[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

I agree 100% that the Church should be the one majoring in social action....as long as it is done Biblically. I do not believe in "christian" socialism in the form promoted by those referenced above. I do not believe the government should take the lead in this. This is where we probably differ. We must also regain and understanding of 'civil rights'.

BTW, do you espouse the philosophy of Ron Sider?

I honestly didn’t know much about Ron Sider, I had to Google him. LOL

But from what little I read about him he and I may agree on quite a bit. I’d have to know more about him to truly say I would espouse his philosophy.

I did read some of the responses to Ron Sider written by David Chilton and found them without substance. David Chilton advocated “charity” for those in need. I believe charity has a major place in assisting those in need. While I agree with David Chilton on many things I think he’s wrong here. Those who need short term assistance should be able to turn to food banks and clothing closets to help make ends meet. Certainly those who loose their homes to fire should be able to rely on some form of charitable assistance. Charity should always be available for those with short term needs. But a single mother of three who barely earns above poverty level shouldn’t have to wait in the charity food bank line “hoping” they have enough food for her and her family every week until her children are grown. That’s called “food insecurity” and is a prelude to the state of hunger. I’ve worked with our local food bank and on occasion we’ve had to turn people away, mostly they were families and older people of retirement age. Some had already been turned away from other food banks. Some pleaded explaining they didn’t even have food for that evening. But we were out. We already see it to a large degree, left to depend on just charity; millions would find themselves going without food for extended periods of days or even weeks. Charity hospitals are nice but all too often there is quite a wait to receive assistance. While there are sterling examples of the valuable service these can deliver to some, many many more will never benefit from their benevolence and may actually die or suffer additional complications or loss of health waiting for “charity medical care”.

Some things are just too important to have those in need of them to depend entirely on charity. Charity allows the giver to choose to give or not to choose to give. In doing this the haves choose to give life or deny life. They choose to give sustenance or deny sustenance. That’s playing God. The food bank in our local downtown area had to turn a line of people away because those who have aren’t choosing to give what is necessary. Many have cabinets full of food, closets full of clothing. All of which will not be used. Maybe they sincerely intend to use those canned goods or to wear that coat again. Maybe they’re just absent minded. Maybe they intend to give to the local charity storehouse but they’re just so busy they don’t get around to it. Maybe some are just greedy feeling they got theirs…who cares about others. I believe that every excess is theft. If you have more coats than you need…those coats belong to those who have not. If you have more food than you need and you’re throwing loads of groceries away every week unused and unopened, that food belonged to those who have no food. If you have tens of thousands, millions, or even billions of dollars in savings merely sitting in an account earning you more dollars…while 18,000 fellow Americans die because they couldn’t afford health insurance or were denied coverage and couldn’t afford the needed care or procedure…all of your “savings” are theft. I’m not saying that its’ wrong to save. Surely one should save enough money to pay their bills and survive should hard times come…but excessive savings and horded excessive wealth in the shadow of such overwhelming need is theft. Thou shalt not steal. This is why God commanded landowners that they were not to harvest and sell the edges or dropped harvest. In addition every third year’s tithe was to be gathered into the storehouse and the funds were to be distributed to those in need. They were required to give by law. These were the civil laws of ancient Israel. We read how Israel disregarded the right of the poor and how the authorities and land owners turned away the poor and needy who had come to glean or request justice for being denied their right to glean. I’m sure the land owners felt that the Levitical Law was too intrusive, after all it was their crop to do with as they chose…right? Wrong. All things belong to God and God required by law that they care for the widows, orphans, needy, and strangers in their society. Interestingly even the Levite was to be dependent upon this public system, essentially a vow of poverty putting them into the same social disposition as the poor.

That was an agricultural society. But the principle is…the nation as an entire society was to assist the least of their people as a national policy. It wasn’t voluntary or optional…else God wouldn’t have listed this as a national sin when God pronounced judgment against the entire nation. In today’s monetary society the issue isn’t “gleanings” from a crop or a “poor tithe”….it’s funds in the national budget to assist those in the most desperate of circumstances. This biblical foundation is why Christians in Europe advocated democracy and the “poor tax” to assist the destitute. It was seen as a national moral imperative. I see only two areas where I believe the government is biblically justified in giving assistance…the issuance of food stamps and assistance with essential health services. Other areas of assistance like education, housing, unemployment insurance are optional programs, biblically speaking. Funding for food and medicine for the least of our people should always be provided. Clothing and housing is definitely an area where private or local entities can give assistance. I say that food and medicine are justified biblically because the gleanings were to provide sustenance. Medicine because denial of life saving care is tantamount to murder. For example there is the story of the young lady who needed a liver transplant. Her health insurer (she had insurance) denied coverage for a liver transplant they were next in line to receive. Her family had to fight the company legally arguing that it was a life saving measure meanwhile the available liver went to another individual who had coverage. Their health insurance company eventually reversed its position under legal pressure and agreed to cover the liver transplant. Sadly the young lady died before another liver became available. That was in the good ol’ USA. Morally speaking the insurance company is guilty of murder. And until we agree to make sure that doesn’t happen again…we are all accomplices. Every year there are an estimated 18,000 Americans who die because they were denied coverage or couldn’t afford life saving medical procedures. That is a moral sin along with abortion and wrongful executions. Being Pro-Life demands that we have a consistent life ethic. If life is sacred at all stages…protecting it at all stages is a moral imperative for our society.

Those are my convictions. That’s why I don’t see eye to eye with David Chilton. It’s easy to agree with Chilton…until you’re the one in desperate need of food or medical treatment and the charity runs dry.