Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Because I love you
A most amazing economic transformation follows the pouring out of the Holy Spirit recorded in chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Acts. This past Sunday millions of Bulgarians celebrated Pentecost, the birthday of Christ’s Church. Thousands of priests and pastors preached about the early Christians. Among these examples is the story of the rich who shared their material blessings with the poor. The story is often used to justify the modern welfare state, to extol its virtues above the cruelty of laissez-faire policies. Some radical Christian movements take it as far as endorsing full-blown socialism.
It is fairly easy to see why Pope John Paul II condemned the extremism of the once-popular liberation “theology” as unbiblical. But what about the current social contract under which secular governments use their coercive powers to correct the inequalities of the market outcomes? Aren’t progressive taxation and a set of welfare programs a morally superior arrangement compared to relying on blind market forces supplemented by charity? Aren’t all Christians required by God’s laws of justice and mercy to support the benevolent bureaucratic status quo?
After church I read to my kids Max Lucado’s Because I Love You. In that story, the Maker builds a beautiful village for the kids. He builds a stone wall around the village to protect the kids from the deadly forest outside. But He leaves a hole in the wall, a hole big enough for a curious child to crawl through. At that point I was tempted with the questions: “What kind of a sick Maker would intentionally provide such an unsafe environment for a bunch of innocent kids? Is He that naïve to believe that it is enough to warn them about the danger of leaving the safety of His village?”
And then I found the answer in the words of Lucado’s Maker: “I want the children to stay because they want to, not because they have to.” God could have placed the forbidden fruit beyond the reach of Adam and Eve. He chose to put it right in their path. Because He wanted them to have a choice. Even though He knew that they would make a wrong one. Because He is not a benevolent bureaucrat or dictator. Likewise God wants us to share our blessings with those in need. But he doesn’t want us to give to the needy because we have to. He wants us to give with a joyful heart.
back to top62 Comments to “Because I love you”
But he doesn’t want us to give to the needy because we have to.
Is that really the nature of moral obligation? It does seem the force of scripture is somewhat stronger than this voluntaristic view.
The early church certainly held a stronger view. E.g. this famous statement from Basil the Great:
Our obligation arises from our surplus and our neighbor’s need. This seemed to be Wesley’s point, as well (and he read the Fathers, too):
Having, First, gained all you can, and, Secondly saved all you can, Then give all you can. (Sermon 50, On the Use of Money)
Independent of governmental bodies, the church has taught a far stronger moral force on charity.
Report comment to moderator
Of course the people of God are to give with a grateful heart! And in the sad world where Americans spend $80 billion a year on golf, the same amount that you could vaccinate just about every child in the world against the majority of diseases that kill them before they turn 5, where 10 times the number of children die from hunger & preventable disease every day than those who died on 9/11, this sort of voluntary charity to organizations working on the ground in various communities will make a huge impact. Our culture of consumerism, materialism, safety, and profit, often unchallenged by our Christian leaders has dragged us down so far that even the sharing among believers like the church had in Acts is a far cry from what we see today!
But that’s a slightly different point than the one being made here. There are problems that exist on a nationwide or global scale, and diseases that infect systems. Given that there is no absolute prohibition in Scripture against using the government as part of rectifying such problems, why not have public programs to address these issues? Why not public-private partnerships? After all, we have very few examples of societies where starvation, disease, or injustice was reduced only through private charity, and most societies where the poor do not have to fear for hunger or disease to destroy their lives and families have gotten to such a place through more “socialistic” mechanisms. Is such a balance too much to ask?
Report comment to moderator
Harris and MLTW:
I really appreciate your comments on these threads. Harris, I’m interested in the opinion of the church fathers on economic matters. If you have a link or more such quotes, please share.
OP:
Dr. Tokarev’s point seems to be that although God commands an economic system that provides for the poor, He only wants that given willingly, not required by any force of law. Tokarev’s reason? Because God wants his laws obeyed willingly and cheerfully.
That argument is weak. Of course God wants his people to provide for the poor willingly. But that in no way implies that God is against a system of government that enforces provision for the poor. God wants his people to willingly forbear murder, but that in no way implies He is against laws enforcing it. I want my children to obey me willingly, but that doesn’t mean I don’t require their obedience.
Second, MLTW’s point is a good one:
I’d go one step further. Not only is there no prohibition in Scripture against using government to rectify those problems, but God himself uses the government of ancient Israel to rectify those problems. Furthermore, there are prohibitions against greed and covetousness, which are not only endemic but foundational to the kind of laissez-faire capitalism Tokarev supports.
This all seems to me like trying to complicate a very simple matter in order to justify an economic theory Tokarev dearly wants to be biblical. God establishes a standard of just government that provides for the poor. His exact proscription does not apply to modern America because (1) we don’t harvest wheat, grapes, and olives anymore; and (2) we are not a theocracy; but Christians should work to see that principle of provision for the poor reflected in their government. Exactly how is a purely empirical question. If Tokarev could demonstrate that unfettered markets best provide for the poor, then I’d be all for unfettered markets. But if managed markets and public programs best provide for the poor, then I’m all for those.
Report comment to moderator
Dor. Tokarev doesn’t need to demonstrate that unfettered markets are the best way to provide for the poor, or that government-enforced wealth redistribution schemes are bad for the poor. Check your world history, folks. The single most charitable nation in the history of the world is the United States of America, with its free market-based system. Note that Basil the Great et al did not force Christians to give. Surely you see the difference between exhortation and coercion. In fact, coerced “charity” (whether by the government or anyone else) is no longer charity, but theft–please note the 8th commandment.
Report comment to moderator
I have two observations on the above comments.
I would have a lot less problem if government help to the poor required work on their part, not just collecting their “benefits.” I would suggest an egalitarian solution, recipients of government should peddle bicycle powered electrical generators. They could get the Federal minimum hourly wage.
I’m a Baptist. I don’t put much stock in the “Church Fathers.”
Report comment to moderator
JJF
Thanks for the words. Alas, the book I use is long out of print: Social Thought (Message of the Church Fathers) by Peter C. Phan. Amazon lists a couple of hard-bound copies available but at nearly $200. Ouch.
This is a compendium of teachings from various fathers, and runs the gamut of opinions. Phan is now a respected bishop in the Roman church. The sections from Basil and Gregory Nazianzus are pretty stunning for their eloquence. What I found especially interesting is that the opinion towards wealth in the Early Church is every bit as diverse as it is our day. That brings a certain humility.
Report comment to moderator
Bob — I’m not recommending Basil because he has some special status (tho’ of course every time we recite the Nicene Creed we are following his thought), but more in a Burkean conservative sense. If we want to know what our options are, it is useful to listen to how others at different times and places have thought about these subjects.
And of course, even then, the Church had a variety of opinions about the role of money. Overall, they tended to agree on the duty of charity — Dr. Tokarev’s point.
Report comment to moderator
JLG89 #4,
Just because the U.S.A. is the most charitable nation on the book doesn’t mean that we get to end the conversation. I think that all of us here are pretty cool with the general idea of a free market basis for the economy that would produce the sort of prosperity that allows for charity. But the fact of the matter is that there are problems that are extremely difficult for private charity to tackle and a government solution could certainly lead to a more just society.
Bob Buckles #5,
Many people collecting benefits actually do work, especially after welfare reform passed in 1996. Welfare isn’t just a check handed out to people too lazy to work month after month; it is a highly regulated (and, from what I hear, frustratingly complicated) system that is a combination of housing subsidies, food stamps, and some flat-out checks or debit cards adjusted for various income levels. There is also, of course, disability and SSA. It certainly could be better than it is, but what you say seems to indicate that most welfare recipients who can work don’t work, when my impression is that they do somehow. Many recipients who don’t work are either children or mothers raising children.
Report comment to moderator
JLG89:
You argue that the superiority of unfettered markets over public programs in providing for the poor is a self-evident historical truth that needs no argument. I’m unconvinced. Most of Europe has spent the last 50 years moving toward controlled economies with strong public programs, and they report far higher rates of citizen happiness, satisfaction with their health care, education, etc. From where I stand, what they’re doing seems to be working for them better than what we’re doing works for us.
You also argue that “coerced ‘charity’ is theft.” You seem to be saying that the government has no right to tax you and spend your money on the public good. But surely you don’t call all taxation theft. Where do you draw the line? Is the government within its rights to tax for roads, education, parks, libraries, museums, military bases, FDA funding, weapons research? What rubric do you use to separate “good taxes” from “bad taxes”? (Of course in the real world taxes aren’t apportioned this way. So it might be better to say certain spending projects are theft of the public money. OK. Which ones? What makes the difference?)
Report comment to moderator
It is not the role of government to ‘provide for the needy’. And as fas as a government tries it has always failed. Through out the whole history of mankind. It is failing in every country on this planet today. This very day.
One has to take charge of their own health as best they can. Teach yourself what is good to do and what is not good to do. How many laymen know what good an aspirin can do for you besides headaches? (There are over a hundred ways to benefit from cheap old aspirin that you don’t regularly hear about in the ‘mainstream’) We have to educate ourselves. Fortunately we have a tremendous resource in the internet and in technical bookstores.
Charity is not charity if it is forced. It is not the role of government to force charity. In fact one has to wonder how much government interference has hurt charity.
Report comment to moderator
I think I should make the intent of my 2nd paragraph in #9 clearer. You offer two arguments that unfettered markets are better than controlled economies. (1) A supposedly self-evident historical argument, (2) a moral argument (taxes are theft).
For your first argument, I don’t see that it’s self-evident.
For your second argument, I am refining your point from “taxes are theft” to “welfare spending is theft.” If in fact welfare spending is theft, then we can say that regardless of whether it works, it’s an immoral system that shouldn’t be used. I’m challenging your idea that welfare spending is theft by suggesting that you are actually arguing that all government spending is theft, and that is clearly false.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, I’m not talking about “citizen happiness” rates. I’m talking about charitable giving. Look at the per capita charitable giving, and the U.S.A. runs away with the prize, to the tune of about twice the rate of contender #2. Now, we could argue the cause–is it really due to the free market, or is it due to a Christian ethic?–but if we’re talking charitable giving, you can’t dispute that citizens of the U.S.A. do more charitable giving than anyone else.
http://www.programforgiving.org/resource/charitableTrends.html
“Taxes” and “forced charity” are not the same thing. The Constitution authorizes Congress to spend money within a narrowly-defined scope of authority. That’s perfectly legal. What is not legal, and amounts to theft, is money that the government collects from the citizenry for the purpose of benevolence. It’s illegal because it violates the Constitution. It’s theft because they’re forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” –James Madison
Report comment to moderator
MFW @ 10
It is not the role of government to ‘provide for the needy’.
But biblically, it is the role of the king to protect the needy.
And though it seem obvious, there is a tension between the free market principles espoused by economic conservatives, and a biblically ordered society.
Report comment to moderator
JLG89: I’m not talking about “citizen happiness” rates. I’m talking about charitable giving. Look at the per capita charitable giving, and the U.S.A. runs away with the prize, to the tune of about twice the rate of contender #2.
And if you look at how many people are still poor, hungry, without medical care and illiterate/uneducated in this country, it’s obvious that that’s nowhere near enough.
Report comment to moderator
1
“money in your vault belongs to the destitute”
at the same time God gives rules protecting private property with heavy penalties for taking by force
we can agree with the passage because all blessings flow from God and He wants us to share
but is it sharing if you are given no choce?
Report comment to moderator
2
“no absolute prohibition in Scripture against using the government as part of rectifying such problems”
but is there a clear example in Scripture of God urging the king to be charitable with taxpayers’ money?
Report comment to moderator
3
could you please lead us to the exact words in the Bible that show how God wants a “government that provides for the poor”? if there are none, yours isn’t even a weak argument. it’s falsification of Scripture to justify your philosophy about the role of government, isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
4
“government-enforced wealth redistribution schemes are bad for the poor”
could you please explain how?
Report comment to moderator
4
“recipients of government should peddle bicycle powered electrical generators”
obama would love this green solution
Report comment to moderator
6
and because a certain “opinion towards wealth in the Early Church” prevailed, economic growth was postponed by 1000 years
Report comment to moderator
7
can you give me a few links, thanks
Report comment to moderator
7
I meant about the “variety of opinions about the role of money”
Report comment to moderator
8
“government solution could certainly lead to a more just society”
isn’t that quite slippery? you will be right if government was omnipotent, all-wise, and loving
Report comment to moderator
9
“higher rates of citizen happiness, satisfaction with their health care, education, etc”
didn’t they report the same in USSR 50 years ago?
Report comment to moderator
13
“biblically, it is the role of the king to protect the needy”
protect you if you need help against a thief – yes.
but it’s not so clear that the kings is to feed me with money taken from you by force, right?
Report comment to moderator
Reader #16,
Numberous OT in the Levitical law (e.g. Deuteronomy 14:22-29, 24:10-22) set up the legal code to protect the poor, the widow, and the alien so that they will always be provided for. Of course we all recognize that Israel was a theocracy and none of us here are advocating theonomy of any sort. The main thrust of those passages points us towards loving those around us in the Body of Christ with generosity. That said, I think we can also take from these passages that it is one of the roles of the government to work towards a just society where all are provided for. I think that a leader appointed by God would be delinquent in his duty if he had the power to keep his people from dying unnecessarily from hunger, preventable diseases, etc. etc. and he just allowed it to happen. JJF has done more study than me on this one, so I will let him expound more thoroughly on this subject.
#23– Of course it’s slippery, but so is saying, “The free market will make everyone more prosperous, and then we can help the people that we ran roughshod over to earn our profits.” No one here thinks that the government is all wise & omnipotent, but God gave it to us for a reason and we’re all arguing that one of those reasons is to protect its people from natural evil. We’ve made the point here before many times that an unfettered free market is economic Darwinism, and that is neither just not merciful.
Report comment to moderator
If we’re going to talk about kings providing for the poor, remember who tv “kings” are in America. We the People. Read the Constitution…please! The federal government is not authorized to engage in charity, and for good reason. Biblically, the term “charity” is also translated “love.” A government cannot love; only people can do that. Paul notes that the government wields the sword in order to punish evildoers, and that is the essential role of government.
SteveG, compare the empirical quality of life of the poor in America with the poor in any other country, and I think you might find some interesting differences. In addition, you may recall Jesus saying that the poor will always be with us.
I encourage everyone to examine the ways your individual church approaches this sort of issue. If anyone in your body is on welfare, why? If anyone in your body lacks any physical necessities, why? After all, if local churches can’t address these issues effectively within their own walls, how in the world could anyone expect a group of people in Washington to do it for us?
Report comment to moderator
JLG89: SteveG, compare the empirical quality of life of the poor in America with the poor in any other country, and I think you might find some interesting differences.
I am never impressed by arguments premised on the notion that being not as bad as someone else is good enough.
In addition, you may recall Jesus saying that the poor will always be with us.
He did. He also constantly exhorted people to care for them, and that is a pervasive theme in the Old Testament too.
The Bible has a lot more to say aiding the poor, orphans, widows and sick — on both a personal and national level — than it does about homosexuality or abortion. Many evangelicals act as if the reverse were true. Much of the dialogue about poverty, as evidenced in this thread and others, is about finding ways to argue that God doesn’t really mean what the Scripture clearly says. And it’s usually about making sure you get to keep more of your money in your pocket.
So color me not impressed.
Report comment to moderator
on “national level”? do you mean government? where?
Report comment to moderator
JLG89
If we’re going to talk about kings providing for the poor, remember who tv “kings” are in America. We the People. Read the Constitution…please! The federal government is not authorized to engage in charity, and for good reason.
The challenge is not kings, but the biblical demand of righteousness that falls on the king. So by shifting sovereignty from institution back to the people does nothing for this obligation. The call to righteousness as a people remains ours, and remains in how we treat the poor. Fwiw, it is difficult to see how a people in general can execute righteousness, or secure justice for the unprotected. Fwiw, this argument over sovereignty has an interesting biblical antecedent in Israel’s search for a king.
For the role of the sovereign and the poor, you might check the messianic Psalm 72.
Report comment to moderator
“I am never impressed by arguments premised on the notion that being not as bad as someone else is good enough.”
I’m never impressed when the government suggests they have the answer…
Report comment to moderator
is Psalm 72 about an earthly king?
Report comment to moderator
is Psalm 72 about an earthly king?
what do you think? what are the other alternatives in your view?
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone else suspect that “Reader” may be Alex Tokarev himself or a close associate or fan?
1. He shows up to post only on Tokarev’s threads, and always very quickly after they’re posted.
2. He always shows full agreement with Tokarev and tries to use a Socratic dialogue approach to steer others into agreeing with Tokarev’s conclusions.
3. He appeared only after Tokarev’s first few posts were not well-received.
Things that make you go “hmmm” …
Report comment to moderator
33
Christ?
Report comment to moderator
35
So your view is that governments should not model themselves after Christ?
Report comment to moderator
Reader, you’re getting me to write to short.
That is, if this is something the Messiah brings, something that causes rejoicing, then does that excuse our efforts? Is the Messianic reign something to aspire to? Or something that won’t take place, a sort of pie in the sky hope with no relevance?
And what does Christ say? You should be complete/perfect (Gr: telos as He is. And the Apostle John? that we should not walk past the brother in need. And the brother of Jesus? that we should act in deed not merely in word.
So-o-o-o, off hand for the non-Dispensationalists, the OT Messianic passages still have relevance.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG #34,
We have discussed Reader’s identity before (on the first post he showed up on two or three weeks ago), and honestly at the beginning he was so clumsily unfamiliar with the basics of how blog commenting works that it’s hard to believe that he isn’t who he says he is. You also give him a little too much credit: if Reader’s method is the Socratic Dialogue, then mine is the Twinkie Defense. He could have faked all that stuff about using Google in the first thread, but somehow I doubt it.
I think it is very inappropriate to ascribe such nefarious motives to Dr. Tokarev. And even if someone were to do such a thing, I feel like there would some webmaster or editor somewhere who would catch wind of it. And even if it is Dr. Tokarev’s 13-year-old homeschooled son and WMB has no problem with it– well, he’s getting his inquisitive little bottom routinely schooled by the tiny minority of religiously conservative/socially liberal Christians here, isn’t he?
Report comment to moderator
MLTW: Fair enough.
I missed that earlier discussion.
Although to be clear, I was not accusing anyone of sock puppetry, just raising the question. I do wonder why “Reader” has such an avid interest in Alex’s posts and apparently no interest in anything else that gets discussed here.
But you’re probably right.
Report comment to moderator
In fairness to Reader, we all write with a certain amount of anonymity. Over time, as our voices become our own in a forum, we begin to drop in references or clues about ourselves. What else we do, where we live, what we care about, etc. All this comes from regularly writing, nothing more.
But let’s get back to the problem of charity.
There are two problems or challenges. First is that of the moral authority of biblical teaching: how much weight do we give this? Theologically, the difficulty comes through the confession that all that we have is a gift, so the secular conservative assertion that I have a right to my own first lies in more than a little tension.
The second question swirling around regards the question of scale. This was one of the chief criticisms of Olavsky’s book, The Tragedy of American Compassion. What if the problems exceed the capacity of non-profit communities (see point one, about moral authority)? A different way: is the duty owed the poor essentially religious in nature and so focuses on the bestower of tht charity? Or is this duty owed the poor because of their condition? If the latter, then we start moving toward some sort of larger set of policy solutions.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG #39,
There are many possible reasons that I can think of for Reader’s avid interest in Alex’s posts and nothing else, but I feel like you have to have grown up homeschooled for a lot of my jokes to be funny.
Harris #40,
Your first paragraph– discussing how a lot of conservatives have a very worldly view of “our” money that doesn’t reflect a heart transformed by the Holy Spirit working through the living and active Word of God– is something that scares me quite often.
Report comment to moderator
34, 38, 39, 40, 41
or I could be Tokarev’s grandma
Report comment to moderator
36
every Christian should, not so sure how it applies to institutions?
Report comment to moderator
37
“Is the Messianic reign something to aspire to?”
I thought that we should leave that to Christ to establish in His perfect time?
Report comment to moderator
38
“socially liberal”
what exactly is this? I thought that it’s applied to those who are OK with abortion & same-sex marriage but somehow it does not fit “religiously conservative”
Report comment to moderator
39
I like passionate discussions so Tokarev’s threads are a natural choice.
The rest of them at WMB are on race (I try to be color-blind), abortion (I consider it murder) and homosexuality (the Bible tells me it’s sin) i.e. I am unlikely to change my mind on those.
But I am grateful for all your answers to my question on the economy, I try to keep an open mind despite the unavoidable initial views.
Report comment to moderator
40 “secular conservative assertion that I have a right to my own first”
Don’t you think that without this there would be anarchy and mass starvation? Doesn’t history teach the importance of private property rights as established in the Bible?
Report comment to moderator
Doesn’t history teach the importance of private property rights as established in the Bible?
Where do you see property rights established in the Bible? Theologically, God’s sovereignty means that any claim to our own is of a limited sort. The secularist claims that he (or perhaps she, if you are really T’s grandmother
) is his own master. So for him, property rights belong to him and his discretion. But that leaves no room for God’s claim.
“Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee…” (I do love the KJV. Text is Luke 12:16-20)
On this too, one might look at the lesson of the Manna.
Report comment to moderator
44
“Is the Messianic reign something to aspire to?”
I thought that we should leave that to Christ to establish in His perfect time?
Ah, this and your answer in 43 reveal you as a Dispensationalist. God has nothing to say to the rulers today?
Report comment to moderator
48
how about all the rules that if you take someone’s property you have to pay him back with an interest? doesn’t God use private property arrangement to deal with human greed?
Report comment to moderator
49
of course He has much to say. such as “punish the thiefs”
Report comment to moderator
Reader — I think you are confusing the tree with the forest. The items you cite are indeed there, but part of a larger picture of what righteous living is about. And remember, the question at hand is this: what is our relationship to the poor? What is the force of the summons to charity?
As to the near question, it has been this: the Bible teaches that all we have is God’s, i.e. a gift. This is what gives the summons to charity its moral force (and takes it out of the level of mere command or rule making). Property is never ours to dispose of as we will (see Jubilee). This notion of property allows for all sorts of prudential behavior (buying and selling), but it fundamentally denies claims such as those made by secular conservatives of a right to dispose of property as one sees fit. In this latter view, obligations to charity are self-assumed, and thus we get language of “coercion” when social welfare is mentioned.
And again dear Reader, what do you think are the proper duties of the biblical or righteous ruler? What texts would you cite?
Report comment to moderator
Yes. I have for some time now, for a number of reasons (those you mentioned and a few more). But it’s not something I can prove, and though it is bad blogiquette, I don’t think it’s necessarily unethical. Whoever he is, “Reader” is functioning very much as a faceless questioner who does not deign to enter the argument (or feels that he should not), but only throws out leading questions. If “Reader” were clearly adopting a persona, I would call it unethical (if it were true). Since he is not, I’ll only call it annoying.
But the end result is the same, for me. Discussions with Reader go no where. You’ll get no responses. There will be no dialog. So I’ll only respond to his questions if they relate to a point I wanted to make anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Fair enough. I’m proud that Americans are so free with their charity. I think, though, that charity is a separate duty from our duty to set up a system of government that treats the poor as God would have them treated.
I intentionally phrased that second duty somewhat ambiguously so that you’ll agree with me. Clearly we have two duties: one as individuals to give charity, a second as citizens to influence our government for justice. What exactly constitutes “justice for the poor” then becomes the point of our dispute. Fair enough?
From a strictly Constitutional standpoint, the Federal government has very limited authority, but the State governments have very broad authority. So your argument only works against Federal programs. If the States wanted to impose a 50% sales tax and use that money to buy free candy for every poor child, the Constitution has nothing to say about that.
And the truth is that regardless of what our Constitution says, the federal government has grown far beyond those bounds. If you are going to call every unconstitutional program theft, then you have relegated nearly every single activity of our modern Federal government to the category “theft.” I see no reason why Federal welfare programs should be singled out as the theft that must be eliminated, but other extra-constitutional programs and agencies (like the FDA, the FAA, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, the EPA, the Department of Education, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve) are given a free pass.
In other words, your definition of “theft” requires a complete reboot of our system of governance. It makes no sense to selectively apply it to just the one program you would like to see gone. I cannot dispute that according to the original intent of the Founders, there should be none of those Federal agencies and programs that you and I just listed. But for better or for worse, we have long since stopped operating by those rules.
Report comment to moderator
“But for better or for worse, we have long since stopped operating by those rules.”
In large part because the South lost the war.
But also most of the federal agencies you listed are national concerns involved with military or national security type issues.
It’s a prominent necessary role for the feds to undertake.
However, I do not see welfare, health care, retirement, etc as programs that the federal government should undertake. They arent mass concerns and the more local you are with such issues, the better they can be addressed on a much more specific basis.
Report comment to moderator
But then you’ve moved the goalposts from “powers expressly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution” to “prominent and necessary roles for the federal government to undertake.”
And that’s my point. That’s what everyone has done. “Is this in the Constitution” is no longer the question under which we are governed. It’s “is this a prominent and necessary role for the feds?”
And most Americans think welfare, health care, and retirement are. You disagree. But that disagreement alone in no way warrants calling those programs theft. Theft is the illegal taking of money, and your own guiding principle allows that “whatever is deemed a necessary role for the feds” is a legal program.
Report comment to moderator
I think looking at the transition from Rule by God through the Judges to a Kingdom might be instructive. God warned that “the king” would take the populations young men and women, the king would demand wok/service from the population and the king would demand more and more taxes.
Olasky’s book “the Tragedy of American Compassion” gives some of the history of taking care of the poor here in America. As I remember, his main complaint about the government taking over help for the poor is that the churches lost the part of their job of taking care of the poor. The poor are not helped by the government.
Report comment to moderator
JJF–we agree that, as Christians, we have a duty to care for the poor. We disagree on the method. Given the history of government in the world, I believe it is foolish to give any government the power to enact “forced charity” with the expectation that it is capable of ministering to the poor with any semblance of Christ-likeness. I believe the best government is very limited in its scope, leaving individuals with the greatest amount of liberty possible, so they can minister to the poor as God leads, not as the government directs. The new covenant, biblically, is based on an individual relationship with the Godhead through faith in Christ, with the resulting good works comprising a unique part of the body of Christ, which works together to accomplish His purposes in the world. This cannot be duplicated by any man-made system.
If, as Olasky laments, the church at large has failed to fulfill her charitable responsibilities, then the answer is a renewed call to Spirit-filled living, not another government program.
Finally…if the government is engaging in projects and programs that are not authorized by the Constitution, then it is in violation of the law. If the government is using tax dollars to fund those activities, then it is forcing American citizens to fund illegal activities. Federally-funded abortion is a perfect example, but 90% of current federal programs fit this bill as well. You can call it what you like; I call it theft.
Report comment to moderator
JLG89: I believe it is foolish to give any government the power to enact “forced charity” with the expectation that it is capable of ministering to the poor with any semblance of Christ-likeness.
I doubt anyone has that expectation. What we do expect is that the government will provide aid based on need and eligibility, nothing else.
The problem with leaving charity solely in private hands is that private chairty cannot meet the full needs. Now you can say that chairty should only be voluntary and feel satisfied because you’re not taxing anyone to provide aid; but the hungry are still hungry.
Report comment to moderator
So you’re saying that taking money from one person, by force, and giving it to a poor person, is morally superior to voluntary, cheerful giving? Defend that scripturally, please.
Report comment to moderator
Furthermore, as I stated earlier, “charity” is, by definition, an individual trait, Governments cannot love, cannot be charitable. Once you have taxed it away from someone, it is no longer charity. You can try to sow guilt over the fact that some folks have, and others have not, but your arguments have no merit, biblical or otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
So you’re saying that taking money from one person, by force, and giving it to a poor person, is morally superior to voluntary, cheerful giving? Defend that scripturally, please.
Nope, didn’t say that. Didn’t say anything close to that.
However, you’re saying you’re quite at peace with having millions of people go to bed hungry and without access to any but the most basic of health care because, hey, your taxes are lower.
Good luck with that.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!