A coalition of religious leaders, called Sojourners, seems to me to be more a political than a spiritual group. I've reached that conclusion based on their desperate plea that there be no limit to spending by the federal government.
The question to which they keep bringing me is, "Why do they want to abdicate their responsibilities?"
Somehow they seem to think that the church shouldn't be in the business of helping and ministering to the poor; but rather that is the job of government, or perhaps it's merely that that the church isn't able to meet the needs they see.
Even apart from the horrifically inefficient manner in which governments tend to do things, it also means two things I see as desperately wicked:
The question to which they keep bringing me is, "Why do they want to abdicate their responsibilities?"
Somehow they seem to think that the church shouldn't be in the business of helping and ministering to the poor; but rather that is the job of government, or perhaps it's merely that that the church isn't able to meet the needs they see.
Even apart from the horrifically inefficient manner in which governments tend to do things, it also means two things I see as desperately wicked:
- There can be no connection between the "charity" and the gospel, and
- It requires the taking of money from people who may not approve of that particular "charitable" cause but may have another charitable use for that money.
By advocating government "charity" to the poor, these religious leaders are actively encouraging the government to break the 8th commandment by stealing from some members of society to give to others.
As Congressman Crockett once said, "We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”
In short, forced charity is no charity at all, and if it is simply a payment of money or a gift of material goods, it misses the point of doing charity in the Name of the Author of Charity - Jesus Christ.
I would amend Rep. Crockett's statement to say that as individuals, we have an obligation to give away as much of our own money in charity as is prudent. Remember what John Wesley said, "Having, first, gained all you can, and, secondly saved all you can, then give all you can."
Once again, remembering that Charity is one of the Four Loves, I come to the same question, "Why do they want to abdicate their responsibilities?"
More on this here.
