How Do We Help The Least of These
If I here one more Hollywood liberal say that their Christian faith leads them to a progressive liberal world view I am going to scream. First lets make it clear that Jesus did not come to be a political leader. He made absolutely no comments about Pax Romana, or the major social injustice of his day, slavery. He road into the temple on a donkey and spurned attempts to make him king. He was not a politician.
There are several New Testament passages progressives interpret to mean that a Christian community is responsible for establishing a community based on what they call "social justice." which apparently means a world where there is common ownership of property and no differences in status among people. Every one is equal in this utopia. The first passage commonly espoused is Matthew 25:35-39:
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you 'gave me drink.' 'I was thirsty and you gave me drink,'I was a stranger and you welcomed me.''Iwas naked and you clothed me.' 'I was sick and you visited me.' 'I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous answered him, saying Lord when did we see you hungry and feed you or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you or in prison and visit you? And the King answered them, truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." From this the conclusion is sometimes drawn that one of the missions of the church is to help the hurting and downtrodden. This is perfectly valid interpretation that conservatives and liberals agree on. You can not love Christ and spurn people. Howevwe aome liberals will take this too far to mean that Christian people are to distribute wealth and resources equally among all people and they point to a new testament incident as an example to support their socialist agenda:
In Acts chapter 2:44 - 46 as an example of how the early Christians lived together.
"And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any have need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking the bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts."
This verse is often used to espouse a view that the earliest Christians live communally and had no personal property. It is said that whatever anyone need members of the church just gave to each other. This leads to an attitude that wealth is bad and possession is unchristian. The idea is that the role of the church is to liberate the masses from the capitalist so that we all live modest, happy healthy lives. So in affect a liberal social agenda of redistributing the wealth and providing equal material status for everyone is one of the mandates of the Great Commission.
The problem with this view of the early church is that it is inconsistent with what the Book of Acts teaches about early Christians lived, nor is it consistent with what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Just a few pages over from the text above an anathema is pronounced on Annanias and his wife Saphira who withheld a gift they had promised for the poor(Acts 5;1 - 11). They brought only a part of what they had promised then lied about it. Notice what Peter said in his sentencing of Ananias, Speaking of the property he refused to convert to cash he said, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?" He made it clear that Ananias and Saphira owned their own property it was not the property of the church. Even after the property was sold Peter said it was at their disposal. He clearly recognized their private ownership of property and recognized thay had every right to dispose of their property as they choose. They did not have to give it to anyone. They were condemned for fraud, promising to deliver on an obligation that they did not keep. So it becomes clear when we observe how the first century churcn operated that they were non-communal. They had all things in common never was understood to mean that they lived communally. They clearly did not. Even Jesus was clear that Christian have no obligation to arbitrarily give away their possession to provide for the poor.
Jesus had much to say about loving your neighbor and helping the poor, but I would argue that Jesus' world view is much closer than a conservative view than a liberal one, as were his followers who wrote the New Testament. Remember when a woman poored alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, over his head. The indignant disciples complained the money should have been given to the poor. Jesus said, "why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For the poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." Notice he made it very clear that poverty would never be ended, and that were some things more important than lifting the poor out of poverty." He made it very clear that worshipping him was a higher priority for the righteous person than giving to the poor.
Who would dare suggest that Jesus did not understand or care about the poor? When Jesus was dedicated in the temple his parents brought "two turtle doves as a gift to the temple" This was the gift for the poorest people who could not afford a more expensive gift. He understood poverty. He grew up in poverty. What Jesus seemed to understand and his apostles appeared to teach was that people came out of poverty in two ways: first, when they began to see themselves as saved and free, not bound by the limits of society or sin, secondly by acting independently to better themselves.
Jesus followers understood that you did more help by teaching a man to fish than you did by giving him a fish. "Jesus statement you will have poor always," was a recognition that some people would never take responsibility for their own lives and that we did not help them by supporting them, and that worship was a higher priority than benevolence. Remember what Paul said about some of the poor in Ephesus:
"For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: 'If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.'" So then how are we to help those in need. Again the New Testament does not teach that we help the oppressed or hurting by just giving them relief. Paul told those ministering to hurting people to "Bear one another's burdens...[but that] each one would have to bear his own load.(Galatians 6:2-6). The word translate burdens carry with it the imagery of a bolder, where as the concept of "loads" has to do with pebbles the imagery is revealing. Years ago my wife and I were driving east out of Seattle on Interstate 90 across Snoqualmie pass, every few miles there was a sign on the road, "avalanche warning." With few exits along the route and frequent avalanches from time to time cars were buried under massive boulders. When buried under calamitous circumstances those disabled by them could only be dug out.
This is the point of "bear one anther's burdens" legitimate disable circumstances both inevitable and of our own making (Galatians 6 is in a context of helping people whose lives have been wrecked by their own sin). That we are to provide relief, whether it is one who suffers from AID because of behavior we consider wrong, or victims of the Haitian earthquake, we liften the broken, the disabled up. Those who have give to those who have not. But we are not to carry one another loads.
One time my family borrowed a friends van to take my parents on a tour of the Olympic Peninsula. Our responsibility to drive safely and return our friends van intact required a very slow careful driver over the rough gravel roads. It was our responsibility to adapt to the stresses of the situation in order to enjoy the experience. We did not ask anyone else to helps, or to take our parents for us. No one rescued us from the difficulty of our path where we had the ability to meet it.
We are commanded not to carry to relieve people from the stresses of carrying out their own responsibilities. If some who is capable of working it is not our responsibility to pay their bills but to enable them to work.
That is the difference between Conservative and Liberal philosophy. Conservative believe we provide for the disabled, and we provide opportunity for the empowered, but we do not rescue people from life's strategy. Conservative help people manage stress and recover from problems through hard work and innovation. Liberals take from those who have and give it to those who have not thinking that relieving them of their responsibility will enable them. All that does is make them dependent.
The difference between a conservative world view and a liberal is that conservative believe that individual responsibility is liberating, where as benevolence can create a dependence. So let's be clear Jesus was not a progressive, and a Christian worldview is conservative.
There are several New Testament passages progressives interpret to mean that a Christian community is responsible for establishing a community based on what they call "social justice." which apparently means a world where there is common ownership of property and no differences in status among people. Every one is equal in this utopia. The first passage commonly espoused is Matthew 25:35-39:
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you 'gave me drink.' 'I was thirsty and you gave me drink,'I was a stranger and you welcomed me.''Iwas naked and you clothed me.' 'I was sick and you visited me.' 'I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous answered him, saying Lord when did we see you hungry and feed you or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you or in prison and visit you? And the King answered them, truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." From this the conclusion is sometimes drawn that one of the missions of the church is to help the hurting and downtrodden. This is perfectly valid interpretation that conservatives and liberals agree on. You can not love Christ and spurn people. Howevwe aome liberals will take this too far to mean that Christian people are to distribute wealth and resources equally among all people and they point to a new testament incident as an example to support their socialist agenda:
In Acts chapter 2:44 - 46 as an example of how the early Christians lived together.
"And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any have need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking the bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts."
This verse is often used to espouse a view that the earliest Christians live communally and had no personal property. It is said that whatever anyone need members of the church just gave to each other. This leads to an attitude that wealth is bad and possession is unchristian. The idea is that the role of the church is to liberate the masses from the capitalist so that we all live modest, happy healthy lives. So in affect a liberal social agenda of redistributing the wealth and providing equal material status for everyone is one of the mandates of the Great Commission.
The problem with this view of the early church is that it is inconsistent with what the Book of Acts teaches about early Christians lived, nor is it consistent with what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Just a few pages over from the text above an anathema is pronounced on Annanias and his wife Saphira who withheld a gift they had promised for the poor(Acts 5;1 - 11). They brought only a part of what they had promised then lied about it. Notice what Peter said in his sentencing of Ananias, Speaking of the property he refused to convert to cash he said, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?" He made it clear that Ananias and Saphira owned their own property it was not the property of the church. Even after the property was sold Peter said it was at their disposal. He clearly recognized their private ownership of property and recognized thay had every right to dispose of their property as they choose. They did not have to give it to anyone. They were condemned for fraud, promising to deliver on an obligation that they did not keep. So it becomes clear when we observe how the first century churcn operated that they were non-communal. They had all things in common never was understood to mean that they lived communally. They clearly did not. Even Jesus was clear that Christian have no obligation to arbitrarily give away their possession to provide for the poor.
Jesus had much to say about loving your neighbor and helping the poor, but I would argue that Jesus' world view is much closer than a conservative view than a liberal one, as were his followers who wrote the New Testament. Remember when a woman poored alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, over his head. The indignant disciples complained the money should have been given to the poor. Jesus said, "why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For the poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." Notice he made it very clear that poverty would never be ended, and that were some things more important than lifting the poor out of poverty." He made it very clear that worshipping him was a higher priority for the righteous person than giving to the poor.
Who would dare suggest that Jesus did not understand or care about the poor? When Jesus was dedicated in the temple his parents brought "two turtle doves as a gift to the temple" This was the gift for the poorest people who could not afford a more expensive gift. He understood poverty. He grew up in poverty. What Jesus seemed to understand and his apostles appeared to teach was that people came out of poverty in two ways: first, when they began to see themselves as saved and free, not bound by the limits of society or sin, secondly by acting independently to better themselves.
Jesus followers understood that you did more help by teaching a man to fish than you did by giving him a fish. "Jesus statement you will have poor always," was a recognition that some people would never take responsibility for their own lives and that we did not help them by supporting them, and that worship was a higher priority than benevolence. Remember what Paul said about some of the poor in Ephesus:
"For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: 'If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.'" So then how are we to help those in need. Again the New Testament does not teach that we help the oppressed or hurting by just giving them relief. Paul told those ministering to hurting people to "Bear one another's burdens...[but that] each one would have to bear his own load.(Galatians 6:2-6). The word translate burdens carry with it the imagery of a bolder, where as the concept of "loads" has to do with pebbles the imagery is revealing. Years ago my wife and I were driving east out of Seattle on Interstate 90 across Snoqualmie pass, every few miles there was a sign on the road, "avalanche warning." With few exits along the route and frequent avalanches from time to time cars were buried under massive boulders. When buried under calamitous circumstances those disabled by them could only be dug out.
This is the point of "bear one anther's burdens" legitimate disable circumstances both inevitable and of our own making (Galatians 6 is in a context of helping people whose lives have been wrecked by their own sin). That we are to provide relief, whether it is one who suffers from AID because of behavior we consider wrong, or victims of the Haitian earthquake, we liften the broken, the disabled up. Those who have give to those who have not. But we are not to carry one another loads.
One time my family borrowed a friends van to take my parents on a tour of the Olympic Peninsula. Our responsibility to drive safely and return our friends van intact required a very slow careful driver over the rough gravel roads. It was our responsibility to adapt to the stresses of the situation in order to enjoy the experience. We did not ask anyone else to helps, or to take our parents for us. No one rescued us from the difficulty of our path where we had the ability to meet it.
We are commanded not to carry to relieve people from the stresses of carrying out their own responsibilities. If some who is capable of working it is not our responsibility to pay their bills but to enable them to work.
That is the difference between Conservative and Liberal philosophy. Conservative believe we provide for the disabled, and we provide opportunity for the empowered, but we do not rescue people from life's strategy. Conservative help people manage stress and recover from problems through hard work and innovation. Liberals take from those who have and give it to those who have not thinking that relieving them of their responsibility will enable them. All that does is make them dependent.
The difference between a conservative world view and a liberal is that conservative believe that individual responsibility is liberating, where as benevolence can create a dependence. So let's be clear Jesus was not a progressive, and a Christian worldview is conservative.
Comments
Post a Comment