Agree or Disagree?

Posted on March 16, 2010
Viewed 1944 times
(21) comments

Do you agree or disagree with this statement from Jerry Falwell, Jr. (Jerry's son... now president of Liberty University): "If we all did as Jesus did when he helped the poor, we wouldn't need the government"

I realize this is just one sentence from a larger conversation Jerry Jr. had with USA Today (talking about social justice). In the interview Jerry also said this:

Pastors that preach economic and social justice are "are trying to twist the gospel to say the gospel supported socialism... Jesus taught that we should give to the poor and support widows, but he never said that we should elect a government that would take money from our neighbor's hand and give it to the poor."

What do you think? If we all did as Jesus did when he helped the poor, we wouldn't need the government. True or untrue?

If it's true... why aren't churches stepping up to do this?

I just left an elder's prayer meeting this morning where we 'prayed' for people who needed work and money to make ends meet. But, to be honest, we'll never do more (or at least we haven't in most cases in the past). That's a matter of personal responsibility and the unemployment system (government), right? (insert sarcastic tone here).

You see, I think it's one thing to say that we wouldn't need the government if we acted like Jesus. It's totally another thing to act like Jesus.

Thoughts?

Todd

You can read more here.

Comments

if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, your picture will displayed on any website that supports gravitars.

Fred on Tue, March 16, 2010

I keep hearing a lot of people saying basically the same thing as Jerry Jr. The problem is that most of the ones saying that aren’t doing it themselves. They just want to do away with all social services because they don’t need it and they understand why anyone else needs it.
The church of today can’t help the poor much when most of the funds goes to the building and staff. An old Steppenwolf song said,“You fill this house with things of gold while giving crumbs to the old and poor and then you talk about being pure? And wonder why we are laughing.”
Josh R on Wed, March 17, 2010

Well, poorness is relative. I know a lot of poor people here in the US with cars, dvd players and food on the table.. 90 percent of the world would look at them and think they are rich..

I think it is the Church’s job to care for the poor, and much of the social problems have arisen because the Church as abdicated that role. If I give something to someone in need, they understand that it is an action of love and kindness. If the government takes money out of my pocket and give a service to the same person, I feel taxed and he or she feels entitled. All of the love is lost from the transaction.

But much of our heath care problems come from trying too hard to beat the system.. 100 year ago people died all of the time. It wasn’t tragedy, it was the cycle of life.. I think as our culture has moved from being a Christian Culture to being a secular culture, People desparately try to kling on to every last bit of life rather than accept the reality - People die.. Life is precious, but for a Christian death can be even more so.

If you look at the bill of rights, they are all about being left alone - None of them require anything to be taken from anybody else. As such health care fits into a different catagory. It isn’t a right.
Joe McVoy on Wed, March 17, 2010

Jesus did not hold any public office when he gave help to the poor, it only shows he’s setting an example that anybody who has the capability to reach out can do so, public official or not.
Adam on Thu, March 18, 2010

Well, I agree to an extent with this comment. We are supposed to feed the poor, but are we? No. James 1:27 says, “Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Are we looking after orphans and widows?

I believe we should be about these things and that would negate the need of a government program. At the same time, we must also remember that not everyone on these government programs need help. Some, not all, not even most, simply need to get off their couch and get a job.

My wife and mother have both worked for social services and have some stories to tell. The church (and the government) needs to remember 1 Timothy 5:8, “Now if anyone does not provide for his own relatives, and especially for his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
rbud on Sat, March 20, 2010

Leonard’s comments contrasting large and small church interests may be unfair. Large churches generally have more financial resources to aid the poor and other social issues, which shouldn’t indict small churches for lack of want to do more.

The problem as I see it is more intrinsic. People go to a particular church where they can feel good, be uplifted, get “fed”, feel accepted, and so forth. It’s rare that I hear someone say they chose a particularl church because it provided them more opportunity to serve others—it’s happened, but it’s rare. Today’s church is by and large a social institution, and therefore by it’s nature, is limited to what individuals see as best for themselves. Certainly, there are non-religious organizations, such as Lions and Rotary clubs, that do more to help the disadvantaged than many churches.

It is not surprising to me that the church has surrogated much of its social responsibilities to government. And once that process began, it was like a vetchy vine that grows incessantly, robbing away the nutrients and resources that Christian people might otherwise use for social aid if they’d been willing.

When I hear people complain that the gov takes too much of our money and gives away too much of what should be ours, my first thought is, why did we let the gov take on this responsibility, and second, what have the complainers done to help some disadvantaged persons, so that the gov wouldn’t have to. Where is the church-centered community where no person goes without basic needs or help when they need it? That is the model of the Acts church, and it is not impossible, even though challenging, as some other cultures do this very thing today.

In our diverse culture, the issue has become very complex, involving political, philosophical and religious principles all at once. Too complex, I think, for a simple blog comment, and I suspect Mr. Falwell’s comments, however true, are a bit simplistic in the face of today’s reality.
sgillesp on Sat, March 20, 2010

In our very small church, there are a couple of people who we help survive. But if they did not receive social security disability, medicaid, etc., we would not really be able to help them over the long haul - put together, we could not provide the level of support needed. But what we do provide makes the difference between a very hard life indeed and being able to get new shoes when they are needed and go to the preferred doctor, etc. Those are the facts in our real situation - that does not begin to think about providing for the needy outside our doors who aren’t members of our congregation. That’s why I get exasperated with the libertarians who say “the church ought to do it” - church hasn’t, and church can’t, not all alone.