When it comes to selecting a winner of the coveted distinction of Dumbest Book of the Year, the competition in 2006 is especially fierce. Nevertheless, the newly published "MIDDLE CHURCH: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right" instnatly qualifies as a formidle contender. The author,  the Reverend Bob Edgar, is General Secretary of the National Council of Churches and a former Democratic Congressman (six terms) from Pennsylvania.

   In addition to the normal slanders and smears of the alleged intolerance and mean-spiritedness of leaders he considers representative of the "far religious right" (including a layman named George W. Bush), Dr. Edgar offers a novel perspective on the perplexing and persistent problem of poverty. On page 182 of his new masterpiece, he declares in ringing, unequivocal tones: "The greatest moral blight is not poverty itself, but the wealth amid which it exists and, even worse, the ease with which it could be cured."

   Is he kidding? "...The ease with which it could be cured?" When I talked with him earlier today on my radio show, I asked about this odd idea that "curing" poverty was an easy matter. If it really could be cured with ease, then why did Lyndon Johnson have such a tough time with his "War on Poverty" here in the United States? As President Reagan noted: "We declared war on poverty, but poverty won." Charles Murray and other scholars made clear that despite the vast spending on "Great Society" anti-poverty programs (some five TRILLION dollars by most estimates!) economic destitution only got worse, until Reaganomics finally began to make a positive difference in the 1980's. Later, welfare reform in 1996 made an even more positive impact -- helping to destroy (at last) the culture of depenedency.

   The idea that cures for poverty come easily has been a distinguishing characteristic of the international left. The only sense in which it ever worked in Communist countries was relative: by making nearly everyone poor and destitute (except for the party bosses) they created an illusion of equality.

    The most surprising aspect of Edgar's argument is that he totally ignores spiritual considerations-- a shocking blind spot for a clergyman (he's ordained in the United Methodist Church). When I asked him if he considered it a "moral crisis" that one third of US babies are no born out of wedlock he said, flatly, "No." He stubbornly refused to acknowledge that fatherless households contribute directly to the problem of poverty -- and that any cure for poverty must include a cure for out-of-wedlock parenting.

   If a "man of God" sees the impoverished state of millions of Americans stemming from purely material problems (we don't give them enough money) rather than spiritual problems (bad values, bad behavior, collapse of the traditional family), then he is, frankly, in the wrong business. The whole idea of religious faith is that spiritual, moral values help to shape our material world-- either helping us or harming us in enjoying richer, better lives.

  If a pastor and religious leader sees social problems only in terms of government programs that redistribute tax money, he ought to go back to the world of politics which he left some years ago. And maybe, he ought to give up the writing business as well--- since MIDDLE CHURCH is about the MUDDLED CHURCH of liberal orthodoxy, and just another tiresome screed (among literally scores of recent volumes) that attacks the good work and redemptive messages of idealistic religious conservatives.