But to the other question of large, distant groups of people, I’m not sure there’s any substantive answer there. Unless you’re talking about disaster relief, when there’s a clearly demonstrable need, I’m not sure it’s not better to take care of those close to home and leave the world at large to its own devices.

Then, when they’ve learned how to manage something as complex as, say, running water (which the Romans mastered two millenia ago) for themselves, we could look into something more.

Still, these were situations dealing with individuals. To take your example about Africa - I am sure that there are people in Africa, just like here, who do not work and refuse to learn how. However, there are also people who are working as hard as they can, and still are unable to provide the basic necessities for their families. We don’t know which are which.

I have trouble reconciling the thought process of large groups of people with negative outcomes and the individual people that are involved, as each individual may have a completely different set of circumstances. Jeremy says I’m too soft-hearted. =)

Widows and orphans, and only some of those who did not have family to support them, or who were over a certain age with no family. We could logically extend this to the extreme physically disabled IMO.

Otherwise, those who don’t work don’t eat.

This is a hard issue. It’s hard as a human to see the great suffering in our world and not want to do something about it. This is what has motivated so many good-hearted Westerners to lives of thankless work in Africa, and others to send billions upon billions in public and private aid. All for nothing.

This is because that kind of charity is at odds with the “don’t work, don’t eat” principle. It’s not sustainable, as many are people with high fertility who lack the economic output to fill their basic needs.

Giving a man a fish is not helpful.

But what do you do with someone who can’t or won’t learn to fish either? Solution: put them to work on your own fishing boat. Colonialism was clearly a divine mercy, but the flaw was ultimately in Western man, not Africa. Westerners lost their moral courage and self-confidence, and let a bunch of Marxist troublemakers guilt them into turning the whole continent over to its own lusts.

Aid to Africa is a black hole absent proper leadership there, and we ought to be especially concerned about efforts to divert scarce church resources when we know the outcome of previous endeavors.

I have a post brewing about what I call “pornographic charity”.

However, Proverbs 21:13 says “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.”

I’m not saying the church’s responsibility is to take care of the poor. The Bible is also full of examples of the fact that people’s choices often lead to poverty or riches. However, individually at the very least, we are called to have compassion on the poor and needy. Also, helping those in need also gives us the opportunity to show Jesus’ love to those people in a way we never could otherwise, and that IS part of our “prime directive”.

So, how do we reconcile the two?

The church was never instructed to go forward like the Red Cross, with due respect. Not that the church must shy away from such things, but it is not part of the prime directive.

Warren like others is in bed with the government as well. His lack of respect for the constitution as well as his lack of understanding or just disregard for the Bible is a clear warring.

I think that the problem isn’t one of each individual teaching being “wrong” - it’s just that no individual teaching is going to be complete by itself. If it was, God wouldn’t have seen fit to give us 66 books - three or four chapters would have sufficed. So, it’s not a matter of “friendship evangelism” being wrong, it’s just not something you can build your entire life/belief/doctrine around. See the truths in it and incorporate it as the Spirit leads, but don’t be fooled that this is “all you have to do” and everything will turn out fine.

The ultimate solution for this problem is to get people individually back into the Word of God. Removing the mystique that makes us think we need pretty, “easy” books to read to help us understand the mysteries of God, and instead realizing that God has given us His Spirit in order to understand His words. The Reformation began because people started to see that the “elites” were wrong - the ones who had told them that they couldn’t understand the Bible on their own, they had to be taught by the smart ones - the ones who could read and understand Latin.

We are capable of understanding God’s Words on our own - but it’s not always easy. So do we cater to those who “just won’t do it” because it’s hard? Or do we exhort fellow believers in order to encourage them to put in the work that’s necessary to learn, and believe. They’ll do the work to get a Master’s degree - why not to understand how to truly live?

(By the way, in my experience, Precept Ministries has been an excellent tool in this endeavor. Their stated mission and purpose is to teach people how to study the Bible on their own.

Also, incidentally, Precept Ministries reports growth of their ministry in every country in the world - EXCEPT America, where they are in danger of going under. This should say something about the apostasy and complacency that is going on in America today.)

My real problem comes with his initiatives AFTER PDL. His flirtation with social gospel liberals like Barack Obama (including allowing the baby-murder-enabler to speak at his church) and focus on politically-correct causes like AIDS and “ending poverty” (which Christ tells us is impossible). He goes around bragging about how he’s leading a “Second Reformation” that will put aside doctrine to instead focus on a gospel of works.

Feel free to use the search box on the site for “Rick Warren” to see other comments.

He’s been more quiet lately. I would guess his vainglorious PEACE plan for solving African poverty (including making Rwanda the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation”) is crashing on the hard rocks of African reality. Billions upon billions of dollars, not to mention the personal help of thousands of good-hearted Western liberals like Warren, and the entire continent is still worse off than it was 100 years ago under proper leadership.

Like he sayes in his best seller: “It’s not about you”. So it’s not about us, it’s about others. It is about selfless obedience and discipleship.

Also, your discussion/observations seem robotic and incomplete because they do not consider the miraculous works of the Holy Spirit. What are your thoughts on his role?