I just heard a minister encourage his congregation that 2008 was important but

[jwirr]

13. The liberal church support MLK and civil rights, the safety

net programs, hunger programs, etc. for all these years. Are you saying that they should not have supported them? That means many of us would not have been a supporter if you are going to eliminate all of us who are liberal christians.

The ministers and their congregation members would not have been able to walk beside MLK in the 60s-70s. Hunger programs would hardly have had supporters if it were not for churches, Bread for the World would not have been lobbying for world hunger programs, etc. and housing would not have Habitat for Humanity. Many ministers would not have been able to speak out against the Veitnam war, etc.

I once sat in on a meeting of a Lutheran hospital in Omaha and they were explaining that they we expected to provide services to the people in their cachement area - a poor area around their hospital. That meant that they were the provider of services for the poorest in the area.

In my own church we support NAPS for seniors, WIC for families, AA programs and such by letting them use the property as distribution and meeting sites. We also are heavy contributors to the food shelf, Ruby's Kitchen, etc. Our area would be a lot poorer if all we had were the welfare office and the veterans administration to help us out.

Most of these issues are not spoken from the altar but are projects for various social groups within the church. It is not preached - it is lived. I know, I am one of the people who has depended on them (social programs) for years and I have also been one to the people who has been a speaker asking church members to support them and teaching them why they should support them. I do not apogize for any of it.