Mike — a very cool Calvary Chapel pastor — from Mikescape blog found an article that questions the left side of politics in regards to helping the poor. He says…
[…]laying aside the issue of whether or not Jesus’ teachings demand an all-powerful, confiscatory central government in order to “help the poor” via wealth redistribution and magisterial enforcement of whatever “social justice” cause du jour happens to be currently popular, such things as wage and price controls and overregulation wind up hurting the very people that those who champion them say they’re trying to help – so from a purely practical point of view, the kind of liberal utopia that the Religious Left is trying to build is the very last thing you’d actually want to establish if you really wanted to help those who are struggling.
Find out why he comes to that conclusion HERE.
Something to ponder on isn’t it?
Filed under: Globalism, Political, discernment
Hiya... this is just a little blurb about why this blog exists. Living journey is pretty much a personal blog with emphasis on religion, culture, politics with a bit of personal thrown in. 
RSS - Posts
On the other hand … If Christians were doing our job, then there would be no one making this case.
I’d argue that the existence is a welfare issue is a stinging indictment of Christians — including myself.
When Jesus sorted out the lambs and the goats in His illustration, He didn’t seem to be saying that it was okay to refuse to help the poor because you didn’t want to create a culture of dependence or something.
If we want to prevent governmental wealth distribution by people who don’t understand how to help the poor, then we should be doing it the right way. We fail, pretty consistently, in that obligation.
I agree with you that the situation as it currently exists is a ringing indictment on the church – we should be about our Lord’s business, which included relieving the poor.
But we live in a representative republic here in the States – so to prevent governmental wealth redistribution, we vote for those who stand against it. The topic of the failure of the church is a distinct issue. It’s much like making the argument that to prevent abortion, we should have health care. The absence of adequate health care, bad as that is, does not justify the execution of millions of children in utero. So, too, the failure of the church does not justify the rise of the Messianic State.
When Jesus tells us to help the poor, He tells US to help the poor – us, the church, and individual Christians. He nowhere authorizes a central government to perform that duty any more than He authorizes a central government to do our praying or to enforce tithing. Refusing to allow the central government to illegitimately take that mantle onto itself is not the same thing as refusing to help the poor.
So though I agree with you to a point, I agree only to a point.
Well, you’re right that Jesus in no way says to have a government help the poor.
He also doesn’t tell the government to protect Biblical definitions of marriage, prevent murder, or much of anything else. He’s remarkably silent on civics, actually.
In my view, the only way we’re going to stop a socialist takeover is to get out and do it. The public at large wants to think that they’re doing something, and don’t know what to do. So, they think that if someone promises a War on Poverty, they’ll back it. What are we offering in exchange?
Much of the time, we’re offering such lines as, “I shouldn’t be forced to help the poor, but I should be free to help them if I want.” That’s not going to get it done.
For my own part, my only objection to socialism is the practical one. There’s nothing anti-Biblical about it, but it’s astoundingly inefficient and impractical. That being said, I object less to that than I do the elevation of self-interest (which is contrary to Biblical principles). The marriage of capitalism and Christianity makes me more uncomfortable than voting socialists into office, just to put my cards on the table. If I thought that Christians were influencing capitalism more than the other way around, I’d love it. But that’s not the way it’s playing out.
Again I find myself agreeing with you – to a point.
The Bible is silent about the government protecting the definition of marriage; as for preventing murder, correct – but it says a very great deal about dealing with a murder which has in fact occurred – much to the chagrin of the average liberal who doesn’t care much for capital punishment.
Here’s where I have to again point out a red herring on your part.
You are conflating two distinct issues – the massive arrogation of plenary power to itself by the central government (which is bad) and the failure of the church and individual Christians to live out the Gospel (which is also bad). Both are decidedly bad – but are also decidedly different issues.
My objection to socialism is not merely practical, but also theological. When you examine the makeup of the Hebrew Republic (the only government God specifically set up), you’ll notice rather quickly that it’s very intentionally decentralized. Not even the king has absolute power – there are very clear (and very jealously guarded) divisions of authority – so much so in fact that the Hebrew Republic has rightly been described as a federal system, rather than a centralized bureaucracy. Plus, individual property rights were specifically defined and defended – which become at best blurred under a socialist schema.
The Republic wasn’t strictly capitalist (property could be used as you desired, but was even so permanently deeded to a specific clan and could not change tribal hands, outside of a walled town, for instance), but it was vastly more capitalist than it was socialist or outright communist. The emphasis seemed to have been on individual liberty (with the concomitant personal responsibility) rather than on systemic centralization.
The answer is to treat both issues as distinct issues. From the governmental side, put it on a strict diet and return it to its Constitutional limits. From an ecclesial/personal side, emphasize Biblical responsibility.
To intervolve the governmental and ecclesial/personal concerns is to massively increase the problem.