May

Discussion of Christian Charity

On April 10, 2009, I posted an article called Caesar’s Benevolence in the 10 Things I Hate About Taxes series. I criticized the supposed “charity” that the government “provides” through its welfare services, and showed that government does not have it within its nature to be truly benevolent.

An interesting discussion ensued between a commenter named Cathy and myself. She had a genuine concern for the well-being of those who have a hard time helping themselves, and I thought our discussion was very fruitful. With her permission, I have put together all of our comments (briefly edited) into this article in hopes that others may benefit as well. As libertarians, we emphasize rightly how the free market works to make people better off. However, we don’t always talk about how the envisioned charitable institutions will work. Cathy makes the excellent point that we should consider such things for the future.

Here is how the conversation proceeded…

————–

CATHY:

I hate taxes. However, I have an observation: the arithmetic assumes that all those from whom the government steals “for charitable purposes” will voluntarily contribute to any philanthropic or charitable entity without government coercion or control.

Haven’t other stats shown that in fact liberals are 90% stingier than church-going people and conservatives? So everything the government takes from liberals, even at its grossly inefficient ratio, would be lost to any charitable cause.

For simplification, let’s assume a neat 50/50 split between the two broad classifications of liberals and conservatives. If 50% of the measly 25% in government taxes is eliminated, doesn’t that in fact leave a huge hole for private charity to try to fill?

On the other hand, I suppose it could be argued that people prone to charity might give more and thus shrink the gap. Furthermore, isn’t it also known that most people give to churches/charities knowing they would get a tax break on it (one of the most insidious of Christian compromises with government — but now Obama’s rescinded)?

Wouldn’t that mean that those who obey Christ in their giving would have to bear an even heavier burden?

Isn’t the bottom line that – if we abolish the 16th Amendment, the Fed, and the IRS (all of which I am in favor of doing!) – we are faced with drastically cutting humanitarian aid to our neighbors, and then organizing local groups of people regardless of whether they’re liberal or conservative or Christian to meet the needs of those truly in need?

I’m in favor of this, but I see many problems ahead and many more people than at present falling through the cracks while the kinks are smoothed out.

What do all of you think?

————–

NORMAN:

The thing is Cathy, I think that those neo-liberals who SAY people should give but do not give their own money should still NOT have their money taken from them in the form of taxes in order to do public charity work. Plenty of people do not act in accordance with what they preach, yet that is, in effect, their right.

Government tends to mismanage and misallocate money dedicated to charitable work. Allowing that money to be retained by the original owners will allow them to determine what is an appropriate giving response, spending response, and investment response. Each of those will work to make people better off because of the win-win nature of trade and economic growth (see part 10 of this series). In the long run, all people are better off – including the poor in this country and beyond – when we honor each others’ choices rather than use coercion to control actions. (That may not exactly have been what you were getting at, but I hope that helps.)

You are correct that there will likely be people that fall through the cracks. Libertarians don’t promise a puppies-and-rainbows world. HOWEVER, people are ALREADY falling through the cracks, and I sincerely think that the chance of falling through the cracks is drastically reduced in the free society that libertarians envision. Make sense?

————–

CATHY:

Hi, Norman. Thanks for responding.

Do you have any solid numbers to support the contention that “the chance of falling through the cracks is drastically reduced in the free society libertarians envision”?

That’s what I’m getting at. There will be MORE thrown out on the street; forget “ALREADY.” The point is MORE, and the numbers will be huge.

Mainly because we haven’t had a Christian, restrained, moral society for perhaps 200 years now. We don’t know how to rear responsible citizens in the home; there is no moral consensus in our society. “As long as you don’t harm someone else” is hardly conducive to “DO GOOD to all.” If the impetus isn’t to actively DO GOOD, very little good will actually be done voluntarily. And that is anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

I am a Christian Libertarian. But I do see the point of the “liberals” that people who CAN’T take care of themselves will be forsaken as people struggle with far more limited means to maintain their care.

While Christ said we will always have the poor with us, was that an endorsement for ignoring them, for not using a government we do have a voice in (unlike He did under the Roman occupation of Israel) to obey His command at Luke 10:25-37 to “Go, and do likewise” as a Church/society, rather than narrowly as limited individuals?

Wasn’t one of Reagan’s cost-cutting actions to stop funding many mental institutions, with the result that overnight we had people on the street — which we now call “the homeless.” There were not these people on the street before Reagan took office. Most of the people on the street now are mental cases incapable of looking after themselves (alcoholism, drug addiction, and PTSD don’t help), and even with present government programs we cannot seem to deal with them as behooves the dignity of human beings created in the image of God. But at least there are at least as many who are getting the (expensive) care they need.

What will happen when even those grossly bloated and inefficient government programs are no more?

There are some people in my family I am incapable of taking care of, either physically, psychologically, medically, or monetarily. And I don’t want to see them wandering the streets, dirty, cold, sick, miserable, with rags for clothing, pushing plastic bags and trash around as their “household goods and treasures,” eating out of trash cans. As I see someone’s family members doing daily all over this country.

These people can’t work; they are thus not under Paul’s admonition to work or starve. What about them?

It’s insulting to imply I naively expect a “puppies-and-rainbows world.” But neither can I accept that Christian libertarians are excused by Christ for turning their eyes away from those He made clear at Matthew 25 He identifies with, either.

Christ’s message was for individuals, but it wasn’t about individualism. And I’m simply asking what is the plan for those whom Christ loves as much as He loves us, and for whom He also died, who cannot — not will not, but cannot — take care of themselves? Has anyone thought about this, and if not, why not? If so, what’s the plan, and shouldn’t it be published everywhere to help sell our libertarian, individual liberties, small-government position?

I think one of the obstructions to the larger society’s acceptance of the libertarian position is that it fails to take into consideration human frailty and the unpredictable vicissitudes of life. It’s not just someone else who may be unfortunate enough to become a walking vegetable, an “untouchable,” but by tomorrow, it could be me. Then what? Who will take care of me? I see that outside of government institutions and some church outreaches, no one takes care of others; therefore I conclude that if all government programs were shut down, and churches lose much of their funding, no one will take care of me. And this conclusion is right.

My “individualism” will overnight turn into absolute invisibility, and I will be left to die and be buried (maybe) as if I’d never existed. And none of the utilitarian individualists will care; in fact, their philosophy by definition rules out caring for anyone not capable of exercising their own sovereign individuality.

This is the specter haunting libertarianism, even Christian libertarianism. The flaw is that because all consciences are equally entitled to their personal preferences (moral relativism), logically, there is no social moral claim on anyone’s conscience, hence society has no moral claim on the individual, other than condemnation of outright and deliberate harm to another.

James the Apostle says there are sins of omission just as there are sins of commission. And perhaps omission is the greater sin, as it’s personal, private, and not subject to scrutiny and correction from without?

So, what do libertarians envision for the care of those who cannot care for themselves? Other than chance?

Do you see?

————–

NORMAN:

Right off, I need to apologize – I didn’t mean to sound insulting with my “puppies and rainbows” thing. It’s just a silly way I like to say that I do not promise a Utopian world of bliss. Bad things will happen. People are going to get hurt, there will be aggression. Yet, I do think that a society where institutionalized aggression – the State – is used as the basis of charity cannot work in the long run. That’s my primary thesis.

In my experience, there are relatively few cases where people are flat out incapable of helping themselves. Yet, they do exist. How then might we address these?

First off, we must recognize that many, many resources are being used in the form of “charity” for people who can and SHOULD help themselves. When those resources are freed up and those people who can work do, then production takes place and wealth can be saved. This is the only way in the first place (further savings) for how charity can ultimately take place.

With these savings in place, individuals will be able to choose adequately where to be charitable. I suspect that, just as we have now, many churches (like my own) will be able to minister actively to those people who cannot help themselves. There will probably continue to be charitable organizations supported by multiple groups (including religious groups) that work these things out. Furthermore, the families of those “helpless” ones – assuming that they do care for them – will likely be active as well in pursuing their well-being.

Keep in mind that it was only in the eras of prosperity — when everyone didn’t have to farm in order to survive — that institutions arose to help better meet the needs of those who didn’t function in society. To claim further, then, that the government is the only way to help these people in the end seems to ignore the very conditions whereby the benevolent organizations were created in the first place. (I recognize you’re not saying this implicitly, I’m just illustrating the point.)

All in all, the point still stands – charity forced at the point of a gun is not charity at all. It is immoral — but it’s also going to be inefficient to help effectively. We may not understand, nor can we predict, exactly how benevolent organizations will emerge on the free market – just as we cannot anticipate what technological innovations will take place – but we CAN recognize from history that by allowing the market to work these institutions are very likely to emerge. Maybe you’ll be one of the great innovators in this area!

Does that explain the position better?

————–

CATHY:

Hi, Norman. Thank you again. And thanks for clearing up the implication of my naivete.

I agree absolutely that government — especially at the point of a gun — cannot (and adamantly MUST NOT!) force “charity.” That is not my point; I’m not looking for government to do that which Christians should be doing.

I’m simply asking if anyone’s thought about the implications of pure individualism, and if anyone’s thought about how to avoid the inevitable fallout from abruptly withdrawing government from those areas. Without the funds present through taxation of those who otherwise would not voluntarily give to charity or care for anyone else, Christians will have to carry that burden. Are Christians prepared?

My concern is that those people who cannot care for themselves NOT “fall through the cracks” because Christians didn’t look ahead and plan ahead to make sure that doesn’t happen to those people helplessly at their mercy. Now is the time, I believe, to be floating those ideas and plans. That is what I’m suggesting.

Yeah, I’d bell the cat, except I don’t have bells, strings, or any other means myself (to say nothing of being able to evade the teeth and claws), which is why I’m concerned about those people like some family members otherwise slated to be collateral damage — to fall through the cracks. If I can’t care for them, and the extorted money to do it is removed, and the Christian community doesn’t seem to have a clue, who will?

Balderdash on no one can predict or understand how benevolent organizations will emerge in the free market. There’s plenty of precedent to learn from and build on. Is anyone doing that, in anticipation of freedom from government coercion and taxation? Are there any plans to seal up the cracks? That’s the question. WHY should anyone HAVE to fall through the cracks?

————–

NORMAN:

Okay, I see what you’re saying now: your primary concern is the actual institutions that will come forth and provide for those needs.

My initial answer is a quite honest, “I am not sure.” Keep in mind that I didn’t say that no one can predict or understand how benevolent organizations will emerge in the free market, but rather that we, by that I mean you and I, may not understand/predict how it will happen – at least not in full. But even right after that, I said that we can recognize from history that these things DID emerge, meaning we can LEARN from history. Have I, personally, studied this in detail? Nope, sure haven’t.

I do know of a gentleman named Kevin Hodgkins at Univ. of Alabama is writing his dissertation on non-profits and argues that the “third sector” is a contrivance of the State. He is well versed in the history of charitable organizations. I should see if I still have his paper…

You can listen to Kevin’s talk at the Austrian Scholars Conference 2009 to learn more, or you can read his paper.

I don’t know if Christians are prepared. At this moment, if we had our druthers and could push the big red button to vaporize the state, I kind of doubt it. But again, I’m not certain. Christians throughout history have risen to the occasion to help needy people.

You are right, we need to be thinking about such things, just like we should try to figure out how to provide services that the State normally runs for the future libertarian society as well.

Tell you what, would you be interested in writing about some of this stuff further? I think these comments, briefly edited, would actually make a thought-provoking blog post here at LCC, maybe even at LewRockwell.com. Opening up this conversation to others would probably be worthwhile. Perhaps after that we could write an article together with some more elaboration about what those charitable organizations would look like? How does that sound to you?

————–

CATHY:

Hi, Norman. Sorry I haven’t visited in a few days . . . life, you know.

Sounds like Mr. Hodgkins will have some workable solutions. His thesis should be a veritable gold mine.

If we got rid of the 16th Amendment, the Fed, and the IRS, charitable deductions/non-profits would cease to exist, as they should. Congressman Ron Paul has often written about his experiences as a doctor affiliated with a hospital and how they handled indigent cases. Why is that so hard to do today? Because government wants control and every penny they can steal.

In the past, wasn’t it mainly Catholic charities that pioneered and carried most of the burdens of helping those who cannot help themselves? Convents and monasteries were the major players in starting hospitals, refuges, shelters, hospices…

Where are the Protestants willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their Catholic brethren to pick up the slack, who now grudgingly write checks to get back their tax deductions for “being good”? And, ironically, the government has just begun to deny those very tax deductions!

Will there be Christians to pick up the pieces without demanding money back from their “donations,” and without demanding their names be plastered all over the place so people — especially those who must use their “services” and facilities — will know who their “benefactors” are (people, and not God)?

Where are those Christians who will love and serve simply because Jesus said to, without needing credit or tax deductions for it in return? Who will give freely and cheerfully to those in need, rather than to a church; offerings RATHER THAN a fixed “tithe”?

Where are those Christians who will support those who must devote full time to helping those who cannot help themselves?

And what about qualified Christians who would further Christ’s love and principles in treatments and programs, rather than the overwhelming majority of today’s secular philosophies and goals?

I ask the question because it seems to me if there were more orthodox Christians in these fields, there would not be the woefully lopsided majority of secularists in all the helping fields today. We let it go; it’s gone. What will happen if our revolution succeeds? Who will recruit/replace/moderate the needed, qualified, experienced but misguided people dominating the helping fields?

And who will stand against the perfectly rational pragmatists advocating euthanasia as a valid means of sustaining an equitable libertarian society? If you’re truly a libertarian, then no one should have power over life and death — and yet libertarianism is also the ultimate utilitarian philosophy. Practical and economic factors, if not enclosed in and checked by a species-specific and Christian humane philosophy, will demand society decide whose life is productively and economically sustainable and whose is not and should not be further supported.

This is anathema to Christianity. And to humanity.

Accidents happen without getting permission first. Some of us are born into this world unable ever to take care of oneself. If not killed by an accident first, we all get old and die, and should be able to without getting permission to.

But even now all that’s changing.

What worries me is that the vast majority of today’s Christians have no idea what the Bible really says, what Jesus said, what our Christian history is, how we really got to where we are, and chillingly, they really don’t care. And without this knowledge and understanding, there cannot possibly be a civil, Christian society, no matter if it’s truly a libertarian society.

With the upheaval of abolishing big government, with our economy truly in the tank, who’s going to have the time, much less the money (what money?!), to take care of others? In the dust kicked up in the struggle, who will see those who are already fallen — and who truly CAN’T get up?

While it is right and true that every human being, bearing the image of the Creator Himself, is entitled to the freedom to be left alone by others, as long as he does no harm to others, it is also true that God Himself expects those who call themselves by His Name and are able to use that freedom to help and carry the burdens of others — who equally bear His image.

But where is that teaching among Christian libertarians, or even in our churches today?

Just as there are the more “popular,” known sins of commission (among them the philosophy that human government should be given the power to regulate all facets of life, dictate and tax), there are equally heinous sins of OMISSION. This is first and foremost concerned with neglecting our needy and helpless brothers, neighbors, even enemies.

It is the sin of omission that has given us the government we have today: through it we have more convenient, and distant, ways of helping others; we don’t have to do it ourselves. It enables us to not have to be concerned except in the most remote and abstract ways about others.

What was Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan all about? And then, when asked (incredibly!) “What should we then do?” Jesus replied, “Go, and do likewise.”

Isn’t this the gist of the Gospels? The Great Commission? Jesus’ own sacrifice?

Looking out for others first.

Otherwise, we would have no remedy for our sin and damnation. We would all have fallen through the eternal cracks, with absolutely no recourse. After all, God is the first and ultimate libertarian. He is obligated to no one for anything.

Yet He created us, to love and to love Him in return. And when we didn’t, He yet intervened for us so if we to choose we can. He carried our burden. He personally saw to it we don’t have to fall through the eternal cracks.

Is Christian libertarianism merely survival of the fittest with “Christ” tacked on to make it more palatable to some frustrated Christians, or does it matter which is first: libertarian, or Christian?

Libertarianism, pure, has no obligations or duties to anything or anyone else but to self. (And I am convinced this is the major reason there aren’t more “converts;” most people recognize we DO have duties to others, and that self ISN’T all there is.)

Christianity is all about obligations and duties, first to God/Jesus Christ, then to the rest of mankind. (But Christianity has been used as an excuse to force others into obligations that aren’t rightfully theirs, both at the end of a gun and through oppressive and unjust laws. And now it’s payback time!)

I believe elements of the two can be harmonized, but we who are Christian need to do that now, and prepare for a future of freedom and liberty, given as our unalienable birthright by God, unfettered, yet with some God-ordained and needful obligations and duties as well.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other (except for those who are not Christian; this is a good way of discerning true Christians from all others). And for Christians, it must not be. But Christians must be thinking and talking about this. And if unnecessary collateral damage is to be avoided (along with the necessary condemnation it will bring on our own heads), we MUST take the innovative lead in all the discussions, and propose and make real viable plans in preparation for a new civil society based on the sanctity and protection of life, liberty, property, justice, and Christian — voluntary and positive — love.

What if Christian libertarians actually put out workable ideas for programs that would appeal to everyone currently fed up with and (rightfully!) suspicious of our government?

Proposals/plans for making sure there is little to no “collateral damage” if we WERE actually to get rid of big government, especially its fuel, income taxes?

What happens to all those government workers, civil and military? We’re not getting traction because too many people actually do depend on government and would lose everything if it were dismantled. This is in addition to those people I’ve been talking about who truly cannot take care of themselves.

Until those people can be convinced that fending for themselves is actually viable and in their best interests — material benefits — this isn’t going to change.

If some really smart and knowledgeable people put out there in the blogosphere and it blossoms into other media, and through word-of-mouth, ideas for programs and plans that could even now be begun and that would only increase in benefits, efficiency, suitability, more people would join the movement to repeal the 16th Amendment, end the Fed, and abolish the IRS.

I believe it could all be done at the local/community level, but there must be viable plans/programs to staff and fund and sustain these needed services.

If the proposals/ideas are good enough, they’d spread like wildfire on the Internet. I think that’s all it would take. Then the revolution would have no excuse for not happening!

Your kind offer: Please forgive me for copping out on you; I’m not qualified to write about this stuff further. I have no knowledge or expertise in any field dealing with any of this. I simply have SOME observations, from a very limited perspective. You know, the old “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”? I also have a thin skin, and readily admit I couldn’t handle all the upbraidings and criticisms that would (rightly?) be aimed at me. I’m very opinionated about a lot of stuff, but perhaps not well equipped to deal with differing opinions, especially when demands are — justifiably — made to bell the cat, which I can’t.

You’re welcome to use anything you think is of value that I’ve written, and you don’t need to mention my name specifically to glean the important issues and ideas and get them out there. If anything is of value, just throw out there what’s needed or calculated to spark thought and ideas; that would be enough.

A revolution with no follow-up is analogous to shooting oneself in the foot (you have a deadly weapon, it makes a great deal of noise, and inflicts crippling pain, but . . . !); that is what I meant to point out.

I want the revolution because of the promise of the follow-up, but I see nowhere anyone addressing the follow-up, only of somehow doing the revolting.

————–

NORMAN:

Cathy, you’ve given me some good things to think about, I’m excited about turning this into an article for everyone to read. I’ll let you know when I’m finished. Now that the semester is over, I’ll have a little more time to mess with this. Again, thanks for your participation here, I’m so glad you’ve chosen to spend your time with us!

————–

Norman Horn

Norman is the founder and editor of LibertarianChristians.com. He holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from the Austin Graduate School of Theology.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

Tags: charity, economics, theology

Categories : Articles

http://lexic0n.blogspot.com/ Jeff Herron

A fascinating and timely dialog. Thanks for posting it in its entirety here.

Just as it is presumptuous for central bankers to believe they can effectively plan in advance something as complicated as a national economy for some 300 million people, it seems to me it is equally presumptuous for anyone to think we can come up with solutions for the problems outlined in the dialog above — especially given that the scenario under which said solutions would be operative does not exist today and the form it would be likely to take is also incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to project as well.

Ron Paul’s notion of slowly and steadily phasing out government programs strikes me as the most workable solution in an unbroken union. However, it would require significant political will over decades, and I do not know if we have ever seen such a thing on the political stage – in America or anywhere else in all of history.

It is becoming more clear to me that the only path back to Christian values informed politically and economically by a classically liberal philosophy lies along the road of secession. A small state comprised of like-minded individuals has a much better chance of accomplishing its goals than does an unwieldy behemoth of 300 million. As the US Constitution was originally written, each state is to be sovereign in itself in almost every matter. But I do not see the current federal government relinquishing its hammerlock on the states any time soon. The states may have to force the issue.

I also wanted to say that a free market economy, which we have only rarely seen in this country or any other, can produce favorable results that we cannot possibly imagine. Just think: If the US dollar had not been devalued by as much as 95% since the Fed was established, and if private individuals and private businesses alike were unfettered from their tremendous tax burden — how much better off would each person be? If I had to pay no income tax and had a dollar that possessed 95% more purchasing power than it does today, I could single-handedly provide for everyone on my street, should the need arise. And I am not a wealthy man by any means.

I think of the biblical model of the judges, and I see that such a model may work very well in a Christian libertarian society. As long as the judge is a faithful follower of Christ, his community will be well provided for. Dallas Willard has written more extensively about this model, so I will not elaborate further here.

You have given me much to ponder. Thanks again for the forum and the dialog.
http://lexic0n.blogspot.com/ Jeff Herron

A fascinating and timely dialog. Thanks for posting it in its entirety here.

Just as it is presumptuous for central bankers to believe they can effectively plan in advance something as complicated as a national economy for some 300 million people, it seems to me it is equally presumptuous for anyone to think we can come up with solutions for the problems outlined in the dialog above — especially given that the scenario under which said solutions would be operative does not exist today and the form it would be likely to take is also incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to project as well.

Ron Paul’s notion of slowly and steadily phasing out government programs strikes me as the most workable solution in an unbroken union. However, it would require significant political will over decades, and I do not know if we have ever seen such a thing on the political stage – in America or anywhere else in all of history.

It is becoming more clear to me that the only path back to Christian values informed politically and economically by a classically liberal philosophy lies along the road of secession. A small state comprised of like-minded individuals has a much better chance of accomplishing its goals than does an unwieldy behemoth of 300 million. As the US Constitution was originally written, each state is to be sovereign in itself in almost every matter. But I do not see the current federal government relinquishing its hammerlock on the states any time soon. The states may have to force the issue.

I also wanted to say that a free market economy, which we have only rarely seen in this country or any other, can produce favorable results that we cannot possibly imagine. Just think: If the US dollar had not been devalued by as much as 95% since the Fed was established, and if private individuals and private businesses alike were unfettered from their tremendous tax burden — how much better off would each person be? If I had to pay no income tax and had a dollar that possessed 95% more purchasing power than it does today, I could single-handedly provide for everyone on my street, should the need arise. And I am not a wealthy man by any means.

I think of the biblical model of the judges, and I see that such a model may work very well in a Christian libertarian society. As long as the judge is a faithful follower of Christ, his community will be well provided for. Dallas Willard has written more extensively about this model, so I will not elaborate further here.

You have given me much to ponder. Thanks again for the forum and the dialog.
James Huitt

Norm,
You’re very brave for taking on such a conversation, much less posting it here.
I see many issues in Cathy’s points, although I don’t bring these up to condemn but only (hopefully) to identify moral and logical contradictions so that clarify of mind and heart can direct the body to act on these very real and, yes, tricky concerns.
First, I have issue with Cathy’s belief that a truly libertarian society will be ruled by “perfectly rational pragmatists advocating euthanasia as a valid means of sustaining an equitable libertarian society”. Something that I believe to be perfectly logical and (almost) self evident about a truly libertarian, a true individualist, and, I dare say, a true Christian, is the idea that one must act in his own interest to sustain and further his own life, because the only truly inalienable right any man has is the right to his own life. Therefore, if one also voluntarily submits to the axiom of non-agression in it’s most literal form, one should and must come to the conclusion that a “perfectly rational pragmatist” who advocates euthanasia as a means of “dealing” with invalids, elderly, and those undefined “who have fallen through the cracks” is no christian, nor libertarian, nor individualist, but a true modern day liberal who would seek to have control over disposing of another mans life, the truly fundamental inalienable right. And because he would presume to dispose of another man’s life at the cost of the individual, he is a collectivist and a statist.
Secondly, to answer the question posed by Cathy: “Where are those Christians who will support those who must devote full time to helping those who cannot help themselves?”
The answer is that they are too busy trying to earn their own living to support themselves and their families to be able to offer the support that is truly needed to achieve the ends Cathy is concerned with. The solution is to abolish the capital and wealth comsuming industy that is the State, and give that capital and wealth back to the individuals who earned it. It is then theirs to dispose of, whether it be in furthering their own interests and life (which, theoretically could be investing in their own wealth, and thus their own means to stop working toward their own survival, and thus the freedom of time and finances to devote to the needy, the downtrodden, and poor of spirit) or in the outright dedication to organizations (I hate the term institution) who would work for the dignified care of such class of people.
Thirdly, the whole tone of Cathy’s queries and wonderings has the premises of argumentation from intimidation, that is it would seek to make moral condemnation of any who argue against her premises. The Truth of the situation is very much as you have already described it: Many who are able to be productive are receiving government “charity” but yet are unwilling to put themselves to productive work. Resolving this particular issue would, in itself, free up so much of the “welfare” capital for those who are truly “needy”. (I parenthesize that word because the use of it in such an argument relies on the consent of logically pre-requsite argument of altruistic-collectivist definition of need and the use of State controlled means to meet such need. I do not, emphatically, consent to such use.) Regardless, Cathy ought to be much less concerned with her issues of who will stand forward to help this class of people, how the means will be appropriated, and how to sustain such a sector of society, as much as with correcting the gross imbalance of state controlled assets, capital, and taxes. Truth is, that if such a problem of a facist, welfare dolling, overtaxed economy were corrected by the sum of it’s citizens living truly free and “liberated” lives, such an issue of the who’s, the how’s and the when’s would spontaneously take care of itself. The free market always has solutions to the demands of it’s constituents.

Fourthly, and lastly, I do not, by any means, intend to make light of our moral imperative as Christians to “Love thy neighbor”, but it has the prerequisite command of “as you love yourself”. Truth is, in my case, if so much of my household’s revenue was freed of the burdens of Statist demands for social “non-security”, medicare, medicaid, and just downright theft of income for taxation, I would be able to give on a much greater scale to my own church mission, who, for the reason of scale, is supported by only 4 families. My Pastor would be able to support himself and his family on only the giving of 4 families if we all were not burdened by the state “charitable theft”. I think that Cathy would find that if she loves her own life as much as she tries to love those “that have fallen through the cracks” she might just find the necessary physical capital, and spiritual calling, to do just what she has on her heart. If only love is set in order………

Thanks for your work on this, Norman. Your leadership, morally, intellectually, and spiritually is exemplary.
James
James Huitt

Norm,
You’re very brave for taking on such a conversation, much less posting it here.
I see many issues in Cathy’s points, although I don’t bring these up to condemn but only (hopefully) to identify moral and logical contradictions so that clarify of mind and heart can direct the body to act on these very real and, yes, tricky concerns.
First, I have issue with Cathy’s belief that a truly libertarian society will be ruled by “perfectly rational pragmatists advocating euthanasia as a valid means of sustaining an equitable libertarian society”. Something that I believe to be perfectly logical and (almost) self evident about a truly libertarian, a true individualist, and, I dare say, a true Christian, is the idea that one must act in his own interest to sustain and further his own life, because the only truly inalienable right any man has is the right to his own life. Therefore, if one also voluntarily submits to the axiom of non-agression in it’s most literal form, one should and must come to the conclusion that a “perfectly rational pragmatist” who advocates euthanasia as a means of “dealing” with invalids, elderly, and those undefined “who have fallen through the cracks” is no christian, nor libertarian, nor individualist, but a true modern day liberal who would seek to have control over disposing of another mans life, the truly fundamental inalienable right. And because he would presume to dispose of another man’s life at the cost of the individual, he is a collectivist and a statist.
Secondly, to answer the question posed by Cathy: “Where are those Christians who will support those who must devote full time to helping those who cannot help themselves?”
The answer is that they are too busy trying to earn their own living to support themselves and their families to be able to offer the support that is truly needed to achieve the ends Cathy is concerned with. The solution is to abolish the capital and wealth comsuming industy that is the State, and give that capital and wealth back to the individuals who earned it. It is then theirs to dispose of, whether it be in furthering their own interests and life (which, theoretically could be investing in their own wealth, and thus their own means to stop working toward their own survival, and thus the freedom of time and finances to devote to the needy, the downtrodden, and poor of spirit) or in the outright dedication to organizations (I hate the term institution) who would work for the dignified care of such class of people.
Thirdly, the whole tone of Cathy’s queries and wonderings has the premises of argumentation from intimidation, that is it would seek to make moral condemnation of any who argue against her premises. The Truth of the situation is very much as you have already described it: Many who are able to be productive are receiving government “charity” but yet are unwilling to put themselves to productive work. Resolving this particular issue would, in itself, free up so much of the “welfare” capital for those who are truly “needy”. (I parenthesize that word because the use of it in such an argument relies on the consent of logically pre-requsite argument of altruistic-collectivist definition of need and the use of State controlled means to meet such need. I do not, emphatically, consent to such use.) Regardless, Cathy ought to be much less concerned with her issues of who will stand forward to help this class of people, how the means will be appropriated, and how to sustain such a sector of society, as much as with correcting the gross imbalance of state controlled assets, capital, and taxes. Truth is, that if such a problem of a facist, welfare dolling, overtaxed economy were corrected by the sum of it’s citizens living truly free and “liberated” lives, such an issue of the who’s, the how’s and the when’s would spontaneously take care of itself. The free market always has solutions to the demands of it’s constituents.

Fourthly, and lastly, I do not, by any means, intend to make light of our moral imperative as Christians to “Love thy neighbor”, but it has the prerequisite command of “as you love yourself”. Truth is, in my case, if so much of my household’s revenue was freed of the burdens of Statist demands for social “non-security”, medicare, medicaid, and just downright theft of income for taxation, I would be able to give on a much greater scale to my own church mission, who, for the reason of scale, is supported by only 4 families. My Pastor would be able to support himself and his family on only the giving of 4 families if we all were not burdened by the state “charitable theft”. I think that Cathy would find that if she loves her own life as much as she tries to love those “that have fallen through the cracks” she might just find the necessary physical capital, and spiritual calling, to do just what she has on her heart. If only love is set in order………

Thanks for your work on this, Norman. Your leadership, morally, intellectually, and spiritually is exemplary.
James
James Huitt

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the purpose of our church mission is to reach out to those of our society who are the “poor in spirit”, not so much in physical health, as it is spiritual and emotional health. Just wanted to clarify, as I don’t want to infer that Cathy’s concern is not a just and noble cause.
thanks again.
James Huitt

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the purpose of our church mission is to reach out to those of our society who are the “poor in spirit”, not so much in physical health, as it is spiritual and emotional health. Just wanted to clarify, as I don’t want to infer that Cathy’s concern is not a just and noble cause.
thanks again.
http://theholycause.blogspot.com/ Greg

I was reminded of this today, Ephesians 4:28 (NIV) “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.”

Government welfare and Christian charity both addressed in one verse!
http://theholycause.blogspot.com/ Greg

I was reminded of this today, Ephesians 4:28 (NIV) “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.”

Government welfare and Christian charity both addressed in one verse!
Norman

Wow, great comments folks! I knew it would be a good idea to post this conversation.

BTW, Greg, congrats on having the 400th Comment! Woo!
Jonathan

Thank you so much Cathy, Norman, all commenters.
This is a subject that is very dear to my heart.
I would like to throw in a few things:
1.) The country I come from (which is much more secular then the US and has a much tighter social welfare net) knows a lot non-state charitable organizations. The biggest employer here is a church run charity (which does get some money from the state which does collect “church taxes” for church members here, sad, I know). Furthermore there are hundreds of bigger and smaller organizations that specialize on helping those that cannot help themselves. Like factories where mentally less equipped people can contribute to production on privately subsidized wages. Given that taxes etc. would disappear those companies could likely operate on the market without need of subsidies.

2.) The welfare state is a great example of a moral hazard and IMHO not at all in line with Jesus social teachings. One cannot do good with doing bad. The state steals to help the poor. Though something good may come out of it (helping the poor) the instrument for it was evil (stealing). Which is the core of utilitarian philosophy (the end justifies the means, and the end is the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people). Continuing something evil you do to prevent something equally evil from happening that you dont do is worse then taking the risk of the second evil to happen and trying to solve it when it comes.

3.) Another thing I experienced in my hometown is that mentally less blessed people were not excluded by society simply because there was no excuse for doing so. Thus one guy I clearly remember (because he was scary to me as a young child) was tasked with cleaning up the main street, which he did. And the neighbors on the street would take turns in sharing their meals with him. Plus he slept in the back of a barn there. People do actually tend to find their “heart of compassion” if they have no excuse to let others do good. Humans have something called empathy, a built in thing that makes us feel the hurt others experience. Todays state oppression leads to that gift being chained and slashed on a daily basis so it disappears. But it is there, naturally, in our brains (you can even point to it). Adam Smith built his whole moral theory on this fact (Theory of Moral Sentiments).
Jonathan

Thank you so much Cathy, Norman, all commenters.
This is a subject that is very dear to my heart.
I would like to throw in a few things:
1.) The country I come from (which is much more secular then the US and has a much tighter social welfare net) knows a lot non-state charitable organizations. The biggest employer here is a church run charity (which does get some money from the state which does collect “church taxes” for church members here, sad, I know). Furthermore there are hundreds of bigger and smaller organizations that specialize on helping those that cannot help themselves. Like factories where mentally less equipped people can contribute to production on privately subsidized wages. Given that taxes etc. would disappear those companies could likely operate on the market without need of subsidies.

2.) The welfare state is a great example of a moral hazard and IMHO not at all in line with Jesus social teachings. One cannot do good with doing bad. The state steals to help the poor. Though something good may come out of it (helping the poor) the instrument for it was evil (stealing). Which is the core of utilitarian philosophy (the end justifies the means, and the end is the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people). Continuing something evil you do to prevent something equally evil from happening that you dont do is worse then taking the risk of the second evil to happen and trying to solve it when it comes.

3.) Another thing I experienced in my hometown is that mentally less blessed people were not excluded by society simply because there was no excuse for doing so. Thus one guy I clearly remember (because he was scary to me as a young child) was tasked with cleaning up the main street, which he did. And the neighbors on the street would take turns in sharing their meals with him. Plus he slept in the back of a barn there. People do actually tend to find their “heart of compassion” if they have no excuse to let others do good. Humans have something called empathy, a built in thing that makes us feel the hurt others experience. Todays state oppression leads to that gift being chained and slashed on a daily basis so it disappears. But it is there, naturally, in our brains (you can even point to it). Adam Smith built his whole moral theory on this fact (Theory of Moral Sentiments).
http://voiceofjohn.blogspot.com/ jdavidb

Cathy,

I hear what you are saying, and I am pleased to inform you that what you have said is going to make a difference in the things I emphasize as I teach the Word of God.

But I do want to tell you this: you keep talking as if our goal is to build a Christian society, where all the things God expects of us happen, and as if that goal can be accomplished when these things happen by law. i.e., the poor are supposed to be cared for, therefore, we are right in taking from the rhetorical non-charitable liberal/nonbeliever to provide for the poor, since we cannot completely provide for the poor from our Christian/conservative/libertarian treasuries.

That is just not right. It’s too low a view of the Christian society.

The Christian society is not just a place where the poor are provided for. It’s a place where the poor are provided for voluntarily. The means for accomplishing that is the preaching of the Gospel, not the enforcement of the law.

God couldn’t be any more explicit about charity being voluntary, and about Christians having no authority in His sight to bind His standard of behavior on nonbelievers. Reread I Corinthians 5, especially the last part. We have no authority to judge those outside the church, period. If the liberal atheist wants to be uncharitable, then God’s word in I Corinthians 5 leaves us no choice but to give him his freedom of choice. We should try to convert that man to Christ, and we should believe that that goal is attainable, and when it is attained Christ will work through that man to be charitable. But we are provided to give of our own means, even out of our own poverty to take care of the poor, and absolutely restrained by I Corinthians 5 from taking the money of others to accomplish this.

Some other passages where God either explicitly commands or implicitly specifies that charitable giving must be voluntary are Acts 5:4 and II Corinthians 9:7.
http://voiceofjohn.blogspot.com/ jdavidb

Cathy,

I hear what you are saying, and I am pleased to inform you that what you have said is going to make a difference in the things I emphasize as I teach the Word of God.

But I do want to tell you this: you keep talking as if our goal is to build a Christian society, where all the things God expects of us happen, and as if that goal can be accomplished when these things happen by law. i.e., the poor are supposed to be cared for, therefore, we are right in taking from the rhetorical non-charitable liberal/nonbeliever to provide for the poor, since we cannot completely provide for the poor from our Christian/conservative/libertarian treasuries.

That is just not right. It’s too low a view of the Christian society.

The Christian society is not just a place where the poor are provided for. It’s a place where the poor are provided for voluntarily. The means for accomplishing that is the preaching of the Gospel, not the enforcement of the law.

God couldn’t be any more explicit about charity being voluntary, and about Christians having no authority in His sight to bind His standard of behavior on nonbelievers. Reread I Corinthians 5, especially the last part. We have no authority to judge those outside the church, period. If the liberal atheist wants to be uncharitable, then God’s word in I Corinthians 5 leaves us no choice but to give him his freedom of choice. We should try to convert that man to Christ, and we should believe that that goal is attainable, and when it is attained Christ will work through that man to be charitable. But we are provided to give of our own means, even out of our own poverty to take care of the poor, and absolutely restrained by I Corinthians 5 from taking the money of others to accomplish this.

Some other passages where God either explicitly commands or implicitly specifies that charitable giving must be voluntary are Acts 5:4 and II Corinthians 9:7.
Cathy

Thanks for all the great comments and ideas. Thank you, Norman, for bringing this issue out clearly.

Most of what has been said I agree with.

jdavidb, please forgive me, but I never meant to imply “the State” should be doing “Christian” charity work. Not at all. I thought I made it clear I too view the State and its taxes as theft. My point is not to “judge” secularists who won’t contribute, but to address a concern that those who claim the Name of Christ largely do not seem to have that natural and necessary empathy for others noted by Jonathan.

I adamantly do not want “the State” involved at all. I do not EXPECT non-Christians to do what most Christians do not seem to be doing. Four families in each church may be capable of carrying the burden, if we have a re-valued currency and no State/Government restrictions. But why should those four have to? Where are the other Christians who are not contributing? Or are those four families REALLY the only Christians attending that church?

Absolutely NO LAW — which as you rightly point out IS theft — but only VOLUNTARY Christian compassion. That’s not the issue. My issue is with the vast majority of Christians who do not know the Bible, Christ’s words, what God expects of those who use His Name — and they seemingly couldn’t care less. They don’t seem to be any more interested in seeing to the good of others than their most callous secular counterparts. This is an observation of those within the church. God alone judges those outside the church. You are absolutely correct, and everything I’ve written and am concerned about is with those within the church, those who name the Name of Christ as their Savior and Lord. My issue is there should be more “LORD,” yah?

And I guess I have to define the truly needy for the record: those who are INCAPABLE of caring for themselves, mentally or physically. Both those who languish in hospitals and institutions as “vegetables” and those who wander the streets UNABLE to keep a straight thought, INCAPABLE of holding down a conventional job, even street cleaning. These people DO exist, and the fact of their existence means God created them and cares for them and expects us who name His Name to.

The issue as I see it is to call Christians, from the pulpit, to their true Christian life and duty, which is to do for others first, to bear others’ burdens, even as an expression of loving themselves. As I stated in one of my comments, this is a good way of discerning who are really Christians and who are simply hedging their eternal bets.

“Love others as you love yourself.” Isn’t caring for others BECAUSE you care for yourself the point? How do you have to learn to love yourself BEFORE you love others enough to care for them?

How could God be said to be loving if He didn’t die for us? How could He be said to be loving if He didn’t create us to love in the first place? Is it so hard to see He loves Himself by loving and sacrificing Himself for us? Isn’t that what Jesus meant? What other “love,” self- or other, is there?

I agree with state secession. It should all be local. And I tend to think if communities were local again, the secularists would have far less say and control, and there is a chance Christianity would dominate social mores and life. Not as in “laws,” but in demonstrated love and loving behavior. There is no law against Christian love, nor can there be.

So how many Christians support this idea, and see the true biblical wisdom in it? Shouldn’t it be thundered from the pulpits?

That would definitely be a good start, I think. While we may not be able to “project” what facilities/institutions/organizations should or must be erected and “staffed,” we certainly can see the NEEDS, and should come together, prepared as communities of Christians, to see to it everyone who truly IS in abject NEED is cared for and not just written off as they hurtle through “the cracks of change.” That is what I’m trying to get at.

I am argumentative and judgmental. There are things to be argued for, and things to be judged. These things should be the concerns of Christians, as they certainly are the concerns of Christ and the Father, and the Holy Spirit teaches them.

And I don’t see or hear many Christians discussing these things. That’s all I am asking. The Bible shows us the way, and the early Christians seemed to have had no quarrels among themselves about doing good to and caring for others (they don’t seem to have worried too much about how they loved themselves, but more about how to express that love to their loving Savior and Lord through doing love to their fellow man in need), establishing hospitals, refuges, etc. I’m simply asking if we’re heeding those examples and getting all our brethren together on those pages now rather than waiting until the chaotic dust of the looming — but good! — change obscures our vision and hence damages our witness.

And, the reformed thief was to work with his hands SO THAT he would have the means TO GIVE to those IN NEED. It is simply a given that there ARE people who CANNOT help themselves. And THEY are supposed to be our concern. This is love: of self, and others, and Christ.

Romans 12; 13:8-10.

Christ’s peace and love to you all.
Cathy

Thanks for all the great comments and ideas. Thank you, Norman, for bringing this issue out clearly.

Most of what has been said I agree with.

jdavidb, please forgive me, but I never meant to imply “the State” should be doing “Christian” charity work. Not at all. I thought I made it clear I too view the State and its taxes as theft. My point is not to “judge” secularists who won’t contribute, but to address a concern that those who claim the Name of Christ largely do not seem to have that natural and necessary empathy for others noted by Jonathan.

I adamantly do not want “the State” involved at all. I do not EXPECT non-Christians to do what most Christians do not seem to be doing. Four families in each church may be capable of carrying the burden, if we have a re-valued currency and no State/Government restrictions. But why should those four have to? Where are the other Christians who are not contributing? Or are those four families REALLY the only Christians attending that church?

Absolutely NO LAW — which as you rightly point out IS theft — but only VOLUNTARY Christian compassion. That’s not the issue. My issue is with the vast majority of Christians who do not know the Bible, Christ’s words, what God expects of those who use His Name — and they seemingly couldn’t care less. They don’t seem to be any more interested in seeing to the good of others than their most callous secular counterparts. This is an observation of those within the church. God alone judges those outside the church. You are absolutely correct, and everything I’ve written and am concerned about is with those within the church, those who name the Name of Christ as their Savior and Lord. My issue is there should be more “LORD,” yah?

And I guess I have to define the truly needy for the record: those who are INCAPABLE of caring for themselves, mentally or physically. Both those who languish in hospitals and institutions as “vegetables” and those who wander the streets UNABLE to keep a straight thought, INCAPABLE of holding down a conventional job, even street cleaning. These people DO exist, and the fact of their existence means God created them and cares for them and expects us who name His Name to.

The issue as I see it is to call Christians, from the pulpit, to their true Christian life and duty, which is to do for others first, to bear others’ burdens, even as an expression of loving themselves. As I stated in one of my comments, this is a good way of discerning who are really Christians and who are simply hedging their eternal bets.

“Love others as you love yourself.” Isn’t caring for others BECAUSE you care for yourself the point? How do you have to learn to love yourself BEFORE you love others enough to care for them?

How could God be said to be loving if He didn’t die for us? How could He be said to be loving if He didn’t create us to love in the first place? Is it so hard to see He loves Himself by loving and sacrificing Himself for us? Isn’t that what Jesus meant? What other “love,” self- or other, is there?

I agree with state secession. It should all be local. And I tend to think if communities were local again, the secularists would have far less say and control, and there is a chance Christianity would dominate social mores and life. Not as in “laws,” but in demonstrated love and loving behavior. There is no law against Christian love, nor can there be.

So how many Christians support this idea, and see the true biblical wisdom in it? Shouldn’t it be thundered from the pulpits?

That would definitely be a good start, I think. While we may not be able to “project” what facilities/institutions/organizations should or must be erected and “staffed,” we certainly can see the NEEDS, and should come together, prepared as communities of Christians, to see to it everyone who truly IS in abject NEED is cared for and not just written off as they hurtle through “the cracks of change.” That is what I’m trying to get at.

I am argumentative and judgmental. There are things to be argued for, and things to be judged. These things should be the concerns of Christians, as they certainly are the concerns of Christ and the Father, and the Holy Spirit teaches them.

And I don’t see or hear many Christians discussing these things. That’s all I am asking. The Bible shows us the way, and the early Christians seemed to have had no quarrels among themselves about doing good to and caring for others (they don’t seem to have worried too much about how they loved themselves, but more about how to express that love to their loving Savior and Lord through doing love to their fellow man in need), establishing hospitals, refuges, etc. I’m simply asking if we’re heeding those examples and getting all our brethren together on those pages now rather than waiting until the chaotic dust of the looming — but good! — change obscures our vision and hence damages our witness.

And, the reformed thief was to work with his hands SO THAT he would have the means TO GIVE to those IN NEED. It is simply a given that there ARE people who CANNOT help themselves. And THEY are supposed to be our concern. This is love: of self, and others, and Christ.

Romans 12; 13:8-10.

Christ’s peace and love to you all.
Cathy

I guess what I’m getting at is why aren’t Christians doing what they should be doing NOW? If this is such a non-issue, why do we have the homeless roaming the streets instead of being taken care of in our communities? Why do we have welfare — did the government FORCE it on us? Where were the Christians not merely protesting but in deeds negating the need for welfare?

Why do we need CPS? Why do we need to protect battered women and children — even those in our churches? Why do we have poisonous public schools?

Why in our hospitals and hospices are utilitarian decisions being made over who will live and who will die based on degrees of legality, economy (!), and futility of care? Why was there ever the shameful event of Terry Schiavo, for instance?

Why do we have to wait for a change in government before we do the Christian things? Why is there a need to be aware and try to plan for the care of those who cannot care for themselves when we change our government? Why aren’t we already doing these things?

I see throughout history, both pre- (from the fourth century A.D.) and American history, that if Christians had been being Christians we wouldn’t be in this mess today, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. And God gave us such a HUGE opportunity with the brand new American beginning! We blew it on secular concerns of power and conquest and expansion — in His Name and for His glory, no less! — rather than simplicity of Christian mission and mercy. When we could learn so much from them, why do we disdain the Amish? What have we accomplished as Christians and libertarians that is so much better?

So how do we correct this as Christians, and as Christian libertarians?

Where are the teachers of Christ in our pulpits calling His people to His priorities? We shouldn’t be being preached at about the threat of Islam; how small is your god? (And talk about judging those outside the church!) We shouldn’t be being preached at about abortion or political correctness or hate crimes laws or freedom of speech or rights to bear arms or joining or honoring the military, or national patriotism, or some trumped-up need for war or foreign policy, the homosexual agenda, SSM/multiple-partner marriage, or anything else. Those are all unholy distractions.

The Christians of the first three centuries faced these issues and worse (they actually were living under an oppressive, immoral, murderous government occupation), yet they overcame, and in fact they “turned the world upside down for Christ,” simply by being faithful to Him no matter what else was going on.

It was because their numbers and influence had grown so astoundingly in merely three centuries, despite their persecution by the Roman Empire, including thousands of martyrdoms in an effort to stamp out the SUBVERSIVE Christian movement, that Constantine needed to recruit them to attain his own ambitions of conquest.

And the church has never recovered from that evil compromise; in fact, I think most wouldn’t even question it, much less call it an evil compromise.

And here we are today.

How about, if our teachers and preachers are focusing on these unholy distractions, we simply ignore them and follow His Bible, and install preachers and teachers who will preach and teach and lead in His priorities instead? Let God take care of all those unholy distractions as we MERELY obey and follow Him (Matthew 25; 28:18-20; 2 Chronicles 20 [can you picture our military doing this?]; Revelation 19 — note who has a weapon and what it is, and who has no weapon of any kind — except following the one who does!).

Do we trust Him enough to let Him out of His box?

If we’re afraid our preachers will be arrested for teaching contrary to government doctrine, fine. Sell off the church property and possessions, and after taxes, of course, use the money to meet the needs of the most needy in the community, and train others to meet those needs and teach and preach correctly, so that the Holy Spirit will once again be freed to touch the hearts of others through the holy conduct of those who are taught of Him (Galatians 5 and 6).

No tax-exempt status to worry about then. Meet in private homes, and heed and carry out the correct teachings as private Christian individuals. Forget writing checks; give only currency, sealed in unmarked envelopes, so that nobody knows who’s giving what, or even if. That’s what it’s supposed to be about, anyway. Our preachers should have nearly every member of the congregation able to carry on their work if need be, if the preachers have truly done their godly work.

That’s the rub: without more Christians of knowledge and commitment to Christ, we cannot have other than what we have. And the truly needy will fall through the cracks as collateral damage in a mere regime change.

Question: if you have a congregation of 100 “born-again,” “baptized” believers, yet only a handful are biblically literate and behaving as Christians, what yet does the “church” consist of? Should numbers of congregants matter? Who’s keeping score, and why, and who’s supposed to?

The early church had a minimum of two years of intensive instruction before candidates were allowed to be baptized and become members of a local congregation. It wasn’t about numbers (that was the sovereign realm of the Holy Spirit), but about knowledge and commitment (which Christ promised the Holy Spirit would provide to those who are His).

While it is true no one but God knows the heart, outward behavior is an indicator, and the church has two solutions: either call the errant one to intensive, committed instruction, but if he/she is not willing, send them away as one outside the church, at least for a time (Matthew 18:15-17; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11).

Do you know Christ several times told the religious leaders that God wants MERCY, not sacrifice? That James declares that MERCY triumphs over judgment? That the three important things to God, Micah declared, are justice, MERCY, and walking humbly with God? That the three most important things for a Christian in the church, Paul pointed out, must be faith, hope, and Christian love, and the most important of those is Christian love?

How about Galatians 5 and 6? 1 Corinthians 13? 1 John? 1 Peter? Just for starters.

What are we waiting for? Of course we can’t “project;” we should be dealing with these realities now, so that they can simply be carried over seamlessly in the new arrangement when states’ sovereignty is restored — where, ostensibly, we should have no barricades to doing Christian love, but only freedom to continue and improve unhampered. Yah?

May our Lord grant all of you His love and peace.
Cathy

I guess what I’m getting at is why aren’t Christians doing what they should be doing NOW? If this is such a non-issue, why do we have the homeless roaming the streets instead of being taken care of in our communities? Why do we have welfare — did the government FORCE it on us? Where were the Christians not merely protesting but in deeds negating the need for welfare?

Why do we need CPS? Why do we need to protect battered women and children — even those in our churches? Why do we have poisonous public schools?

Why in our hospitals and hospices are utilitarian decisions being made over who will live and who will die based on degrees of legality, economy (!), and futility of care? Why was there ever the shameful event of Terry Schiavo, for instance?

Why do we have to wait for a change in government before we do the Christian things? Why is there a need to be aware and try to plan for the care of those who cannot care for themselves when we change our government? Why aren’t we already doing these things?

I see throughout history, both pre- (from the fourth century A.D.) and American history, that if Christians had been being Christians we wouldn’t be in this mess today, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. And God gave us such a HUGE opportunity with the brand new American beginning! We blew it on secular concerns of power and conquest and expansion — in His Name and for His glory, no less! — rather than simplicity of Christian mission and mercy. When we could learn so much from them, why do we disdain the Amish? What have we accomplished as Christians and libertarians that is so much better?

So how do we correct this as Christians, and as Christian libertarians?

Where are the teachers of Christ in our pulpits calling His people to His priorities? We shouldn’t be being preached at about the threat of Islam; how small is your god? (And talk about judging those outside the church!) We shouldn’t be being preached at about abortion or political correctness or hate crimes laws or freedom of speech or rights to bear arms or joining or honoring the military, or national patriotism, or some trumped-up need for war or foreign policy, the homosexual agenda, SSM/multiple-partner marriage, or anything else. Those are all unholy distractions.

The Christians of the first three centuries faced these issues and worse (they actually were living under an oppressive, immoral, murderous government occupation), yet they overcame, and in fact they “turned the world upside down for Christ,” simply by being faithful to Him no matter what else was going on.

It was because their numbers and influence had grown so astoundingly in merely three centuries, despite their persecution by the Roman Empire, including thousands of martyrdoms in an effort to stamp out the SUBVERSIVE Christian movement, that Constantine needed to recruit them to attain his own ambitions of conquest.

And the church has never recovered from that evil compromise; in fact, I think most wouldn’t even question it, much less call it an evil compromise.

And here we are today.

How about, if our teachers and preachers are focusing on these unholy distractions, we simply ignore them and follow His Bible, and install preachers and teachers who will preach and teach and lead in His priorities instead? Let God take care of all those unholy distractions as we MERELY obey and follow Him (Matthew 25; 28:18-20; 2 Chronicles 20 [can you picture our military doing this?]; Revelation 19 — note who has a weapon and what it is, and who has no weapon of any kind — except following the one who does!).

Do we trust Him enough to let Him out of His box?

If we’re afraid our preachers will be arrested for teaching contrary to government doctrine, fine. Sell off the church property and possessions, and after taxes, of course, use the money to meet the needs of the most needy in the community, and train others to meet those needs and teach and preach correctly, so that the Holy Spirit will once again be freed to touch the hearts of others through the holy conduct of those who are taught of Him (Galatians 5 and 6).

No tax-exempt status to worry about then. Meet in private homes, and heed and carry out the correct teachings as private Christian individuals. Forget writing checks; give only currency, sealed in unmarked envelopes, so that nobody knows who’s giving what, or even if. That’s what it’s supposed to be about, anyway. Our preachers should have nearly every member of the congregation able to carry on their work if need be, if the preachers have truly done their godly work.

That’s the rub: without more Christians of knowledge and commitment to Christ, we cannot have other than what we have. And the truly needy will fall through the cracks as collateral damage in a mere regime change.

Question: if you have a congregation of 100 “born-again,” “baptized” believers, yet only a handful are biblically literate and behaving as Christians, what yet does the “church” consist of? Should numbers of congregants matter? Who’s keeping score, and why, and who’s supposed to?

The early church had a minimum of two years of intensive instruction before candidates were allowed to be baptized and become members of a local congregation. It wasn’t about numbers (that was the sovereign realm of the Holy Spirit), but about knowledge and commitment (which Christ promised the Holy Spirit would provide to those who are His).

While it is true no one but God knows the heart, outward behavior is an indicator, and the church has two solutions: either call the errant one to intensive, committed instruction, but if he/she is not willing, send them away as one outside the church, at least for a time (Matthew 18:15-17; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11).

Do you know Christ several times told the religious leaders that God wants MERCY, not sacrifice? That James declares that MERCY triumphs over judgment? That the three important things to God, Micah declared, are justice, MERCY, and walking humbly with God? That the three most important things for a Christian in the church, Paul pointed out, must be faith, hope, and Christian love, and the most important of those is Christian love?

How about Galatians 5 and 6? 1 Corinthians 13? 1 John? 1 Peter? Just for starters.

What are we waiting for? Of course we can’t “project;” we should be dealing with these realities now, so that they can simply be carried over seamlessly in the new arrangement when states’ sovereignty is restored — where, ostensibly, we should have no barricades to doing Christian love, but only freedom to continue and improve unhampered. Yah?

May our Lord grant all of you His love and peace.
http://voiceofjohn.blogspot.com/ jdavidb

Cathy, I don’t know why you say “If this is such a non-issue.” That is not what libertarian Christians are saying. Perhaps you have misunderstood the message.

As for CPS, I don’t think it is protecting children right now, if it ever did. Right now it’s a kidnapping mill. Perhaps you missed what happened in “my” state, Texas, last year, regarding some people who used to think marriage was appropriate as young as age 14 (as did Texas law until a couple of years ago) and who dare to actually marry the women they sleep with.
http://voiceofjohn.blogspot.com/ jdavidb

Cathy, I don’t know why you say “If this is such a non-issue.” That is not what libertarian Christians are saying. Perhaps you have misunderstood the message.

As for CPS, I don’t think it is protecting children right now, if it ever did. Right now it’s a kidnapping mill. Perhaps you missed what happened in “my” state, Texas, last year, regarding some people who used to think marriage was appropriate as young as age 14 (as did Texas law until a couple of years ago) and who dare to actually marry the women they sleep with.
Pingback: How To Connect With Other Christian Libertarians | LibertarianChristians.com
http://lexic0n.blogspot.com/ Jeff Herron

In response to Cathy’s main concern, which seems to be “What are Christians waiting for? Why aren’t they doing something now?”, I would argue that many, many Christians are indeed actively engaged in bringing about Kingdom realities every day, across the country and around the world.

Don’t forget that hospitals and schools were largely founded by mostly Christian and Jewish organizations. Many of them still are run more as spiritual ministries than as purely secular businesses. But mandatory licensing for both doctors and teachers (not to mention the rise of teachers’ unions) has caused these once noble and free institutions to become less than they once were. Were these changes forced upon them? To a large degree, yes.

Don’t forget the hundreds of very solid Christian groups and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of committed individual Christians who are laboring every day to end poverty and bring aid to the “least of these”. In my rural community, tax revenues are very small, so local government cannot possibly meet all the needs of the individuals under its jurisdiction. Local churches are the primary shelters for the homeless, givers of food and clothing to those in need, educators in stewardship and job skills, etc.

Of course, there are still many millions more who are sitting on the sidelines and not engaged. “Why?” is a very good question. Scripture bears witness to the fact that it is often the religious “insiders” who most need the chastening of God to not rest on their privileged status and instead to get busy feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. Some things, I guess, never change.

And there is always the insatiable State that wants to get its hooks into as many things as deeply as it can. It takes resources from the private sector where they can be put to their greatest effectiveness, doing the most good, and puts them toward public uses that are inefficient and many times ineffective (e.g., the war on drugs, the war on terror).

Therefore, the committed few must contend with limited resources of both the human and financial sort. Is God bigger than these limitations? Of course! Will His purposes be accomplished? Indeed!

But there is an enemy that works to thwart our best efforts, and we live in a world given over to sin. It ain’t gonna be perfect, and it ain’t gonna be pretty — as I know you are aware. But don’t lose sight of all the good that is being done every day. We’re not finished yet, but I am encouraged by many, many examples of God’s love and work in the world that I see all the time.

And for those who are sitting on the sidelines disengaged from the world and its redemption: Be warned that Christ despises the lukewarm. As they say down at Shawshank, “Either get busy living, or get busy dying.” There is no other option open to us.
http://lexic0n.blogspot.com/ Jeff Herron

In response to Cathy’s main concern, which seems to be “What are Christians waiting for? Why aren’t they doing something now?”, I would argue that many, many Christians are indeed actively engaged in bringing about Kingdom realities every day, across the country and around the world.

Don’t forget that hospitals and schools were largely founded by mostly Christian and Jewish organizations. Many of them still are run more as spiritual ministries than as purely secular businesses. But mandatory licensing for both doctors and teachers (not to mention the rise of teachers’ unions) has caused these once noble and free institutions to become less than they once were. Were these changes forced upon them? To a large degree, yes.

Don’t forget the hundreds of very solid Christian groups and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of committed individual Christians who are laboring every day to end poverty and bring aid to the “least of these”. In my rural community, tax revenues are very small, so local government cannot possibly meet all the needs of the individuals under its jurisdiction. Local churches are the primary shelters for the homeless, givers of food and clothing to those in need, educators in stewardship and job skills, etc.

Of course, there are still many millions more who are sitting on the sidelines and not engaged. “Why?” is a very good question. Scripture bears witness to the fact that it is often the religious “insiders” who most need the chastening of God to not rest on their privileged status and instead to get busy feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. Some things, I guess, never change.

And there is always the insatiable State that wants to get its hooks into as many things as deeply as it can. It takes resources from the private sector where they can be put to their greatest effectiveness, doing the most good, and puts them toward public uses that are inefficient and many times ineffective (e.g., the war on drugs, the war on terror).

Therefore, the committed few must contend with limited resources of both the human and financial sort. Is God bigger than these limitations? Of course! Will His purposes be accomplished? Indeed!

But there is an enemy that works to thwart our best efforts, and we live in a world given over to sin. It ain’t gonna be perfect, and it ain’t gonna be pretty — as I know you are aware. But don’t lose sight of all the good that is being done every day. We’re not finished yet, but I am encouraged by many, many examples of God’s love and work in the world that I see all the time.

And for those who are sitting on the sidelines disengaged from the world and its redemption: Be warned that Christ despises the lukewarm. As they say down at Shawshank, “Either get busy living, or get busy dying.” There is no other option open to us.
Cathy

Thanks for all the insightful and thoughtful input.

I suspect one of our greatest obstacles is believing we MUST live within the givens of the present State. But this is not consistent with early Christianity; they lived outside the box, because their God could not be confined to a box — even the grave. They formed little communities within communities, and lived what they believed. They were brutally persecuted for it, but they ALSO, and more importantly, “turned the world upside down” for Christ.

I believe so can we.

Have any of you seen this article?

http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff300.html

Could this be the place for us to start to really change the world?

If you agree, please pass along this article.

Thanks.
Cathy

Thanks for all the insightful and thoughtful input.

I suspect one of our greatest obstacles is believing we MUST live within the givens of the present State. But this is not consistent with early Christianity; they lived outside the box, because their God could not be confined to a box — even the grave. They formed little communities within communities, and lived what they believed. They were brutally persecuted for it, but they ALSO, and more importantly, “turned the world upside down” for Christ.

I believe so can we.

Have any of you seen this article?

http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff300.html

Could this be the place for us to start to really change the world?

If you agree, please pass along this article.

Thanks.
http://lexic0n.blogspot.com/ Jeff Herron

I hadn’t seen this article, so I appreciate the link. Rozeff is one of my favorite LRC columnists.

While anarcho-capitalists and paleo-libertarians are long on theory, we are sometimes guilty of being painfully short on praxis — which is part of Cathy’s whole point in the dialog above.

What would it take to get panarchism started? State secession? You would need some mechanism to get the current powers-that-be off your back before this could play out.
http://lexic0n.blogspot.com/ Jeff Herron

I hadn’t seen this article, so I appreciate the link. Rozeff is one of my favorite LRC columnists.

While anarcho-capitalists and paleo-libertarians are long on theory, we are sometimes guilty of being painfully short on praxis — which is part of Cathy’s whole point in the dialog above.

What would it take to get panarchism started? State secession? You would need some mechanism to get the current powers-that-be off your back before this could play out.
Cathy

Thank you, Jeff. That is exactly my question and concern, and Dr. Rozeff has provided much to think about.

May God grant us the courage, boldness, peace and ability to implement the idea.
Cathy

Thank you, Jeff. That is exactly my question and concern, and Dr. Rozeff has provided much to think about.

May God grant us the courage, boldness, peace and ability to implement the idea.

Welcome

Recent Posts

Most Popular

Discussion of Christian Charity

Norman Horn

Subscribe to LCC

Sponsors

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Sponsors

Tags

Who is behind LCC?

Essential Reading