There are not many adults left in this world. This last Thursday, at the UN conference, we had the rare occasion to hear from one. Benjamin Netanyahu. Like a parent arriving to a chaotic scene of children running rampant sans any form of self discipline, Netanyahu brought a few moments of sanity, reason, and goodness to a gathering of tyrants and dictators, many of whom would be in prison for violent felonies in this country.
In the last few months, it has been appalling to hear the rhetoric of those who have chastised others who disagree with the President's policies. It is one thing to argue the issues, it is another to label free speech as dangerous and imply that it needs to be censored.
Recently, my mother said that I should listen to Glenn Beck, that his program is outstanding. I have. I love it. Would you like to know what I like the most about it? I agree with just about everything he says, but that is not it. It is how he counsels his listeners to engage the world around us. Over and over, he stresses that even though we may resent the actions and policies of others, we must always remain respectful, that our behavior should be impeccable.
And this is what I really love about Beck's program. Over and over, unlike other "conservative" talk-show hosts (with whom I often agree), he flat-out says that we need to get on our knees and pray. And it is not a prayer to have God implement the political policies that we want, it is a prayer that acknowledges our own fallible humanity and recognizes the awesomeness of the Creator, a prayer that seeks God's guidance. At times, I feel like I'm listening to a sermon.
Imagine my shock when I hear politicians and the main-stream press saying that Beck encourages hate and violence, that his speech is dangerous. Are we not listening to the same program?
Getting back to my point, this is what I'm trying to contrast:
Watch a tea-party protest.
Watch another protest.
Note: those were pro-health care reform people attacking a protester.
Watch another protest.
Note: In this case a moveon.org "anti-demonstrator" charged across the street after a protester and, in the scuffle, he bit off his finger...
Watch a G20-summit protest.
Note: protesters destroyed private property and it has been reported that they chanted "eat the rich!!".
Where do you see the violence?
We decry the tea-party protesters labeling their events as violent and dangerous. We are silent about the G20 Summit protesters (and in some case people support it, see the video) who are breaking things and chanting "eat the rich". CNN said that a man referring to Abraham Lincoln in a calm and collected manner is not suitable for children to view (see the video); however, a man who claims that the Holocaust never happened, a man who openly says that he wants to wipe the Jews off the map, has the privilege to address the UN assembly. Where is the balance? Thank you for the clarity and perspective, Benjamin Netanyahu:
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Coexistence
Those who seek sustenance from government sometimes accuse those who do not as being prideful and arrogant. Being one who does not, I shouldn't react to such logical fallacies (a False Dilemma in this case); however, the number of "Christians" who think that Jesus was referring to state social programs when He said, "Whatever you did for one of the least of these..." has exposed a nerve.
Why does this sentiment anger me so? While listening to Dr. Walter Williams on a recorded radio broadcast last Saturday, it hit me. In the cloak of caring and compassion for one's fellow man, there is a movement in Christian circles that exploits other "fellow men" while trampling on the Eighth of the Ten Commandments.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. Pretty clear. Not much "gray" room. As Dr. Williams said on the radio, there's no caveats. God did not say, "don't steal except when you need to help someone." He did not include, "don't take what doesn't belong to you, unless you think someone else shouldn't have it or doesn't deserve it." Maybe He could have said, "okay, leave the property of another alone, except if the "another" is greedy. If he hordes his money and doesn't use it for good, then you can take it."
Williams said it best:
Bravo Dr. Williams!!
That's so "Old Testament" you say. Well, lets jump forward to Christ's earthly ministry as recorded in the "New Testament". List one time Christ even remotely implied that believers should help the poor, the sick, and the widows by confiscating the wealth of others. It didn't happen.
Instead, Jesus frequently petitioned His followers to willfully disregard their material possessions and follow Him. In one case, He prompted a wealthy man to sell all he owned, give it to the poor, and then follow Him (Matthew 19:16-28). The scripture says that the man "went away sad" leading readers to conclude that he choose to keep his wealth. This is important: HE HAD THE CHOICE.
All throughout the Gospels, the scope of Christ's instructions encompassed the individual and his property, not that of others. It is what irritated the Pharisees. He spoke directly to them, to their responsibilities. The Pharisee's thrived by exposing the inadequate efforts of those around them attempting to follow the law. It was often the Pharisee's obsessive need to qualify the "holy" performance of others that Jesus chastised.
Jesus spoke directly to the heart of the individual. The message was simple: follow Me. Sometimes it included walking off the job (Matthew 4:18-22). Another time, it meant missing a father's burial (Matthew 8:18-22). Never did He say to stop at the "evil" corporate neighbor's house and grab some cash for the cause. Actually, there isn't one instance where Christ or any of the apostles even hinted that Christians should consider the wealth of others. It was always right at the individual. YOU give to the needy. YOU help widows. YOU! YOU!! YOU!!!
Don't worry about others. Don't wait for them. You are accountable for your "talents" (Matthew 25:14-28). You will answer to the Master of the house. Did either of the two "faithful" servants deem it proper to dig up and assume ownership of that which had been assigned to the "foolish" servant?
Current culture colors wealth confiscation methods masterfully, but ultimately it always boils down to taking from those whom we have determined don't "need" it, and giving it to those whom we have concluded that do. Maybe I have such a distaste for this practice because, from a scriptural perspective, when I am compelled to spread Christ's love, I take inventory of what He has given to me. What is it that I have that I can give to others? Another man's property is not on my radar. No matter how noble my intentions, I cannot bring myself to justify stealing for the "greater good". If God decides that action is necessary, rest assured, He will take what He so desires and "redistribute" it Himself.
*************************************
Another tenet of this issue that I cannot swallow are those "Christians" who want to have the redistributed wealth. Dr. Williams finished the quote above by saying, "...if you [Christians] were to say to God, 'well, I know You say thou shalt not steal, but is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property?'" It is not pride or arrogance that will not allow me to take money from the government. There are three things standing in the way.
The first is this and is quite simple: I will not take what doesn't belong to me. Would I let someone help me who chose to do so? If I needed it, yes, over and over again. Sometimes we give the help. Sometimes God sends us the help. If I'm hungry, and someone wants to give me a sandwich, I'll eat it. If I'm homeless, and someone is kind enough to put a roof over my head, I will sleep there. If I'm cold and naked, and someone offers me a shirt nobly yet unlawfully taken from his rich neighbor's house, forgive me, but I will take my chances in the elements.
The second is this: if God made me an able-bodied person, one who has the ability, while still suffering at times, to provide for my family, yet I choose to take "assistance" because things are difficult, because they are "not fair", because I am entitled, how many truly needy people will suffer because I was not willing to suck it up and struggle through the hard times. What happens when no food is left at the soup kitchen for the mentally retarded paraplegic because I got in line before he did?
The final reason is this: the physical suffering in this world pales in comparison to that of the next. Both fiction and non-fiction overflows with deals with the devil. Had Faust truly considered what it meant to let the devil into his house, would he really have entertained the promise of knowledge and understanding?
It is one of Satan's "oldest tricks in the book." He offers what we want, what we need, but there is a stipulation, a quid pro quo. The devil offered the kingdoms of the earth to Jesus...if He would just bow down and submit to him (Matthew 4:1-11).
When one human being gives to another out of love, he does not expect repayment; there are no strings attached. When the government gives handouts, it is the soul that it seeks. It needs you to need it. It needs you to realize that a vote for the wrong person or party, regardless of related character and platforms, will mean you are cut off, you could starve, you won't have health care, no retirement, etc., etc.. The government will feed you, it will be your doctor. It will do just about whatever you desire. But it expects, no it demands your dependency and devotion.
What I'm trying to say is that we can, we should keep the eighth commandment (Old Testament). I'm also saying that we have been commissioned by Jesus Christ to help others (New Testament). These two guidelines are not mutually exclusive. In the life of a Christian, they can, they should co-exist.
Why does this sentiment anger me so? While listening to Dr. Walter Williams on a recorded radio broadcast last Saturday, it hit me. In the cloak of caring and compassion for one's fellow man, there is a movement in Christian circles that exploits other "fellow men" while trampling on the Eighth of the Ten Commandments.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. Pretty clear. Not much "gray" room. As Dr. Williams said on the radio, there's no caveats. God did not say, "don't steal except when you need to help someone." He did not include, "don't take what doesn't belong to you, unless you think someone else shouldn't have it or doesn't deserve it." Maybe He could have said, "okay, leave the property of another alone, except if the "another" is greedy. If he hordes his money and doesn't use it for good, then you can take it."
Williams said it best:
...helping your fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable, but under only one circumstance. That is when you reach into your own pockets to help your fellow man in need, that is praiseworthy and laudable. When you reach into somebody else's pockets to help your fellow man in need, that is despicable and worthy of condemnation...I'm very sure that when God gave Moses the commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", He did not mean that thou shalt not steal unless you've got a majority vote in Congress.
Bravo Dr. Williams!!
That's so "Old Testament" you say. Well, lets jump forward to Christ's earthly ministry as recorded in the "New Testament". List one time Christ even remotely implied that believers should help the poor, the sick, and the widows by confiscating the wealth of others. It didn't happen.
Instead, Jesus frequently petitioned His followers to willfully disregard their material possessions and follow Him. In one case, He prompted a wealthy man to sell all he owned, give it to the poor, and then follow Him (Matthew 19:16-28). The scripture says that the man "went away sad" leading readers to conclude that he choose to keep his wealth. This is important: HE HAD THE CHOICE.
All throughout the Gospels, the scope of Christ's instructions encompassed the individual and his property, not that of others. It is what irritated the Pharisees. He spoke directly to them, to their responsibilities. The Pharisee's thrived by exposing the inadequate efforts of those around them attempting to follow the law. It was often the Pharisee's obsessive need to qualify the "holy" performance of others that Jesus chastised.
Jesus spoke directly to the heart of the individual. The message was simple: follow Me. Sometimes it included walking off the job (Matthew 4:18-22). Another time, it meant missing a father's burial (Matthew 8:18-22). Never did He say to stop at the "evil" corporate neighbor's house and grab some cash for the cause. Actually, there isn't one instance where Christ or any of the apostles even hinted that Christians should consider the wealth of others. It was always right at the individual. YOU give to the needy. YOU help widows. YOU! YOU!! YOU!!!
Don't worry about others. Don't wait for them. You are accountable for your "talents" (Matthew 25:14-28). You will answer to the Master of the house. Did either of the two "faithful" servants deem it proper to dig up and assume ownership of that which had been assigned to the "foolish" servant?
Current culture colors wealth confiscation methods masterfully, but ultimately it always boils down to taking from those whom we have determined don't "need" it, and giving it to those whom we have concluded that do. Maybe I have such a distaste for this practice because, from a scriptural perspective, when I am compelled to spread Christ's love, I take inventory of what He has given to me. What is it that I have that I can give to others? Another man's property is not on my radar. No matter how noble my intentions, I cannot bring myself to justify stealing for the "greater good". If God decides that action is necessary, rest assured, He will take what He so desires and "redistribute" it Himself.
*************************************
Another tenet of this issue that I cannot swallow are those "Christians" who want to have the redistributed wealth. Dr. Williams finished the quote above by saying, "...if you [Christians] were to say to God, 'well, I know You say thou shalt not steal, but is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property?'" It is not pride or arrogance that will not allow me to take money from the government. There are three things standing in the way.
The first is this and is quite simple: I will not take what doesn't belong to me. Would I let someone help me who chose to do so? If I needed it, yes, over and over again. Sometimes we give the help. Sometimes God sends us the help. If I'm hungry, and someone wants to give me a sandwich, I'll eat it. If I'm homeless, and someone is kind enough to put a roof over my head, I will sleep there. If I'm cold and naked, and someone offers me a shirt nobly yet unlawfully taken from his rich neighbor's house, forgive me, but I will take my chances in the elements.
The second is this: if God made me an able-bodied person, one who has the ability, while still suffering at times, to provide for my family, yet I choose to take "assistance" because things are difficult, because they are "not fair", because I am entitled, how many truly needy people will suffer because I was not willing to suck it up and struggle through the hard times. What happens when no food is left at the soup kitchen for the mentally retarded paraplegic because I got in line before he did?
The final reason is this: the physical suffering in this world pales in comparison to that of the next. Both fiction and non-fiction overflows with deals with the devil. Had Faust truly considered what it meant to let the devil into his house, would he really have entertained the promise of knowledge and understanding?
It is one of Satan's "oldest tricks in the book." He offers what we want, what we need, but there is a stipulation, a quid pro quo. The devil offered the kingdoms of the earth to Jesus...if He would just bow down and submit to him (Matthew 4:1-11).
When one human being gives to another out of love, he does not expect repayment; there are no strings attached. When the government gives handouts, it is the soul that it seeks. It needs you to need it. It needs you to realize that a vote for the wrong person or party, regardless of related character and platforms, will mean you are cut off, you could starve, you won't have health care, no retirement, etc., etc.. The government will feed you, it will be your doctor. It will do just about whatever you desire. But it expects, no it demands your dependency and devotion.
What I'm trying to say is that we can, we should keep the eighth commandment (Old Testament). I'm also saying that we have been commissioned by Jesus Christ to help others (New Testament). These two guidelines are not mutually exclusive. In the life of a Christian, they can, they should co-exist.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
