The most recent issue of World Magazine has what I must consider to be a breathtaking bait & switch. In the main body of articles, the stories of fifteen highly effective (as judged by the Acton Institute) ministries to the poor are given. By and large, they do not accept large amounts of government money, and as such, they are free to act on the strength of the Gospel--and they do.
Then, in Marvin Olasky's page, the editor-in-chief uses the examples of these more or less independent charities as a justification to increase government funding for them. As if government funding for the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and others has failed to degrade the very factors that made them effective--specifically, the liberal application of the Gospel.
Perhaps we might persuade Dr. Olasky to read a very interesting book about what happens when we allow government into the business of charity. It's called The Tragedy of American Compassion, by Marvin Olasky.
Again, sigh. Bible-believing Christians have few greater needs in charity than to forget about government help and dance with the girl that brought them; the Gospel. God is not glorified when we downplay the Gospel in order to pillage the pocketbooks of nonbelievers for "our" charities in the name of "compassionate conservatism."
Podcast #1047: The Roman Caesars’ Guide to Ruling
-
The Roman caesars were the rulers of the Roman Empire, beginning in 27 BC
with Julius Caesar’s heir Augustus, from whom subsequent caesars took their
nam...
9 hours ago
5 comments:
Hey, taxes get us off the hook from tithing!
I'm saddened when I see Christian groups pushing for more government involvement, whether through regulation or finance. And I whole heartedly agree: The most important thing we have to offer is the Gospel.
I'm for govt help if the govt is a theocracy but that existed a long long time ago. The problem arises when govt decides to make rules about what org can say or not say, etc. So if a church accepts funding, then the govt can tell the church it needs to promote same sex union, etc.
Bingo. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
As in many other areas of life, things work best where the government interferes least. Here's to small government!
Per Mercy's point, even when Israel was under Mosaic law (nominally, arguably), the responsibility to care for the poor was still in the hands of private citizens of that republic.
Could it be said that the United States enjoyed a huge amount of Godliness prior to government "charity," inasmuch as our efforts to help the poor might be seen as far more effective than ancient Israel's?
Post a Comment