Your whole comment is rather unserious and misleading. Are you suggesting that Bishop Paprocki's suggestion is opposed to "serv[ing] one another through love"? That is a serious, and false, accusation. Whereas, some community organizers work on an "us-vs-them" basis that is the antithesis of serving one another through love.
Your whole comment is rather unserious and misleading. Are you suggesting that Bishop Paprocki's suggestion is opposed to "serv[ing] one another through love"? That is a serious, and false, accusation. Whereas, some community organizers work on an "us-vs-them" basis that is the antithesis of serving one another through love.
Also, you inaccurately say that Bishop Paprocki says that education is a "prerequisite for escaping poverty", but that is false. What he said is, "the best way to break the cycle of poverty, to see someone rise out of poverty, is having a good education through which they can have gainful employment." The data support that contention. (E.g., https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm) Moreover, he has demonstrated that his emphasis on education isn't just directed toward the college track.
You say that Bishop Paprocki's approach is incrementalist, and that is true. So what? The approach of CCHD has been incrementalist as well. So was Paul's, for example: "Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law—though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ—to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) Particularly, "I have become all things to all, to save at least some." Preaching and teaching are incrementalist; never after anyone preached or taught, even Jesus, was the whole world been converted. Engineering is incrementalist. (My wife is an engineer, and I've taught engineering students for decades.) Jesus, when he returns, will not be incrementalist, but until then that's what we've got.
I fail to see (because it is not there) that you have added anything constructive to the conversation. What is your purpose? It would appear that your purpose is to disparage his proposal with false or irrelevant accusations and calling into question his love for those whom he serves. If that was not your purpose, and especially if it was, you need to reexamine your motives, as well as what you say and how you say it.
I see his version of charity as constrained by the need to achieve good grades. Yes, education is a force multiplier, but some who need charity will not be able to achieve passing grades to emerge from poverty.
As a deacon, you have never met me and you call me a troll? Consider your own motives.
Finally, if all but 23 of the bishops and I ever find out what the secret proposal is, we can better assess. My bishop friends would sure like to know why secrecy is required here.
Your whole comment is rather unserious and misleading. Are you suggesting that Bishop Paprocki's suggestion is opposed to "serv[ing] one another through love"? That is a serious, and false, accusation. Whereas, some community organizers work on an "us-vs-them" basis that is the antithesis of serving one another through love.
Also, you inaccurately say that Bishop Paprocki says that education is a "prerequisite for escaping poverty", but that is false. What he said is, "the best way to break the cycle of poverty, to see someone rise out of poverty, is having a good education through which they can have gainful employment." The data support that contention. (E.g., https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm) Moreover, he has demonstrated that his emphasis on education isn't just directed toward the college track.
You say that Bishop Paprocki's approach is incrementalist, and that is true. So what? The approach of CCHD has been incrementalist as well. So was Paul's, for example: "Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law—though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ—to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) Particularly, "I have become all things to all, to save at least some." Preaching and teaching are incrementalist; never after anyone preached or taught, even Jesus, was the whole world been converted. Engineering is incrementalist. (My wife is an engineer, and I've taught engineering students for decades.) Jesus, when he returns, will not be incrementalist, but until then that's what we've got.
I fail to see (because it is not there) that you have added anything constructive to the conversation. What is your purpose? It would appear that your purpose is to disparage his proposal with false or irrelevant accusations and calling into question his love for those whom he serves. If that was not your purpose, and especially if it was, you need to reexamine your motives, as well as what you say and how you say it.
Unless you're just a troll.
I see his version of charity as constrained by the need to achieve good grades. Yes, education is a force multiplier, but some who need charity will not be able to achieve passing grades to emerge from poverty.
As a deacon, you have never met me and you call me a troll? Consider your own motives.
Finally, if all but 23 of the bishops and I ever find out what the secret proposal is, we can better assess. My bishop friends would sure like to know why secrecy is required here.