[size=150]‘No Charity/Priority is believers.’[/size]
The social gospel movement began in the early 20th century. While it’s motivations may have been pure, it can’t be said to be based upon the Bible. When it comes to the one issue of giving donations and charity to unknown people, I just do not see the basis for it in the Bible. Believers have their own circle of acquentencies. Surely the resources are taxed enough with helping those people we do know and care about.
The Apostle Paul gives a very specific principle when it comes to giving in 2 These 3.10. When giving donations to those individuals we do not know, we can not be sure we are following Paul’s principle. I would suggest that broad based charitable giving does more harm than good, that it makes people slothful and lazy.
The scriptures are clear that we are to work with our own hands. Believers are to have a strong work ethic. Paul himself worked with his own hands as an example to other believers.
In fact imagine how it could change our world and politics, if we refused to vote for anyone that is not ‘self made’. Writer FrankChodorov says this "There was a time, in these United States, when a candidate for public office could qualify with the electorate only by fixing his birth place in or near the “logcabin” He may have acquired a competence, or even a fortune, since then, but it was in the tradition that he must have been born of poor parents and made his way up the ladder by sheer ability, self reliance, and perseverance in the face of hardship. In short, he had to be “self made.”
Oh, to see the return of a work ethic. Society does not need broad basic charity, or socialism, it needs a ‘work ethic’
“Early to bed, early to rise!”
In the 50s I heard “the social gospel” denigrated. People assisting the needy is not a gospel. It was so labelled by those fundamentalists who presumed that anyone who cared about starving people gave to them in order to get to heaven. That’s baloney. Most gave to them out of deep concern. So many of us fat cats in Canada and the U.S.A. major in self-service. As long as we are healthy and wealthy, the rest of the world can go to hell. We couldn’t care less. We are laying up wealth for ourselves so that we can live luxuriously. We assume than anyone who is needy is that way due to his own fault. He doesn’t want to work. There are millions of needy people who would gladly work if they could get a job. Others are working hard every day, but earn a pittance, sometimes not enough to provide food for themselves and their families.
Jesus told this story:
When the son of man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then He will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
for I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to me.’
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and take you in, or naked and clothe you? Or when did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’
And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to Me.’ (Matthew 25:31-40)
The King will be addressing the nations (or “gentiles”, another translation of the word). The King and his brethren are STRANGERS to the nations. But the sheep are those who feed the hungry strangers, give them drink, clothe them, visit them when they are sick or in prison. Those whom they care for is not limited to friends and acquaintances!
I’d agree with Piaidon here and just want to put some of the details in your proposition into context
Paul was a tentmaker, Jesus a carpenter, Peter a fisherman – all of these are skilled trades that could/can be engaged with in love and in a spirit of lifelong learning. None were/are demeaning. I think Paul’s point about ‘if you don’t you can’t eat’ is an exhortation for everyone to do their bit in small faith communities – and he lead by example (there’s nothing worse than a charismatic preacher sitting on his backside and letting everyone do the work for him).
Can we use Paul to justify a ‘work ethic’? Yes we can if we are proof-texting, but I have huge reservations about this. Paul taught a Gospel of grace – the comment about physical work is not the centre of his preaching (it is merely a practical issue). And a Gospel of work within Protestant interpretation of scripture is a bit of a paradox. As I understand it, it comes mostly for Calvinism (How can we know we are part of the elect? – this question creates huge psychic pressure that we can find some relief from; first, if we believe that a thrifty and severely work-full life is perhaps a sign of election; or second if we throw ourselves into a severely work-full life to sidestep the psychic pressure of our fears of being numbered among the reprobate). The paradox here is that the Gospel of salvation by grace can become turned into a graceless gospel of salvation by works.
Self made men can be notoriously proud, hard, ruthless, boorish, and lacking in all sympathy; and the biographies of self made men are often rather selective in over emphasising anything that could be construed as struggle against disadvantage in their lives, and editing out other parts of their story where rich blessings were showered upon them . Of course the big consequence of the Protestant work ethic was the industrial Revolution – the captains of industry and the planners in government were all influenced strongly by the Protestant work ethic ideology – ‘Work! Work! For the night cometh wherein no work is done’. We can’t turn the clock back and I’d not want to deny the many benefits of industrialisation to humanity. But when the Protestant work ethic was at its strongest, working people had their lives crippled by inhumane regimes of toil in which their lives were reduced to becoming mere cogs in a vast machine.
I’d agree in some way that handouts are not the ultimate solution to unemployment – proper training schemes are needed and a certain amount of ‘carrot and stick’ coaching is required to get people contributing to society again. But work must be good work – in keeping with the spiritual dignity of human beings. Capitalism – for all its benefits, again has its downside; markets are capricious, whole communities can be deprived of meaningful work for a generation when technological advances renders their skills obsolete. In this context Paul’s dictum – if you don’t work, you don’t eat - can easily be twisted to mean ‘the weak go to the wall’.
I’m your friend – and it’s fine for us to have differences .
There are a lot of factors here that most of us are ignorant of. There are huge deposits of knowledge that I am ignorant of, though I’m always working to fix that. It’s an unending task! I am a conservative and I agree with you that people do need to work – not so much for the good of those of us who might otherwise be forced to feed them, but for their own sakes.
Now that said, there are a lot of people who, for literally no fault of their own, were born into the poverty culture. Here it’s primarily the Native American population. Here the poverty culture masquerades as the NA culture, but really it’s more or less the same all over the USA. It isn’t a NA culture (though there is some of that – usually the more interesting bits), but rather a poverty culture. The poverty culture both creates and is produced by poverty.
Let me give you as an example some friends of mine. They’re a married couple; she’s in her mid 20’s, and he can’t be much older. They both grew up in poverty; they have (so far) 4 children. He works, though he doesn’t have a very high-paying job. She will work at a holiday job provided by a local charity this Christmas season. But if one of her children is sick, she’ll have to miss work unless a sibling or friend can watch her sick child. None of them are in school yet, and the family car has recently sustained irreparable mechanical damage. They have a little money (less than $1000) and they’d like to buy a car; a friend and I are trying to help them find one. The husband knows how to work on cars, but has no tools. They’re afraid they may have to spend some of the car money on living expenses if they don’t find a car very quickly.
So what would you advise them to do? They have very little in the way of resources. I found a job at Good Will and told her about it, and while it would be a better job for her, she can’t take it because it’s too far to walk and our city doesn’t have good public transportation. Moreover, it can only be applied for on-line and she doesn’t have a computer or internet, and doesn’t understand how to do that. It’s a scary proposition for her. I’d take her to the library and walk her through the process, but really – they have four children and she couldn’t take a job like that even if she could find a way to get there every day.
Granted they need to dig themselves out of this and somehow find a way to reach middle class so that they can support their children and have a little left over to help others who are in need. However, never having had anyone at all to teach them, they have no idea on earth how to do that. They probably don’t even know that the middle class isn’t just money and it isn’t just hard work; it’s a whole other culture with unwritten rules. Without understanding those rules, they will never ever succeed.
In the USA they can’t just open up a neighborhood food shop in their spare room (if they had one) like they could do if they were in, say, Jamaica. There are too many regulations. They can’t strap an ice chest to the back of a bicycle, pack it with ice cream, and ride around selling ice cream cones in the summer. Same problem. They’d need a sales tax number (though they probably don’t know that) and a food service license (ditto) and God knows how many other extraneous bits of paper and even I wouldn’t want to try to navigate that bureaucratic mess. It’s one of the reasons I sell pottery rather than candied apples or buffalo jerky. But if she wanted to sell pottery, she’d need a kiln, and all sorts of other things she hasn’t got. It’s not like she can fire it in the back yard as she would do if she were in Africa somewhere, or in South America.
This is a high-quality couple. If someone in the neighborhood or among their siblings needs help, it is to this couple they come, and they help and comfort and care for all they can. They aren’t sleezeballs who just want to hang off the government tit. They would like to support themselves and their children, and they’d like to be able to better help the people who come to them. How can they achieve that goal? They don’t know. I don’t know, but so long as they have the determination and desire, and to the degree that they’re willing to work for it, I’m willing to help. I’m NOT willing to perpetuate the present system with handouts, but I’m also not going to just say, “Well they need to get a job and take care of business and if they weren’t so irresponsible they wouldn’t be in this mess.” We all have a little of that to answer for. Some of us just have better support systems than others.
No, it really isn’t at all simple. It’s not your fault you don’t know that, Puddy. A couple of years ago I would have said the same things you’re saying, and it’s taken me upwards of 50 years to learn this (and there’s a lot more to learn). Granted that the welfare system fosters this problem rather than helping it. Nevertheless we can hardly discontinue it, because there is a huge population out there that genuinely needs it. We would have naked children with pellagra here, too, if it weren’t for the welfare system. Only God knows the way out of this, but the answer isn’t to blame the poor. There are certainly those who don’t want to work. There are a whole lot of middle class people who don’t work either, and are supported by family. Are those people better than the poor, or just luckier?
Jesus said to His disciples; “The poor will always be with you . . .” So here is my proposition for you, brother. I don’t want you to go out there and become a socialist. But maybe you would benefit emotionally and intellectually in becoming acquainted with “the other side.” We’re all of us in our little bubbles and we tend to think that the rest of the world knows the things we know and holds more or less (if they would only admit it to themselves) the same values we hold, and that at any rate, if they don’t, they should – because we’re right and obviously their way isn’t really working for them, is it? It would be great for you to maybe get acquainted with the staff at a local charity. If you have a Love INC, that would be an excellent place, or whatever you can find. Ask what you can do as a volunteer. I’ll bet they’ll find some work for you in which you can get to know and respect people who live in poverty. If you do this, I’ll bet you’ll discover some wonderful friends, lose quite a lot of the depression you struggle with, or at least temper it, and greatly expand your world view.
It was not my intention to respond, since I am only going to put forward the propositions. However starting a conversation on this topic is controversial. I really think I need to clarify a few things.
Concerning society as a whole and how government functions. This is the forum for secular society. However I think it is heading towards disaster, and sometimes I express my distaste for socialism. The only answer is the return of Christ.
However the Apostle Paul was very clear "For even when we were with you, we gave this charge to you: that “If anyone is not willing to work, neither let him eat”
Your NA friends appear willing to work, therefore it is just to give them financial help.
I am not cold hearted to people that are not willing to work. One of my best friends has lived on the streets and in the woods for many years. He is not willing to work, but I am not condescending to him. He often says I should become a hippy, since this is how he sees me.
However money would be better spent giving it to your NA couple, than to give it to my friend. Every handout to my friend has encouraged his lifestyle. There is so much more to this discussion, but I am not hard hearted to believe Paul. I have done some charity work, but hope God will give me a Prison ministry someday. Maybe just writing letters.
In clarification, my friend is suffering from Cancer now, and I think this situation over-rides everything else, and that we should be there to help him.
I’m sorry about your friend. He sounds like an interesting sort. When I lived in FL, there were “legends” in my area about “the wild man of the Green Swamp,” and speculation that the “creature” was maybe a Sasquatch or an escaped monkey or overactive imagination, etc. But it was just a guy who preferred not to bathe or shave or sleep in a bed, and eventually he was trapped and put in an institution (because he was thoroughly batty, apparently, though not in anyone’s experience dangerous). I dunno – maybe they should have left him alone. People didn’t feel safe . . . you know how that would be.
Anyway, I agree with you that giving money is usually a bad idea, and that includes in the case of my friends. You create a dependency and rob people of dignity. Helping someone learn how to apply for a job, explaining the expectations an employer will have re promptness, work ethic, etc., helping them to leverage their money in buying things they need, are great, but actually giving money is typically not the best idea. There are times of course, but it’s something to be avoided, imo. Still that doesn’t mean there’s nothing that can be done to help.
I’m a public school teacher and when I see a kid with dirty ragged clothing and who only get descent meals at school I can’t help but believe that we should do something to help out. I also think that if Jesus was only savior who had the ability to save themselves then He’s not really needed as a savior.
I am certainly not advocating giving out handouts to loafers who refuse to work. You might as well throw the money into the fire for all the good it will do. Most of them will take the money, spend it, and continue to be loafers.
I was talking about our need to help those who are truly struggling to survive. Not simply to give them money but to provide them with the tools to help themselves as Cindy so wisely wrote. World Vision is an excellent place to contribute to the needy. That organization certaily does MUCH more than throw money at people. They provide tools for peopl to grow their own food, and when necessary send instructors to show them how to do it.
If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. (I Thessalonians 3:10)
Paul was certainly not writing about people in society at large. How could anyone have stopped a loafer from eating, if his family or someone else gave him food?
Paul was addressing a community of saints, disciples of Christ. I get the impression that community of goods (practised by the first Christians — Acts ch.2 and ch.4) was still practised among Christians in Paul’s day. If anyone was not willing to work, neither let him eat. In this way, Paul gave a rule to deal with loafers to give them a strong incentive to work.
I agree with your article. If you feel ‘World Vision’ keeps true to Paul’s charge, and it happens to be true, then I give them the credit. I must say that I hope readers understand the context of my Proposition. I argue believers have limited disposible income, and the priority should be to help family, believers, and friends. I am aware Paul took a collection for believers, but when did he take one for society at large?
“Now, concerning the collection for the saints, even as I prescribe to the ecclesias of Galatia, thus do you also” 1 Cor. 16.1
In acts 2. 44 we read “Now all those who believe also were in the same place and had all things in common. And they disposed of the acquisitions and the properties, and divided them for all…” There is no indication that they divided them to the world at large.
We live in a very politically correct culture, so the thought of believers giving priority to other believers, will sound selfish.
Was Paul politically correct? Look what he says in Titus 1.12 "One of them, their own prophet, said: “Cretans are ever liars, evil wild beasts, idle bellies” How does Paul respond? “This testimony is true” What would he say about the culture we are living in today?
Most of us know ‘Idle bellies’ in our own lives. If readers disagree with the nature of my argument, then phone them up, ask for their address, and mail them a cheque. Instead of helping someone you know and love in honest need, waste your
money on someone who is idle.
I’m suspicious of proof texting. We need to understand the context of Paul’s comment about Cretans.
Paul was a well-educated man. He was trained by the highly respected Jewish teacher, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3; 5:34), and was knowledgeable not only in Jewish Scripture and literature, but also in classical Greek literature. While lecturing a group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Acts 17:22-34, Paul, in verse 28, quoted from Epimenides’ Cretica (“For in him we live and move and have our being”) and Aratus’ Phaenomena (“For we are also his offspring”), using these two pagan poets to make a point. In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul quoted from Menander’s comedy Thais (“Evil company corrupts good habits”). In Titus 1:12-13a Paul quotes from the Greek poet Epimenides in his comments about Cretans.
The quotation is a form of the logical paradox commonly known as Epimenides’ Paradox: “A Cretan said, ‘All Cretans are liars.’ ” If, as Paul affirms, this statement is true, then the statement is false because a Cretan, who is a liar, made it. These affirmations—that the statement is true and the statement is false—contradict each other and violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, because a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time.
The first step in understanding this alleged contradiction is to realize that Epimenides was a poet. Poets, playwrights, and other writers sometimes use a literary technique known as hyperbole, which is a deliberate exaggeration used to make a point. To say that “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” is to say that the Cretan society as a whole was immoral and decadent, not necessarily that every single individual in that society was a liar, evil beast, or lazy glutton.
However, this quotation has been taken literally by Christians down the centuries to justify elitist and even racist sentiments. On a literal level it is readily apparent that Paul’s condemnation of the Cretans is, to say the least, unfair in basic human terms. Most of today’s Cretans, whom Saul included in his “always”, might say so. Before then, then, after then, now and hereafter, common sense tells us it can never be true that “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” To believe so would be tantamount to believing that God especially erred in making Cretans: not normal humans but evil beasts, liars, and lazy gluttons.
It was Paul who also wrote – ‘In Christ there is neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew, circumcision or un-circumcision’.
Regarding ‘political correctness’ – I’d agree that it does have its downside – it can certainly create a victim culture. But all things in life have a downside – and good things are often spoiled. I see the positive side of ‘political correctness’ as a genuine attempt to lessen stereotyping and discrimination in society. I have no problem with this aspect of it. I certainly do not think we should stereotype unemployed people as evil beasts and lazy gluttons on the grounds of a quotation from a pagan poet made by Paul – probably when he was frustrated and angry (or perhaps Paul was making a joke about the paradox).
You say “I’m suspicious of proof texting. We need to understand the context of Paul’s comment about Cretans”
Isn’t the context of Paul’s words established by the very next line? “For which cause be exposing them severely, that they may be sound in the faith?”
The Apostle Paul wasn’t concerned with tickling the ears. He was a very bold man, that was concerned about the walk of believers. The fact is he considered these to be grave defects of national character. He really wasn’t saying every Cretan had this problem.
The difficulty with our ‘politically correct’ cuture is that every figure of speech and generalization, or exaggeration is taken too literally, and then the speaker (as with Paul) is judged as being intolerant.
Let’s go back again to 2 These. 3 7-8. " For you yourselves are aware how you must be imitating us, for we are not disorderly among you, neither did we eat bread gratuitously from anyone, but, with toil and labor, we are working night and day, so as not to be burdensome to any of you. Not that we have not the right, but that we may be giving ourselves as a model for you to be imitating us"
Is it not amazing to think of Paul toiling and laboring night and day, so as to be an example of the work ethic. Indeed Paul took the ‘work ethic’ so seriously that he said “to be putting yourselves from every brother who is walking disorderly” (6) and not to “commingle with him” (15)
Paul saw this laziness in lifestyle as being truely harmful to a believer, and felt the believer needed to be shamed.
Anyway, I don’t know about anyone else, but I will be glad to escape Proposition #1, and move to Proposition #2.
Something less controversial.
Hey bro, I just wanted to throw in my two cents before you move on.
I can see both sides of this whole thing. I agree that we shouldn’t encourage people to continue to be dependent if they are capable of being independent, that if someone can work then they should. But, on the other hand, there are many people who can’t help being dependent, like people with severe physical or mental/emotional disabilities, people with severe chronic pain, young children, the elderly, people stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty as Cindy mentioned, etc.
There are some who just can’t work for whatever reason, or who can’t work enough to get by…
Hopefully Prof doesn’t jump on me for proof-texting ( ) but one thing that comes to mind is how the Bible often mentions taking care of the orphan and the widow… and I think this can apply not only to those who are in fact literal orphans or widows in need (which still exist, even to this day, sadly, as we all know), but also anyone else who is not in a position, for whatever reason, to take care of themselves even if they wanted to…
It may well be that God helps those who help themselves (not a quote from scripture but a quote from Ben Franklin, we must all keep in mind ), but I know for a fact that God helps the helpless, and that’s for sure.
This whole thing hits close to home for me. I for one work, and a lot I might add. Lately I’ve been working six days a week, about 45+ hours. It’s taxing, but I’m willing and able, and the more money I make, the more I can share it with others (though I am hoping to get back down to five days a week soon, it would be nice to have a full weekend off again).
But my dad, who lives on the Oregon coast, gave up working some years ago, and is now living on disability. He probably could work, despite his physical issues, but he really doesn’t want to. Like myself, my dad was a janitor, and he did that for about thirty years and is just burned out, and I can’t blame him for that. I’ve been doing it for ten years, and I’m already feeling a bit burned out myself.
But my dad feels kind of entitled, as a Navy vet and as a guy who busted his ass (excuse my French) cleaning toilets for thirty + years, and though he may not be right to feel that way, I can understand where he’s coming from.
I also have some friends who live in large part off the government, and aren’t ashamed to take advantage of the system when the opportunity presents itself.
And yet otherwise they are wonderful, down-to-earth people.
Also I take literally what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount about giving to someone who is asking for help. If anyone asks me for help, I help in whatever way I can, if someone even asks for money, I give them some money, whatever they are asking for (within reason), or whatever I feel led to give, and don’t insist on being paid back.
I think by and large this is a complicated issue. It’s not really something you can put into a formula and paint with a broad brush. You have to take a different approach in every situation, because every situation is different.
In the case of those who just can’t work, for whatever reason, and need help, we should help in whatever way we can, if God leads us to meet any of their needs. And in the case of those who could work but choose not, we should try not to enable them in their dependent lifestyle, and should try to encourage them and help them to find work, while not judging them or looking down on them for it.
I think giving a handout to everyone isn’t the answer, but then neither is just telling everyone to get off their butt and go and get a job, which often isn’t as simple as it sounds, especially in a struggling economy.
And another thing to keep in mind is that God calls those of us who have to help those who have not.
Those who have wealth (and by the world’s standards, at $20,000 + a year, I’d be a wealthy man) are meant to share their wealth, and not hoard it greedily.
I think many of the problems in this world would be alleviated if people who could afford to share their wealth, which God has blessed them with, would share it freely and generously, as they are meant to. Some do, which is wonderful, but there are many who don’t, which is sad.
I read somewhere that the cost of providing the needs of food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and basic education to everyone in need on the planet for a whole year would be something like four billion, give or take. Of course that is an astronomical amount of money to me, but if all the rich people, especially in my country, pooled their resources together, or, heck, even if the whole church, especially in my country, pooled their resources together, they could foot that bill every year if they wanted to. Instead of spending their money on fancy mansions or megachurch buildings, they could do some real good.
As for myself, and most of us, there is only so much we can do.
There’s a little girl named Mama Chalu that I sponsor in Zambia for about $30 a month through Children International, and just knowing that somehow I’m making some kind of difference in her life honestly makes me feel good.
And I like Children International’s motto: ‘I am only one, so I cannot do everything. But still I am one, so I can do something.’
I think that’s all that God asks of us, to do something, and not just sit on the sidelines and Scrooge our blessings.
Those who are very rich, the millionaires and the billionaires of the world, I believe have a higher and more difficult calling, because great wealth can easily corrupt and ensnare a person, and money can easily become their god.
I admire those among the very rich who resist this temptation and who do give generously and freely. We need more people like that…
But for the rest of us, we can always do something, even if it may not seem like much.
And with the holidays coming up, there will be many opportunities to do something, to share with others, to bless others, and may God lead us and guide us all in that, so people will see a little more of God’s grace and love in this world, which is always needed.
Well, I think I’ve said my piece. Carry on puddy, and blessings to you bro, and blessings to you all.
You are a kind hearted man. Same with everyone else that has responded. I like your honesty when you say “As for myself, and most of us, there is only so much we can do” What scares me is what happens if we enter a severe economic downturn. Possibly a depression?
I want to respond to nimblewill and his comment “I’m a public school teacher and when I see a kid with dirty ragged clothing and who only get decent meals at school I can’t help but believe that we should do something to help out.”
I actually agree with you, but what makes it difficult is to help out while respecting parental authority. These are not easy answers, but unfortunately I believe society is over simplifying the solutions. I would suggest that whatever is done for children , they need to know they are more than just objects of charity. This will not give them self worth. Real interest has to be taken in their lives. Let’s say you find out he loves classical music. Taking him to a Beethoven symphony would mean the world to that child.
We are too eager to see the benifits of handouts, but are we open to seeing some of the drawbacks? andrewcort.com/welfare.html
I will post a new Proposition this Thursday.
God bless
Puddy
My husband and I just got back from a ** banquet and it was wonderful to hear the stories of what’s going on in people’s lives and also to see the generosity with which people gave, at the desert auction, was amazing. One of the things this group does is provide new school clothes for kids, and I never wanted to take part because it just seemed so embarrassing to go out and buy clothes for someone else’s kids. It’s as bad as delivering Christmas baskets. Who would want to do that? It’s got to be agonizing and humiliating for the people on the receiving end. I don’t want to witness their shame at not being able to provide for their own children.
So anyhow, ** changed their protocol for providing the clothing. Yes we want kids to have decent clothes to wear to school. That’s important. But do we want to be mommy? NO! We want Mommy to be mommy. So ** now helps the real mommy to “leverage” her money instead of just handing out the clothes. For $10, Mommy gets around $150 - $175 worth of clothes for her child. If she has five kids and that’s an impossible figure for her, she can commit to attending life skills classes (which ever class she chooses) provided by **, and if she does this, ** will waive the fees for providing clothing. So while she is being substantially helped, she IS at least doing something. And at least a few of the mommies who have opted to take a class have carried on with taking more classes even after their obligatory class has been completed. It has been the start of at least the desire, for a genuine life change.
But I have to respectfully say that it’s flat out harmful to people who are able (and not disabled) and who choose not to work, to be given funds anyway. It doesn’t mean these can’t be nice people, the ones accepting the government funds, but it absolutely is not good for them. No, working is not generally fun. But frankly the people whose money is being taken to support those who just don’t feel like working – those workers probably would rather not work so hard either. It is not right to force other people to do for you what you can (but choose not to) do for yourself. If Sally wasn’t supporting Jeff (who chooses not to work), she could help several third world children (and she might just do that, too). If this is the case, then Jeff is taking money from impoverished third world children because he’d rather play around with street art and video games than get a job. He could, like Sally, still do his fun things in his spare time.
I wish, wish, wish that supporting and feeding the world’s hungry under-priviledged people were as simple as tossing a couple of billion dollars at it. If the Palestinians only had all the money that’s been given in their behalf, they would be wealthy people – after all, there aren’t that many of them. But it’s gone into the accounts of a few powerful men – which is exactly where so very many of our well-intentioned charitable dollars do go. Yasser Arafat comes to mind, for one.
No, before you can, physically, GIVE to that widow in Africa, you have to first root out the totalitarian dictator through whose hands your gift must first pass (and will get stuck there every time), then you have to get your support past the rebels who just drove her and the rest of the village out of their hovels, and then you’ll have to search her out, where she is cowering with her five surviving children in the jungle with nothing to eat and no way to keep warm, but at least safe for the moment from the bullets and machetes of the men who would like to be the new ruling junta of the country she happens to live in. If she fails to hide her 10 year old son and 12 year old daughter successfully, they could become soldiers in the rebel leader’s ranks, forced to be, basically, cannon fodder for the “revolution.” Handing out dollars or even handing out rice isn’t going to fix that.
That particular scenario comes to mind because an indigenous team we help to support in the Congo is in danger of just that, since pretty much that exact situation has come upon their city in the last couple of days. We’re hoping to hear from them, but internet connections are difficult in the jungle.
Anyway, I guess my point is that while it is a very simple matter to repair the front steps of the elderly lady who lives in your block, it isn’t nearly as easy to help the world’s poor. In much of the world, they are poor, by and large, because their government WANTS them poor. To help them, you’d have to overthrow the government and then defend against the encroachment of neighboring states who would also like to have the resources of that country.
So yeah – difficult. With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. I think we all agree that failing to help the poor is NOT an option, whether they are “us” or “them.” The question is how best to accomplish that. I admire you, Matthew, because I know your situation is a difficult one and I know how much you’d like to get married, but are waiting for the sake of helping your loved ones financially – and yet you still give to those around you who are in need. That is the grace and love of God in you, Bro. You don’t just say, “Why aren’t the wealthy giving?” but you give of yourself and your funds even though you are not wealthy. Therefore you, my brother, have a right to speak. You have a lot of wisdom and I’m blessed to have you for a friend and a brother.
I should try and be less obscure and less jaded in communication (as the always even tempered and sweet hearted Matt is gently pointing out ).
The first thing I mean is that I think we need to see what a range of different biblical texts teach us about any given issue
Regarding work –
We have the central commandment of the Sabbath – work needs to be integrated into rhythms of rest. We can’t always be working getting and spending – the fullness of life lies somewhere else. This sense God’s Sabbath seems t me to be taken up in Jesus urging us in The Sermon on the Mount to ‘consider the lilies’
We have the narratives of liberation for slavery – work should not be forced and should not be degrading. Good work is meant to be something that accords with the wellbeing of workers that are created in image of God (so good work should be at least in some sense creative work – and creativity can be many things; and good work should be work that contributes to the wellbeing of our neighbours in some way and that we can undertake for the Glory of God, no matter how seemingly humble our calling is –
A servant with this clause
Makes drudgerie divine:
Who sweeps a room, as for thy laws,
Makes that and th’ action fine.
Of course we do have the curse in the story of the Fall –‘by the sweat of thy brow shalt thou labour’ and throughout Christian history some in power have used this text to justify harsh exploitation of the labouring classes. However, like many Christians I prefer to see our resurrection into unity as the keynote for my understanding of the bible (rather than exclusively concentrating on our fall into division).
We also have the many passages about justice for the poor in the Old Testament prophets – a tradition that Jesus continues – and these suggest to me that work should not be exploitative.
It’s against these wide biblical themes that I place the few comments Paul makes about work.
Also I try to see Paul’s saying in the context in which he wrote them –
His insistence that those who do not work should not eat makes complete sense in a small community in which all goods are held in common. It’s actually a dereliction of duty in loving your neighbour not to pull your weight in these circumstances. And it is very important in this setting that community leaders show the way by example – and also do their bit. I don’t think Paul intended that people should starve if they don’t work – I think they’d just have to leave the community for having broken faith with its hospitality (if they didn’t repent).
What to make of his quotation of the Greek liar paradox in Titus?.. Well that’s an interesting one. Puddy of course I agree with you that Paul was a bold man and true, and I don’t think Paul was purely joking here– in the sense of saying something he didn’t mean. He certainly does want to urge Cretan Christians to get off their butts and pull their weight . But Paul does use wit in his letters – and occasionally the wit is sharp and peppery (I don’t think it is necessary to always hear his voice as one that thunders like Charlton Heston – indeed it doesn’t always make the best sense of the text to think this). For example in Galatians Paul – exasperated by the Judaising party in the early church that wanted to make circumcision a badge of Church membership for Gentiles - comments ‘I wish the knife would slip’ (and lop off their vitals presumably). The comment in Titus strikes me again as peppery wit – it presupposes a well known paradox a the time about the Cretan who says ‘all Cretan’s are lairs, lazy and gluttons’ – and it seems to me that Paul is saying something like – and the way you are behaving you are demonstrating the truth of the Cretan’s famous lie’. It’s a way of saying ‘get your collective fingers out’ with a stern twinkle thrown in.
Er that’s it –
WORLD VISION is a reputable Christian charitable organization — worthy of support. Only 4.8% of contributions go to the administration of WV. Now 14.4% goes to fundraising. That seems a bit high. I, myself, question whether that much should be spent for that purpose. In any case, that leaves 80.8% which goes directly for provision of help for the needy throughout the world. Here is a linkt to WV, in case you are interested in finding out more about it.
I just kept your wording (more or less), Puddy. If you’d like a different title, let me know. It can be anything as long as it isn’t any longer than this one I’ve changed it to.
.
It’s an unending task! I am a conservative and I agree with you that people do need to work – not so much for the good of those of us who might otherwise be forced to feed them, but for their own sakes.
), but I know for a fact that God helps the helpless, and that’s for sure. 
