Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Nathan Tabor :: Townhall.com Columnist
Is the Welfare State the Fault of Christians?
by Nathan Tabor
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. - James 1:27

The Obama Administration and both houses of the US Congress are fast-tracking a number of programs designed to increase the size of what's commonly known as the Welfare State.

*** Special Offer ***

And while Christian church leaders and members may wag their fingers at this socialist strategy of "forced charity," we must remember that in order to remove the specks from the eyes of liberal-left politicians, we must first remove the boards from our own eyes.

The Church -- the Body of Christ -- continues its laxity in assisting the poor, the homeless, the diseased and the mentally ill in the United States. In the days before Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society, it was the Christian church that provided food, clothing and shelter for the poor and destitute members of society.

For example, During The Great Depression and thereafter, the majority of "soup kitchens" and "shelters" were run by local churches. The homeless were provided a warm meal, a place to rest and a chance to hear the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ. Christians in those days understood that in order to address the needs of the soul, it's best to first address the needs of the body.

But today, it appears that Christian leaders and church members have passed on the role of charity givers to the government – a government that prohibits even the mention of Jesus Christ within the public realm.

To put it succinctly, Christian men and women have changed from a people who literally give the shirts off their backs to cheapskates. And we have more than merely anecdotal evidence to back up that claim.

Two studies were conducted by Ellison Research Institute. One was a representative sample of 811 Protestant church ministers nationwide, and the other was a companion survey of 1,184 people who attend Protestant churches at least once a month.

In the study, 56 percent of all clergy say Christians are under a biblical mandate to tithe 10 percent of their income to the local church, while another 12 percent feel Christians are under this 10 percent mandate, but the gifts do not necessarily have to go to the local church.

Twenty percent believe there is a biblical mandate to give, but not any specific amount or percentage.

However, among the people who attend Protestant churches, only 36 percent feel there is a biblical command to tithe 10 percent to their local church, while another 23 percent believe there is a biblical mandate to tithe, but not necessarily to the local church.

Twenty-seven percent feel the Bible commands Christians to give, but not a set proportion or amount, while 10 percent believe Christians are under no mandate to give anything.

Among people who do believe in tithing (whether to the local church specifically or to any type of organization), an ongoing debate is whether the 10 percent should be figured on gross income or on net income (after taxes).

Churchgoers who believe in tithing are equally split over this: Forty-eight percent believe the tithe should be figured on net income while fifty-two percent say it should be on gross income.

In a 2003 study, researchers discovered that the number of Americans who give ten percent of their income to the church "dropped by 62 percent in the past year, from 8 percent in 2001 to just 3 percent of adults during 2002," the Barna Research Group said.

And Roman Catholics were even worse than their Protestant brethren. Of Catholic respondents, none reported giving 10 percent of last year's (2002) income to his or her church.

Barna, study revealed that among born-again adults, 14 percent reported tithing in 2001, but only 6 percent said they did so in 2002. Among evangelicals, nearly 9 percent of those surveyed reported tithing.

With such a shabby record of giving by churchgoers, it is difficult for churches -- an important institution for community stabilization -- to perform their Christian duties to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor, disabled, mentally ill and others in American society who depend on the charity of others.

With this lack of charity comes the unintended consequences of government programs that are intrusive and ineffective. For instance, public assistance, or welfare, has done more to destabilize the nuclear family than any other program in history. One of the stipulations for qualifying for public assistance is that a mother be alone in raising her children. So, in order to qualify, millions of women forgo marriage and create a single-parent home for their children. Another drawback is welfare payments being based on the number of children in the home. This further increases the number of children who grow up without a father.

Honest sociologists long ago realized the destructive nature of government-run "charity." Yet, conservatives -- especially Christian conservatives -- may find it difficult to condemn the welfare system without performing their Christian duty to be charitable.

Besides, what Christian wants to be known as a cheapskate?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Nathan Tabor organizes and educates Christians on their role in Politics.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Nathan Tabor's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
obligations
Modern welfare as a state function results from both a failure of The Church to act as well as from a misunderstanding of the nature of Christian charity itself. What is a personal obligation to the Christian is not an obligation of government. When government usurps that function it claims for itself the role of The Body of Christ (The Church) and creates an idolotrous alternative in itself. While it is true that Christians and The Church do fall short in their charity the state should never attempt to supplant that role. The effort to provide all needs to all people as a state action reducescharity to ann entitlement and creates dependancy through the permanent nature of agencies rather than building the self-sufficiency of people. Raising people above their condition, "healing" them, should be our object. Government action becomes first and foremost self serving rather than other serving. As an idol and an effort it will simply fail. The Christian is in some measure to blame as all too often government action has been viewed as a way to pass the buck and avoid the personal obligation Christ has placed on us to Love one another.

Cause or effect.
What does not get revealed here is if the reduction of charity is a result of or the cause of the actions by the government. My history of these things goes back almost half a century and I see more done by the churches now than in the early days of the welfare state.

What also is not accounted for here is time used for the benefit of those that need.

The food pantry in our area is run by the churches. Numerous churches in or area and where my parents live, provide the meals for the poor and facilities for homeless to sleep.

A charity run by the Catholic church near here was closed down because of the lack of funding, relating to the economy. There is a group of other churches and civic groups that are getting the funding and giving of their time to staff it.

The state is talking about raising taxes. In that environment I have to give more of my time and less of the money that I need to keep my family from needing the benefits provided by these charities.

Total and complete misrepresentation.
The church takes care of its members, not the entirety of society. These words were written in a time and at a place where it would be beyond ridiculous for the tiny Christian church to take on the welfare of all of Rome.

This sort of lunacy masquerading as a Christian lesson needs to stop, stop, stop. If this nation wants to turn its back on Christ, there is nothing Christians can do. As for social welfare, Christians can and do support a whole flotilla of reforms aimed at helping all poor and downtrodden people in this nation. We simply ask that there be accountability in the system so that it is not in actuality institutional theft.

Cart before the horse
It would be easier for the church to help it's own - that really need help - if the government did not first confiscate from us to support so many that do not need to be helped.

At a Thanksgiving dinner I had at a friends house last year, a woman that I had not met before gave thanks that she had a subsidized apartment that she could afford. I gave thanks that I had a job so I could pay for her subsidized housing.


Christians to blame? Maybe
The study does not take into account that there are fewer church going practicing Christians today than there were prior to The Great Society. But to say the Churches aren't taking care of the poor or that people don't tithe is misleading.

While many folks do not give 10% directly to their church, they do give money to charities that directly take care of the poor. As a practicing Catholic, I don't give 10% off the top to my parish church. I do contribute more than 6% directly to the parish. However, we also contribue to the Archdiocese, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, Catholic Charities, scholarship programs at schools and a variety of other Catholic Church sponsored organizations and programs. In the end it is more than tithing. I do, however, have the choice of organizations which will receive my contributions unlike my taxes.

The only way that I see that Christians are responsible for the creation of a welfare state is that lawmakers who were probably trying to put their Christian principles into practice only to see them corrupted through the government policy which encourages amoral behavior.

Pastors need to learn frugality
I tithe, but I gotta
tellya somthing:

It gets pretty hard to
do that sometimes when
you see Pastors, and
religious organizations
staffed with people who
have nicer cars, clothes
& homes than I do, and
seem to travel extensively
for leisure.

They don't need new carpet,
and the latest computer
gadgetry in their offices,
either.

Don't get me wrong, they should
have ordinary comforts and
a decent living, and what
the require to carry out
their mission, but honestly,
many people have decided they
make better use of their own
money than their church.

Churches can waste money
as much as government.

Is there a ' moral obligation '
for us to provide money to
religious workers so they
can live better than their
congregation, or they can
waste it foolishly?

Jesus preached on a Hillside,
and he had a regular job -
he was a carpenter - he worked
for a living.

Maybe our Pastors would have
more empathy for their
congregants financial
sacrifices if they went
out an worked a job 5
days a week, and then preached
on Sundays.

John Lepant
Brighton
Colorado

Tabor wrote
"...among the people who attend Protestant churches, only 36 percent feel there is a biblical command to tithe 10 percent to their local church, while another 23 percent believe there is a biblical mandate to tithe, but not necessarily to the local church"

Both I and the colleague/friend who invited me to Billy Graham's Atlanta Crusade fall under the latter 23%.

The original (1st century Jerusalem) church DID for a time operate like a welfare-state (see Acts 4:32-5:11) having communal ownership of property, ... (spoiler 5:1-11 describes the rather painful way the church learned that it was NOT the right way), a mistake repeated by the 1620 Plymouth colonists (see John Stossel's 2007/11/21 and 2007/12/05 columns on "Tragedy Of Commons").

On government "charity", well that has been a resounding failure wherever/whenever attempted.

More to the story
If you look in the Bible at the Old Testament command to tithe, you see that the tithe was used to support the poor. Israel was developed by God as both a religion and a nation. God’s command to the people to bring 10 percent of their harvest into the temple was what we would consider today to be a welfare tax. That 10 percent that Israel gave went to care for their poor.

The problem today is that people who give 10 percent of their income into the church are still taxed by government to care for the poor. And more often than not that 10 percent going to the church is used to build big impressive buildings that are nothing more than testaments to men.

I got rather burned out when I gave some money to a local man who panhandles at an intersection where I stop daily. When I handed him some money, he looked at me with disdain and said “Is that all you got?” I felt like saying “No, it’s not, but why should I give you all I’ve got?”

Maybe if the poor responded with gratitude instead of a sense of entitlement, people would be more inclined to give.

The final word on the tithe
This is the tithe from the OT.

"Num 18:26

26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe .
KJV"

A tenth of what everyone else gave went to the Levites to support the Priests. They in turn sacrificed 10% of the tithe itself. None of this was "charity". It was the method used to pay the Levites. It is part of the Law.

Here are the verses to do with how the OT Law applies to non-Jewish converts to Christianity.

"Acts 15:20

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled , and from blood.
KJV"

"Acts 15:29

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled , and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
KJV"

"Acts 21:25

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled , and from fornication.
KJV"

I don't know where the "debate" on all of this comes from, but there is no New Testament tithe. You will find no mention of a tithe beyond Jesus' own references chastising the pharisees for tithing mint and abusing justice.

Whatever social welfare there is to be in this nation, it is not the singular role of the church to supply it to all.



Right on John Lepant!
You said it all.

Yes
Liberal Christians- a liberal Christian is a Christian that does not believe the Bible is true.

Tired old arguments
Whenever the subject of tithing comes up, whether at church or elsewhere, it's interesting to hear the same old arguments; no New Testament requirement, churches wasting money, pastors earning too much/needing to get a job. It appears this article is no different.

No New Testament requirement: Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. Most Christians would agree with that. Yet, for many, their relationship with God is worth so little, they would rather come up with excuses as to why they don't need to tithe than to tithe. If you were that stingy with your spouse, would it show them you loved and trusted them? Tithe isn't a "law" issue, it's a trust issue. If you think it's about what you give to the church, then that shows who you are giving it to. I'm giving mine to God through the church.

Pastors working/making too much: Pastor is a legitimate job. Think they only work on Sundays? You prove you have no idea what they really do. How would you feel if you were in a situation where you really needed your spiritual leader and you couldn't get in contact with them because they were at work? You'd complain more than you do now. Pastors are hard working and perform many different tasks. If you had to pay for all the jobs they do, you'd find you are getting quite a deal with your pastor. Yes, there are some who are flamboyant, but most live very, very humble lives, regardless of what you think.

Giving to the government
is not giving to the poor. Giving to the government is giving up Liberty.

Proclaim freedom throughout the land.

Obama avoids talking about freedom and liberty. Obama talks about fairness and democracy.

Tithe and Tax
There is 7.95 (I think) percent taken off the top that goes to the "needy" by the government. Social Security is by definition support of those in less than secure living situations. Many other dollars of the average 10% (est) that we pay in other taxes goes to assist the "poor" (connected groups?). This limits the money that is left for "tithing" to the poor and NGO charities. It is not an excuse it is a reality.

I think the article is misleading and under researched.

There are many who give, significantly more to the agencies that help the needy and not always through the church. Time and money.
The "church" is not purely service to the needy. It is a community where we go to share time and worship with people of a like mind. Support our beliefs. There are moneys and time that go to support that as well. Not to say they are not worthy and necessary, they are.

I have yet to see a pastor who feels that the church has enough coming in (treasurer for over 2 years at a small church before we left, background with others in which I was involved) and does not feel that life would be easier with tithing. The inclusion of the pastors above seems to set the tone for the article.

I rated the article low for these reasons, but the question behind the article is a good thought provoker.

God's Word
is very specific about who should be given money. Widows and orphans and sick. Through the church. Not through the government. We are called to good deeds because of our faith in sound doctrine. The Widows should be without help from family in order to qualify for charity. Throwing around money to those who can care for themselves in irresponsible. Giving should also be personal.

The heart of the matter
First, the gov't should get out of the charity business. There is simply too much potential for fraud, waste, vote-buying, etc. Not to mention the resulting mindset (in some) that instead of an emergency safety net, welfare is an acceptable way of life. Consider also - is it really charity to take from unwilling donors, and give to arbitrary recipients? (And yes, the government's horrendous and wasteful overspending, and resulting taxation on its people does impair our ability to give freely.)

To the question of the church's role, I think the word "obligation" is sorely overused. We waste our time with debates about Old / New Testament and gross / net income, when charity, like every other spiritual discipline should come from the heart.

2 Corinthians 9:7
"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

It starts with church leaders who faithfully teach the value of giving as a demonstration of Christ's love, and flows from there to individual hearts willing to sacrifice for others.

Unfortunately, in modern Christianity (especially in the U.S.), the primary message being spoken and heard is not "How can I better love and serve others?", but rather "What can God (my personal cosmic vending machine) do for me?" Hearts and minds must return to the teachings of Jesus if we are to change course for the better.

Writer lacks modern take on charity
The whole concept of "charity" is just admitting that capitalism fails to provide the needs of many people and must be supplemented by do-gooders with a proselytizing agenda or with a guilty conscience.

Charity may have its place-- limited-- but should by and large be replaced by a social system in which government and non-profits help people get on their feet. Not throwing money at problems with a check, but with comprehensive child care, job training and health care so that people can easily fit into the world of work.

Modern charity-- the Catholic and Lutheran ones come to mind -- are all about working with government to help people who need a lift. The concept of being beholden to the kindness of strangers is humiliating and has no place in the 21st century.

JayPeriod
Previously I went to a Methodist church that had barely anything to give in charity due to having overspent on expanding the church building itself.

I go to a huge church now where money has been spent on yet another enormous church building with two sermons on Sunday and hardly a thing else happening at the church all week. The church has a lot of admirable features, not least of which is a focus on people making connections and doing things outside the church to further strengthen the body, but I have this against this church and most the churches I see today -- they spend way too much money on things and way too little on God.

There are almost no church opportunities for anyone without a degree. The vast majority of these church jobs go to people with 7+ years of school, and yet there are more orthodox believers among those with much less schooling. The church is being dragged around like an oxen with a right through its nose by overpaid elitists who care less about the Word than they do about the social standing of their particular church.

What you refer to as the same tired arguments, you utterly neglect to refute. That's why you keep hearing them.

How much money are tax payers
paying out to welfare recipients every year?

How many public employee retirees are we supporting with our taxes?

I think we are bankrupt for these 2 reasons alone.


Royinoslo touches on something
I have been repeating to fellow conservatives for some time. Unless you start ensuring people have decent jobs and wages, people are not going to vote for you, period.

The steady trend over the last several centuries has been the putting aside of authoritarian pronouncements as to who should have authority and who should shut up and do as they are told, and this whole attitude towards people who are having difficulties finding decent paying jobs reveals the darker underbelly of the "conservative" movement.

Liberal greed expresses itself as redirecting government monies to illegitimate causes. Conservative greed manifests itself as support for an attitude that greed is its own reward in general. Of the two, over the past 8 years people have come to fear the Liberal version less thanks to the utter refusal of Conservatives to even so much as address the simple fact that greed is not good simply because it exists in the private sector rather than in liberal social re-engineering projects.

Best get off the high horse, cowboys.

John Freshwater
needs money to fight for his job in the courts against Mount Vernon school board. He is being fired for keeping a Bible on his desk for the past 20 years.

I only give to charities where 85%
of the money I give goes to those that need it. The government is not an efficient charity.

Ignorant of the Facts
First, the church is not supposed to be in the business of supporting everyone in society. It's an absurd, ridiculous task to set for the church.

Second, Christians and Jews already give much more to charity than non-Christians. If you add in volunteer time, the figure increases even more.

Third, the full time pastor in most denominations has seven years of college (and seven years of college loans) to make less money than if he was a teacher. The average work week for the full time pastor is over fifty hours as well.

There are a hundred more points, but these will do. And the next time you're sick, try to find a Thomas Paine Memorial Hospital.

Poor, poor elites.
"Third, the full time pastor in most denominations has seven years of college (and seven years of college loans) to make less money than if he was a teacher. The average work week for the full time pastor is over fifty hours as well."

Why do people need a 4 year degree to teach the alphabet to 1st graders?

Why is the church dominated by institutions of education instead of the teachings of the Bible?

Who asked them to spend all that money on college? Christ was a carpenter. The Messiah wasn't too good to have a day job, and while I agree with Paul's observation that the work done by church leader's can and often should be subsidized by the membership, the bottom line is even after saying that, Paul strove never to be a financial burden.

The days of whining about teacher pay are overwith too, by the way. In addition to having a decent wage, my step mother is being allowed to draw full retirement while working full time still as a teacher.

It's time for bureaucrats of every stripe and ilk to stop whining about their massive pay and benefits. The rest of us need work too.

Robert from AZ
"There are a hundred more points, but these will do. And the next time you're sick, try to find a Thomas Paine Memorial Hospital."

LOL!

History
I agree with the article but it lacks the history of where the church and church goers have come from and are going to with regards to charity and giving. At one time not too long in the past it was the church that looked after those less Fortunate. This was before any government charity (welfare programs). Once government welfare programs started taxes went up to support those programs and church goers gave more to taxes and less to church. Now the roles have changed it in no longer the church responsibility to take care of the poor but the governments. If we were to eliminate all the programs and associated taxes I bet you would see a increases in church going.

ShaneRoach
"Why is the church dominated by institutions of education instead of the teachings of the Bible?" Most of the errors in teaching the Bible and the Christian (or Jewish) faith stem from a lack of understanding of what the Bible says. A good education in the Scriptures and the history of Christianity isn't something that can be picked up in spare time. Just a little example-- people preach on the "Wilderness of Sin" without realizing that Sin is the proper name of the place, not a description of a place of sinning. While a few nitwit non-Christian ideas come from people with a sound theological education, the great majority come from the semi-educated.

NEVER!
What an asinine statement Mr. Tabor. The welfare state came about because intellectuals decided that the American people are basically selfish and profit motivated. Socialism isn't a movement of the people. It was forced on us by government officials who have decided that government could do a more efficient job of taking care of the poor. If socialism were a good thing, there would be a groundswell among the people proclaiming it's wonderful benefits to mankind.

Before the government stepped in during the New Deal, Americans felt a commonality with each other. They helped their fellow citizens with no prompting from Big Brother or the Pope. Charities naturallyh sprung up where needed. No one went without for very long. The problems arose during the Dust Bowl when people were driven out of their lands and homes by nature. They were forced to seek work in already overcrowded urban areas where jobs were scarce to begin with. These truly were hard times for a specific group of people. To have the government step in and assume that the whole country needed government assistance was our downfall. We've been on the down slope of socialism headed for communism ever since.

Robert from AZ
I feel it is demonstrable nonsense. The vast majority of dangerous heresy comes from academia. The old saw about, "The King James was good enough for Jesus, and it's good enough for me," might be hilarious and easily seen to stem from a lack of education, but it is theologically well nigh harmless. Homosexuality not being a sin at all, on the other hand, attacks the very root of what sin actually means, and all of the arguments supporting this heresy come from liberally educated religious elites.

Every last thing that can be known about Christ and Christianity should be openly available to all, and the process for learning it in order to serve in the church should NOT be beholden to institutions of higher education. It's not my job as a rank and file Christian to pay for all of this supposedly necessary excess either.

Re: GunnyCee
Before the government stepped in with the New Deal, poorer Americans were being starved out by wealthy individuals who refused to invest in anything until the market bottomed out because it was unclear how to make more money.

There's nothing about it that bespoke of brotherhood, nor was there ever any excuse for things like company stores and the like.

Greed IS bad, and the government IS supposed to keep greedy people from abusing their fellow citizens.

Until conservatives pick back up on this fact, they are going to have a hard time of it.

ShaneRoach
I agree about the liberally educated religious elites. However, as a member of the conservatively educated religious elites, I partially disagree with the rest of your post. The problem isn't with translations other than the KJV-- it's with any translation from the original languages-- they all have shortcomings. One's understanding doesn't decrease with scholarship-- it increases.

One thing I do agree with you on-- the Christian faith is easily understandable without the individual having any special theological education. However, the ERRORS in Christian faith are much easier to refute with an educated understanding of the Scriptures and Christian history. My own historical studies focused on the history of heresies. Virtually every heresy in Christianity appeared within the first two hundred years. There are no new heresies, nor any new revelations of truth since.

Shabby record of giving?
Christians don't give anymore? Hmmm, is that why some of the world's largest charity organizations, like the Salvation Army, World Vision, etc., are Christian-based?

I'm sure there will be far more Christian-based charitable organization had the lefties not hi-jack them. Do you know why the Red Cross is called the Red CROSS? And the Boy Scouts was founded by Christians, too.

As for the statistics of Christian giving, why not look at the ones that compare Christians and non-Christians, such as this one:

http://www.novascotiascott.com/2009/04/09/canadian-christia ns-donate-more-and-volunteer-more/

Another thought that may be too much for you to comprehend: Perhaps people will give more when the government takes a smaller chunk of their income.

Joycey in OH wrote @ 14:25
"Liberal Christians--a liberal Christian is a (nominal) Christian that does not believe the Bible is true."

Note that this description matches-to-a-t Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury).

Duty and Responsibility
Are we our brother's keeper? Or should we be total Capitalists: greedy, callous, manipulative and selfish in order to exploit the poor, steal from the innocent, deny the sick treatment, worship the wealthy, and turn away the widow so we can save a few tax dollars and buy yet more trinkets?

We have a spiritual and moral obligation to do better. What the church does in providing charity and assistance is always welcome. But it is also financially inadequate to meet the great and dire needs of our nation. Therefore the state must step in and provide aid and comfort to the afflicted and damage control after natural disasters.

Jesus parable of rendering unto Caeser what is Caeser and to God what is God's suggests a role for the state that can best be understood in a Christian sense as fatherly and benevolent caring and kind.

Creating and guaranteeing jobs with living wages for workers and families is good.
Shoring up Medicare, Medicaid and S.S. is good
Guaranteeing Universal Socialized medicine is good
Raising taxes on wealthy tax cheat elites and requiring corporations to pay their fair share is good.
Protecting the environment for the beauty of creation to enjoy now and for future generations is good.
Fighting a war on poverty is good
Beefing up the FDA and consumer protections is good.
Cracking down on predatory lending and credit card usury and loan sharking is good.
Salary caps to combat greed are good.

Jesus was a Socialist and opened the kingdom of heaven for those who believe and do good works in this world for others. As James says, faith w/o works are dead. Christ would not want his followers to be lazy, greedy, selfish and callous and then arrogantly demand to receive all the priveleges and delights of heaven after a life of sin.

Wealth and Luxury create decadence and sin more often than not. Christ gives us fair warning in his parable about the camel and the needle.

Tortured Logic
You have cause and effect confused. Your article itself says that charitable donations dropped AFTER the Roosevelt's Raw Deal. A drop in charitable giving didn't cause the passage of the Raw Deal, the Raw Deal caused a drop in donations by usurping for the federal government the role that should be played by private citizens and, if necessary, local governments.

Liberalism doesn't combat poverty, it creates it.

ShaneRoach
No offense but you are bordering on my ex husbands opinions about "educated" Christians...of which I was one. Just to let you know...he is bi-polar and has pschotic delusions...which means that he has thought that an angel was walking down the street at one point and wanted to hand him money... I spent nine years with him and his opinions do not mean much of anything. Because he is putting down one method that people use to get to God. Oh and the college loans that were mentioned? In my denomination they don't really mean much. Our denomination will pay for the loans if you work in the denomination for so many years. So I don't look at that as an issue for many pastors coming out of school. Maybe your pastor needs to find a denomination that is more willing to support him. BTW, I am from a conservative church...so please don't think I'm a liberal.

Re: ShaneRoach's fantasy government...
Normally, I do not comment on comments, but this one is so insane that deserve correction:

"Before the government stepped in with the New Deal, poorer Americans were being starved out by wealthy individuals who refused to invest in anything until the market bottomed out because it was unclear how to make more money."

It was Roosevelt who ordered milk be poured down the sewage to stabilize dairy prices. That's precisely when the poor needed milk prices to come down so that they can afford it.

Many of the "greedy wealthy individuals" were incidentally small farmers who were so "greedy" that they just wanted to sell some of their milk to feed their families. And you think the government is holy!

Re: Rober of AZ
I have no problem with education in general, especially religious education. I have a problem with the tithe being set forward as a mandate for Christians to take on the entire nations poor, Christian or not. I also really just do not agree that heresy tends to spring from ignorance. It springs from the Spirit of anti-Christ, and its proponents typically are the selfsame elites.

What I said was, why is the church being dominated by educational institutions instead of the Bible? I think at least part of the reason is that elites have created in their minds this illusion that our current institutions of higher learning are in some way superior to other methods of learning and documenting whether someone has sound and thorough knowledge.

I also repeat, there is simply no place for a working class person to work in the church anymore under all but the most extenuating circumstances.

Leaders in the church should not be selected primarily on whether they have an appropriate degree, yet far more often than not that seems to be a non-negotiable requirement. By that standard, most of our original Apostles and Christ Himself would be disqualified.

That's the bottom line.

Interestingly, most of these college educated religious leaders agree that the church needs to be tithed to no matter how un-scriptural that is. Church discipline is in actuality, in no small part, supposed to be democratic and very dynamic. People who hear a false teacher are to abandon that teacher, and people who claim brotherhood in Christ but who teach, preach, or walk in a way that is anti-Christian are to be avoided or even put out of the congregation. This is Biblical church discipline, the methodology we are told to use to protect us from heresy, and there is not one mention of there being some sort of a separate educated class set aside to deal with these issues.


Tish
I'm sorry to disappoint, but I am entirely without mental health problems and do not see angels walking down the street everywhere I go.

What a bizarre accusation. My sympathies for you and your prior issues, but please do not accuse me of being mad simply because I do not agree with the emphasis our current church has on formal education over other qualifiers for church leadership.

Forced Charity vs Charity from the heart

Conservatives believe in charity from the heart.

Liberals believe in forced charity.

The value of voluntary charity to the person and society is inmeasurable.

The damage to society of forced charity is also inmeasurable

What is clear is liberals are trying to impose their particular religious views on everyone. They just won't admit it.

Christians to blame for Welfare State?
I don't tithe in general. The government takes too much of my earnings to allow it. Perhaps if taxes were lower, my contributions to the church would be larger.
The government takes much more than 10% of my income to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor. Health care, too. I am a probation officer working in a drug court setting, and the monies spent on treatment - evaluations, inpatient, outpatient, halfway houses, supportive living, residential services,etc... is staggering. Besides Medicaid, the clients need Public Assistance, as well. They are not usually allowed to seek employment when in such a treatment program. Very few give anything back to the system or express any gratitude for the help. Just the opposite - they, as well as the service providers, assume that Medicaid/PA is there to use as many times as needed. One of my clients has been thru 14 inpatient rehabs - all at taxpayer expense, but still loves his drugs.
I don't tithe. I'm already providing support to the poor at a greater level than 10%.


Re: arlanjio
This is a rather typical accusation thrown out by lassiez faire capitalists to try to undermine the obvious fact that the real problems underlying the depression were the attitudes of moneyed investors, banks, etc.

I'd be interested to know your source on the milk issue. Price controls of this sort generally tend to have the government buying the excess and then dumping it so that prices do not go -down-, thus helping the poor famers maintain a living wage for their sales. The underlying problem here is a stratified economy where a relatively small middle class of people make so much more by marketing to the wealthy few on top than to the masses that basics can no longer be provided at a price the masses can afford, as the costs of everything else have been driven up by the wealthy few.

Besides, I am no socialist. The means of production should be in private hands. I merely insist that the government ought to regulate in such a way as to ensure enough currency circulates back to the working class to maintain a healthy economy.

ShaneRoach
I disagree with the statement that only the theologically educated have a major role in the church. Lay leadership at every level generally has no advanced theological education and do most of the work of the church. Within my own denomination, lay ministers often lead churches without the standard M.Div. However, they are supervised by people who do.

The New Testament does not in fact mandate tithing. They expect an even higher level of commitment. In my own case, I do not tithe to the local church, but include the money I give for various missions in the tithe figure, which I try to exceed. I can afford to, although I am not rich.

While the original Apostles were not college educated (no colleges, for one thing), they were apparently very well educated in the theological education available at the time given their mastery of Old Testament scriptures.

I am reminded of a saying of John Wesley when a critic told him that God didn't need his Oxford education. He said, "I am sure that God does not need my education; I am certain he does not need your ignorance." This is not a criticism of you, since you seem to have a good knowledge of the Scriptures, but at many who preach pure rubbish (Watchtower, Prosperity Gospel, pro-homosexual, etc)

Re: Robert of AZ
We don't seem to disagree on much, and none of it to do with this actual article.

I just have a really strong feeling that the church is being overcome by false teaching originating from academia, and that this process is being enabled by an over reliance on formal education as criteria for church leadership.

"Going Dutch"
About a month ago there was an excellent article in my Sunday paper which at the time was online---you might google it by title "Going Dutch" and see if it is still there. It is written by an American living and working in Holland. He compares the the Dutch system of taxing all workers to pay for universal benefits with the US system that we are all familiar with. The reason I cite this article here is that the author, Russell Shorto, makes a point that the Dutch system developed out of Dutch fidelity to the teachings of the church.

First
"Jesus was a Socialist."

And Jesus was a Democrat who would've voted for O too. Don't forget that Jesus would support gay marriage, be pro-choice, would be opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be in favor of TARP and the billions in bailouts to big corporations too, and in favor of high taxes, no doubt.

ShaneRoach
"I just have a really strong feeling that the church is being overcome by false teaching originating from academia" True enough, except that I would add semi-educated loons to the progenitors of false teachings.

lilly
"Russell Shorto, makes a point that the Dutch system developed out of Dutch fidelity to the teachings of the church." Do you know how very few Dutch actually attend church, lilly? It seems unlikely that such is the case. Or does it also explain the famous Dutch toleration of prostitution, pornography, and euthanasia as well?

To Robert in AZ
Academic preparation of clergy differs enormously with denomination. For example, Lutheran pastors study as long as medical doctors---four years after college, plus internships and other training. They carry a demanding academic load including ancient Greek and Hebrew, religious history, comparative religion studies, Bible studies, many aspects of theology, preaching, pastoral care, etc etc. By comparison, a Primitive Baptist minister (actually they would call him an elder) need not have even a college education, let alone post-college, but must "feel the call" and demonstrate an ability to preach and have knowledge of Scripture. And both of these individuals would equally be ordained as Protestant clergymen or clergywomen.

To Robert in AZ
How many Dutch attend church is not at issue here. What I said, and what Shorto says, is that Dutch social, public, and economic policy have their roots in that nation's historically close ties with the church. This would be the same even if every single person in Holland spent Sunday morning watching cartoons, which I somehow doubt is the case.

I've only
scrolled through half of the posts, the gist of most of them is that the writers are tired of
seeing the government take over from the Church
and discouraged because many churches have forgotten what they are called to do and invest their funds into huge buildings.
I agree, there's something missing in a lot of our churches..one thing they really have failed on is thinking that if they have the kids one or two days a week they will be missionaries in the public schools, instead they are throwing them to the lions. Then they wonder why the kids are leaving the faith once they are emancipated. They spend a lot of time and money on foreign missions when there's one right where they are..our kids who are being lost to the world. (I'm not saying foreign missions aren't important but if we neglect discipling our kids, having our own private schools k-12, in another generation there won't be very many churched people to support those foreign missions.

Re: Lilly
You would have to provide more information for your point to be comprehensible. Your referenced source may be right on some level, but as it is you are essentially claiming that a nation with a demonstrably mild attachment to Christianity is doing what it does by way of social policy due to having a strong attachment to Christianity, which is simply self contradictory.

lilly
"Dutch social, public, and economic policy have their roots in that nation's historically close ties with the church. This would be the same even if every single person in Holland spent Sunday morning watching cartoons, which I somehow doubt is the case." Actually, lilly, it's pretty close to zero, as it is in much of Europe. Holland is one of the most secular societies in the world, and any religious influence is vestigial indeed.

It is interesting that you posit a Dutch society heavily defined by its religious roots. Liberals usually deny this about America, which for centuries has been arguably the most religious society in Western Europe. Would this statement "American social, public, and economic policy have their roots in that nation's historically close ties with the church. This would be the same even if every single person in America spent Sunday morning watching cartoons, which I somehow doubt is the case," be an equally valid statement?

To AndIfnot in WV
You said in reply to my post:
First
"Jesus was a Socialist."

"And Jesus was a Democrat who would've voted for O too."
No. I think both capitalist parties are wicked, corrupt and entrenched. Christ would've probably voted for Ralph Nader because of his honesty and moral integrity.

"Don't forget that Jesus would support gay marriage,"
Marriage is a function of state not religion in our government. Therefore the "Render Ceaser" argument actually supports state determination of marriage qualification.
"be pro-choice," Christ would be pro-choice honoring a woman's sovereignty and natural right to control her own body without outside meddling by unrelated special interst groups.
"would be opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," Iraq at least. It was based on lies and deception and has thanks to Conservative incompetence.
"would be in favor of TARP and the billions in bailouts to big corporations too". No. Jesus was a Socialist not a Capitalist. Bailouts are a natual function of Capitalism manipulating the government to prop up a failed economic system and screwing the taxpayer.,
"in favor of high taxes, no doubt. "
Render to Caser what it Caesers. High taxes are good and necessary for society to balance the budget, provide welfare services for citizens remove wealth from greedy and undeserving elites who abuse their power and for reducing unjust wage disparity. Christ would also favor 100% tax on high value estates to return money back into the system for humans rather than lieing idle in secret Swiss bank accounts as people live in poverty and debt.

lilly
"Academic preparation of clergy differs enormously with denomination." Quite true. If you arranged the denominations according to size, you would find that the greatest number of people were served by pastors with at least seven years of education. If you included the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the percentage would be even higher. While I am not willing to deny a role for a less educated clergy, I still believe that an educated clergy is better suited to serve the people, with exceptions noted and emphatically affirmed.

Well Lily
You've made a point I agree with.
My church is about as humble as one can get, it's non denominational. Our Pastor was mentored by a retired Assembly of God Pastor for several years beginning in his teens. My husband recently ordained in our church had a two year Berean Course through a former church, and then spent another three years under the teaching of an educator with a Phd., not a divinity degree but excellent teaching. Neither
my Pastor nor husband have had the formal
seminary teaching with the Greek/Hebrew/Latin
However, both are very good preachers, complimenting each other, our Pastor is more of a teacher and my husband an evangelist.
And yes, I agree that unless one is versed in
Orthodox christianity, they can go off on a tangent into heresy..both men were raised in the Lutheran church and had the advantage of
the Orthodoxy. In other words, they can discern
wrong teaching.
Having said that, when we were in the Lutheran Church, there weren't all that many opportunities for Lay Ministry. We weren't allowed to have a bible study unless a pastor was present for one example.
What we've seen in our little church are people who come from a variety of church backgrounds but were not taught the basic orthodox faith so
are easy marks for the heresy they see on t.v.
Name it and claim it prosperity teaching, for example, and when they are burned by it, it's up to men like our pastor and my husband to
pick up the pieces.

Not only churches
Churches were not the only non-governmental sources of charity. Our business leaders were a major source of public philanthropy. They provided the funds for hospitals, schools, museums (art and science) and other works for their communities. This benefit to our cities has also suffered in the expansion of government forced "charity."
I admit that I did not give 10% of my income to the church last year. However, I gave more in 2 weeks that VP Biden has over 10+ years. And he makes a great deal more than I.

More evidence that conservatives are truly compassionate and generous, while leftist are only so with other people's money.

First
As I went over your post, I was picking out errors to refute. I gave up. Your post was all errors. It shows very little understanding of what Christ actually said and even less about the obvious disasters that would befall our society if we followed what you think he said. You are not just wrong, you are dead 180 degrees of true north wrong.

Re: First
Interesting that you defend your attitudes toward gay marriage by first acknowledging that you see absolutely no role for the electorate in deciding the issue. Jesus would not support dishonesty as an excuse for encouraging moral decrepitude. Marriage is what it is, whether it is a state or religious institution.

"Matt 19:4-6

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
KJV"

That's what Jesus would say about marriage.

As for abortion on demand, well... there is a point at which the American people have finally made their impatience with the left on this issue all too clear -- late term and partial birth abortions resonate to the American people as murder, not as a woman's natural right to control her own body.

I could see some Christian rationale in the rest of your post, but I believe it to be entirely incidental based on the gross mischaracterizations in the first two points.

The Saguaro Are Blooming
I must be off-- photography time. Try to make do without me. Be brave.

To ShaneRoach in TX
Shane you'd be right.... but only in a theocratic state.Not the United States.

Since our nation was set up specifically as a secular democracy we must defer to Christ's statements about rendering to Caeser what is Caesers and to God what is God's.

Whether you realize it or not, marriage is a state controlled enterprise that does not require approval from religious authorities. That's the way our laws are set up. So it is Caeser (or in our case) the State and its citizens that makes a proper determination of marriage laws according to their interests.

God specifically carves out that provision to defer to secular governments and their need to address specific needs and demands of their citizens. Should citizens of a state like Texas not want Gay marriage, they can set their own rules as long as they don't conflict with their state Constitutions.

In terms of abortion. God would definately allow women to make their own medical choices just as he does for men with their own bodies as to transplants, surgery, smoking, drinking, etc. Otherwise we don't own our bodies or our lives or ourselves and have no real freedom. Christ wants us to be free and therefore grants human beings control over their own bodies.

The anti-choice movement fundamentally does not respect God's word or women or U.S. law and resorts to violence and murder towards medical providers because it cannot make a valid argument to defend its prejudice.

the nature of charity pt 1

Gentle Readers:

I've already posted a comment
concerning Pastors and frugality
and their relationship with their
congregations.

A few more quick comments:

1. The difference between government
welfare programs funded by taxation
and tithing to a church is that
taxation is compulsory ( if you don't
believe it, just refuse to pay
your taxes & see what happens to
you ) while tithing is voluntary.

ALL CHARITY IS VOLUNTARY.

2. Charity require self-sacrifice.
You have to be willing to give up
things you want, so the church can
carry out it's mission and other
people can have what they need.

3. Self-Sacrificial giving can take
many forms: time, talent, advice from
someone with experience, free services
from professionals, and any sacrifice
you make for other people.

A man who gives his time working to support
his family, or a mother giving her time to
care for her children, instead of pursuing
their own desires, are both being charitable.

A business owner who gives up his car ( I know
a man personally ) so he doesn't have to lay
off employees during this Recession, is being
charitable. ( I honestly don't know if he tithes or not, but he definitely a charitable
man!! )

4. Don't make anyone else responsible for
your college loans: get a job and work your
way through college, bub!!

Most of what people need to do in a church
does not require a college education.


the nature of charity, part 2
5. While it is true that some Pastors really do work 50 - 70 hours per week, lets be honest, many don't. I've known many Pastors
who worked jobs: part - time and many full-
time, and still managed to do a great job
as Pastors. And they had time for their kids!

How?? Self-Sacrifice, Charity. They don't
spend time on their...... ' gluteus ' in front of the TV or at the ballpark watching
a game. They spend their time on other people.

6. Jesus is not a Socialist: Christ is
the Messiah. Marxism is atheistic.

7. Church's are not ' communitarian social
clubs '. Our Mission is to proclaim the Good
News of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
and the Redemption of Mankind to the World.

Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Charity, by many means, is a necessary, but
insufficient, tool to carry forth our Mission.

8. The Mission does not require a Grand Edifice. An honest man in a tent witnessing
the Good News of the Resurrection is better
than a self interested charlatan in a Grand
Edifice who won't witness.

Jesus preached on a hillside.
Didn't cost anyone a dime.

Thank you for reading,

Kindest Regards,

John Lepant
Brighton
Colorado


To Robert in AZ
Sounds like you can't make an argument so I will take it that you have conceded your point and affirmed mine.Thank you.

Any scholar of Christ will be see that his teachings are progressive, liberal and socialistic. For Christ, the pharisees of his day were the corrupt, greedy conservatives who opposed his message of love and forgiveness and used murder to cling to power. The Capitalists occupy that same position today in America and are enemies of morality and entrenched defenders of corporate welfare and naked greed in economic affairs.

One of my favorite topics!
Unfortunately, I only have time for a hit-and-run, rather than to engage in this debate.

IMHO, there is plenty of blame to go around - Christians spent all kinds of money building beautiful edifices, and called them churches (Christ called His people the church).

Christians have been charitable, but not to the degree indicated by the Bible. Many charlatans - wolves in sheeps' clothing - have deceived the gullable into funding their lifestyles instead of Christs' work, while preaching a false prosperity gospel.

At the same time, the government, mainly in the 1930s, usurped the proper role of the church in caring for the poor. At the federal level, this was unconstitutional, and at all levels violates the separation of church and state.

The gov't's incentive is to pay for votes. The church's should be to help those who need help - for the rest of their lives, including medical care if necessary. Others only need help getting back on their feet. Others need to be told to quit being lazy and get on their own feet.

The Bible mandates the church to make those distinctions, and to help as appropriate.

As others have pointed out, Christians are commanded to save up, then give freely from a cheerful heart. 10% is nowhere in the NT.

One other thing - the Bible teaches
us to give freely from a cheerful heart, not to confiscate the wealth of others to give to the poor.

Government sanctioned theft and redistribution is not a virtue.

Who else?
The headline really spells out duplicity of the conservative side of things. Christian is synonymous with Conservative, ergo the question because we all know liberals want a welfare state.

When things are going the way the "Christians" like, as with passage of Prop. 8 in California, conservatives are the first to cry "We are the majority, and always have been a Christian Nation". The Ten Commandments posted in courtrooms, "We are a Christian Nation!" They also quote the much bandied about "80 percent of this country claim Christian faith."

But, oh when things go bad. Oh well, that's not the fault of Christianity. Oh no, for conservatives all the fault lies with those pesky secular, pagan, communist, socialist, atheist liberals. Oh yeah. Forget the fact that 80 percent claims the Christian faith, and forget the fact that of the 20 percent that is not Christian, that percent is evenly split between conservative and liberal. Oh yeah.


Must be nice being a Christian.

Take all the perceived credit and accept none of the blame or responsibility. wooo hoo! The demise of the modern education system is 100 percent the fault of liberals! Wooo hoo! Conservatives accept no blame for complacency or negligence. When things go wrong, why those darn failed Christians just aren't implementing Christianity right! Those darn secular, heathen liberals are to blame for the Welfare state!

LOL

Gives rise to a word: pathetic.

Re: Render to Caesar
First, render to Causar is about taxes. This is the appropriate line of reason when discussing what Jesus would teach as morally correct:

"Eph 6:12

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood , but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
KJV"

Advocating moral depravity using vague and conspiratorial rhetoric about separation of church and state seems like a textbook case of "spiritual wickedness in high places" to me.

As for shooting abortionists, by happy chance the last one to do so was an anarchist, not a "conservative" as the MSM tries to paint him. The scripture does not condone much in the way of civil disobedience, and has zero tolerance for murder.

LOL, liberal Vampire
It's so funny to me that many liberals really do out themselves vis a vis their true internal nature when given the chance.

Re: Chris
The Bible taught 50 year complete redistribution of rural properties, forgiveness of debt, laws to help give those in poverty access to necessities through gleaning, forbidding farmers from picking the fields bare but requiring something be left for the poor, and a host of other policies that would, to today's Christians, sound "socialist".

Helping the poor IS a Christian value, and the Christian church is NOT the appropriate instrument for helping all of the nation's poor. It is a practical problem that requires practical, and yes, sometimes government intervention.

What it does not require is government ownership and massive, fraudulent give-aways to people who refuse to meet minimal standards of taking responsibility for themselves.

ShaneRoach, the "redistribution"
of rural properties every 50 years (the Jubilee) was not redistribution, but rather the mandated end of land-rent contracts.

The nation of Israel, unlike the church, had a special relationship to the land it occupied, the Jubilee made sure that the tribes & clans did not gradually lose their land to other tribes & clans.

Someone "buying" land outside his clan in the OT knew he was buying not the land itself, but the use of the land up to the next year of Jubilee - in other words, he was only renting it.



I'm completely with you on the over-education of the modern clergy. IMHO, the Biblical model for a pastor is for a man to get an education and a real job, and work, live, study the Bible and raise a family for a while. Once he's older, wiser, and knows the scriptures, he's qualified to pastor without ever going to college for it.

This modern model of high-school, Bible-college, seminary, youth-pastor, senior-pastor is unBiblical and disserves God's people.

CHRIS
GET A KJV AND MAYBE YOU WILL SEE THE LIGHT.

Addressing First's many errors, part 1
F: "should we be total Capitalists: greedy, callous, manipulative and selfish in order to exploit the poor, steal from the innocent, deny the sick treatment, worship the wealthy, and turn away the widow ..."

The essense of capitalism is the freedom to enter into trades and contracts with another private entity without interference from the government. What you describe is something other than capitalism.

F: "so we can save a few tax dollars"

As so many have pointed out, real charity is voluntary and joyful, not forced.


F: The church is "financially inadequate to meet the great and dire needs of our nation. Therefore the state must step in and provide aid and comfort to the afflicted and damage control after natural disasters."

Maybe you noticed, but the state's financial adequacy is kinda hurting, mostly because of the entitlement programs you support.

If the gov't stuck to preventing people from hurting and cheating each other, the church would have PLENTY of money to help people, and the proper incentive not to waste that money.


F: "Jesus parable of rendering unto Caeser what is Caeser and to God what is God's suggests a role for the state that can best be understood in a Christian sense as fatherly and benevolent caring and kind."

Oh yeah - Caesar was a real benevolent, caring philanthropist, wasn't he?


F: "Creating and guaranteeing jobs with living wages for workers and families is good."

The private sector paying people what they're worth is good. Gov't disallowing someone to go to work for less than a certain arbitrary amount harms lower-skilled workers who could otherwise build up their job experience and ability to demand higher wages.


STAN, I have a KJV. what are you
talking about?

Chris
Beautiful buildings have nothing to do with the amount of money spent in charitable or mission giving. As Lutheran theologian Walther (I believe it was him) once said, "Yes, it is possible you can worship God with a tin whistle. But that had better be all you have." The comment was made in context of those who, as so many do today, griped about externals.

The fact is, a church having a nice sanctuary does not equate to its not being charitable. There's more there than is obvious-and that is perfectly in line with the biblical teaching that when it comes to charity the left hand is not to know what the right hand has done.

It is the religious folks of all kinds who with their voluntary offerings support the denominational universities, dayschools, hospitals, clinics and food banks. Our own kids attended our church dayschool-and we helped support it financially even over our regular offerings. That is how it is done.

To say that the Body of Christ is not doing all it can to alleviate poverty is most unfair and further presumes to know that which only God can know, namely, motive. For all we know, the Body is doing all it can under the circumstances!

Land rent
I suppose that is a slightly more accurate way of putting it, but you are neglecting several points. What is the point of never allowing someone to so much "sell" their land as "rent"? What about the fact that many people are going to have been born, and many to have died, and that they nevertheless are going to get land back that they did not have before? What about the forgiveness of debts? Fact is, debt was also subject to limits based on when forgiveness of debt was mandated.

The whole system was about equitable distribution of wealth, Chris. There's really no getting around it. People do not exist for the purpose of working for others, and this system ensured that such a thing should never happen.

All my best study indicates that Israel never properly followed this law, which is part of why the nation was eventually judged.

Social justice issues include issues of poverty and abuse of power, which cannot be separated from issues of the distribution of wealth. The Christian church is not a nation, and therefore not responsible for all citizens in this nation, or any other nation in which Christians reside. Necessarily, the government must fulfill the role that the Law was meant to fulfill for Israel.

A huge part of that was, to put it bluntly, the control of asset distribution. As long as the government acts as a conduit rather than a repository of the means of production, and religious freedom is maintained, this is not socialism. It is justice.

Re: AliveInHim
Howdy!

In fairness to Chris (and by extension, myself!), I do not believe he or I were arguing that all increases in the size of a church building are bad. I for one have seen churches overextend on externalities quite a lot, that is the point.

Addressing First's many errors, part 2
F: "requiring corporations to pay their fair share"

Here's a hint: corporations don't pay taxes - people do. Taxes levied on corporations are passed on to stock-holders, employees, and mostly customers. They also give foreign companies an advantage over our companies, thus forcing our jobs overseas. In your vocabulary, I would say "taxing corporations is bad."


F: "Protecting the environment ... is good."

I agree with you here - if someone is harming another person by damaging their environment, the gov't should stop it.


F: "Fighting a war on poverty is good"

How's that war going?


F: "Beefing up the FDA and consumer protections is good."

Was that a pun?
How about letting me make own choices? This is better served by a "consumer reports" type approach. The drug part is especially asinine - why should the gov't decide what treatments are legal?

What really burns me up is when modern medicine says "you've got a terminal disease - all we can do is keep you comfortable until you die soon". But it's illegal to try alternatives? People are smart enough to know it's a 99% chance the alternative is bogus, but they should have the freedom to try it if they want.

Addressing First's many errors, part 3
F: "Salary caps to combat greed are good."

Salary caps are how our health care system got screwed up in the first place, because employers compensated with health coverage instead. That's an insane way to handle insurance - health ins. should be like car ins.

Salary caps (low and high) and price controls ALWAYS cause worse problems than they were trying to solve.


F, on Jesus being in favor of TARP: "Jesus was a Socialist not a Capitalist."

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. TARP consists of the gov't owning shares of banks, which own much of the means of production. TARP is socialism.


F:"Bailouts are a natual function of Capitalism manipulating the government to prop up a failed economic system and screwing the taxpayer."

replace "capitalism" with "big-government progressives" (which are statist, not capitalist), and I'll agree to the rest of that.



F: "In terms of abortion. God would definately allow women to make their own medical choices just as he does for men with their own bodies as to transplants, surgery, smoking, drinking, etc. Otherwise we don't own our bodies"

1. When Jesus said "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me", he didn't mean send them straight to him without allowing them to be born.

2. I agree about owning our bodies as it pertains to surgery, smoking and drinking. But that baby is its own body, separate from the mother's body, so it's a different issue.


F: "Christ wants us to be free and therefore grants human beings control over their own bodies."

Christ freed us from sin, and wants us to be free from sin. But we are to be servants to God, and treat our bodies as temples of God.

Why Give When You Got Goverment?
Jesus didn't tell the Romans to start goverment programs for the poor, so I don't get why these liberals call Jesus a socialist. The article gets a lot right even though unpopular - the church has (especially in the Northeast where I live) supported the welfare state and politicians championing it for years.

AliveInHim says "To say that the Body of
Christ is not doing all it can to alleviate poverty is most unfair and further presumes to know that which only God can know, namely, motive. For all we know, the Body is doing all it can under the circumstances!"

Oh please.

You appear to have an internet connection. You could cut that off and give that money to the poor. Kind of like what Jesus said in Matt 19:20-21...


Obviously Jesus was trying to get that rich man to admit that he wasn't to get into heaven on his own merit, whereas we know we need Christ's merit & blood to get into heaven, not our own.

So I'm not suggesting we give away everything, or that you give up your internet connection. But most people in america could afford to part with a few trinkets.

My main beef is that the gov't has usurped the proper role of the church. I believe if the gov't got out of the business of charity that the church would do very well at picking up the slack.

Socialism Vs. the Jubile
Things can be done to reform regulation that would make our economy more egalitarian without resorting to large scale power and money grabs by the government. Through proper regulation, limited liability could always come at the price of including safeguards for labor that would make the concept of the union obsolete. It would require absolutely no government usurpation of the open market. Coupled with some workfare financed by progressive taxation, the economy would begin to very naturally function in a way beneficial to all, as the natural rewards would go out to those who thought and organized in terms of social progress rather than individual progress, and yet this would be equally as self serving as our current system.

You simply remove the rewards for hoarding and replace them with rewards for enlarging ones power through the most complete and efficient utilization of human resources possible.

WOW!!
Many religious arguments and agreements here on this thread
No offense to any church goers of any Christian faith, but we have had these church people come to our house and ask for donations. When we ask "for what", the usual answer is for the charities of the church. When we tell them we are not Christians, but worship the Viking Gods of Valhalla, they gasp, and ask why. We tell them the truth, it is our birthright since we are of Skandinavian and Russian ancestry, and yes,we respect all American's right to religious choice, but we can only identify fully with the Viking Gods. Some have told us to repent or we will go to hell. We tell them that our religion has no hell or devil. But it seems that our government is trying to create something similar to one if it keeps selling us all out.
Closing thought, if your religion is good for you, then by all means stay with it and take care of you and yours.

ShaneRoach, we are called to give to
more than just believers.

All through the old testament, "the stranger" was on the list of people who should be helped along with the poor, orphans, widows, etc...

And in the NT, Gal 2:10 tells us to remember "the poor", with no modifiers such as "brethren" or whatever.



On the year of Jubilee:
SR: "What is the point of never allowing someone to so much 'sell' their land as 'rent'?

Well, mainly because God said so (see Rom 9 about questioning God...)

I would guess it's because of the special relationship of the nation of Israel to its land. God set aside certain land for each family in perpetuity, and the year of Jubilee was the mechanism for keeping it that way.


But more than that is the understanding of the purpose of the law, which is to teach us that we cannot come to God on our own terms - that we cannot achieve holiness and heaven on our own merit. It was to have so many rules that it was impossible to live a life without constantly breaking them. Jesus was the only one to fulfil (or come anywhere close to it) the law, and we inherit His perfection. The law of Moses does not apply to us, and should not be used as a basis for modern government.


SR: "The whole system was about equitable distribution of wealth"

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. If that's what it was about, there would have been progressive taxes, taxes on wealth and the like. In fact, the taxes in the OT were highly regressive.


SR: "Israel never properly followed" the Jubilee.

No question about that! They completely fell down on that and many other laws - not that we would have done any better...


SR: "Necessarily, the government must fulfill the role that the Law was meant to fulfill for Israel."

That's a very dangerous path to start down. We do not, and should not live in a theocracy.

Viking Gods
I always wonder how Neo-Pagans of the Norse bent get to Valhalla. :-/

First - first
"Any scholar of Christ will be see that his teachings are progressive, liberal and socialistic." Actually, they are not. Neither are they straight conservative. They focus on the individual and his relationship to God, not on the relationship of classes. Christ himself drew followers from all classes of Galileans at the time, including tax collectors, who were the rich. The Prophets denounced wealth derived by trickery, but defended wealth produced by the individual-- the liberal state does not. Your Socialist Christ is a product of nineteenth century idealism, not scholarship. People who followed Christ's teachings came from all levels of society and income from the beginning.

On issues of morality, Christ was very conservative. Nowhere does he take a careless attitude towards dishonesty or other immorality. His earliest followers preached against adultery, greed, idolatry, gossip, dishonesty, and abortion.

As to Christ as a Socialist, there is nothing in the teaching of Christ that suggests socialism as we know it. However, socialism was tried in the early church as recorded in the New Testament. It failed utterly. The only place socialism has EVER worked is in small, strictly ruled communities called monasteries and convents, which are indeed examples Christian socialism.

Your problem derives from a sin-- envy. You see the wealthy and see someone who didn't earn what they have. There are some, and there are also many middling people who don't earn what they have, and a lot of poor who don't earn what they have. I know that the majority of the rich have well earned what they have. They started businesses, or got a valuable skill, or discovered a new way of doing something- and they worked hard to get there.

What A Crock!
"But today, it appears that Christian leaders and church members have passed on the role of charity givers to the government"

I give tens of thousands of dollars a year to charity. I have not passed on the role of charity givers to the government.

Perhaps, if the government took less of our money, we would be able to provide more to the poor and cut out the middle man, i.e., the government.


First- second
For many years, I raised money for social projects or churches. I worked with rich and poor. Most of the rich I knew gave away MOST of their money. The difference between this and socialism is that they chose to do so, and they chose whom to give it to. That's another thing that Jesus was for that you didn't mention-- freedom.

The Prophets say that in the time of God's fulfillment, each man will sit under his own fig tree and eat the fruits of his own harvest. They also say elsewhere that the good man will share the harvest. Nowhere do they say that a bureaucrat will be along shortly to give his harvest to someone who didn't prune his tree and cultivate his fields.

ShaneRoach
The only way to get to Valhalla in the Norse religion is to die in battle. Otherwise, the Valkyrie ain't agonna come a' callin'. This would account for the incredible number of kids named Odin in our military.

Vampire's Reflection
"The headline really spells out duplicity of the conservative side of things. Christian is synonymous with Conservative..."

If true, then how do you explain that many Christians voted for Democrats?

Re: Chris
You are repeatedly attempting to excise the other portions of the law very obviously meant to mitigate poverty and the gathering of wealth into the hands of a few, and your further lack of any real explanation for the Jubile leaves much to be desired in my opinion.

The bottom line is Christians cannot afford to support the poor of this nation all on their own, nor are they under any such onus. There is not one single verse in the entire new or old Testament stating that the care of an entire nation's poor is the sole responsibility of that nation's Christians, and the very suggestion is really anathema to the proper interpretation of the Bible.

Nations regulate their economies because that is what they are there for, and there is no more sure proof of God's own opinion as to what the government has authority to do than the pronouncement that it is not for nothing that they bear the sword.

Governments always have dealt with economic issues and poverty, and they always will, because it is part and parcel of what they exist to do.


Re: Chris part 2
What I am pointing out is that in the only known government ever to be based entirely on God's own opinions as to how a nation should be run, there were rampant controls on the distribution of resources, on credit, and many a verse on not being greedy or trying to game that system.

This is the Achilles heal of the American right. We have for ages stood in the way of ANY progress on economic issues. Lacking any alternative, Americans have at last capitulated to the Communists among us, and they are making their hay while the sun shines.

I hope you will reconsider. You certainly seem to have your heart in the right place, and I want to reiterate I insist there need to be regulations in place to ensure this is not supporting folks who refuse to work to help themselves. It's just that that's really not the problem as I see it. People are more than willing to work. They just want to see some return on their investment of their own personal time and energy -- some respect for what they bring to the table.

50% of people are at or below average intelligence. We cannot afford to marginalize everyone in terms of that sort of potential. Our leaders need to be held accountable for the fair and productive use of those resources as well as the fairly easy task of putting the top 1% in positions that reward their obvious skills and talents.

SVARA, let me say on behalf of the
other Christians here that if someone came to your house and asked for money in the name of God, they are NOT doing what the Bible says.

They would be right to come and tell you about Jesus, but should never ask for money from people who aren't going to their church.

I'd even argue that the church shouldn't ASK for money from its own members - they ought to be giving it without asking based on the proper teaching of the Bible.

ShaneRoach, do you think we should
be free to trade and contract with other private citizens?

Do you think government should forcably take money from some citizens to give to others?


SR "God's own opinions as to how a nation should be run"

That assumes God thinks all nations should be run like the nation of Israel. I don't think that's a valid assumption.

Again, if the goal of Moses' law was redistribution of wealth, why were taxes so regressive? They flat taxes and required sacrifices - that's flat amount, not flat percent - about as regressive as possible.



SR: "the American right [has] for ages stood in the way of ANY progress on economic issues."

I've agreed with a lot of what you've said. The problems I have are mainly that what you're calling progress is in fact the descent to tyranny.

On this topic, it is vital to understand that the Republican party, at least for the last 20 years, is NOT conservative - they are big-government pro-business progressives. They have allowed unholy alliances between business and government, culminating with the abhorrent TARP.


SR: "People are more than willing to work. They just want to see some return on their investment of their own personal time and energy"

The argument over minimum wage is relevant here. It is better to pay people what they are worth. If you pay them more than they're worth, everything gets messed up (I'll detail if you want). For example, a 16 year-old with no job experience is NOT worth $10/hour. He needs to understand that, and work hard to gain job experience & education so that he becomes worth that amount.


No discussion about the moral merits of capitalism is complete without considering the wealth it brings to society, and the tendency of wealthy free people to contribute to worthy causes.

Giving
Tithing was greater when government allowed people to keep the majority of their income. Government has made a deliberate decision to supercede the church as the main provider of assistance to people in need to minimize the role of religion in society. Whether this was from a truely charitable intent or just a different way of controlling people and make them dependent on government rather than themselves is a debatable issue.

learn history -- Bismarck
Over 100 years ago, the welfare state was first created in a modern sense by German leader Bismarck. Prior to this, pockets of welfare state as a policy existed for those older citizens of countries (going back to Rome, China and Greece) who had been in the military. The U.S. gave older vets of the Revolutionary war, Civil war and other wars generous pensions after short times in service. One of my great-grandfathers received a generous pension the last 15-20 years of his life for his Civil War service -- it was about 100 per month at a time one could live on that amount.

ShaneRoach, I missed one of your posts..
SR: "You certainly seem to have your heart in the right place"

Thanks - likewise for you. My comments are not meant to be antagonistic... Sometimes I come across a little strong...


SR: "Christians cannot afford to support the poor of this nation all on their own"

About 80% of the people in the country say they are Christian. If the gov't weren't taxing us to death - and you have to include embedded economy-stifling taxes on corporations here - we'd have PLENTY