Christians Started Social Programs

By contrast, when man- made legislation . Once the principle is established that government has the power to dictate what citizens must do in some cases, a society has started down the proverbial slippery slope toward tyranny. Where we disagree is on the question of whether the secular authority of the state should be an agent of Christian charity. To some, such an alliance seems logical; to others, it is a non sequitur to conclude that, because we are expected to perform acts of charity, we should enlist the state to help us.

Hendrickson points out, . Communalism is entirely consensual. It includes only those members of the larger community who voluntarily decide to participate. Hendrickson for comment, please contact him at . Hendrickson. Prefatory Remarks: Colleagues at Grove City College have advised me that some people might wonder why I, with degrees in economics instead of theology, would write a paper that puts forth a biblical exegesis.

Christians Started Social Programs In The United

Christians Started Social Programs For Children

Partnering churches worldwide to evangelise, minister to human need, disciple and equip churches for Christ's Great Commission. How did Christians and their churches in Germany respond to the Nazi regime and its laws. Academic Programs; Resources for Educators. Programs; Explore Resources. JustFaith is an intensive, small-group process for faithful Christians looking. GoodNewsPeople is a dynamic parish-wide faith formation program of JustFaith. Why do many Christians vote Republicans? Open Doors equips persecuted Christians in more than 60 countries through programs like Bible & Gospel. Why does Open Doors focus on persecuted Christians? When Open Doors was started by.

To put the shoe on the other foot, how would I like it if a theologian presumed to write an economic tract? I have a couple of ready responses: First, if it bothered me whenever a theologian expressed an economic opinion, I would be upset quite often, because theologians do, in fact, address economic matters rather frequently. Many a priest (including my cousin Larry) and pastor (including my neighbor Jim) preach and propound economic theories from the pulpit. Actually, given some of the egregious fallacies entrenched in mainstream economic orthodoxy, I would say my profession suffers from an acute shortage of economic wisdom, so I say . I may not have academic standing as a theological thinker, but I am a thinker who has spent a lot of time pondering the Bible, and I have as much a right to discuss biblical precepts as anyone does. I am well aware of the innumerable disagreements and disputes about the interpretation of Scripture (How else did we get so many denominations and splinter congregations?) and so, of course, some of you readers will disagree. Let me simply state two facts here: First, I have read the Bible on a daily basis, with few exceptions, for over 3.

I am no mere dabbler or glib dilettante. My opinions about how Christian principles inform economic issues are not taught by any church that I know of; nor can I cite religious scholars as authority for my individual understanding of what the Scriptures say, since I base my arguments directly on biblical verses themselves, and not on what such- and- such a scholar says the Bible says. If I have misunderstood the words of my God and my Savior, then I. Where we disagree is on the question of whether the secular authority of the state should be an agent of Christian charity. To some, such an alliance seems logical; to others, it is a non sequitur to conclude that, because we are expected to perform acts of charity, we should enlist the state to help us. This question surfaced in the August 2. Pastor Rick Warren conducted with the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

When Warren asked Barack Obama to name our nation. Obama then quoted the Lord Jesus. For example, in August 2. Obama invoked Scripture during an Internet phone call to several thousand clergy and religious leaders. Urging his listeners to support his goal of moving toward universal health care insurance, the president asserted that ?

If so, then perhaps Christians should support Obama. On the other hand, if a government- mandated redistribution of wealth conflicts with or compromises Christian principles, then Christians may find that adherence to their religious principles will lead them to withhold their support from, and perhaps even actively oppose, such policies.

The belief that Christians should favor government programs for the poor has a long history. Ever since socialism emerged as a political doctrine in the 1.

Some social service programs have a built-in spiritual dimension: a soup kitchen meal that begins with a devotional, or a parenting support group that uses a Christian curriculum. Other programs take a less direct. The Martyrs Treated as criminals. Where did the suspicion arise that they did all kinds of dangerous anti-social things like cannibalism and incestuous sexual relations.

Christians, attracted by the vision of a society with a more equal distribution of wealth, have made common cause with socialistic politics. While most Christians have not embraced outright socialism, many accept the proposition that some government- directed redistribution of wealth to the poor is consistent with their Christian values and beliefs. President Obama. Should Christians favor government programs that redistribute wealth to the poor?

The affirmative case has been set forth many times over the decades. In this paper, I will make the opposite case. I will attempt to show that Christian support of the government redistribution of wealth should be rethought in light of some clear Scriptural texts. Citing a single scriptural verse, as President Obama did, can be helpful and illuminating, but it also can be problematic, as can be seen in Matthew 4, where the tempter quotes Scripture. Government employs force and the threat of force, even violence, to impose its will. Government commands obedience through external compulsion.

Christian charity is voluntary, rewarding the giver with joy and satisfaction. By contrast, financial support of government programs is not voluntary, but mandatory. Noncompliance is punished by fines and/or imprisonment.

It has become fashionable in recent years to ask, ? According to the gospel record, Jesus. Given these facts, perhaps we shouldn. Wiser than the rest of us, the Savior delineated two separate spheres of activity, the sacred and the secular, telling his followers to ? Then he could have passed laws and imposed his will on mankind. But we all know how the Lord responded to that temptation: . Where in the Bible is the church of Christ instructed to delegate its charitable mission to civil government, or to seek a .

Bible is it written that we may compel others to act charitably? The Master. This unnamed man wanted to know how he might attain eternal life. After hearing that he had faithfully kept the commandments . This incident lends no support to the argument for government redistribution of property. The kingdom of heaven operates on the basis of contract, not compulsion. The Savior offered the man a quid pro quo.

The rich man was completely free to accept or refuse the deal and its terms. When, in fact, he declined the offer, Jesus let him depart in peace. If he had said to his disciples, . That is not, however, what the Scriptures record. The gospels contain other clear accounts of Jesus approving of spiritually impelled (voluntary) charity, and rejecting materially compelled (involuntary) redistribution of wealth.

When the diminutive tax collector Zacchaeus voluntarily announced, . By contrast, when a man asked Jesus to tell his brother to share his inheritance with him in Luke 1. Lord emphatically declined, pointedly asking, . The import of this response is momentous: If the only begotten Son of God did not feel qualified or justified to determine, much less command, how much of one person. There is a crucial difference, however, between the apostles. The apostles practiced communalism, not communism. Communalism is entirely consensual.

It includes only those members of the larger community who voluntarily decide to participate. Some Christians construe this as a condemnation of private property. Far from denying the right of private property, Peter explicitly reaffirmed it, stating, ? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power. The couple would have been entitled to keep their property if they had not voluntarily contracted to exchange it for full membership in the society of believers. By conniving to receive the benefits of membership without honestly paying for them, they had attempted to defraud the community. Peter clearly explained that the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was their dishonesty.

They lied to the Holy Spirit, and this sin killed them. Another important aspect of the communalism described in Acts 4 and 5 is that the experiment of communal ownership of property apparently did not last long. We can only surmise that the temptation to be a free- loader was too much for unredeemed human nature to handle, and the early church leaders found communal property not to be viable. Thus, the apostle Paul wrote, . It should be added that Paul practiced what he preached.

As he reminded the Thessalonians in his first letter to them, . James Moffatt translation). Gospel, Law, and Legislation. Just as Christian redistributionists mistake communism for communalism, so they confuse law and gospel. The gospel of Jesus Christ, given in the New Testament, is essentially positive. It urges us to go beyond the commandment not to kill, but to actively forgive and love, not only not to steal, but to give to others.

The difference between negative law and positive gospel is profound, and the corresponding implications for human government are momentous. Human legislation based on the moral law of the Old Testament is liberating. When government confines itself to protecting each individual. By contrast, when man- made legislation takes on a positive character and commands people to take specified actions, then a person may be deemed guilty of a crime just for sitting at home and minding his own business. Once the principle is established that government has the power to dictate what citizens must do in some cases, a society has started down the proverbial slippery slope toward tyranny. When human legislation goes beyond negative law to positive, it can trample God. The great 1. 8th- century moral philosopher Adam Smith explained in detail why positive legislation such as .

The first social virtue is prudence. A society with too many imprudent, unproductive individuals is doomed to collapse. He meant that every citizen, regardless of social standing, was entitled to receive the same protection of his life and property (cf. Smith understood justice to be the absolutely indispensable social virtue, the difference between civilization and savagery, the sine qua non of a stable, viable society. The third of the three cardinal social virtues is beneficence, the performance of kind and charitable deeds toward others.