click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
A Theology of Fear and Government Mistrust
by Lisa RobinsonSeptember 7th, 2009
74 Comments
Fear is a powerful motivator and detractor. Fear can distort our perception of reality and cause us to see situations, circumstances, people in a completely different light. Fear will cause us to project an undesirable outcome upon those situations and imagine endless detrimental possibilities.
So often in Scripture, we are told not to fear. Jesus tells His disciples on many occasions not to fear since He is there. After His earthly departure, He would send a comforter to allay fears. Paul tells Timothy, that God has not given us a spirit of fear, but love, power and a sound mind. John writes in his epistle, that there is no fear in love, for perfect love (meaning Christ) casts out fear because fear involves torment. Yet, the believer can allow fear to seep in and distract from the peace that Christ brings and even justify fear in the face of alarming circumstances that stand counter-opposed to the Christian values we are striving to uphold.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, there seems to be a vapor of fear circulating among evangelical circles these days. I believe that several factors are motivating this fear but the chief instigator seems to be the current political administration. Let’s face it, there are policies and practices being proposed that undercut and undermine a politically conservative platform, the same platform that most evangelicals share due to closest alignment of values based on a Biblical worldview.
Whether it be universal health care, internet policies, taxation of business or a presidential speech made to school children, the actions of the current administration are alarming many. Not to mention, the administration’s pro-abortion stance. So much so, I believe that there is a perception of detriment that I wonder is not being amplified because of fear. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there is no cause for concern, especially if you are a politically conservative evangelical. But I do get the sense that we are allowing that fear to draw unmitigated and slightly irrational conclusions about things that on face value, do not warrant the kind of response that some actions have drawn, such as delivering a motivational speech to school age children. Al Mohler has written a very insightful piece concerning this (here).
I agree with Dr. Mohler concerning what the Christian response should be according to Scripture. For I find the average evangelical response interesting in contrast to Biblical prescription and practices in the early church. Paul encourages a response to government that I think is most intriguing considering the atheist, plurastic and hedonistic Roman government ruled during that time. If we think our’s is immoral, it is saintly in comparison. He writes in Romans 13:1-3,to submit to governing authorities for by doing so you are subjecting to God. Moreover, he indicates that the authorities are not a cause for fear. Even then, with what Christians faced the rule was to pray for government and submit to it. Why? Because God is the ultimate authority and it is God who is ultimately in control.
I further get the sense that fear is causing us to want a government response to our concerns because American Christians Evangelicals have developed an expectation that government should align with a Biblical worldview and we should have no participation with one that doesn’t. I suspect this is why there has been so much evangelical entwinement with the political process in order to control outcomes. Perhaps it was the foundation of religious freedom that the country was founded on or maybe the fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century that sought to impose a Christian standard on society. I think fear played a significant factor in these efforts since a “godless” society would inevitably be much more difficult to live in than one displaying the same moralistic values that should so distinguish the proper Christian.
I do find the contrast of political affiliation during the early church in contrast to today interesting. There were no protests from Christians for the government to align with their values. Even Paul, a Roman citizen, did not seek to gain political clout for the sake of Christianity. In fact, it were the Jewish rulers who sought political good will in order to enhance their agenda.
Fear of any type of government misalignment with Christian values should not be a cause for concern for the believer. It is not that we are not concerned about the current political direction of this country but a non-conformity to this world (Romans 12:2) means we don’t put our trust in the system. A believer’s trust is in God because He is the one ultimately in control. A believer can submit to government because our trust is not in government but in God. We don’t have to overreact to every move the current administration makes. We can allow our children to be encouraged to take responsibility for their education by a government official opposed to a Biblical worldview because hopefully at home, we are instructing our children what one is. I also think we can dispense from comparing our commander in chief to Hitler or Stalin because that does much to instigate fear that stands in opposition to position we should be taking according to Scripture.
If we belong to Christ, we are His and that should comfort us in spite of present and perceptions of pending circumstances.
Similar Posts:
- Will the real evangelical please stand up?
- New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon
- Is this the End of America?
- Green Evangelicals
- Politics According to the Bible (Dan Wallace)
74 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa,
You may want to fix the typo in your second paragraph. It tends to distort your meaning just a bit!
Like or Dislike:
0
This is an extraordinary post. I thank you. Why aren’t we hearing more of this from the leadership? Has dominionism and reconstruction had so much influence that this message can no longer be heard?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl, thanks but where is it? I certainly don’t want a distorted meaning.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think Cheryl is referring to, “Jesus tells His disciples on many occasions to fear since He is there.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Big oops. Fixing it now. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
that totally rocked. THANK YOU!
Like or Dislike:
0
Excellent post, Lisa. I agree with the title of your post that as Christians we should never fear the government, but I believe mistrust is well advised when it comes to any government, Republican or Democrat. I doubt that Christ trusted the religious/political leaders of his day as far as he could throw them (ok, bad example, as God he could throw them pretty far).
I think evangelical Christians have fallen hook, line, and sinker for Satan’s temptation to offer the kingdoms of the world to Christ. The reason this was a temptation was because worldly kingdoms were (are) Satan’s to give!
I think New Testament teaching is clear that earthly power, even if we think it’s for doing good, is not to be pursued. The ultimate result of evangelicals’ pursuit of government power is summed up well by C.S. Lewis:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I wouldn’t want evangelicals to be in charge and I’m an evangelical!
The problem as I see it is not who is in charge of the government. It’s that we have a government so large that it attracts the power hungry (Christian and non-christian alike) to wield its power. A much smaller government will give us less to fear and less to mistrust.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you for this.
I’ve been so troubled of late by the response of Christians to this president. As you say, Christians were originally called to honor their rulers at a time when those rulers were the same who crucified the Savior, and could also end up killing them. They were told to pay taxes even though they had no representation of any kind and the money they paid went to further the literal cult of the emperor, and to fund a government who’s coliseum featured murder as sport.
Thank you for being another voice of reason at this critical time. I am concerned that the gospel is being compromised for the sake of politics. May God grant that that no longer be the case.
Like or Dislike:
0
Right on target, Lisa. I am sick and tired of the fearful attitudes, the nasty talk about the leaders of the country, and a general defeatist attitude. It is un-Christian, it is un-Biblical, and it shows a lack of faith, which is sinful. Here in the north Dallas suburbs, among professing evangelical Christians, the level of hate shown toward a standing President is appalling. You may not agree with a President, but you should be respectful of your leaders, and you should always, always, always remember that the battle has been won since before the beginning of time.
For those who are fearful that Obama’s speech to kids (all other Presidents have done the same thing, BTW) will somehow corrupt their children, please remember that he is a President, not a convict or gangster. You’ll take your kids to a concert where the general surroundings are far less conducive to “things above”, yet you freak out about a presidential speech! The irony, of course, is that your kids are sitting in a public school that is funded by state and federal funds. If you want separation, homeschool them. They’d probably turn out smarter to boot.
It is time to read 2 Timothy 1:7 over and over again: “…for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Excellent post Lisa, and good comments following. I think of these Scriptures:
“But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ”
Philippians 3:20 English Standard Version
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
John 18:36 English Standard Version
While I enjoy keeping up on the political scene, an unbalanced diet of Limbaugh, Hannity, etal. (whom I love), tends to make me “sick” with that fear you describe.
Liked Del’s qoute of Lewis. I have a bumper sticker that reads:”the welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants”-Camus.
“The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular.”
— Fyodor Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov)
Like or Dislike:
0
@Drew K- I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with respect to the “echo chamber” effect that occurs with what you so rightfully call an “unbalanced diet” of Glenn Beck et al. It promotes a fear and a viciousness that is so wrong for a Christian to show.
I highly recommend a book by Os Guinness, “The Case For Civility”, in which he writes as a man who is in this world, but not of this world. Like all the rest of us should be.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul said obey the “authorities” or “governors”; since, he said, all authority is derived from God. Though this saying has often been stretched.
In any case, regarding the current administration? God told us to “heal the sick” and help the “poor.”
While also the story of the Good Samaritan made it clear that even a non-Christian who does the work of the Lord, can be a better person, than a professing believer, who does not do the things required. Like helping the sick and the poor.
Like or Dislike:
0
I said this in another thread and it bears repeating since you like to use the Good Samaritan story as though it would support the current administration (it doesn’t).
The Samaritan was an individual who ON HIS OWN ACCORD helped the stranger in need. What good does it do anyone who is FORCED to “help their neighbor” via taxation? It is really no different than me holding a gun to your head and telling you to give your money to the poor. Do I give because my spirit compelled me to give, or do I give because the government will seize my assets or toss me in the slammer if I don’t?
Like or Dislike:
0
Marvin,
I agree with you. There is a vast difference in the good Samaritan story and being forced to give–want to or not–by government decree. Also, the Samaritan could see that the man he was helping was truly in need of help and therefore chose to give to him. In a government program, we don’t necessarily have much, if any say, in where our money actually goes. Besides, obviously much of it goes to overhead expenses and not directly to the person that needs the help. So there really is not much valid comparison there at all that I can see.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl,
It is rather ironic that Joe in the abortion thread says:
“Here as so often, Evangelicals sin gravely, by speaking falsely for God. Taking their own opinions, and presenting them as the word of God. When in fact, God, the Bible, never said any such thing at all.”
I guess as long as his obtuse interpretation of the Bible suits his ideological agenda, then it is God’s Word. But when it doesn’t, then we conservatives are blasphemers, speaking for God.
Like or Dislike:
0
Marvin the Martian,
you have boldly pointed out the elephant in the middle of the room that Christians don’t like to talk about: government is force, at all times, at all levels. There is no exception. It requires taking the fruits of some by force to give to others. This is theft by any definition. Stealing by proxy is still stealing.
Government is a sword that should not be wielded. Helping the poor, the elderly, or the children is not an excuse for theft. These efforts should only be undertaken voluntarily. I only pray that Christians (and non-christians) will begin to see this cognitive dissonance in their thinking before another world war is started.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think if the church as a whole was doing the job of physically taking care of the poor, the hungry and the homeless that Jesus directed His people to do, it would be moot point. Actually, we would be helping to submit our governing authorities much better if every Christian bothered do his/her part practically to love his neighbor in deed, and not just in word.
That’s why the problem with us submitting to authorities on the one hand, without the majority of us Christians being really practically committed themselves to taking care of the poor, is really in a sense an easy excuse for not wanting to get involved in the dirty work of doing it ourselves.
Like or Dislike:
0
mbaker, Christians are primarily instructed to take care of their own family, i.e. other believers, first and foremost. And we are wise to look out for the needs of others as well…. but logistically the problems of the poor are much more than the true Christian church is able to handle. The poor in the US are cared for by the government fairly well as things are now (compared to most of the world).
I have to say that when people offer the church as the solution for the poor I want to ask individuals who pose this (such as yourself)….what are you personally doing to help the poor? And, is it really making a dent?
Like or Dislike:
0
Funny how this works. Some friends and I were recently discussing precisely this issue.
Great post! I’ll have to share it with them and get their thoughts.
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan,
I will not go so far to list what I do for the poor, but suffice it to say it is and always has been a powerful comittment of mine, because I went through extreme poverty myself as a single parent.
What I am able to do is far less than I would like to be able to do, if I had lots of money, but I can assure you I know many individual Christians who feel as I do, that whatever we do for the least of His, we do for Christ.
It may not make a dent as far as statistics go, but I know it does in the hearts of those who are helped, because I have been one of the least, and will never, ever forget the many kindnesses done for me by other Christians during those painful years.
It was the sure the best witness for Christ I ever had. So yes, our government helps more than any nation on earth. I would daresay that’s because many American Christians probably help far less than they could.
Like or Dislike:
0
Good answer, mbaker. There’s nothing like having been there, to school us in the importance of what we have to offer, and the difference it can make!
Like or Dislike:
0
Amen sister! Speaking from a Canadian perspective, where we have universal healthcare for which even we evangelical Canadians are thankful, I nevertheless find the same attitude of fear amongst conservatives toward liberal goverments and vice versa. Fear comes not only from a lack of faith, but a lack of faith specifically in the absolute sovereignty of the God who can do no wrong. When Christians are true to their Lord and His Word, they are always called to be countercultural, no matter who is in power.
Like or Dislike:
0
Although I agree partially with the premise of Lisa’s tread, I do have questions for her.
1. Should Christians never fear their government?
2. At what point should Christians make a stand against their government?
3. Was it wrong for Christians to war against King George III during the American Revolution?
4. Was Paul speaking to a specific people about a specific government at a specific time?
I know there are different views to the Romans 13 passages; I want to hear Lisa’s understanding of Paul’s writings here.
Like or Dislike:
0
Martians who hate humans:
You’ve decided that you don’t have to be a Good Samaritan, giving to the poor or sick, by way of tax support for the poor, because you feel “forced.” Whereas you regard giving at church as voluntary?
1) But in many churches, “tithing” or giving “sacrifices” to the Lord, was not entirely voluntary; it was mandatory.
Many Christians give, because they believe God will send them to eternal Hell if they don’t; therefore, its not entirely voluntary.
2) Then too, you’re not entirely forced even in government taxes; which do not exist unless or until you and others vote for them after all.
3) In any case: aside from attempting to escape from helping the “poor” by various legalisms; what about the “sick”? Do you feel you can decide who is sick as well? And then help them or not?
It seems obvious you are resorting to various technical legalisms and sophistries, to avoid obeying the Bible. Just like the Pharisees.
4) By the way, the ancient Hebrew words for “sacrifices,” were often very close to – and even identical to – the words for “taxes” or tribute. In the old days of theocracies, remember, Religion was joined to the state. And in effect, ancient sacrifices to the temple, were also payments to the governing lord, and in effect God.
So that your general sense that churches and governments are radically different – as in a difference between taxes and tithing, “sacrificing” – is not historically true to the origins of Judaism, and of Christianity.
Like or Dislike:
0
Del,
You wrote that “government is a sword that should never be wielded”. I wonder how you reconcile this with Romans 13:3-4 which states
“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
Paul seems to be writing here that God has given the power of the sword to governments to be wielded against wrongdoers. Now obviously there is a lot of baggage and caveats to this discussed elsewhere in scripture (for instance Daniel continuing to pray to God in defiance of the law). However, to make a blanket statement that government is a sword that should “never” be wielded seems to me to go against Romans 13.
Like or Dislike:
0
“You’ve decided that you don’t have to be a Good Samaritan, giving to the poor or sick, by way of tax support for the poor, because you feel “forced.”
“It seems obvious you are resorting to various technical legalisms and sophistries, to avoid obeying the Bible. Just like the Pharisees.”
Joe,
The only thing obvious is that you don’t know what the Bible actually teaches about the issue of giving. At all.
2nd Corinthians 9
6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
BTW,
You really should stop with the being a Good Samaritan = paying taxes comparison. The two have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other. Do you pay your taxes Joe? If so, using your “logic”, I could justifiably call you a warmonger because your tax dollars support the Department of Defense and all those guns, bombs, missles, tanks, battleships, and everthing else designed to bring death and destruction.
Like or Dislike:
0
Joe,
Please, how many taxes have you voted for lately? On the local level, that may very well be true. But on the federal level taxes are being put in place by the legislature all of the time that we have no direct vote on, are they not?
Like or Dislike:
0
J.R., in response to your questions, I’d say there is a difference between fear and concern. I do rightly believe there are some policies to be concerned about but according to Scripture, we don’t fear. Now, I also realize that being encased in this flesh will subject us to natural human responses, and to address that, we turn to God and learn to trust Him. And isn’t this the response He wants from us anyway?
I do believe that non-compliance with government is warranted when requirements are imposed that violate our allegiance to Christ. But even then, there is a difference between a government’s position on allowing opposition to Christ vs. enforcing it. Christians in the early church rightfully opposed government when asked to deny Christ. Even within that context, the Scripture indicates that we should obey government and honor it’s leaders. And that would be different than laws saying you can deny Christ. See the difference?
In terms of Romans 13, of course it was addressed to a particular people at a particular time. But wasn’t most of Scripture? I don’t think that means we can negate the foundational principle in that passage of submission to government, which means compliance with its laws. It is the vehicle through which societal administration is carried out (vs. 6) and for the sake of conscience, we do right through obedience (vs 5). Peter also speaks of this in I Peter 2:13-14. We do so because it demonstrates acknowledgment to God as the ultimate authority to whom we are submitting.
Now, what people have done with this passage since that time, in the context of political misalignment is a completely different story.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl and Joe,
I’m not sure that either of you have Scripture on your side. As Cheryl has pointed out the story of the Good Samaritan and other stories of helping the poor, sick, etc. referred to in Scripture are stories of people doing it without coercion and thus can not be applied to how government spends taxes we are coerced into paying. On the other hand we should not overlook Jesus saying that we should “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” when asked about paying taxes. In the end the debate about healthcare and other social programs should be an informed and open debate understanding that all systems and plans have benefits and consequences. IF we as a nation were to decide that a government run healthcare system is the best system given both it’s flaws and benefits then I see no Biblical grounds for opposing such a system. I currently do not support such a system, but only because my analysis of the situation leads me to believe that the negative effects of such a system would outweigh the positive effects, not because I think there is some moral high ground to my position.
Like or Dislike:
0
michael,
I believe Romans 13:3-4 is addressing a tendency among early Christians who wanted to resist violently to the government. It’s understandable that they would desire this considering their ongoing persecution and that their Savior was murdered by the government.
I’ll admit this is a very strange passage. It almost seems naive considering the persecutions early Christians faced. I think Paul is giving practical instructions to the early Christians (and to us) on how to respond to those who would presume to usurp the position of Christ as our master without antagonizing them or calling unwanted attention.
I also see no evidence that early Christians were interested in wielding this sword of government. I would presume that they were appalled at the thought of it (as we should be)! Early Christians, I believe, were far more passionate about following the passively resistant example of Christ. How often do we turn the other cheek (something I admittedly fall short of)? No, we send the armed forces in!
Sorry, I digress. To be clear I believe that Christians have no place in wielding the sword of government. He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. This isn’t a metaphorical sword. The sword is essential to the existence of any coercive government. Take away the sword and the institution falls apart.
God used slaves and the existence of slavery to fulfill his purposes in the early church, but I doubt anyone believes it shouldn’t have been abolished. I believe that God uses government to punish evil doers today, but just because God uses it doesn’t mean it’s the best way or that we should participate in it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
You are right, we are to render to Caesar what is Caesars. And if health care reform is passed and set in place, I certainly will not refuse to pay taxes to fund it.
However, I am not at all convinced that it is the best way to do things or the way God intended them to be done because of the Scriptural reasons that have been put forth by myself and others. I do know that Christians have been told to help the poor and to give freely, not because of coersion. And also, like you, I am not at all certain the negative of the system will outweigh the positive. Time will only tell I guess.
Like or Dislike:
0
Del,
If government didn’t exist to wield the sword what do you think would happen?? Human depravity necessitates government which is why there is the passage in Romans 13. In the absence of government all that would exist is survival of the fittest and the fittest would be he who has the biggest gun and the ability to wield it. This can clearly be seen in countries like Somalia and others where the absence of a stable effective government leads to warlordism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa, while I agree that there are more christian ways of dealing with political action, I was disappointed that you laid all the blame for all the fear on Obama. The Screechy fringe is making stuff up in their hatred for the President.
Conservatism is not aligned with a “Biblical world view”. Nor is Liberalism the anti-christ (and for the record, Obama is not liberal, much less socialist). In order to make that leap, the religious right narrowed the definition of Biblical world view to exactly one issue. Tell me that Bush 43′s administration was “biblical”. I think you know better and the same goes for Bush 41 and Reagan. Lots of evil went on and the Church was right in their back pocket.
Like or Dislike:
0
What a refreshing article! Thanks so much for voicing this. I for one am tired of everyone screaming that the sky is falling. Where is our faith that God is above it all?
I really liked this:
“Paul encourages a response to government that I think is most intriguing considering the atheist, plurastic and hedonistic Roman government ruled during that time. If we think our’s is immoral, it is saintly in comparison.”
Like or Dislike:
0
This is an interesting article and if President Obama was King Obama I would agree completely. His authority however, is not permanent and absolute by birthright but narrowly defined by our Constitution. This becomes an important distinction when we apply what scripture says about ruling authorities.
I will submit to the authority granted to our government by the Constitution, but I have no desire to give them any of my liberty.
I have serious issues with the moral clarity of Barak Obama. I also disagree with his choice of liberation theology. Don’t confuse my right of regress to fear. If there is something to fear it is not the government but the people willing to give unto Caesar what is God’s.
Like or Dislike:
0
Martian:
So 1) if you believe in God, and 2) God commands us to help the sick, then 3) shouldn’t you do that? Whether you feel forced or not? Why not obey God’s commands?
Stand by 4) for a distinction within “giving”; and 5)a comparison between that, and following God’s commands.
6) Once tax laws are passed, we are not responsible for them; but in the dialogue leading to their passing, there is time for the proper voice to be heard. And a voluntary element.
7) Then too, give unto Caesar.
Martian: is your voice really following the God of the Jews, and Christians? Or that alien god from Mars? Rush Limbaugh?
Like or Dislike:
0
8) On the matter of “giving,” in 2 Corin. 9:
a) Does not necessarily relieve us of giving, as in taxes and help to the sick, nor does it necessarily even leave it voluntary; but can be read as merely asking us to do it cheerfully. Find it in your own will … but make sure you do it. In one reading.
b) In any case, in this same passage, Paul reminds us, that as you sow, so shall you reap; those who don’t give much, won’t get much in the end.
Like or Dislike:
0
Xulon and Joe -
Yes!
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
You said, “Human depravity necessitates government which is why there is the passage in Romans 13.”
If humans are inherently good we don’t need a coercive government. If they are sinful then we certainly wouldn’t want humans to be in charge of one!
You said, “In the absence of government all that would exist is survival of the fittest and the fittest would be he who has the biggest gun and the ability to wield it. This can clearly be seen in countries like Somalia and others where the absence of a stable effective government leads to warlordism.”
It can clearly be seen in the U.S. government as well. “We” have the biggest guns so we run roughshod over the rest of the world, friends and enemies alike. The warlords just do it locally.
Actually there are pockets of Somalia that the warlords (government wannabes) haven’t infected. The people there are progressing technologically and are forming their own non-violent means of dispute resolution. What’s missing in Somalia is not coercive government but Christian principles for living.
If the federal government in this country vanished tomorrow I would maintain that life would go on pretty much as usual. Anything absolutely necessary that the government does can be done peaceably and non-violently.
The founding fathers actually made remarkable progress in limiting government. If was said that their would be chaos without a king. I think it’s time we put aside these violent practices and begin ruling ourselves and resisting, non-violently and persuasively of course, attempts by man to impose rules on us. This, I believe, is the ultimate outcome of spreading Christian principles throughout society.
Just as it’s strange to look back and wonder why slavery was ever tolerated, we’ll look back someday and wonder the same thing about coercive government.
Like or Dislike:
0
You know, there is another whole aspect to this issue of taxes for health care, caring for the poor etc. that has not been addressed here as to how it fits with Scriptural commands.
There are folks out there, I don’t know how many–wouldn’t venture to guess–but there are those that simply do not want to and do not work to provide for their own needs. The Bible makes it very clear that if we won’t work, we should not eat. Our taxes do go to funding programs to care for these people and are therefore causing us to violate God’s commnds in this area. I’m sure I will get flack for saying this. Never the less, I believe this to be a valid concern.
There is also inevitable fraud that we are funding through government programs that is not nearly as likely to happen if we are giving to folks individually as we meet their needs. I am not talking about fraud in the administering of the programs themselves although I am sure that sometimes happens too. What I am speaking about is fraud by people making false claims in order to receive the benefits of government programs. I know of several instances of this type of thing happening personally. In these cases our tax money is not only being wasted on those that are not entitled to it, but is actually being used to fuel people’s dishonesty.
Like or Dislike:
0
Joe,
The biggest problem I have with government programs that aid the “poor” is that it doesn’t draw a distinction between those who really need the aid and those lazy sloths who are merely taking advantage of the system. You have to know this happens. My wife’s mother is a perfect example. She lost her job almost a year ago in California. Cali pays unemployment for an entire year. I know for a fact that she has not actively been seeking employment. She merely does the bare minimum to keep getting the benefits and is enjoying a nice year sabbatical at the expense of the taxpayer.
The other problem I have with government aid is that it is largely ineffective. The war against poverty was declared by democrats back in the 60′s and the derth of government programs established since then to fight it haven’t put much of dent in the problem. Why you think that throwing even more trillions of dollars at the problem will somehow fix it is beyond me.
I am sorry, but I see nothing Godly in government systems that encourage sloth and have loopholes that make it easy to abuse the system, and frankly have a lousy track record of actually fixing the problem.
And since you seem to think I am a tightwad with my money just because I oppose higher taxes to support government welfare programs, I can also say for a fact that I gave more (as a percentage of my overall income) than did Barak Obama to charity, and I gave more (in both percentage of income AND total dollars) than did Joe Biden. In fact, I gave more money to charity last year than Biden did in the last 7 years combined. Even though Biden made more than 4 times what I make (annually).
I guess the difference between you and me is that you think that the government is charity, and it is virtuous to give to it. I think of the government is a necessay evil to keep civil order and has no business in charitable endeavors. I still dutifully pay my taxes, but I make much of my charitable contributions to World Vision, an organization that aids the truly impoverished in Africa. Roughly 90% of the money I give goes directly to the people I am trying to help. Much of the money I give to Uncle Sam is wasted in red tape, fraud, pork, you name it. And there thousands of charities in the US that seek to aid the poor, and every one of them does it better than the government. If the government really wanted to help them, they would have even more friendly tax laws to encourage charitable giving.
Like or Dislike:
0
Del,
You seem to be just plain ignoring what it says in Romans 13 in your arguments here. Paul says there that to resist the government is to resist GOD’s ordinance, that ruler’s are God’s ministers to us for good, and that they are to be the punisher’s of wrongdoing. As far as I can tell, those folks Paul was talking about were humans just like the rest of us too!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I’d like to modify my remark about life going on as usual without the government. For the majority of people this would be true. But our government has become so invasive in many peoples lives that there would be a difficult transition to “normal” life for many. This isn’t an argument for government. It’s just an example of government breaking your legs and then giving you a crutch and saying, “See? If it wasn’t for the government you wouldn’t be able to walk.” I guess we would see if Christians and other charities are up to the task.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi cheryl u,
I’ll summarize my views on Romans 13.
I think Paul is giving practical instruction on how to keep the heavy hand of government off of the early church (and us today). Go along to get along. Nothing wrong with this. I practice this in every unavoidable encounter I have with the government. Whether it’s responding kindly to a snotty clerk at the DMV or a cop who pulls me over and decides to be threatening. My humble response to date has always diffused the situation (I say with pride!). A lot of early Christians were looking for a fight. Paul recognized that violence perpetrated by Christians wasn’t going to get the early church far.
I also believe that pointing out the true nature of government (see I Samuel 8) also has biblical support. There is a balance to be maintained.
You’re right that early Christians were human too but their situation differed in many ways from ours. Paul was addressing a specific problem in the early church. We can draw practical applications for 21st century Christians but we can’t say the Paul was writing to us.
Like or Dislike:
0
cheryl u,
LOL. In my last post “1 Samuel ‘smiley icon’ ” should say “1 Samuel 8“.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well Del,
I guess if we can’t say that Paul was writing to us in Romans 13, can we say he was writing to us in any of the epistles written by him or in his words recorded in Acts? Were any of his words meant to be instruction to us at all? And if so, which ones?
I think that is walking down the proverbial slippery slope whenever we start saying that some part of Scripture like this one is not for us.
If the ruling authorities then were stated to be an ordinance of God, what makes you think they are not an ordinance of God today? If they were meant then as God’s agents to punish evil doers, can you say that is not the case with government today?
If not, when did God’s plan change and He decide that was no longer the case? Remember, we are no longer living in a theocracy as were the folks in the Old Testament when God was originally supposed to be the King of the nation of Israel.
Yes, governments are often repressive. But I don’t see that changes what God has said about them. I don’t think this is an issue that we can say is not for us today.
Remember Peter gave us similar instructions: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.” I Peter 2:13-15
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi cheryl u,
I really can’t say I disagree for the most part with what you’re saying. I’m just trying to point out another side.
All of Bible exegesis is a slippery slope. Paul didn’t know there would be a 21st century. In fact, the early church seemed to believe that Christ would come back in their lifetimes. He didn’t, yet we can still apply God’s word to our lives. Most of it anyway. At my church we don’t greet each other with a holy kiss any more.
I would say the early church was in a different situation than us because of intense persecution. Paul was addressing the Christian’s response to this. This is why the application to us is different.
I stated in previous posts that God still uses the ruling authorities to do his will, as Romans 13 says, whether George Bush, Barak Obama or Adolph Hitler. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t resist oppression, peacefully. All coercive government is oppressive in some respect. We deal voluntarily with the grocery store not the government.
I agree we no longer live in an Old Testament theocracy but we can draw a lot about what God thought about having any other king but Him.
This is a great conversation. Thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0
A number of people have been citing Jesus words to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” as an admonition to pay taxes. Before anyone jumps on me I agree we should pay our taxes, but not because Jesus said so (he was purposefully evasive) but because, like Romans 13, we are being told how to peacefully deal with government and not to draw its wrath upon us and thus sully the name of Christ.
Jesus could have easily told the pharisees, “Are you kidding, of course you should pay your taxes!” (thus drawing the wrath of the Jews) or he could have responded to the contrary (drawing the wrath of the occupying government). They would have been happy with either answer.
I believe there is a reason Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, to God what is God’s.” There was a common expression at the time that went, “No king but Caesar!” This must have chapped the bottoms of the Jews of that day since they believed there was no king but God. Instead he left the pharisees with a conundrum: everything is God’s yet God is using Caesar to fulfill His ultimate purpose and you don’t want to get on the bad side of Caesar.
My point is that Jesus was showing the path to be taken to get to that place where no man, Caesar, Hitler, Bush or Obama will be insisting on taking what really belongs to God. We still have a long way to go.
Like or Dislike:
0
Xulon, it is not that Conservatism is a Biblical world view but it is so intertwined with it, that it is hard to separate political idealogy from a Biblical worldview. I am not in favor of less freedoms or a paradigm shift from the foundational principles are Constitution supports. But this is an affront to my participation as a U.S. citizen. I think I am asking the question of what happens when the political paradigm differs from our worldview, what then?
I would certainly not want imposed socialists policies, but if that happened, where then is the offense, to our political sensibilities or our Christian ones? Do we think that evangelicals in Canada or even countries with socialists policies, find themselves in precarious positions of competing loyalties? Just some stuff I’m thinking about.
Like or Dislike:
1
“Conservatism is not aligned with a “Biblical world view”. Nor is Liberalism the anti-christ (and for the record, Obama is not liberal, much less socialist).”
Xulon,
I am afraid you lose all credibility by saying Obama isn’t liberal.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think the questions are good ones, but they can be asked without the labeling that American Conservatism as “Christian” (or at least so intertwined with “christian values” as to be indistinguishable) and the current administration is not (and so the fringe’s blind hatred is legitimatized). These are serious misrepresentations of both Christianity and the politics of our day for the sake of scoring political points. It is polarizing rhetoric and not “engaging the culture”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Marvin,
By not buying the “Conservativism=Christianity” equation I’ve lost credibility with this crowd.
In any case, you ask all the liberals that have been thrown under the bus by Obama’s compromises with the anti-reform people about how “scary, radically Liberal” Obama is. “Liberal” is most often used in political debate as a label to scare people. It is not used as an accurate description. Obama is somewhat left of center, no doubt left of you, but there is nothing radical scary about him.
Like or Dislike:
0
Xulon,
I would like to know what compromises with anti-reform people Obama has made.
I will grant that Obama has been surprisingly strong on the Afghan war front. I will also grant that inspite of all the “get out of Iraq now” campaign talk, more than likely, the course of action Obama has taken there mirrors what McCain would have done had he won.
But on the domestic policy front, I can’t see a single thing that could not be classified as an attempt to pull the country in a very left direction.
He is certianly the most radical abortion supporter that has been in the Oval Office. He issued an Executive order declaring the month of June the country’s official Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Gay, and Transgendered pride month. He has quadrupled government spending (which doesn’t include healthcare reform spending). I could go on but you get the point. I think it is clear that Obama views his presidency as a transformative one. And in my opinion, it isn’t a transformation to a “center-left” country, but a left/far left one.
I am curious, just what more would you personally like Obama to be doing to “reform” the country.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, War is one of those Conservatism=Christian issues. Glad you like him there. If only he can find some country he can lie our country into invading, maybe there is hope that he’s a Christian.
I wonder if your saying Obama was all “get out of Iraq now” reflects what Obama really said or are you depending on somebody’s partisan hackery. Okay, I really don’t wonder. It’s partisan hackery and not what Obama said.
Like or Dislike:
0
Xulon,
OK. Now that you were able to get some snarky shots in, would you please answer my questions?
Namely where has comprosied with “anti-reform” people and what more would you like to see Obama doing to reform the country? Who are the liberals he has thrown under the bus?
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, you did misrepresent Obama’s campaign in your “Obama is scary radical” pique. You bought into labels and did not even listen.
Compromises: Single payer (medicare for everyone). Off the table without a whimper. The whole summer has been the white house conceding to the anti-reform people (who still hate him, will still lie about him and will not vote for the bill) hoping for “bipartisanship”. Why is it that the public option, which is favored by over 70% of the people, is constantly being offered up for jettison? Over70% of the people are being treated like a fringe while screechers “making stuff up” and companies pouring millions of dollars into Washington are openly at the table dictating the debate. Go to progressive sites and see how upset they are about what very much feels like a sell-out.
I favor medicare for everyone. Canada is hardly “socialist” and the “horror stories” about their health system are stories. One Canadian wrote that it is more likely for a Canadian to be struck by lightening than for him to go to US for healthcare. Canadians (and British) are disgusted about the lies the anti-reform people have spread about their systems. The US is 37th in the WHO ranking of healthcare systems. Add to that the open collusion between insurance companies to raise prices and lower benefits. Plus the insurance companies really do have death panels.
I want more transparency from the government. We had none for the last 8 years, Obama has given some, but there needs to be more.
I want torture investigations and prosecutions. Not for the Lynde Englunds but for the architects who gave the orders and the justifications all the way up to Cheney/Bush (you know, the “Christians”). If laws were broken, they are not above the law.
So, I’ve given you some meat. Enjoy.
Like or Dislike:
0
Del,
I’m trying to understand your view and having difficulty understanding where you are coming from. You talk about the spread of Christian ideals eliminating the need for government. Now I agree that there will obviously come a day when peace with reign and there will not be such a need. However, I don’t see such a day coming till Christ returns. In the mean time the world is not Christian and is not becoming more Christian. In fact it is becoming less Christian. I don’t think that the horribleness of human depravity can be overstated in the present age. Even among Christians how many do you know that are perfectly sanctified and perfectly Christlike?? I’ve been a Christian for 20 years and as time passes I realize more and more how un-Christlike I am. In the absence of a coercive force which threatens people with violence should they misbehave the depravity of humanity will come out and we will end up with survival of the fittest, not some Christian utopia.
Also I think Cheryl’s point about Romans 13 is very valid. There are verses in the Bible which have obvious cultural applications (for instance the “holy kiss” was a cultural greeting – perhaps today we should greet each other with a hug). However, Romans 13 doesn’t seem to have anything which would allow us to assert that Paul was only talking about the Roman government or only talking about oppressive governments. It seems to me Paul was talking about “all” governments including those in existence today.
Like or Dislike:
0
To the Martian who doesn’t want to pay taxes to the government:
Romans 13.5 ff NIV:
“Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Joe,
Did you maybe miss that Marvin said he dutifully pays his taxes?
And you know what, these posts could be a lot more enjoyable if you didn’t insist on being so snarky about his name.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mr. Martian:
I’ve worked for both private non-profit charities, and government (state, local, and federal). And honestly, the most waste I ever saw, was in non-profit charities.
Non-profit charities are extremely poorly administered; or top-heavy with administration salaries and profits. Related to this: they have extremely high overhead/administrative/”program” costs.
And unfortunately, it is legal. By some state’s laws, to qualify as a private charity, you only have to deliver as little as 4% or less of total contributions, as care, service, goods, to those you “help.”
If you are helping the poor: thank you. But in my own experience, government has done a better job at that, believe it or not.
If you give money, that’s good. But just citing money amounts is misleading: consider the many liberals, who do not give money … but who give their time. Indeed, their entire lives. There are many extremely capable people who could be working at jobs that could make them a lot more money … but who prefer to work at jobs that don’t pay much, but help other people: social work, etc..
For that reason, I’d rather support government- based charity. Through taxes.
See by the way, Romans 13.5 NIV, on the importance of paying your – explicitly – “taxes.”
Like or Dislike:
0
“I’ve worked for both private non-profit charities, and government (state, local, and federal). And honestly, the most waste I ever saw, was in non-profit charities.
Non-profit charities are extremely poorly administered; or top-heavy with administration salaries and profits. Related to this: they have extremely high overhead/administrative/”program” costs.
If you are helping the poor: thank you. But in my own experience, government has done a better job at that, believe it or not. ”
OK.
I can assure you that the charities I give to do NOT waste money. The charities I choose to give to have annual audits performed by independent firms that demonstrate roughly 90% of my money goes directly to those I am intending to help.
I don’t doubt that there are in fact many charities that are wasteful or have exhorbitant “overhead” costs. All that means is that the donor should do some investigation before writing out that check. I do. If the charity doesn’t have financial statements for public review (I am an accountant), then they wont see a dime from me. I also work for a government agency and I see the waste first hand. I don’t think that preferring to give my hard earned money to charities to help the poor as opposed to government programs via taxation makes me a bad guy. However, just about everyone from your side of the ideological spectrum thinks that I am (and judging from the tenor of your posts directed towards me, that would include you).
You do not own the morality argument when it comes to this topic (taxes for government programs) and I am frankly tired of your side prattling on as if you do. Your notion that because I don’t agree with your idea of charity through government aid means I “hate humans” is sophomoric and insulting to me. As I mentioned before, I DUTIFULLY PAY MY TAXES, but I also choose to give to charity (in fact I gave as much to charity as I paid in taxes last year) for the simple fact that I believe the charities I give to are vastly more efficient in providing for the needy than the government is.
Like or Dislike:
0
Joe,
You are right that there are some non-profit organizations out there that are poorly run and do pay their upper echelon managers obscene salaries, however this is not the general rule. Every statistic I have ever seen indicates that most respected charities are far more efficient then the government. I have given to Samaritan’s Purse in the past and last year 89% of their funds taken in went directly to ministry, 6% was spent on fundraising, and only 5% went to administrative expenses. The American Red Cross is slightly over 90% in their efficiency.
Like or Dislike:
0
Joe, you said
“Non-profit charities are extremely poorly administered; or top-heavy with administration salaries and profits. Related to this: they have extremely high overhead/administrative/”program” costs.”
Are you aware that any non-profit organization that receives $300,000 or more MUST complete an independent financial audit, detailing the accounting of their revenues and expenses?
Also, are you aware that all non-profit organizations MUST complete an IRS tax return (form 990) disclosing their revenues, expenses and sources of major donations? This is public information and accessible to everyone.
Also, are you aware that the primary sources of funding for non-profit organizations are government funds (federal, state, local) and large non-profit institutions, such as United Way? These funders, most of whom I have worked with, hold their funded agencies to accountability standards that ensure they AREN’T being wasteful or have excessive administrative costs.
I would be interested to see how the accounting of organization that have to comply with these standards compares to the government spreadsheet. I say this in way of defense of the non-profit organizations who based their efforts on mission rather than profit but must do so responsibly with the funding they receive.
Also, I want to encourage you to adopt or more civil tone when discussing differences. We will all not agree but dissents should be handled as graciously as possible. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m sorry it took so long to thank you for your response Lisa.
For some people, Evangelical Christianity is there justification for the American Revolution. Many feel America was born out of a revolution which was justified for the sake of our religious freedom. But in truth, the American Revolution was contrary to the teachings in Romans 13:1-7.
Thankfully, God has blessed this country even though it was born out of defiance to His word.
Like or Dislike:
0
J.R., yes I agree with you. In reality, the government of this country was founded by rationalist deists who sought freedom of religion. That is really not too far a stretch from freedom from religion. We shouldn’t be surprised at the leap.
Yes, God truly has blessed America.
Like or Dislike:
0
This is a topic which has come up between me and my fellow disciples. I believe that it is true that God puts in place all governments. I think its true that God created satan (job 41) and that satan is king over all men of pride (job 41:34, John 8:34 and 41). I believe people who are not ruled over by God who IS the Love that Jesus teaches is going to be living though pride and ruled over by satan’s world. Do I believe that makes God evil? Of course not, because like scripture shows he can not tempt us because he has no evil in Him, He merely pours out onto mankind their own iniquities…satan being the overseer of that.
When it comes to governments look at the OT. As the people would become ungodly/unLoveing/fleshly and selfish they would become ruled over. A perfect example is in 1 Samuel starting in chapter 8. Samuel is the judge who gives God’s judgments of righteousness to the people. As they become less godly people no longer want Godlines ruling over them. They now want a king like all the other nations. Selfish people can’t accept righteous judgment, they don’t understand it. The people ask for a king and God tells Samuel, its not you they reject, its Me. And so He gives them king Saul.
We don’t have a big government because God wanted it for us; we have it because as a nation we have left Godliness. We are a prideful and selfish nation who will be ruled over accordingly. We will have our own iniquities poured out on our heads.
In this situation we can see in the OT that the only thing that changes the situations is the people on an individual basis turning back to Godliness and tearing down their idols.
If you want to fight big government and eventual communism you don’t do so by fighting the government. You do so by teaching the people about pure and Holy Love just as Jesus did in order to turn them away for selfishness and toward living in God’s Love. A body of people who are ruled over by Love don’t need to be ruled over by Satan and his version of government.
This it’s a Truth that can be seen on a national level, organizational level, and personal level. The more evil I became the more of satan’s bondage and control I was under. The iniquity I poured out was always the iniquity that was poured onto my head.
There is a difference between God controlling people with their own iniquity/nature and God controlling people with His own nature of Love….people have to be willing to accept the latter.
with His Love in me,
Stephen
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I don’t know if the world will get better (more Christ-like) or worse before the coming of Christ. I guess it depends upon your eschatological views. I believe that Christ came at a time when humanity was most ready to receive the Good News and a time that would most ensure its successful propagation.
I believe that God expects us to spread the Word and I assume that we will be successful at reaching most of the world. So, I also assume that we will be successful at bringing about a certain level of peace in the world closer to the conditions that will exist during His reign. Is this a non-sequitur? Is the purpose of spreading the gospel world-wide so that we can see what a failure the church has been at it? Maybe. I hope not.
I think it’s clear that the world is becoming less Christ-like, at least in the short term, but I don’t necessarily believe that Christ will come in our lifetimes either. Most generations (including the first generation) thought He would return in their lifetimes so I’m not really concerned that there has been a setback. The Dark Ages were a bit of a setback too.
I don’t think it’s necessary for Christians to become super sanctified or even a little bit sanctified for that matter to live peacefully with our fellow man. It really comes down to the most basic teachings of Christ. Love the Lord. Love your fellow man.
As for the need for coercive force. Do you need coercive force from the government to keep you in line? Of course not! I don’t either. In fact I don’t know anyone else that would start robbing banks in the absence of coercive force. There will alway be people that will. There are even ways to deal with violent people that doesn’t require a government to keep them in line.
I know this doesn’t seem possible because it’s something we’re not used to considering (just like it was ridiculous at one time to imagine the industrialized world without slavery). The more we spread the simple Good News the sooner we can do away with our coercive governments. There’s actually a lot of literature about non-coercive options to government. I believe it’s a future in line with Christ’s teaching, worth pursuing, and available to us in anticipation of Christ’s coming. Will it be perfect? Of course not. Christ is coming to set all things right after all. But it will be an improvement.
I don’t have any real problem applying Romans 13 to today’s government for the reasons I’ve stated in previous blog comments. Do I pay taxes? Yes. Do I like it? No. While we’re on Romans 13 can you explain to me verse 3? Does the NIV translate this right? I seriously want to know. It’s almost as though Paul is saying that government abuse doesn’t exist.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa,
I am not sure I can agree with your statement,”In reality, the government of this country was founded by rationalist deists who sought freedom of religion. That is really not too far a stretch from freedom from religion. We shouldn’t be surprised at the leap.”
Some were definitely deists but most were very devout Christians. All were theists, which I would think is far from atheists as you suggest. Even Jefferson and Franklin agreed that it would require people with Christian morals for the government they designed to survive.
There idea of separation between church and state was in each ones sphere of responsibility. The government would, under the authority of God, do such things as raise a standing army, levy taxes, and make treaties. The church, under the authority of God, would be responsible for such things as morals, social behavior, and charity.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ray, no atheism suggested. I don’t know that we can say any of them were. But neither should we pretend that all of our founding fathers were anachronistic evangelicals.
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa,
After rereading my post I see I didn’t make my point very clear. It seems to me “freedom from religion” is by it’s very nature atheistic. If there is no religion there can be no God. I think our founders were closer to establishing a Christian nation than they were to a “freedom from religion”/atheistic nation than modern history portrays.
Our founders were trying to prevent a state religion supported by government taxes. Their intention was not to remove God from His place as the ultimate authority of all creation.
The leap from freedom of religion the founders intended to the freedom from religion advocated today is a Grand Canyon of a leap.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ray, I see your point but that is not what I meant. I think maybe the more appropriate wording would be freedom from religious control. And I am not suggesting that that was their intention as I don’t believe it was. I do understand the premise that our founding fathers were seeking to avoid government interference in worship and wanted to avoid a state run religion. I concur that they did not seek to “remove” God. But it seems to me that the very same principles that create the ability to worship free from government interference can be flipped to have a government free of religious expression. This was not the platform of the founders but it created the loophole, nonetheless. This works fine as long as the nation, as a whole, embraces theism but not so much when it doesn’t.
But that was really a tangential point and not pertinent to the discussion, so I don’t want to hijack my own post
Like or Dislike:
0
Having worked for several charities, I know that there are a few things that you need to look out for, even in cases where it appears that a high percentage of the money you give them gets to the target population.
First 1) it doesn’t take much in many cases, to satisfy government regulations; all too little in fact. Even to pass a government audit. Many charities deliver 4% or less in real services, to the target population. And that’s legal; that passes government inspection.
And 2) examine those figures and categories carefully. Even if 87% of your dollar goes to a “ministry” … that might just mean, your dollars are paying to keep your own church running; supporting your ministers, their salaries, and so forth. But if you are supporting the church that you attend, then in effect, you are really giving money to … yourself. That’s not really charity; that fee for service.
Then too 3) I’ve seen private charities that are very, very undiscerning in documenting whether client needs are genuine, or feigned.
To be sure, there are some people who claim to be poor but aren’t, on government programs; there are many fakers, “malingerers, slackers, shirkers,” as they are called. But the government has access to many records; which means that this is harder for people to do to the government itself. So Social Security is much better administered than even “private” charities that take government money.
4) For these and many other reasons, I very firmly believe that the major, fully governmental charities – Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid – are far, far, far better run than all but the very most efficient private charities.
6) And therefore, ironically, paying your taxes, is the best way to support charity; so long as the government continues to take care of its people.
7) If you want to do BOTH, fine. But my first priority is paying taxes … cheerfully in fact.
8) Then too, finding out which private charities are the really good ones, is extremely difficult. The only way to do that, is probably to look at their books … and also, sit down with the people receiving the charity. See how many benefits, actually make it all the way to the ground.
I’ve been rich, and I’ve been poor by the way: on the giving and receiving end, both. And if you really want to understand charity, that’s the perspective you need.
Give up money for a while; then you’ll know.
“Take up the cross and follow me.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Lisa,
It has been an interesting rabbit trail, however it does lead back to the main path of your post. Just as our founders realized that in order to live in a civilized society there were certain areas of responsibility for the government, the church also had certain responsibilities. Chief among those was education. First and foremost spiritual and moral education, but it was not uncommon for the local pastor to be school teacher as well.
Since we the Church have chosen to abdicate our responsibility to government schools it is no surprise they have used the opportunity to increase their power and control by preaching the importance of the state.
Even worse it seems churches are no longer willing to teach the deep things of Christ.
So, yes there is fear, there is anger, there is frustration. It is born out of ignorance and revisionist history. If the Church doesn’t want to address it there is an ism that will.
Liberation theology is alive and active and the current administration has learned it well.
Like or Dislike:
0
In a “theocracy” – like the Jewish theocracy of classic, Davidic Jerusalem – the church IS the state; the state IS the church.
So: when church and state split, that meant that many things due to the church, are now due to the government.
Which is not to say they are no longer of God: Paul tells us that ultimately our “authorities” should be obeyed, because they are ultimately from God.
Indeed, good government is simply one extension, branch, of the Church.
Note Romans 13.6 ff, telling us to pay our taxes; in much the same way we contribute to churches: to support the poor, etc..
More Comments: