Well, if you take it from the point of view that WE, the church, are supposed to care for those who are in poverty, then I guess I could see how this would make sense. But in order for us to do that, there would have to BE somebody living in economic poverty for us to help. Circular argument, IMO.
There have to be poor (economic) for there to be people to help.
Deuteronomy 15:7, 11 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.
If God didn't intend for there to be poor, then why did he say there would always be poor?
The argument I'm referring to is that one cannot, nor cannot be expected to, eliminate poverty. Particularly through gov't programs. Because it completely invalidates Jesus' mandate to CHARITABLY take care of the poor.
One could say my prevailing argument would be that Jesus was and would be a capitalist, because in order for the church to care for the poor, we must have varying levels of wealth, in order to *identify* the poor.
Well, I think that argument leaves out a couple of things when we're trying to apply it to reality. First, that not every nation has enough Christians to effectively raise up the poor (and according to God's plan, there will also always be non-believers) or would accept help from Christians in other nations. Second, let's be honest, is that not all Christians really do a good job of serving. And I don't think it would be reasonable for a government to say "okay, we're not going to take care of our poor anymore, that's the Christians' job." In fact I think that if Obama said that tomorrow there'd be a whole heck of a lot of Christians brandishing pitchforks and saying "that's not our responsibility, they should be working to pull themselves up" (which they should, but that doesn't eliminate OUR responsibility for them). I also feel I should point out that Jesus wasn't strictly against taxes ("render unto Caesar all that is Caesar's" and all that), so why shouldn't those taxes also be used to help the poor? And we're not talking politics, we're talking Jesus. ;-)
I'll gladly hear anything you have to offer to the contrary.
I've always understood the "render unto Caesar" (which also includes "render unto God") passage a question of loyalties. What Jesus is saying--and again, this is my understanding, and I'm open to anything you have to the contrary--is that if one renders unto God what is God's, one renders EVERYTHING to God. Does this mean we shouldn't pay taxes? No, because we also need to submit to the government. But it means that GOD has given us and is responsible for EVERYTHING we have, and for a government to tax citizens to death (at this time next year most middle class citizens will see their tax rate at 43%...that's nearly half of one's income) under the guise of "charity" is idolizing government and what it could/should/ought to do.
Which is the whole point of Jesus' speech on "taxes."
The point in "render to Caesar" was that we are to follow Man's laws (unless they contradict God's laws) and God's laws. Man's laws are to pay taxes, etc. God's laws are to not steal, covet, commit adultery, etc. They're not mutually exclusive -- in fact, most of the laws of Man were created from laws of God. Coincidence? I think not.
Again...Jesus never intended for the government to tax us to "enable" us to give charitably. It means nothing if that's how we do it, and not out of the goodness of our hearts.
Well, if you take it from the point of view that WE, the church, are supposed to care for those who are in poverty, then I guess I could see how this would make sense. But in order for us to do that, there would have to BE somebody living in economic poverty for us to help. Circular argument, IMO.
ReplyDeleteBy George, you *might* be understanding what my argument has been all these years.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm, since I'm not sure what argument you're referring to, I'm guessing not. :-P
ReplyDeleteThere have to be poor (economic) for there to be people to help.
ReplyDeleteDeuteronomy 15:7, 11
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.
If God didn't intend for there to be poor, then why did he say there would always be poor?
The argument I'm referring to is that one cannot, nor cannot be expected to, eliminate poverty. Particularly through gov't programs. Because it completely invalidates Jesus' mandate to CHARITABLY take care of the poor.
ReplyDeleteOne could say my prevailing argument would be that Jesus was and would be a capitalist, because in order for the church to care for the poor, we must have varying levels of wealth, in order to *identify* the poor.
ReplyDeleteBut that's politics, and we don't have to talk about that. ;-)
ReplyDeleteWell, I think that argument leaves out a couple of things when we're trying to apply it to reality. First, that not every nation has enough Christians to effectively raise up the poor (and according to God's plan, there will also always be non-believers) or would accept help from Christians in other nations. Second, let's be honest, is that not all Christians really do a good job of serving. And I don't think it would be reasonable for a government to say "okay, we're not going to take care of our poor anymore, that's the Christians' job." In fact I think that if Obama said that tomorrow there'd be a whole heck of a lot of Christians brandishing pitchforks and saying "that's not our responsibility, they should be working to pull themselves up" (which they should, but that doesn't eliminate OUR responsibility for them).
ReplyDeleteI also feel I should point out that Jesus wasn't strictly against taxes ("render unto Caesar all that is Caesar's" and all that), so why shouldn't those taxes also be used to help the poor?
And we're not talking politics, we're talking Jesus. ;-)
Because that's not the purpose of taxes, nor was it in Caesar's day.
ReplyDeleteK, then. :-)
ReplyDeleteI'll gladly hear anything you have to offer to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteI've always understood the "render unto Caesar" (which also includes "render unto God") passage a question of loyalties. What Jesus is saying--and again, this is my understanding, and I'm open to anything you have to the contrary--is that if one renders unto God what is God's, one renders EVERYTHING to God. Does this mean we shouldn't pay taxes? No, because we also need to submit to the government. But it means that GOD has given us and is responsible for EVERYTHING we have, and for a government to tax citizens to death (at this time next year most middle class citizens will see their tax rate at 43%...that's nearly half of one's income) under the guise of "charity" is idolizing government and what it could/should/ought to do.
Which is the whole point of Jesus' speech on "taxes."
Again, in MY reading.
The point in "render to Caesar" was that we are to follow Man's laws (unless they contradict God's laws) and God's laws. Man's laws are to pay taxes, etc. God's laws are to not steal, covet, commit adultery, etc. They're not mutually exclusive -- in fact, most of the laws of Man were created from laws of God. Coincidence? I think not.
ReplyDeleteAgain...Jesus never intended for the government to tax us to "enable" us to give charitably. It means nothing if that's how we do it, and not out of the goodness of our hearts.
ReplyDelete