Understanding the Culture of Generational Poverty and Dependency

[Josh]

But Christians don't focus on systemic evils. We focus on the individual.

The last time Christians got their way with "systemic evils", we outlawed alcohol. How well did that work out in reducing domestic violence, abuse, crime, and poverty?

[PeterG]

But Christians don't focus on systemic evils. We focus on the individual.

Then what's the point of even talking about a culture of generational poverty and dependency? That's a systemic evil if anything is.

And there's an either/or fallacy here. We don't need to choose between acknowledging systemic evils and addressing the individual any more than we need to choose between acknowledging cultural differences and addressing the individual. We can do both (in different ways, to be sure).

The last time Christians got their way with "systemic evils", we outlawed alcohol. How well did that work out in reducing domestic violence, abuse, crime, and poverty?

You're conflating political activism with understanding the circumstances that have shaped people's lives. There's a difference between prohibitionism and understanding the impact of alcoholism.

[Josh]

But Christians don't focus on systemic evils. We focus on the individual.

Then what's the point of even talking about a culture of generational poverty and dependency? That's a systemic evil if anything is.

To talk about how to bless people and encourage them to walk a Christian life who have this background. It's no different than talking about how to help people with a history of addiction.

Addiction is obviously evil. Addiction needs to be understood to help someone live a redemptive life. But at the same time, part of that redemption is helping the person see addiction doesn't need to define them and they can let go of that part of their identity.

And there's an either/or fallacy here. We don't need to choose between acknowledging systemic evils and addressing the individual any more than we need to choose between acknowledging cultural differences and addressing the individual. We can do both (in different ways, to be sure).

It's not my job to find every systemic evil in the world and "acknowledge" them. Isn't the gospel message enough, which describes a world broken with sin, and all of us having both sin and the legacy of being sinned against in our past?

Sometimes it's good to delve deep into history and discuss the impacts that wickedness in the past has had on the present. But it's definitely not a good place to dwell.

The last time Christians got their way with "systemic evils", we outlawed alcohol. How well did that work out in reducing domestic violence, abuse, crime, and poverty?

You're conflating political activism with understanding the circumstances that have shaped people's lives. There's a difference between prohibitionism and understanding the impact of alcoholism.

Your typical post about this reads like a leftist political activist, so maybe that's why I'm comparing the two.

[PeterG]

But Christians don't focus on systemic evils. We focus on the individual.

Then what's the point of even talking about a culture of generational poverty and dependency? That's a systemic evil if anything is.

To talk about how to bless people and encourage them to walk a Christian life who have this background. It's no different than talking about how to help people with a history of addiction.

Addiction is obviously evil. Addiction needs to be understood to help someone live a redemptive life. But at the same time, part of that redemption is helping the person see addiction doesn't need to define them and they can let go of that part of their identity.

I agree with what you're saying here. The comparison to addiction is a good one. The things I've been saying are just the analogue of understanding addiction.

It's not my job to find every systemic evil in the world and "acknowledge" them. Isn't the gospel message enough, which describes a world broken with sin, and all of us having both sin and the legacy of being sinned against in our past?

If the gospel message were enough in the way that you're saying here, wouldn't it be unnecessary to understand addiction in the way you just talked about, or to talk about history in the way you say is sometimes good below?

Sometimes it's good to delve deep into history and discuss the impacts that wickedness in the past has had on the present. But it's definitely not a good place to dwell.

I agree. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Your typical post about this reads like a leftist political activist, so maybe that's why I'm comparing the two.

So much the better for the leftists.

[mike]

But Christians don't focus on systemic evils. We focus on the individual.

Then what's the point of even talking about a culture of generational poverty and dependency? That's a systemic evil if anything is.

To talk about how to bless people and encourage them to walk a Christian life who have this background. It's no different than talking about how to help people with a history of addiction.

I'm not quite done listening to the talk, but so far I would say Clayton talks mostly about your underlined point, Josh. I was expecting to learn more about how to understand the culture, as the message is titled, and other than passing references to such cultural background aspects as slavery, I didn't feel I gained much insight there. However I wouldn't have much argument with the ways he has learned to interface with that culture and draw people out of it.

[Pelerin]

I’m not sure what makes you think the speaker or his church is in a position to be making loans.

Most the people asking for loans either don’t intend to pay them back or wouldn’t be able to, and people who can’t delay gratification are not very good at repaying loans. It makes more sense to directly help someone in a dire situation.

Well, I don't think he would have brought it up at 38:30 if he hadn't considered the possibility. And if you're in a position to give money, you're in a position to loan it and (at least potentially) get it back. If I understand the speaker, his goals are to be available to meet needs while not leaving the recipient without any responsibility. I said he might reconsider loaning money to people because I think it can fit those goals, in some ways, perhaps, better than giving out odd jobs.

Of course there's certain types of people who will take the money and run, but by and large people who accept a personal loan want to pay it back. Not everyone that needs money wants a handout.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Perhaps the presumed systemic denial of economic benefits is not the root cause of the problem.

Slavery, redlining, and other systematic denials of economic benefits were real, not just "presumed." I have not said that they were the root cause of anything (that would be sin), just that they have been significant factors for many people and are worth considering.

I know families that were once affluent but who somehow lost something in one or two generations that resulted in their falling into dependency and attitudes that impact their children and children's children etc. At the same time I have known individuals and families who came from ethnic backgrounds where cultural poverty is the norm, and they found a way out of that cycle for their families and possibly for their descendants.

Agreed, and I said as much a couple of posts back.

I think Josh's concern is that there is a tendency among many of us to blame systemic evils and to want to tackle particular politically popular evils as a solution to a problem, when the causes and solutions lie elsewhere.

I believe that I've addressed these concerns. Systemic evils can be, and often are, overemphasized, but they are real. Generational poverty and dependency itself is a systemic evil.

Yes, and the current version of that, impacting the poor, and particularly black Americans is the moving of the criminal justice system into america's schools. Things that would have gotten a weeks detention or at worse a three day suspension now becomes a criminal matter. The "school resource officer" likely breaks up the fight, and arrests one or more of the participants. The suspension disappears when you leave school, the arrest record hangs on. A minor offense is now a big deal, and if you don't have the $$$ for a private lawyer, well good like with the public defender that will do little more than negotiate a plea. That guilty plea will ruin your future chances for employment.

Even a minor drug conviction will exclude you from most student aid programs.

J.M.

[Josh]

Of course there's certain types of people who will take the money and run, but by and large people who accept a personal loan want to pay it back. Not everyone that needs money wants a handout.

It’s probably good to get a bit of cultural context here. In the context where Shenk is, the average person who asks to loan $20 really does not have an intention of paying it back. This isn’t to say those people are dishonest - it’s just common knowledge if someone says “can you spot me $20” that they aren’t realistically going to pay you back unless you really hound them for it.

[mike]

The TOP school is in the news. WPMT FOX 43: Principal at York school speaks out following discriminatory website statement backlash.
https://fox43.com/2018/07/13/principal- ... -backlash/

[Josh]

The TOP school is in the news. WPMT FOX 43: Principal at York school speaks out following discriminatory website statement backlash.
https://fox43.com/2018/07/13/principal- ... -backlash/

I have a tough time seeing how this was a “discriminatory” or “racist” statement. I grew up urban myself.