Torah and Social Justice
July 29, 2011
Peter J. Leithart
Until recently, few evangelicals had much to say about “social justice.” Leftish evangelicals like Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, and Tony Campolo, along with Evangelicals for Social Action and Sojourners, virtually cornered the market. Other evangelicals wrote on inequality, race, and poverty, but mostly in reaction.
Today, everyone in the evangelical world is talking about justice, and then talking in the next breath about poverty. “If we as evangelicals remain silent and do not speak up in defense of the poor, we lose our credibility and our right to witness about God’s love for the world,” wrote Rick Warren in a 2005 open letter to President Bush. Billy Graham’s son Franklin has dedicated his life not to evangelistic crusades but to the remarkable work of Samaritan’s Purse. Manhattan Presbyterian Pastor Tim Keller’s recent book on “generous justice” is partly about the doctrine of justification, much more about the whys and hows of “doing justice.” Evangelical academics are in on the act too—witness Bruce Longenecker’s work on Paul and poverty. You can’t throw an egg . . . well, you can guess the rest.
This represents a resurgence of earlier evangelical obsessions. Before fundamentalists and social gospellers parted ways in the early twentieth century, evangelicals were in the forefront of social activism and poverty relief both here and abroad. Evangelicals have been looking out as well as back. As barriers between evangelicals and Catholics become more porous, evangelicals join Catholics in advocating the “preferential option for the poor.”
The resurgence also arises from evangelicalism’s commitment to Scripture. After all, the social justice evangelicals have always had plenty of biblical precedent for their emphases and rhetoric. Israel’s prophets regularly condemn the predatory powerful who “plunder” and “grind the faces of the poor” (Isaiah 3:14-15). Yahweh rejects Israel’s worship because their hands are filled with the blood of undefended orphans and widows (Isaiah 1:10-17, 21-23). Isaiah calls Israel to a fast that includes dividing bread with the hungry, housing the homeless, and covering the naked (Isaiah 58:7).
For the prophets, care of the poor is a matter of righteousness or justice, not mercy. Yahweh Himself maintains “justice for the poor” (Psalm 140:12), and rulers (Isaiah 10:2) and people (Ezekiel 22:29) are expected to do the same. Filled with the Spirit, the Messianic Branch will judge the poor with righteousness and act for the afflicted (Isaiah 11:4).
Protection and defense of the poor is embedded in Israel’s defining exodus story: Because Yahweh delivered His people from bondage, Israel is to be a liberating people. And this demand is imprinted on the Mosaic law. From an exhaustive survey of the Old Testament laws on wealth and poverty, David L. Baker concludes that, in comparison with other ancient Near Eastern codes, “Old Testament law is more concerned to ensure that widows and orphans are not abused, nor exploited in law courts or in financial dealings.” As Jesus said, the weighty things of Torah are justice, mercy, and truth (Matthew 23:23).
That connection with the institutions and practices of Torah is fundamental to grasping what the Bible tells us about justice and poverty—fundamental, and neglected. Unless prophetic rhetoric is anchored in Torah, it floats free, gets transformed by modern statist idolatry, and comes out ready to be co-opted in support of the latest federal entitlement. When the Torah-prophet nexus is neglected or minimized, 'justice for the poor' tends to be reinterpreted as 'the state will save us.' Thus, in a quasi-creedal statement, Jim Wallis made support of Obamacare a litmus test of justice for the sick.
Israel’s prophets say nothing new but reiterate the demands of Torah. When Isaiah condemns Israelite landowners for “devouring the vineyard” and taking the “plunder of the poor” (Isaiah 3:14), for instance, he is alluding to gleaning (Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:19-22). Landowners are forbidden to harvest the corners of their fields, pick up dropped stalks of grain, beat olives from trees a second time, or strip the vines of all grapes. The remnant of grain, olives, and grapes is for the poor, who are permitted to harvest the corners and follow the harvesters. What Baker calls “scrumping” allows anyone to eat his fill of grain or grapes (Deuteronomy 23:24-25). Hebrew farmers are not allowed to maximize efficiency or to squeeze out the last bit of the harvest. Torah has built-in yield inefficiencies, as a gift to the poor.
At the same time, the right to glean and scrump does not dissolve the claims of owners. Gleaners are not permitted to enter a field before harvest begins; they take the leftovers. Nor are they simply given a handout. Gleaning is as back-breaking as harvesting, maybe more so. Scrumping allows the landless and hungry to share in the abundance of a harvest, but the landowners’ profit is protected, since scrumping is strictly limited. When the prophets attack greedy landowners for stripping the vineyard, they have in mind specific practices: The right of widowed Ruth to glean Boaz’s field, the right of a hungry man to scrump from a vineyard.
Especially in Deuteronomy, generosity to the poor is coupled with festivity. When Israelites bring the tithe (tenth) of their harvest to the Lord’s house, they celebrate with meat and strong drink, but are exhorted to remember the Levites, who have no land of their own (Deuteronomy 14:27). Every third year, a portion of the tithe is given to the alien, orphan, and widow who “shall come and eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). At the annual feasts of Pentecost and Booths, too, the celebrants welcome those with no resources of their own (Deuteronomy 16:10-11, 13-14). Again, the rights of both owners and non-owners are honored. Landowners rejoice in their abundance, but the landless poor share the abundance. The successful are not pilloried or punished, but the Lord commands them to open their hearts and their tables to the unsuccessful.
Obviously, Torah is designed for an agrarian society and the prophets’ tirades are directed at agrarian abuses. Still, it would be healthy for evangelicals to devote a good portion of their considerable zeal and energy to exploring creative ways to enact the justice of Torah in the twenty-first century. Welcome and biblical as it is, evangelical rhetoric of 'justice for the poor' will collapse into vacuity unless it is linked to political, legal, and economic institutions and practices that actually protect the poor and do justice to everyone. Worse still, evangelicals may end up giving aid and comfort to a bloated, and broke, welfare state.
Peter J. Leithart is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Athanasius (Baker Academic).
Comments:
7.29.2011 | 8:27am
Jesse Broussard says:
Excellent post, and one that I'd not thought of before. It reminds me of Doug Jones' comment regarding the problem of evil not being a logical problem for the existence of God, but rather a logical problem for the existence of the church.
Again, excellent post.
Again, excellent post.
7.29.2011 | 9:35am
Wendy says:
Great article.
It is high time by the way, for conservatives to move beyond the "one issue" fixation on Abortion, that countless bishops condemned; to consider the wider range of Christian duties.
It is high time by the way, for conservatives to move beyond the "one issue" fixation on Abortion, that countless bishops condemned; to consider the wider range of Christian duties.
7.29.2011 | 9:51am
Randy says:
I don't know that someone like Jim Wallis understands the difference between alms giving and sharing for the love of God (and neighbor,) or just handing more over to the US Treasury for fear of the IRS. He doesn't seem to understand the distinction.
7.29.2011 | 11:03am
Wendy says:
Randy:
Giving money to the poor, directly, joyfully, is good. But? Giving to the IRS - which then supports the poor in social programs - is about as good. Or in many cases, better.
Especially? Give to the IRS joyfully. Since it is Christian. First 1) "giving to Caesar," giving what is due to the government in exchange for general governmental services. Including 2) helping the poor thereby, as well. Since much government, uses your taxes to help the social security of the old , the poor, the infirm, etc.
Giving money to the poor, directly, joyfully, is good. But? Giving to the IRS - which then supports the poor in social programs - is about as good. Or in many cases, better.
Especially? Give to the IRS joyfully. Since it is Christian. First 1) "giving to Caesar," giving what is due to the government in exchange for general governmental services. Including 2) helping the poor thereby, as well. Since much government, uses your taxes to help the social security of the old , the poor, the infirm, etc.
7.29.2011 | 11:40am
Gil Student says:
As a Jew, I found your use of the word "Torah" in an Evangelical essay to be highly confusing.
7.29.2011 | 1:20pm
Judy K. Warner says:
Of course giving to the poor is good, and there will always be people who can't help being poor. But in a society in which it is possible to move out of one's social class, the best thing we can do for most poor people is to enable them to be upwardly mobile and leave their poverty behind. I'd like to see the "social justice" folks pay more attention to that and less to government programs. What we now know is that finishing high school, getting and staying married, and holding any kind of job are the paths out of poverty. Since this knowledge is readily available, it is simply moral preening to pretend that those who "fight" to preserve government programs are godlier than those who look to other solutions. Even those who ignore the whole issue are probably doing more for the poor than those who insist on imposing government programs that discourage marriage and promote the poor's dependency.
7.29.2011 | 2:39pm
R Hampton says:
Judy K. Warner,
"Even those who ignore the whole issue are probably doing more for the poor than those who insist on imposing government programs that discourage marriage and promote the poor's dependency."
I doubt that.
On the flip side, many government programs exist because individuals, churches, and private organizations/institutions could not provide adequate help (quantity and/or quality). It's not accurate, nor fair, to claim that all (or even most) of the poor are not doing enough to help themselves. Furthermore, some goverment programs - like student loans - exist to help the working and middle class stay out of poverty and continue to rise economically.
"Even those who ignore the whole issue are probably doing more for the poor than those who insist on imposing government programs that discourage marriage and promote the poor's dependency."
I doubt that.
On the flip side, many government programs exist because individuals, churches, and private organizations/institutions could not provide adequate help (quantity and/or quality). It's not accurate, nor fair, to claim that all (or even most) of the poor are not doing enough to help themselves. Furthermore, some goverment programs - like student loans - exist to help the working and middle class stay out of poverty and continue to rise economically.
7.29.2011 | 4:29pm
G.K. Thirsday says:
I really admire Dr. Leithart's work, especially his book "Defending Constantine". He generally shows a keen sense for what Alasdair MacIntyre calls a genealogical understanding of the history of the Christian Church. However in this post he seems to slip a gear in his thinking. As he acknowledges, formerly "Leftish evangelicals ... cornered the market" in declaiming that they alone knew "God's Politics" (and God's economics). Somewhat aping liberal Catholic organizations of the 70s and 80s, these leftish evangelicals made war on those evangelicals who felt affinity with the "rightish" side of the American political spectrum. As a result of these intra-evangelical attacks, the lefties have been able to shift the attention from the "rightish" evangelical social issues of the 80s and 90s, to a focus on the issues they regard as more important: "Today, everyone in the evangelical world is talking about justice, and then talking in the next breath about poverty." Clearly what Leithart elides in his post is the fact that evangelicals as a whole have moved to the left, pushed there by those he calls "leftish evangelicals."
It cannot be argued that the social issues of the 80s and 90s were not as important as the ones that everyone in the evangelical world is talking about today (or vice versa). Rightly seen these are all important issues rooted in the Gospel of Jesus. But what should be noted is the sociological shift within evangelicalism toward the left. This was noted in an earlier "First Things" article "Evangelicals Divided" by Gerald McDermott (April 2011), so what I write here is not new. I just hope that Dr. Leithart will give this some further thought.
It cannot be argued that the social issues of the 80s and 90s were not as important as the ones that everyone in the evangelical world is talking about today (or vice versa). Rightly seen these are all important issues rooted in the Gospel of Jesus. But what should be noted is the sociological shift within evangelicalism toward the left. This was noted in an earlier "First Things" article "Evangelicals Divided" by Gerald McDermott (April 2011), so what I write here is not new. I just hope that Dr. Leithart will give this some further thought.
7.29.2011 | 7:12pm
Mike Giles says:
"Furthermore, some goverment programs - like student loans - exist to help the working and middle class stay out of poverty and continue to rise economically. "
Actually they often serve to keep a favored constituency flush with government dollars. Before I retired, I worked for a university. Every year they would raise tuition - exactly in line with the rise in student aid. Overall student aid goes up 9%, tuition costs rise by 9%. One major problem with any type of governmental program, is that people come to have a vested interest in that program. And like all bureaucracies, the survival of the organization comes to have greater priority, than the ostensible purpose it was originally founded. If you are running a governmental poverty program (and making a very good salary doing so), are you really interested in eliminating - or even lowering - poverty? And placing your well paid job at risk? If you want to see an example of the good of the bureaucracy being placed above the good of those it's supposed to serve, attempt to adopt a foster child. If too many people adopt, it puts the bureaucracy at risk, therefore they make it as difficult as possible.
Actually they often serve to keep a favored constituency flush with government dollars. Before I retired, I worked for a university. Every year they would raise tuition - exactly in line with the rise in student aid. Overall student aid goes up 9%, tuition costs rise by 9%. One major problem with any type of governmental program, is that people come to have a vested interest in that program. And like all bureaucracies, the survival of the organization comes to have greater priority, than the ostensible purpose it was originally founded. If you are running a governmental poverty program (and making a very good salary doing so), are you really interested in eliminating - or even lowering - poverty? And placing your well paid job at risk? If you want to see an example of the good of the bureaucracy being placed above the good of those it's supposed to serve, attempt to adopt a foster child. If too many people adopt, it puts the bureaucracy at risk, therefore they make it as difficult as possible.
7.29.2011 | 9:16pm
Peter Leavitt says:
The "poor" in America for the most part have a computer, a couple of TVs, a car, decent shelter and food. Compared to real poverty around the world these people live well.
The real poverty is often is that of lack of serious effort and morals. Many of the poor are single women with children having been involved in loose sexual relationships and abandoned by callous men.
One can be all for both private and public charity for the worthy poor including widows and orphans, though much this social justice concern stems from leftist whiners with utopian egalitarian blinders.
The real poverty is often is that of lack of serious effort and morals. Many of the poor are single women with children having been involved in loose sexual relationships and abandoned by callous men.
One can be all for both private and public charity for the worthy poor including widows and orphans, though much this social justice concern stems from leftist whiners with utopian egalitarian blinders.
7.29.2011 | 9:30pm
David Layman says:
"…it would be healthy for evangelicals to devote a good portion of their considerable zeal and energy to exploring creative ways to enact the justice of Torah in the twenty-first century."
Romans 3:20-22 "For by works of the law [nomos=Torah] no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness [dikaiosune, which can also be translated "justice"] of God has been manifested apart from the law [Torah], although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness [or, "justice"] of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
Torah and Nevi'im can "bear witness" to justice that God intends, but it can never (for Christians) bring it about. Sounds like to me that what Christians are supposed to be doing is living within the justifying grace of God, available through faith in Jesus Christ, and his supernaturally transforming power (Galatians 5:18-25).
Romans 3:20-22 "For by works of the law [nomos=Torah] no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness [dikaiosune, which can also be translated "justice"] of God has been manifested apart from the law [Torah], although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness [or, "justice"] of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
Torah and Nevi'im can "bear witness" to justice that God intends, but it can never (for Christians) bring it about. Sounds like to me that what Christians are supposed to be doing is living within the justifying grace of God, available through faith in Jesus Christ, and his supernaturally transforming power (Galatians 5:18-25).
7.29.2011 | 10:21pm
Nathan Duffy says:
Christian charity is explicitly not to be a phenomenon. Paying taxes is not charity, it is something else we are also supposed to do. And a highly (perhaps even moderately) graduated tax bracket functions to make charity public and compulsory. Which is something you won't fins support for in eithet Testament, but will find some stern prohibitions against (thou shalt not steal, give in private, etc.)
7.29.2011 | 11:41pm
Another Michael says:
Wendy says: Giving money to the poor, directly, joyfully, is good. But? Giving to the IRS - which then supports the poor in social programs - is about as good. Or in many cases, better.
The US government does not help the poor our of love for them or for God. They US government tried to help the poor ouor of selfish reasons at best. They would like to reduce crime or dependency. We can not separate the love of God and neighbor from our acts of charity but the separate of Churcha and State forces just that. Our charity towards th poor need to be a witness that helps orient people away from sin. sin is the root cause of poverty. The US government can not officially recognize sin and that is way their programs will, in the long run, always do more harm then good.
The US government does not help the poor our of love for them or for God. They US government tried to help the poor ouor of selfish reasons at best. They would like to reduce crime or dependency. We can not separate the love of God and neighbor from our acts of charity but the separate of Churcha and State forces just that. Our charity towards th poor need to be a witness that helps orient people away from sin. sin is the root cause of poverty. The US government can not officially recognize sin and that is way their programs will, in the long run, always do more harm then good.
7.30.2011 | 1:49am
larry says:
for many years I've heard about tithing and associated it to the storehouse for people in need but when people go to the churches for help they are directed to food banks and soup kitchens.
I believe we must work with those we are led to pray for and take that walk with them.
It appears that churches in the USA are have become businesses of the 501c3 exemptions and have become afraid to speak up about the biggest greed of all which is the immoral Government.
The Christian proclamation, as presented to the world today has seemed to change and has lost its reverence, where as many other faiths have become a force of respect and fear. bottom line is Church leaders have the obligation to represent the poor on a political level as well. they must speak out in the public arena. God is Love which means God is passionate about His people and His Word. He holds those who carry His name responsible. only a foolish person would think we can separate our faith and our state. Now speaking of Rick Warren --- I do not endorse the idea of chrislam nor mysticism- this is one reason I left my church after seven years.
I believe we must work with those we are led to pray for and take that walk with them.
It appears that churches in the USA are have become businesses of the 501c3 exemptions and have become afraid to speak up about the biggest greed of all which is the immoral Government.
The Christian proclamation, as presented to the world today has seemed to change and has lost its reverence, where as many other faiths have become a force of respect and fear. bottom line is Church leaders have the obligation to represent the poor on a political level as well. they must speak out in the public arena. God is Love which means God is passionate about His people and His Word. He holds those who carry His name responsible. only a foolish person would think we can separate our faith and our state. Now speaking of Rick Warren --- I do not endorse the idea of chrislam nor mysticism- this is one reason I left my church after seven years.
7.30.2011 | 9:39am
Richard says:
@Larry
"for many years I've heard about tithing and associated it to the storehouse for people in need but when people go to the churches for help they are directed to food banks and soup kitchens."
Yup, and much of the food in the food banks and soup kitchens has been donated by the churches (synagogues etc?) and many of the soup kitchens are not only staffed by soup kitchen volunteers by organized by religious organizations. Not to belittle the contribution made by others, but the religious do their share.
Every (Catholic) church I've ever belonged to regularly collected food for the poor.
Best,
Richard
"for many years I've heard about tithing and associated it to the storehouse for people in need but when people go to the churches for help they are directed to food banks and soup kitchens."
Yup, and much of the food in the food banks and soup kitchens has been donated by the churches (synagogues etc?) and many of the soup kitchens are not only staffed by soup kitchen volunteers by organized by religious organizations. Not to belittle the contribution made by others, but the religious do their share.
Every (Catholic) church I've ever belonged to regularly collected food for the poor.
Best,
Richard
7.30.2011 | 10:12am
Douglas Johnson says:
Wendy,
You write:
"Giving money to the poor, directly, joyfully, is good. But? Giving to the IRS - which then supports the poor in social programs - is about as good. Or in many cases, better.
Especially? Give to the IRS joyfully. Since it is Christian. First 1) "giving to Caesar," giving what is due to the government in exchange for general governmental services. Including 2) helping the poor thereby, as well. Since much government, uses your taxes to help the social security of the old , the poor, the infirm, etc."
I'm curious at what denomination you practice, although you don't need to tell me if you don't want to. But where does one begin?
1) Christian charity calls upon us to take from our own earnings and give to the poor. Citizen A getting together with B and voting to take money from C to pay for the things A and B want to do--regardless of what C wants--has absolutely nothing to do with anything of Christ or Christian charity.
2) "Render unto Caesar" means that the government has nothing to do with the things that are Christ's. It did not mean, as your interpret it, "giving what is due to the government in exchange for general governmental services." Does your church teach this? This is why I asked which denomination you belong to.
You write:
"Giving money to the poor, directly, joyfully, is good. But? Giving to the IRS - which then supports the poor in social programs - is about as good. Or in many cases, better.
Especially? Give to the IRS joyfully. Since it is Christian. First 1) "giving to Caesar," giving what is due to the government in exchange for general governmental services. Including 2) helping the poor thereby, as well. Since much government, uses your taxes to help the social security of the old , the poor, the infirm, etc."
I'm curious at what denomination you practice, although you don't need to tell me if you don't want to. But where does one begin?
1) Christian charity calls upon us to take from our own earnings and give to the poor. Citizen A getting together with B and voting to take money from C to pay for the things A and B want to do--regardless of what C wants--has absolutely nothing to do with anything of Christ or Christian charity.
2) "Render unto Caesar" means that the government has nothing to do with the things that are Christ's. It did not mean, as your interpret it, "giving what is due to the government in exchange for general governmental services." Does your church teach this? This is why I asked which denomination you belong to.
7.30.2011 | 12:14pm
David Layman says:
@Another Michael:
"sin is the root cause of poverty. "
The human condition is the root cause of poverty. For all of human history, most humans were and are excruciatingly poor. In traditional societies, prosperity was a zero-sum game: my wealth required your poverty. That is why such societies have slavery and war.
For the first time in human history, industrialized capitalism has made the partial amelioration of poverty possible, since it has the power to *create* wealth, not simply move it around.
If one believes that poverty is an evil, it follows that the most just economics is the one that promote economic and political liberty.
"sin is the root cause of poverty. "
The human condition is the root cause of poverty. For all of human history, most humans were and are excruciatingly poor. In traditional societies, prosperity was a zero-sum game: my wealth required your poverty. That is why such societies have slavery and war.
For the first time in human history, industrialized capitalism has made the partial amelioration of poverty possible, since it has the power to *create* wealth, not simply move it around.
If one believes that poverty is an evil, it follows that the most just economics is the one that promote economic and political liberty.
7.30.2011 | 12:48pm
Wendy says:
Doug and everyone:
What church do YOU belong to? I was raised Presby.. Though today, I am nondenominational. In general? I believe more in scholarly Theology, more than in most everyday churches.
1) In church though? I was taught that "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's," has many different implications. But among them? It definitely means giving to Caesar, or government, what is justly his. Would Christians cheat even a pagan, in an otherwise fair business deal? If Caesar built a road for you to walk on, is it just to refuse to pay him?
Any church that teaches that this phrase, meant only to absolutely differentiate Christianity from anything non-religious or governmental? Is absolutely misreading that passage. For that matter? Jesus recruited a government tax-collector - Matthew - as one of his disciples. And? Paul encouraged us to obey our "governors." So that in fact, we are told to respect the legitimate claims of governments, even Caesars.
2) Some try to say that CHristian giving is entirely different from funding governmental charity, through taxes. But that is wrong. As a matter of fact, charitable giving was once mandatory in ancient society; read your Old Testament carefully on "tithes" and so forth. In fact, the ancient Hebrew words relating to religious "sacrifice" and "tithes" and "tributes" and so forth, are almost identical to the words describing "taxes"; indeed, a "tithe" is one tenth of your income, very much like a tax rate. While indeed? Tithes went to support a Jewish state/government.
So there is not much difference between religious charity, originally, and paying taxes that go to the poor.
Churches by the way, have soup kitchens and so forth; but nothing c hurches do today, even remotely matches the scope of government programs - like Social Security and Medicare. Which help the aged and the poor, in a way that is far, far, more extensive. Churches like to say they would do as well, or better: but they never have in the past. Today too, a church might distribute $100 a month in food to an individual; while Social Security more typically might distribute at least $1,000 - ten times more - for food, shelter, medical care. THe government distributes far, far, far MORE to the poor.
Aside from amoutns: is the character of goernment care really entirely different from Christian care? Who said the US gov. does not help the poor, out of Love of God, compassion for the poor? US gov. programs for the poor, were originally founded by CHristians. Who wanted the government to serve Christian values - and help the poor in a more efficient way. Originally, social programs were motivated by what was a called the "social gospel"; they were founded, based on parts of the Bible that told us to help the poor. Government giving, was originally - and to a large extent still is - Christian giving.
Then too by the way? Regarding the question of who is poor? If our own poor in American are not doing so badly today? Consider how many would be without any support, in their old age ... without Social Security for example. And just how poor our poor and aged, would then be.
Then too? If even the poor in our own country, are not so poor relative to the rest of the world? Much government money , note, historically went overseas, to help the very, very poor.
Is our government money wisely allocated? Does it encourage the structural causes of poverty? Many imply that we should not give money to sinners; that government aid encourages dysfunctional families. But Jesus himself, did not totally refuse to help sinners. Indeed, "no one is good but God" himself. So that? If Jesus helped anyone at all, he helped people who often sinned.
Does a soup kitchen refuse to give a street person a meal - on the grounds that this is just encouraging him not to work? Encouraging his bad life style, structurally supporting sin?
Many alleged "Christians" find plenty of excuses not to pay taxes, or not to help the poor. But none of their arguments are any good. Rather? They are just rationalizing their own sin: failure to help the poor, as God commanded.
What church do YOU belong to? I was raised Presby.. Though today, I am nondenominational. In general? I believe more in scholarly Theology, more than in most everyday churches.
1) In church though? I was taught that "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's," has many different implications. But among them? It definitely means giving to Caesar, or government, what is justly his. Would Christians cheat even a pagan, in an otherwise fair business deal? If Caesar built a road for you to walk on, is it just to refuse to pay him?
Any church that teaches that this phrase, meant only to absolutely differentiate Christianity from anything non-religious or governmental? Is absolutely misreading that passage. For that matter? Jesus recruited a government tax-collector - Matthew - as one of his disciples. And? Paul encouraged us to obey our "governors." So that in fact, we are told to respect the legitimate claims of governments, even Caesars.
2) Some try to say that CHristian giving is entirely different from funding governmental charity, through taxes. But that is wrong. As a matter of fact, charitable giving was once mandatory in ancient society; read your Old Testament carefully on "tithes" and so forth. In fact, the ancient Hebrew words relating to religious "sacrifice" and "tithes" and "tributes" and so forth, are almost identical to the words describing "taxes"; indeed, a "tithe" is one tenth of your income, very much like a tax rate. While indeed? Tithes went to support a Jewish state/government.
So there is not much difference between religious charity, originally, and paying taxes that go to the poor.
Churches by the way, have soup kitchens and so forth; but nothing c hurches do today, even remotely matches the scope of government programs - like Social Security and Medicare. Which help the aged and the poor, in a way that is far, far, more extensive. Churches like to say they would do as well, or better: but they never have in the past. Today too, a church might distribute $100 a month in food to an individual; while Social Security more typically might distribute at least $1,000 - ten times more - for food, shelter, medical care. THe government distributes far, far, far MORE to the poor.
Aside from amoutns: is the character of goernment care really entirely different from Christian care? Who said the US gov. does not help the poor, out of Love of God, compassion for the poor? US gov. programs for the poor, were originally founded by CHristians. Who wanted the government to serve Christian values - and help the poor in a more efficient way. Originally, social programs were motivated by what was a called the "social gospel"; they were founded, based on parts of the Bible that told us to help the poor. Government giving, was originally - and to a large extent still is - Christian giving.
Then too by the way? Regarding the question of who is poor? If our own poor in American are not doing so badly today? Consider how many would be without any support, in their old age ... without Social Security for example. And just how poor our poor and aged, would then be.
Then too? If even the poor in our own country, are not so poor relative to the rest of the world? Much government money , note, historically went overseas, to help the very, very poor.
Is our government money wisely allocated? Does it encourage the structural causes of poverty? Many imply that we should not give money to sinners; that government aid encourages dysfunctional families. But Jesus himself, did not totally refuse to help sinners. Indeed, "no one is good but God" himself. So that? If Jesus helped anyone at all, he helped people who often sinned.
Does a soup kitchen refuse to give a street person a meal - on the grounds that this is just encouraging him not to work? Encouraging his bad life style, structurally supporting sin?
Many alleged "Christians" find plenty of excuses not to pay taxes, or not to help the poor. But none of their arguments are any good. Rather? They are just rationalizing their own sin: failure to help the poor, as God commanded.
7.30.2011 | 5:55pm
Nathan Duffy says:
Only no one is advocating abolishment of taxes, or suggesting that Christians shouldn't pay taxes... We should, and we all do. The question is whether government should be an intermediary for charitable actions, or whether tax brackets should be structured toward wealth redistribution (or coerced-helping-the-poor-which-actually-doesn't-help-them). And it shouldn't, for practical, logical, and Biblical reasons
7.30.2011 | 10:21pm
Michael says:
When I was a Republican, I believed that my Christian duty required that I support the poor through volunteer work and charitable giving, and I distrusted the government’s ability to help the poor.
When I was a Democrat, I believed that my Christian duty required that I support the poor through volunteer work and charitable giving, and I supported the government’s efforts to help the poor.
In other words, Christianity has always supplied me with my values and has always directed my attention to the poor, but I have never accepted the idea that Christianity tells me anything at all about how to enact those values. Christian values can be faithfully followed and still result in diametrically opposed social or economic policies. I distrust any argument that tells me that Christian values requires one particular stand on an issue.
P.S. It’s good to have you back, Richard.
When I was a Democrat, I believed that my Christian duty required that I support the poor through volunteer work and charitable giving, and I supported the government’s efforts to help the poor.
In other words, Christianity has always supplied me with my values and has always directed my attention to the poor, but I have never accepted the idea that Christianity tells me anything at all about how to enact those values. Christian values can be faithfully followed and still result in diametrically opposed social or economic policies. I distrust any argument that tells me that Christian values requires one particular stand on an issue.
P.S. It’s good to have you back, Richard.
7.31.2011 | 10:15am
Douglas Johnson says:
Wendy,
Again, I am at a loss where to begin, but let me just quote you here:
"Some try to say that CHristian giving is entirely different from funding governmental charity, through taxes. But that is wrong."
My dictionary defines charity as follows: "1 the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need."
Since the government takes the money it spends by force--taxes aren't voluntary--how can there be such a thing as "government charity"?
In your very next sentence you go on to say " As a matter of fact, charitable giving was once mandatory in ancient society;"
Is there a contradiction in what you have written here? Please explain why or why not.
By the way, you remind me of a speech a read recently given by a professor at the University of Vermont in 1975. He made many of the same arguments you made above in arguing that there was really no substantial difference between Christianity and the practice of communism under the Soviet Union. I did, however, disagree with him as well.
Again, I am at a loss where to begin, but let me just quote you here:
"Some try to say that CHristian giving is entirely different from funding governmental charity, through taxes. But that is wrong."
My dictionary defines charity as follows: "1 the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need."
Since the government takes the money it spends by force--taxes aren't voluntary--how can there be such a thing as "government charity"?
In your very next sentence you go on to say " As a matter of fact, charitable giving was once mandatory in ancient society;"
Is there a contradiction in what you have written here? Please explain why or why not.
By the way, you remind me of a speech a read recently given by a professor at the University of Vermont in 1975. He made many of the same arguments you made above in arguing that there was really no substantial difference between Christianity and the practice of communism under the Soviet Union. I did, however, disagree with him as well.
7.31.2011 | 2:10pm
Richard says:
Dear Michael,
Thanks. In general, a resounding yes to your post. Though it may shock them both, a lot of liberals and conservatives (and a whole lot more) are going to be gathered into the kingdom of Heaven. In my view (and I speak only for myself), anyone passionately concerned with truth and doing the right thing is halfway to God already, at the minimum.
Best,
Richard
Thanks. In general, a resounding yes to your post. Though it may shock them both, a lot of liberals and conservatives (and a whole lot more) are going to be gathered into the kingdom of Heaven. In my view (and I speak only for myself), anyone passionately concerned with truth and doing the right thing is halfway to God already, at the minimum.
Best,
Richard
7.31.2011 | 4:36pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Christians should certainly be concerned about true justice for the poor and about charity. Christ charges each of us to love our neighbors. Churches and the Church should also seek justice for the poor and do as much as they given for them. The Salvation Army is one Christian organization that is serious in this regard. Goodwill Industries is another. We could certainly use more like them.
The idea that giving money to the IRS is a way of being charitable to the poor is beyond misguided; it is ridiculous. I pay taxes because I am required to; not because I want to.
The idea that giving money to the IRS is a way of being charitable to the poor is beyond misguided; it is ridiculous. I pay taxes because I am required to; not because I want to.
7.31.2011 | 5:50pm
Wendy says:
Doug:
Where should we begin, when trying to resolve the confusion of conservatives? On issues like charity? And help for the poor?
Perhaps your confusion would be resolved, if I put "charity" in quotes. Pure charity might be strictly voluntary, according to some standard definitions. But my point was that much of what we thought of as voluntary "charity" in the Judeo-Christian tradition, helping others, was actually often made manditory; so that what we are speaking of here, are really firm obligations. God often ORDERS us to help the poor; he does not leave that as a voluntary option.
So that having to give taxes to the government, to support the poor in programs like Social Security? Is not so very different at all, from what is commonly called "charity." Particularly when we discover that giving to the poor, in the OT & NT, is not an option, but is a command from God.
And so, as Richard suggests? Perhaps the liberal who willingly pays his taxes, and supports government help for the poor, instead of the rich, therefore? Has nearly as much a chance at getting to heaven - or even a greater chance - as a conservative. Than the conservative "Tea Party" supporter, who does not support the things, the works, that God commanded.
Where should we begin, when trying to resolve the confusion of conservatives? On issues like charity? And help for the poor?
Perhaps your confusion would be resolved, if I put "charity" in quotes. Pure charity might be strictly voluntary, according to some standard definitions. But my point was that much of what we thought of as voluntary "charity" in the Judeo-Christian tradition, helping others, was actually often made manditory; so that what we are speaking of here, are really firm obligations. God often ORDERS us to help the poor; he does not leave that as a voluntary option.
So that having to give taxes to the government, to support the poor in programs like Social Security? Is not so very different at all, from what is commonly called "charity." Particularly when we discover that giving to the poor, in the OT & NT, is not an option, but is a command from God.
And so, as Richard suggests? Perhaps the liberal who willingly pays his taxes, and supports government help for the poor, instead of the rich, therefore? Has nearly as much a chance at getting to heaven - or even a greater chance - as a conservative. Than the conservative "Tea Party" supporter, who does not support the things, the works, that God commanded.
7.31.2011 | 9:58pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Jesus was accused of disrupting the collection of taxes.
Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse Him, saying: We have found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he is Christ the king.
He pulled Levi/Matthew away from collecting taxes.
Should we label our Savior a "Conservative?"
Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse Him, saying: We have found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he is Christ the king.
He pulled Levi/Matthew away from collecting taxes.
Should we label our Savior a "Conservative?"
7.31.2011 | 10:00pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Wendy,
Out of curiosity, why did you bring soteriology into this? I don't remember even mentioning it, and yet you write as if you are contesting something I said about it.
Well I guess I should just end this by saying that, yes, your suggestion that maybe you should put charity in quotes to make clear that by "charity" you don't mean what the word actually means in any dictionary ever written, but rather you mean money being taken from people by force under the penalty of jail time. But why not just use words to mean what they actually mean, rather than make up meanings in your own head?
Out of curiosity, why did you bring soteriology into this? I don't remember even mentioning it, and yet you write as if you are contesting something I said about it.
Well I guess I should just end this by saying that, yes, your suggestion that maybe you should put charity in quotes to make clear that by "charity" you don't mean what the word actually means in any dictionary ever written, but rather you mean money being taken from people by force under the penalty of jail time. But why not just use words to mean what they actually mean, rather than make up meanings in your own head?
8.1.2011 | 9:31am
Wendy says:
Eddie:
Christ was "accused" by ordinary people of disrupting taxes. That is not to say that the popular perception of Christ was accurate. Were the people accurate, when they accused Christ of having a demon?
Again and again, the Bible tells you to honor your laws, and pay local leaders and governments, what is their due. Give to Caeasar what you owe him. Ancient Jews honored contracts with non-Jews (within limits).
Doug:
I looked up the word "charity" in a few dictionaries: most do NOT mention any necessity that it be "voluntary." The root of the word, is the same as "care"; the emphasis is on caring, be it voluntary or involuntary. For you to concentrate just on one minor sub-definition, that favors your case, and to ignore the vast bulk of the other meanings - that do not require a "voluntary" aspect - is disingenuous. And is bad lexicology.
Whether you choose to mention soteriology or not - Christ's saving activities - helping the poor, was clearly a major element of that. And those who chose to REALLY follow Christ and God? Know perfect well that we are COMMANDED to help the poor. It is not really voluntary, at all.
Thus? There is far , far less difference than many might think, in paying taxes - and thus helping others through tax revenues. Vs. direct church giving.
Christ was "accused" by ordinary people of disrupting taxes. That is not to say that the popular perception of Christ was accurate. Were the people accurate, when they accused Christ of having a demon?
Again and again, the Bible tells you to honor your laws, and pay local leaders and governments, what is their due. Give to Caeasar what you owe him. Ancient Jews honored contracts with non-Jews (within limits).
Doug:
I looked up the word "charity" in a few dictionaries: most do NOT mention any necessity that it be "voluntary." The root of the word, is the same as "care"; the emphasis is on caring, be it voluntary or involuntary. For you to concentrate just on one minor sub-definition, that favors your case, and to ignore the vast bulk of the other meanings - that do not require a "voluntary" aspect - is disingenuous. And is bad lexicology.
Whether you choose to mention soteriology or not - Christ's saving activities - helping the poor, was clearly a major element of that. And those who chose to REALLY follow Christ and God? Know perfect well that we are COMMANDED to help the poor. It is not really voluntary, at all.
Thus? There is far , far less difference than many might think, in paying taxes - and thus helping others through tax revenues. Vs. direct church giving.
8.1.2011 | 9:47am
Richard says:
Dear Wendy,
Please don't interpret what I intended as an eirenic observation as a partisan finger on the scales of righteousness. I stand by what I said. Your interpretation is your own, and I am not entirely comfortable with it. My point was that there are good and questionable folks in many camps. That does not mean I don't have preferences, or that all philosophies of behavior are equal, but I know better than to suppose that any party has a monopoly on the good and the true. And I also think that Christ's ironical view of the Pharisee in the temple congratulating himself before God for his own righteousness rather than lamenting his falling short of Divine goodness was, as always, spot on.
Best,
Richard
Please don't interpret what I intended as an eirenic observation as a partisan finger on the scales of righteousness. I stand by what I said. Your interpretation is your own, and I am not entirely comfortable with it. My point was that there are good and questionable folks in many camps. That does not mean I don't have preferences, or that all philosophies of behavior are equal, but I know better than to suppose that any party has a monopoly on the good and the true. And I also think that Christ's ironical view of the Pharisee in the temple congratulating himself before God for his own righteousness rather than lamenting his falling short of Divine goodness was, as always, spot on.
Best,
Richard
8.1.2011 | 11:43am
Douglas Johnson says:
Wendy,
Yes, I believe you are correct that we are obliged, commanded to tithe the church. In fact, in my church (Eastern Orthodox) we are not considered to have given any gift at until we are giving above 10%. If we give 12% to the church then we have made a 2% gift (if there are EO's reading this I'm open to correction here, but I think I have that right. I assume it's the same for Roman Catholicism).
Sadly, there are those who feel that taxes constitute charity and thus if they pay their taxes there is no obligation to tithe the church, even though there is no overlap between the two. To take it an even greater extreme, there are those who pay little or no federal income tax (those below the top 40% of income brackets) and feel that just the act of voting to have money forcibly taken from others constitutes a "charity" on their part. There is even a political line of thought that it is morally opposed to having the poor receive voluntary charity; they argue that all support from the poor should come from government income redistribution.
The only way to free ourselves from our servitude to sin is through our desire to follow Christ, but God doesn't force any of us to tithe the church in the sense that no one will put you in jail or throw on the rack if you don't. You are obliged to tithe, but you have the freedom of will to ignore that.
You are not, however, free to ignore your taxes (that is unless you want to go to jail). Obligation imposed by positive law is ultimately at the point of a gun (the gun that will lead you to your jail cell if you don't pay; and I say that believing you should go to jail if you don't pay your taxes). If, as you say, there was a time in Christian history when not tithing would land you in jail (and I don't know that to be true, but it doesn't matter), that doesn't make such practices right. But you argue that since the church once took money from people by force, then government taxation constitutes "charity" because it too is taken by force. Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
I checked Dictionary.com which lists a whole page of definitions for charity, none of which define charity to refer to money forcibly taken from another to give to the poor. You say that I "concentrate just on one minor sub-definition." Actually I used definition #1, from Websters. Let me know what dictionary and definition you have in mind that refers to money taken by force, as with taxes. (By the way, you can't really "voluntarily" pay your taxes because the government doesn't give you the choice to volunteer. You might happily pay your taxes, but there's no volunteerism at work.)
As for soteriology, you write: "Whether you choose to mention soteriology or not - Christ's saving activities - helping the poor, was clearly a major element of that." Of course we are called to follow Christ through helping the poor (at this point in the game the growing consensus is that government poverty programs have done more over time to hurt the poor), but you seem to say her that our salvation itself depends on charitable works. This is why I asked previously what church you attend; I did not know of any churches preaching salvation through works.
Yes, I believe you are correct that we are obliged, commanded to tithe the church. In fact, in my church (Eastern Orthodox) we are not considered to have given any gift at until we are giving above 10%. If we give 12% to the church then we have made a 2% gift (if there are EO's reading this I'm open to correction here, but I think I have that right. I assume it's the same for Roman Catholicism).
Sadly, there are those who feel that taxes constitute charity and thus if they pay their taxes there is no obligation to tithe the church, even though there is no overlap between the two. To take it an even greater extreme, there are those who pay little or no federal income tax (those below the top 40% of income brackets) and feel that just the act of voting to have money forcibly taken from others constitutes a "charity" on their part. There is even a political line of thought that it is morally opposed to having the poor receive voluntary charity; they argue that all support from the poor should come from government income redistribution.
The only way to free ourselves from our servitude to sin is through our desire to follow Christ, but God doesn't force any of us to tithe the church in the sense that no one will put you in jail or throw on the rack if you don't. You are obliged to tithe, but you have the freedom of will to ignore that.
You are not, however, free to ignore your taxes (that is unless you want to go to jail). Obligation imposed by positive law is ultimately at the point of a gun (the gun that will lead you to your jail cell if you don't pay; and I say that believing you should go to jail if you don't pay your taxes). If, as you say, there was a time in Christian history when not tithing would land you in jail (and I don't know that to be true, but it doesn't matter), that doesn't make such practices right. But you argue that since the church once took money from people by force, then government taxation constitutes "charity" because it too is taken by force. Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
I checked Dictionary.com which lists a whole page of definitions for charity, none of which define charity to refer to money forcibly taken from another to give to the poor. You say that I "concentrate just on one minor sub-definition." Actually I used definition #1, from Websters. Let me know what dictionary and definition you have in mind that refers to money taken by force, as with taxes. (By the way, you can't really "voluntarily" pay your taxes because the government doesn't give you the choice to volunteer. You might happily pay your taxes, but there's no volunteerism at work.)
As for soteriology, you write: "Whether you choose to mention soteriology or not - Christ's saving activities - helping the poor, was clearly a major element of that." Of course we are called to follow Christ through helping the poor (at this point in the game the growing consensus is that government poverty programs have done more over time to hurt the poor), but you seem to say her that our salvation itself depends on charitable works. This is why I asked previously what church you attend; I did not know of any churches preaching salvation through works.
8.1.2011 | 2:18pm
David Layman says:
To continue the theme of the last paragraph of Douglas Johnson's most recent comment (8:43am): I haven't seen any response to my earlier inquiry: in the light of Paul's teaching that God's justifying grace is not by law, how do Christians make sense of "social justice" language?
Paul is clear: we receive justification (=God's righteousness) by God's gracious salvific activity in Jesus Christ, received by faith. For Christians, law does not and cannot save. Certainly Paul's concept of "law" is complex and has many levels, but it does not mean *less* than "Torah."
Therefore, we can paraphrase: "By the works of TORAH can no man be justified."
Now the commands to help the poor are part of Torah. The prophets were attempting to renew the covenant obligations of the rich to the poor of Israel. It follows that *obeying* these commands *as an act of legal obedience* cannot "justify"--it cannot bring about God's righteousness.
Any Christian moral instruction about our duty to the poor must therefore be *on the other side* of God's justifying and sanctifying activity through Christ. In short, it is through the "fruits of the Spirit", not obedience to Torah, that we can "know how to go about" ministering to the needy. And as Paul makes very clear in the crucial prooftext: "against ["kata," better: "about"] such things there is no law (Gal. 5:23) ." Torah, moral obligation, has nothing to do with the *Christian* duty to the poor. Such "duty" comes out of grace, a faith-filled response to grace.
Paul is clear: we receive justification (=God's righteousness) by God's gracious salvific activity in Jesus Christ, received by faith. For Christians, law does not and cannot save. Certainly Paul's concept of "law" is complex and has many levels, but it does not mean *less* than "Torah."
Therefore, we can paraphrase: "By the works of TORAH can no man be justified."
Now the commands to help the poor are part of Torah. The prophets were attempting to renew the covenant obligations of the rich to the poor of Israel. It follows that *obeying* these commands *as an act of legal obedience* cannot "justify"--it cannot bring about God's righteousness.
Any Christian moral instruction about our duty to the poor must therefore be *on the other side* of God's justifying and sanctifying activity through Christ. In short, it is through the "fruits of the Spirit", not obedience to Torah, that we can "know how to go about" ministering to the needy. And as Paul makes very clear in the crucial prooftext: "against ["kata," better: "about"] such things there is no law (Gal. 5:23) ." Torah, moral obligation, has nothing to do with the *Christian* duty to the poor. Such "duty" comes out of grace, a faith-filled response to grace.
8.1.2011 | 4:11pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Windy:
"Christ was "accused" by ordinary people of disrupting taxes. That is not to say that the popular perception of Christ was accurate. Were the people accurate, when they accused Christ of having a demon?"
What do you mean by "ordinary" people? As far as we know their "popular perceptions" might have been accurate. Didn't Christ interrupt the collection of taxes when he called Levi to give up that occupation?
What did those "ordinary" people mean by "demon"? They could see that Christ had extraordinary powers, and their way of explaining that power was to call it a "demon." Not doubt those who eventually followed Christ had that perception corrected.
"Christ was "accused" by ordinary people of disrupting taxes. That is not to say that the popular perception of Christ was accurate. Were the people accurate, when they accused Christ of having a demon?"
What do you mean by "ordinary" people? As far as we know their "popular perceptions" might have been accurate. Didn't Christ interrupt the collection of taxes when he called Levi to give up that occupation?
What did those "ordinary" people mean by "demon"? They could see that Christ had extraordinary powers, and their way of explaining that power was to call it a "demon." Not doubt those who eventually followed Christ had that perception corrected.
8.1.2011 | 10:15pm
edmond says:
@ Wendy-"Giving money to the poor, directly, joyfully, is good. But? Giving to the IRS - which then supports the poor in social programs - is about as good. Or in many cases, better."
That is not true in "many cases" where your tax money supports government officials who splurge on limos, mansions, junkets, drugs and sex (ask Arnold). Not to mention when the taxpayers are made to fund abortion clinics. No support for the poor there either.
As for being forced to tithe or give to the poor, 1Cor. 13 says it all:
"If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
That is not true in "many cases" where your tax money supports government officials who splurge on limos, mansions, junkets, drugs and sex (ask Arnold). Not to mention when the taxpayers are made to fund abortion clinics. No support for the poor there either.
As for being forced to tithe or give to the poor, 1Cor. 13 says it all:
"If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
8.1.2011 | 10:45pm
Benjamin Baxter says:
Out of respect for our Jewish brothers, please refrain from vocalizing the Tetragrammaton. God is preferable, in my humble opinion, for as an early saint said, God is not the name of God but our opinion of him.
8.2.2011 | 3:41pm
Wendy says:
Is Christian giving, entirely voluntary, and in striking contrast to laws ordering us to pay taxes to support the poor?
Related to this: are "works" of Charity important?
There are many churches that suggest that salvation comes in part, from works: the Catholic Church for example, famously stood largely for works, in the famous controversy with Protestantism. So that? Works of Charity probably have a more important place in Catholicism. Protestantism suggests that salvation comes from "faith." but it then adds that if you really, faithfully follow G-d, you will follow his commands; which include a command to do good works, and to help the poor.
Many cultures mandated giving to the poor: G-d constantly commanded it. Why would a Christian refuse to obey His commands ... even if they are not immediately enforced by the police? Indeed: is "Charity" defined in the dictionary as being always "voluntary"? I consulted first the Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate dictionary; of the six or seven definitions of charity, only one included the idea of "voluntary." Next? Try consulting the OED - the Oxford English Dictionary. It's about ten volumes. The concept of charity being "voluntary" is found is some, but not most definitions. So that money giving to the IRS, that supports the poor? Qualifies as charity.
Is government charity, specifically, sometimes misdirected or inefficient? Sure. But church programs are too. Who is to say, that the person you are feeding in the soup kitchen isn't a junkie, who will use the money he saved for food, on heroin. While there are countless examples of ministers, misusing church funds, for their own fun. Money gets misdirected, in both government and religious charities. In fact? My practical experience with both, suggests that of the two, religious charities are more more frequently defrauded.
You might not like everything your tax dollars do. But among other things, they largely - even mostly - help poor people, and the general public. With things they could not otherwise afford. Like all our roads; most of our schools; our armies; social care. And your tax dollars do this far, far more massively, than church contributions do.
We are not boasting here; these are the facts. If you would prefer that charity be given with "love"? Then after all, simply love taxes, or love Social Security, and the Christian values that were behind the formation of these immensely effective social care agencies. To hate taxes, government services, and the poor they help, is a failure to love too, of course.
Jesus was accused of many things by the people around him; of being a heretic, of being a Samaritan, of having a demon. From context, it is clear these were thought to be negative things. But he persisted in helping the poor; and commanded you to "go and do likewise."
To those who claim that the Bible ordered us not to pay taxes? Have a very, very strained reading of the holy book. Paul ordered to to "obey the authorities" or "governors"; Jesus told us to give to Caesar what we owed him. In ancient Jewish, theocracy, the words for charitable "sacrifices" and "taxes" had the same root. Indeed, in a religious state, the priests were in effect, clerks for a "lord" or priest/king. Who was not only a priest, or a holy man, but also the head of a government. So that tithes, sacrifices, "fruits" given to the temple, were in effect given to a (religious) government.
Works of charity in themselves cannot save us; only Grace or "faithy" can do that, some Protestants say. But can you ignore all of God's commands to do this or that, to do works of Charity .... and still consider yourself "faith"ful to him?
You are faithful ... but do not follow God's commands?
Related to this: are "works" of Charity important?
There are many churches that suggest that salvation comes in part, from works: the Catholic Church for example, famously stood largely for works, in the famous controversy with Protestantism. So that? Works of Charity probably have a more important place in Catholicism. Protestantism suggests that salvation comes from "faith." but it then adds that if you really, faithfully follow G-d, you will follow his commands; which include a command to do good works, and to help the poor.
Many cultures mandated giving to the poor: G-d constantly commanded it. Why would a Christian refuse to obey His commands ... even if they are not immediately enforced by the police? Indeed: is "Charity" defined in the dictionary as being always "voluntary"? I consulted first the Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate dictionary; of the six or seven definitions of charity, only one included the idea of "voluntary." Next? Try consulting the OED - the Oxford English Dictionary. It's about ten volumes. The concept of charity being "voluntary" is found is some, but not most definitions. So that money giving to the IRS, that supports the poor? Qualifies as charity.
Is government charity, specifically, sometimes misdirected or inefficient? Sure. But church programs are too. Who is to say, that the person you are feeding in the soup kitchen isn't a junkie, who will use the money he saved for food, on heroin. While there are countless examples of ministers, misusing church funds, for their own fun. Money gets misdirected, in both government and religious charities. In fact? My practical experience with both, suggests that of the two, religious charities are more more frequently defrauded.
You might not like everything your tax dollars do. But among other things, they largely - even mostly - help poor people, and the general public. With things they could not otherwise afford. Like all our roads; most of our schools; our armies; social care. And your tax dollars do this far, far more massively, than church contributions do.
We are not boasting here; these are the facts. If you would prefer that charity be given with "love"? Then after all, simply love taxes, or love Social Security, and the Christian values that were behind the formation of these immensely effective social care agencies. To hate taxes, government services, and the poor they help, is a failure to love too, of course.
Jesus was accused of many things by the people around him; of being a heretic, of being a Samaritan, of having a demon. From context, it is clear these were thought to be negative things. But he persisted in helping the poor; and commanded you to "go and do likewise."
To those who claim that the Bible ordered us not to pay taxes? Have a very, very strained reading of the holy book. Paul ordered to to "obey the authorities" or "governors"; Jesus told us to give to Caesar what we owed him. In ancient Jewish, theocracy, the words for charitable "sacrifices" and "taxes" had the same root. Indeed, in a religious state, the priests were in effect, clerks for a "lord" or priest/king. Who was not only a priest, or a holy man, but also the head of a government. So that tithes, sacrifices, "fruits" given to the temple, were in effect given to a (religious) government.
Works of charity in themselves cannot save us; only Grace or "faithy" can do that, some Protestants say. But can you ignore all of God's commands to do this or that, to do works of Charity .... and still consider yourself "faith"ful to him?
You are faithful ... but do not follow God's commands?
8.2.2011 | 6:14pm
David Layman says:
To all, especially to Wendy:
http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/08/02/whom-would-jesus-indebt/
Nutshell:
"It is immoral to ignore the needs of the least of these. But it’s also immoral to ’serve’ the poor in ways that only make more people poor, and trap them in poverty longer. And it’s immoral to amass a mountain of debt that we will pass on to later generations."
http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/08/02/whom-would-jesus-indebt/
Nutshell:
"It is immoral to ignore the needs of the least of these. But it’s also immoral to ’serve’ the poor in ways that only make more people poor, and trap them in poverty longer. And it’s immoral to amass a mountain of debt that we will pass on to later generations."
8.2.2011 | 10:54pm
edmond says:
Wendy, you seem to be confused or want to pit protestant teachings against a misunderstood version catholic doctrine. You only succeed in confusing yourself. To answer your question, the end all is found in Matthew 25 or what the protestants call the "judgement seat". As Jesus simply said, "I was hungry and you gave me no food, thirsty and you gave me no drink..." These people will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life."
The passage defines reighteousness as GIVING food, water, comfort etc. So these are the "good works", charity or more aptly described by the word 'agape' which sums up the requisites in Matt. 25 and 1 Cor. 13 .
The passage defines reighteousness as GIVING food, water, comfort etc. So these are the "good works", charity or more aptly described by the word 'agape' which sums up the requisites in Matt. 25 and 1 Cor. 13 .
8.3.2011 | 8:26am
Wendy says:
Is the conservative tax revolt, the desire to cut taxes, to cut support for social security, to cut support for the poor - and for that matter, isthe attack on “liberals" -consistent with Judeo-Christian principles? It is not. Let's take a look.
First, what do the Torah and Bible say about taxes? First note, in the Torah/Old Testament – Exodus 30.11-16 – our god orders us to pay a tax, to our local leaders:
“The LORD said to Moses, 'When you take the census of the people of Israel, THEN EACH SHALL GIVE A RANSOM FOR HIMSELF TO THE LORD. WHEN YOU NUMBER THEM....EACH WHO IS NUMBERS IN THE CENSUS SHALL GIVE THIS: HALF A SHEKEL ACORDING TO THE SHEKEL OF THE SANTUARY... THE LORD'S OFFERING … TO MAKE ATTONEMENT FOR YOURSELVES.”
We “ransom” ourselves from punishment, in part by paying an amount of money as tribute or tax, to local leaders. Only priests, the sons of Levi, and similar persons are exempt (Ezra the prophet, 7.24). Furthermore? Our taxes support larger public institutions like the “santuary”; which in turn support the poor as well.
This is in the Torah/Old Testament. But later, did Jesus and Christianity and the New Testament drop these commands from the Jewish deity? They did not. Oddly, though it was said by Paul that Jesus himself was a priest, Peter firmly declares that Jesus himself paid the above tax:
“When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, 'Does not your teacher pay the tax?' He said, 'Yes.'” (Mat. 17.24-27).
Indeed, not just money, but also “sacrifices,” “tribute,” and so forth,” were paid to the clerics of the Lord, as in effect, taxes, designed for the maintenance of the Lord's clerics and offices and temples or administrative centers.
Is conservatism, the tax revolt, the attack on social care - or say the ideas of “liberals” - therefore, Christian? The modern Liberalism - that conservatives attack - is based on the reiterated command from the Lord, repeated by Paul, to give “liberally” to the poor, and in doing good deeds for those in need:
“Be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous” (1 Tim. 6.18).
“Men will praise the one who is liberal with food” Sir. 21.33).
“A liberal man will be enriched” (Prov. 11.25)
“He who contributes in liberality” (Rom. 12.8).
“In a wealth of liberality on their part” (2 Corin. 8.2).
“Furnish him liberally out of your flock” (Deut. 15.14).
“Gave alms liberally to the poor” (Acts 10.2).
Often furthermore, these are not requests; elsewhere our deity commands us to help the poor.
Interestingly, furthermore, these commands from our Lord to help the poor, to be “liberal,” have long been taken, by dictionary definition, to include not just our personal or individual acts of charity, but also to include our support for larger public institutions, that indeed are assumed to have taken over individual charity in many ways. The definition for “charity” in our largest and most definitive English Dictionary – the multi-volume OED, the Oxford English Dictionary – first defines “charity” in terms of Christian “love.” The concept of “voluntary” moreover, is hard to find, in the OED's full page of definitions of Charity.
The OED opens the definition of charity, to include especially by the way, tolerant/liberal love of others whose opinions differ from our own:
“3. A disposition to judge leniently and hopefully of the character, aims, and destinies of others, to make allowances for their apparent faults and shortcomings; large-heartedness” …
4. Benevolence to one's neighbors, especially to the poor; the practical beneficences …” (“Charity,” OED).
And then? The OED notes that our own age, modern “public” institutions (implicitly, governments) are now major players in charitable works:
“As manifested in action: specifically alms-giving. Applied also to the public provision for the relief of the poor, WHICH HAS LARGELY TAKEN THE PLACE OF THE ALMSGIVING OF INDIVIDUALS.
And so, there you have it: the Bible itself commands us to pay taxes; and to“be liberal” and charitable; especially in forgiving the apparent sins of others. And especially, “liberal” in helping the poor. While the definitive dictionary definitions confirm that these acts of charity are also carried on by public institutions; including implicitly not just churches, but also government assistance to the poor.
So what should we now say, about conservatives? About all those who constantly attack “liberals,” taxes, and who refuse to open their wallets, to support social programs to help the poor? We should all ask - whether they were ever really Christians, at all.
First, what do the Torah and Bible say about taxes? First note, in the Torah/Old Testament – Exodus 30.11-16 – our god orders us to pay a tax, to our local leaders:
“The LORD said to Moses, 'When you take the census of the people of Israel, THEN EACH SHALL GIVE A RANSOM FOR HIMSELF TO THE LORD. WHEN YOU NUMBER THEM....EACH WHO IS NUMBERS IN THE CENSUS SHALL GIVE THIS: HALF A SHEKEL ACORDING TO THE SHEKEL OF THE SANTUARY... THE LORD'S OFFERING … TO MAKE ATTONEMENT FOR YOURSELVES.”
We “ransom” ourselves from punishment, in part by paying an amount of money as tribute or tax, to local leaders. Only priests, the sons of Levi, and similar persons are exempt (Ezra the prophet, 7.24). Furthermore? Our taxes support larger public institutions like the “santuary”; which in turn support the poor as well.
This is in the Torah/Old Testament. But later, did Jesus and Christianity and the New Testament drop these commands from the Jewish deity? They did not. Oddly, though it was said by Paul that Jesus himself was a priest, Peter firmly declares that Jesus himself paid the above tax:
“When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, 'Does not your teacher pay the tax?' He said, 'Yes.'” (Mat. 17.24-27).
Indeed, not just money, but also “sacrifices,” “tribute,” and so forth,” were paid to the clerics of the Lord, as in effect, taxes, designed for the maintenance of the Lord's clerics and offices and temples or administrative centers.
Is conservatism, the tax revolt, the attack on social care - or say the ideas of “liberals” - therefore, Christian? The modern Liberalism - that conservatives attack - is based on the reiterated command from the Lord, repeated by Paul, to give “liberally” to the poor, and in doing good deeds for those in need:
“Be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous” (1 Tim. 6.18).
“Men will praise the one who is liberal with food” Sir. 21.33).
“A liberal man will be enriched” (Prov. 11.25)
“He who contributes in liberality” (Rom. 12.8).
“In a wealth of liberality on their part” (2 Corin. 8.2).
“Furnish him liberally out of your flock” (Deut. 15.14).
“Gave alms liberally to the poor” (Acts 10.2).
Often furthermore, these are not requests; elsewhere our deity commands us to help the poor.
Interestingly, furthermore, these commands from our Lord to help the poor, to be “liberal,” have long been taken, by dictionary definition, to include not just our personal or individual acts of charity, but also to include our support for larger public institutions, that indeed are assumed to have taken over individual charity in many ways. The definition for “charity” in our largest and most definitive English Dictionary – the multi-volume OED, the Oxford English Dictionary – first defines “charity” in terms of Christian “love.” The concept of “voluntary” moreover, is hard to find, in the OED's full page of definitions of Charity.
The OED opens the definition of charity, to include especially by the way, tolerant/liberal love of others whose opinions differ from our own:
“3. A disposition to judge leniently and hopefully of the character, aims, and destinies of others, to make allowances for their apparent faults and shortcomings; large-heartedness” …
4. Benevolence to one's neighbors, especially to the poor; the practical beneficences …” (“Charity,” OED).
And then? The OED notes that our own age, modern “public” institutions (implicitly, governments) are now major players in charitable works:
“As manifested in action: specifically alms-giving. Applied also to the public provision for the relief of the poor, WHICH HAS LARGELY TAKEN THE PLACE OF THE ALMSGIVING OF INDIVIDUALS.
And so, there you have it: the Bible itself commands us to pay taxes; and to“be liberal” and charitable; especially in forgiving the apparent sins of others. And especially, “liberal” in helping the poor. While the definitive dictionary definitions confirm that these acts of charity are also carried on by public institutions; including implicitly not just churches, but also government assistance to the poor.
So what should we now say, about conservatives? About all those who constantly attack “liberals,” taxes, and who refuse to open their wallets, to support social programs to help the poor? We should all ask - whether they were ever really Christians, at all.
8.3.2011 | 11:55pm
edmond says:
Wendy- Not for one moment should we believe that the government and its tax systems are the only way to help the poor, most acutely in repressive and abusive governments that pocket taxpayer's contributions. Secondly, you condescend against conservatives by pretending to know that liberals give more to the poor than liberals. This is not acceptable as it is not based on fact. Thirdly, your statement aside from being baseless, is judgmental. Most people who are true givers in congruence with the church teachings choose to do so anonymously, so how would you know who gives more generously? It is only God who can decide who has given from his NEED not from his abundance.
Lastly, the issue of who gives what to whom and for what hidden agenda is moot and academic in the light of scripture's passage:
Matthew 6:1-4 - "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly."
Lastly, the issue of who gives what to whom and for what hidden agenda is moot and academic in the light of scripture's passage:
Matthew 6:1-4 - "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly."
8.4.2011 | 6:36pm
Dacres Gertrudis says:
Actually they often serve to keep a favored constituency flush with government dollars. Before I retired, I worked for a university. Every year they would raise tuition - exactly in line with the rise in student aid. Overall student aid goes up 9%, tuition costs rise by 9%. One major problem with any type of governmental program, is that people come to have a vested interest in that program. And like all bureaucracies, the survival of the organization comes to have greater priority, than the ostensible purpose it was originally founded. If you are running a governmental poverty program (and making a very good salary doing so), are you really interested in eliminating - or even lowering - poverty? And placing your well paid job at risk? If you want to see an example of the good of the bureaucracy being placed above the good of those it's supposed to serve, attempt to adopt a foster child. If too many people adopt, it puts the bureaucracy at risk, therefore they make it as difficult as possible. Especially? Give to the IRS joyfully. Since it is Christian. First 1) "giving to Caesar," giving what is due to the government in exchange for general governmental services. Including 2) helping the poor thereby, as well. Since much government, uses your taxes to help the social security of the old , the poor, the infirm, etc."
8.8.2011 | 10:32pm
David in Korea says:
Excellent post. In looking at the back and forth in the comments, I am reminded how often I am struck as an American living overseas how American Christians insist on taking the capacious truths of the Scripture and funneling them into the narrow partisan cocnerns that animate American politics. There is a big. broad world out there and the Bible speaks to all of it. It was not written to provide debating points to support one side ot another in transitory, contemporary US partisan controversies. The Scripture exhorts us to care for the poor, to reach out to the alien, the orphan. and the widow. So let's get on with it and do it. I trust that many of you are, in myriad ways, but I fear that some might care more about scoring a political joint than actually loving anyone.
8.15.2011 | 1:37am
Gena Palilla says:
As for soteriology, you write: "Whether you choose to mention soteriology or not - Christ's saving activities - helping the poor, was clearly a major element of that." Of course we are called to follow Christ through helping the poor (at this point in the game the growing consensus is that government poverty programs have done more over time to hurt the poor), but you seem to say her that our salvation itself depends on charitable works. This is why I asked previously what church you attend; I did not know of any churches preaching salvation through works. The LORD said to Moses, 'When you take the census of the people of Israel, THEN EACH SHALL GIVE A RANSOM FOR HIMSELF TO THE LORD. WHEN YOU NUMBER THEM....EACH WHO IS NUMBERS IN THE CENSUS SHALL GIVE THIS: HALF A SHEKEL ACORDING TO THE SHEKEL OF THE SANTUARY... THE LORD'S OFFERING TO MAKE ATTONEMENT FOR YOURSELVES.
8.15.2011 | 2:54am
Peter Smith says:
When hear someone "preaching" "social justice" my first thought is total and complete rejection. I am just not interested in participating in guilt-based social hegemony.
I appreciate the author's consistent use of the naked term 'justice' instead of dressing it up in with modifiers like ridiculous outfits on a performing pony. Like a full-grown lion, justice needs no added clothing, certainly not from us. Our commitment to justice, which is really just acknowledging and submitting to the fundamental moral law that God laid as the foundation of the universe, is the start of our godly administration of what he has given us in trust. Add love and truth and we're well on our way.