I think I might be changing my mind about something

I pioneered and pastored an inner-city church for six years. Although the very large city was surrounded by some of the most financially affluent neighborhoods and churches in the entire world, not even one wealthy suburbanite family or church gave us a nickel to help the poor. Indeed, our resources came mostly from a very poor Roman Catholic inner-city church whose membership roll was mostly on welfare, from other welfare recipients who sacrificed what little they had to help others who had even less, and from several enlisted people in the U.S. military who were barely scrapping by.

And are you aware that in very costly cities like San Diego and San Francisco, very many of our active duty military families rely upon welfare checks in order to survive because of the extremely high cost of housing?

And are you aware that because of the huge cutback in public assistance over the past several years, there are tens of thousands (if not more) former psychiatric patients that are totally unable to work and who are no longer provided for in psychiatric hospitals?

And are you aware that because of injuries suffered during their military service to the United States there are tens of thousands (if not more) former active duty military men and women who are not able to work.

And are you aware that there are hundreds of thousands of other Americans who are not able to work?

And have you ever studied the living conditions of the poor in the United States BEFORE the U.S. government began assisting the poor?

 

Governing authorities are established by God.

We live in a country where the government is a constitutional republic.

How then should we use our liberties as Christians to influence our republic?

In Wisconsin, welfare was replaced with workfare with tremendous results to the recipients!

There will always be poor people, but in a constitutional republic we should influence the poor to work (OT = glean fields, grant loans). The biblical example is to treat the poor with respect, allow them to work and grant them the right to secure loans for businesses, etc. Equal opportunity should be our goal.

Handouts don't produce responsible citizens. But helping the poor get an education and a job can change their lives forever!

Government programs almost always produce an incentive not to do for oneself.

Pell Grants punish students who save money before college, for example.

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

The concept of "should" is not found in Joseph's words.

The welfare system in the United States IS in place because it has been ordained by God that it be in place. Whether or not God “should” have ordained it to be in place is not the discussion here. Whether or not man “should” have allowed God to establish it to be in place is not the discussion here. The welfare system in the United States is in place because it has been ordained by God that it be in place. The Bible says so in Romans 13:1-7. Your argument is with God—and not with us.

 

Joseph can speak for himself, but the OP seemed to indicate Joseph was changing his mind on this because of Romans 13:1-7. That indicates "should" by any reasonable inferenc.e

My argument is actually with neither. My argument in principle is about the nature and extent of welfare programs. What should they be like, and how far should they go? What kind of help is the best kind of help to give people?

BTW, The public cuts you bemoan above were ordained by God, as well as the welfare system itself.

 

I pioneered and pastored an inner-city church for six years. Although the very large city was surrounded by some of the most financially affluent neighborhoods and churches in the entire world, not even one wealthy suburbanite family or church gave us a nickel to help the poor. Indeed, our resources came mostly from a very poor Roman Catholic inner-city church whose membership roll was mostly on welfare, from other welfare recipients who sacrificed what little they had to help others who had even less, and from several enlisted people in the U.S. military who were barely scrapping by.</font>[/QUOTE] Why? Why wouldn't those suburban churches help?

The city should bear that burden or else the military should do a cost analysis of whether it would be more cost effective to move the base or increase the living allowances.

Oh, btw, I think our military should be paid much better especially at the junior NCO level. This could probably be accomplished if we weren't spending so much money on social engineering.

I would actually support taking care of those who are "totally unable" to work. However, I have a sister in law who has been declared "totally unable" to work due to bipolar and OCD. Truth is that she is a burn out who could still work if she had to. Working in a mill ain't fun, I've done it- but a person will do it if they have no other choice. Gov't gives them an easier choice... that of course enables people like her to continue their deviant behavior.

Different issue. Veterans should be taken care of especially if their injuries were a result of their service.

There were many thousands of men crippled by the Civil War. Their families recognized their responsibility to take care of them. They recognized their responsibility to do everything they could for themselves. You had one armed farmers and one legged teamsters.

The point is that you have to define "unable" first. Then you have to consider the best system for dealing with them. Before welfare, families and churches cared for their own. They did it with love, devotion, and care. Welfare doesn't do that and can't.

Yes. But it is an oranges to apples comparison. Technology has changed too much. No one was cured of polio for example. Transportation was primitive.

Virtually no one living 150 years ago would have "wealth" by today's standard.

But again, those who had less or needed special care were mostly taken care of by families and churches. This made family and societal bonds stronger.

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

Joseph did not write of the “nature and extent” of welfare programs. That is an entirely different matter—a matter upon which you and I are most likely in substantial agreement.

You are perfectly right! I will tear Romans 13 out of every copy of the Bible that I own.

 

The concept of "should" is not found in Joseph's words.

The welfare system in the United States IS in place because it has been ordained by God that it be in place. Whether or not God “should” have ordained it to be in place is not the discussion here. Whether or not man “should” have allowed God to establish it to be in place is not the discussion here. The welfare system in the United States is in place because it has been ordained by God that it be in place. The Bible says so in Romans 13:1-7. Your argument is with God—and not with us.

</font>[/QUOTE]Hmmmmmmmmmmm.........by your reasoning, God ordained that Germany have a Nazi government in the 1930's & 1940's. Did God ordain Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau, Chelmno, Sobibor, Belzek and Majdanek too? Following your own pattern of reasoning, if God ordained our welfare system based on your re-interpretation and application of Romans 13, then He must have ordered the death camps program too. So, why are we so upset about the Holocaust if God ordered it?


(NOTE: I am not saying that He did! I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.)

 

Here is one answer that I was personally given,

'You minister to the poor at night. God works during the day—the devil works during the night.’

Here is another,

‘The pastor is not uncaring—he hasn’t been there and he has no comprehension of what it is like to be poor.’

Here is another,

‘Our particular church has a burden for foreign missions. We are already giving substantially to some other local inner-city ministries, and we don’t have room for you in our budget.’

Personally, I was far too busy to solicit funds and I did not believe that we should. We relied upon prayer, and our needs were always met—although frequently through sacrificial giving by the poor.

 

Anyone who is familiar with the literature on Romans is very familiar with such questions. Paul left no room for exceptions to his teaching here, not even for the most evil of Roman emperors. Those who wish to explore such questions that you have asked and how scholars of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans have dealt with such questions are encouraged to do so by reading their writings.

 

Where's the inconsistency? Yes, He ordained them. He ordained "the governments that be," and he ordained whatever comes to pass. I am not inconsistent in the least.

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

There is no inconsistency! I never said nor implied that there was!

 

Who said you said or implied that there was???? Wasn't it obvious to you that I was replying to Paid's comments? After all, he was the one I quoted.

You should have read closer before rolling your eyes at me.

 

Anyone who is familiar with the literature on Romans is very familiar with such questions. Paul left no room for exceptions to his teaching here, not even for the most evil of Roman emperors. Those who wish to explore such questions that you have asked and how scholars of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans have dealt with such questions are encouraged to do so by reading their writings.

</font>[/QUOTE]Oh yeah? Sounds like a pretty neat copout to me. Since I am fairly familiar with the literature on Romans, I wonder what you had in mind specifically. I have found most such scholars rather pedantic, dull, boring and uninspiring. They are long on rehashing and regurgitating but rather short on insight and cognition as well. I would rather that you tried to explain it.

BTW, I did think this was a neat and restrained ploy to parody such a suave and highbrow attitude. I probably couldn’t have done better myself as I often take pleasure in doing. But, it makes the performing fun. I do get gratification from playing a fool to a straight standup guy. Right bubba? I’ll call and raise

 

Joseph can speak for himself, but the OP seemed to indicate Joseph was changing his mind on this because of Romans 13:1-7. That indicates "should" by any reasonable inferenc.e

My argument is actually with neither. My argument in principle is about the nature and extent of welfare programs. What should they be like, and how far should they go? What kind of help is the best kind of help to give people?

BTW, The public cuts you bemoan above were ordained by God, as well as the welfare system itself. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother! Preach it!

I think God has ordained some more welfare cuts if we can get them enacted. So, let's push for more cuts but God will stop us if we are wrong. Right? Boy, ole Gamaliel would love this argument.

Did God also ordain that Bush would fluff the Katrina business?

 

Yep! It was obvious but some people go off half-cocked. Perhaps he got his fingers crossed on the keyboard and thought he was replying to me. After all, put it in the best possible light.

 

The concept of "should" is not found in Joseph's words.

The welfare system in the United States IS in place because it has been ordained by God that it be in place. Whether or not God “should” have ordained it to be in place is not the discussion here. Whether or not man “should” have allowed God to establish it to be in place is not the discussion here. The welfare system in the United States is in place because it has been ordained by God that it be in place. The Bible says so in Romans 13:1-7. Your argument is with God—and not with us.

</font>[/QUOTE]Oh,my! It's rather like the old Irishman who said, "There are many wonderful things in the Bible I see; most of them put there by you and me."

 

Anyone who is familiar with the literature on Romans is very familiar with such questions. Paul left no room for exceptions to his teaching here, not even for the most evil of Roman emperors. Those who wish to explore such questions that you have asked and how scholars of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans have dealt with such questions are encouraged to do so by reading their writings.

</font>[/QUOTE]So, if Paul left no room for exceptions then he would seem to be in tension with Peter and John (Acts 4:19). No, I don't care what the scholars think. Just tell me what you think.

 

The goverment is made up of people .If we vote right the people in office speak for us.If that being the case the goverment represents us and we are part of the church .So the church is still haveing a part in the giveing.Most church people work and pay their taxes.these taxes go to help the needy.It does not matter how it's still your money thst's doing the job.There is also a quote in the bible "If you don't work you don't eat"

 

Some of you seriously need to spend more time in the word before you blast a brother for telling you the truth.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support handing out money to those that refuse to work and in fact it pretty much says that they should go hungry until they decide to work.

Also some people here fail to realise that work isnt an option in this life or an alternative lifestyle but it is a requirement and one backed by God's word.

Unfortunately with this current welfare system it teaches people that they dont have to work in fact they can sit on their rump and make excuses why they cant work and all the while steal money from those that are more deserving.

So what groups of people does the Bible support helping with financial assistance and in fact requires us to support.

Orphan's, widows and the inferm and in fact the Bible goes further and describes that the Church should only support those that are widows indeed.

As for your argements nowhere in that list is there a single person that anyone has used as an example for people that deserve welfare according to God's word.

In fact instead of supporting an unjust system that steals money from the deserving and then gives it to the undeserving how bout you support God's word and support a system that teaches people personal responsibility and wisdom.

As for the people that are going through rough times what makes them so special that they deserve to take the bread off of my daughters plate?

Guess what this world is full of billions of people and you know what everyone of them is going through hard times.

So perhaps you and they should do the responsible thing and stop making excuses and use their mind to figure out a way to overcome their issues instead of forcing others to overcome them for you.

For the record though:

I support disability since it takes care of the inferm.

I support social security since it takes care of the widows, elderly and allows orphans to draw their parents benefits until they come of age.

I support Child support since it supports the children and plus its my responsibility and nobody else's to make sure my daughter is taken care of.

I support unemployment since its a system that we pay into in the first place and its meant to give those a helping hand until they find work.

And lastly I gladly give money to those that I see are in need since one it moves me to a spirit of compassion and second I know that I will be getting a reward for it(unfortunately I doubt that any Christian will ever get a reward for paying taxes).


But the current welfare (income reallocation system) isnt Biblical so I will never support it.

Unless you can prove that the Bible commands you to give money to those that refuse to work.

 

You do through the taxes you pay.