community would enhance their skills in this area, then certainly we wouldn’t have to rely on government assistance, as I trust the Christian community moreso than government…that said I do not completely distrust government even though it can corrupt, so too can Christian institutions as evident in its history.

The “bubble” as you said can be good at times, and I know I’ve needed it at times. Other times it just becomes a security blanket or a religious gesture and we run the risk of never impacting anyone or anything.