Christian citizenship and stewardship

http://www.godweb.org/biblicalpolitics

Well I have been chastised roundly on here a few times for suggesting that nations have a Biblical admonition/obligation to care for the needy amongst us.

Most other posters declare that to be strictly a personal choice and to suggest that we have a collective responsibility as well is somehow unamerican or unconstitutional.

Up till now I have pretty much resisted the urge to delve a little deeper into whether the concept of stewardship extends to our society, our government, our duty to our fellowman, etc.

I believe that it does.

However I make no claim of Divine Inspiration or Revelation.

It is just my opinion, derived from the tools the Good Lord gave me. (Brain, heart, emotional make-up, etc.)

Anyways, since the subject comes up continually in the Politics section, I thought it might be worthy of its own thread.

Just to start it off (if there is interest) I offer the following from the above source:


"...Later in the Hebrew Bible the fundamental principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition are set forth in what later came to be known as the double love commandments: the people are instructed to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (DT 6:5) and “love your neighbor as yourself.” (LV 9:18) Jesus clearly affirmed these two principles when he connected a right relationship with God to a right relationship with one’s fellow human beings. One of the core principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the link between unjust treatment of another human being with a wrong committed against God. This is a central element in the prophetic teaching of Hebrew Bible prophets as well as Jesus. Further, the Bible expresses a special concern for the most vulnerable and powerless members of the human family. The Bible strongly condemns those who use positions of power or privilege to take advantage of the poor, the marginalized, or the powerless.

In the biblical context, these principles apply to individuals to be sure, but also to groups of people as well as nations. Indeed, within the Judeo-Christian tradition, the ethical norms that apply to individuals are identical to those that apply to nations. Further, these principles are not merely abstract ideals, but are consistently connected to concrete behaviors; for example, leaving sufficient food in one’s fields at the time of harvest so that the poor would have enough to eat. Further, specific biblical laws provide for the periodic forgiveness of debt, the liberation of prisoners, and the return of land to those who may have lost it, even through the consequences of their own behavior. In other words, the Bible outlines specific means for redressing wrongs such that the disadvantaged members of society have an opportunity to regain their means of self-support and self-sufficiency.

In addition to providing special protections for the poor and the marginalized members of a community, the Bible also imposes upon the powerful and the privileged leaders of the nation substantially greater obligation to maintain the general well being of the community. Hebrew Bible prophets focus their harshest criticism against leaders who make decisions on the basis of mere expediency, rather than justice, or who exercise their authority by exploiting the poor or the marginalized. The nation is seen, throughout both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as having a positive responsibility for the welfare of the entire population.

sodbuster wrote:http://www.godweb.org/biblicalpolitics

Well I have been chastised roundly on here a few times for suggesting that nations have a Biblical admonition/obligation to care for the needy amongst us.

Most other posters declare that to be strictly a personal choice and to suggest that we have a collective responsibility as well is somehow unamerican or unconstitutional.

Up till now I have pretty much resisted the urge to delve a little deeper into whether the concept of stewardship extends to our society, our government, our duty to our fellowman, etc.

I believe that it does.

However I make no claim of Divine Inspiration or Revelation.

It is just my opinion, derived from the tools the Good Lord gave me. (Brain, heart, emotional make-up, etc.)

Anyways, since the subject comes up continually in the Politics section, I thought it might be worthy of its own thread.

Just to start it off (if there is interest) I offer the following from the above source:


"...Later in the Hebrew Bible the fundamental principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition are set forth in what later came to be known as the double love commandments: the people are instructed to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (DT 6:5) and “love your neighbor as yourself.” (LV 9:18) Jesus clearly affirmed these two principles when he connected a right relationship with God to a right relationship with one’s fellow human beings. One of the core principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the link between unjust treatment of another human being with a wrong committed against God. This is a central element in the prophetic teaching of Hebrew Bible prophets as well as Jesus. Further, the Bible expresses a special concern for the most vulnerable and powerless members of the human family. The Bible strongly condemns those who use positions of power or privilege to take advantage of the poor, the marginalized, or the powerless.

In the biblical context, these principles apply to individuals to be sure, but also to groups of people as well as nations. Indeed, within the Judeo-Christian tradition, the ethical norms that apply to individuals are identical to those that apply to nations. Further, these principles are not merely abstract ideals, but are consistently connected to concrete behaviors; for example, leaving sufficient food in one’s fields at the time of harvest so that the poor would have enough to eat. Further, specific biblical laws provide for the periodic forgiveness of debt, the liberation of prisoners, and the return of land to those who may have lost it, even through the consequences of their own behavior. In other words, the Bible outlines specific means for redressing wrongs such that the disadvantaged members of society have an opportunity to regain their means of self-support and self-sufficiency.

In addition to providing special protections for the poor and the marginalized members of a community, the Bible also imposes upon the powerful and the privileged leaders of the nation substantially greater obligation to maintain the general well being of the community. Hebrew Bible prophets focus their harshest criticism against leaders who make decisions on the basis of mere expediency, rather than justice, or who exercise their authority by exploiting the poor or the marginalized. The nation is seen, throughout both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as having a positive responsibility for the welfare of the entire population.

Do you consider yourself to be one of the oppressed. sod?

No. I am one of the privileged.

By the Grace of God.

sodbuster wrote:No. I am one of the privileged.

By the Grace of God.

sod, have you ever heard of the Marxist/Leninist "social gospel" that emphasizes so-called justice and only the physical needs of the oppressed?

Yes.

I do not agree with that.

Do you believe Nations have an obligation to the vulnerable and powerless?

Would that be a moral or legal obligation Sodbuster?

Constitutional.

"establish Justice".

"Promote the general welfare"

"secure the Blessings of Liberty"

You're wrong on the general Welfare clause. See this and maybe you'll learn something.

On the others, you'll have to elaborate more. Two and 4 words does not justify anything.

Well Aaron do you think Sobran's opinion supercedes the Supreme Court?

Do you think something someone wrote before the Constitution does?

i.e. say I am on a committee to draft a resolution and I write you a letter saying I support position A over position B.

Then the committee meets and decides to support position B does that negate the committee's product?

Besides, people change their minds.

Maybe when the committee met someone who is charming and intellectual like you might convince me I was wrong.

So what someone wrote before the constitution is not so important to me as what the final product says.

Where is the liberty in having the fruits of your labor confiscated by the government for redistribution to people who can't or won't take care of themselves and their families?

That is not liberty.

Where is the justice in working to support yourself and your family only to have the government confiscate some of your earnings to redistribute to other people?

There is nothing just about that.

sodbuster wrote:Further, the Bible expresses a special concern for the most vulnerable and powerless members of the human family. The Bible strongly condemns those who use positions of power or privilege to take advantage of the poor, the marginalized, or the powerless.

In the biblical context, these principles apply to individuals to be sure, but also to groups of people as well as nations. Indeed, within the Judeo-Christian tradition, the ethical norms that apply to individuals are identical to those that apply to nations. Further, these principles are not merely abstract ideals, but are consistently connected to concrete behaviors;

Well Sherman, your above post is proof-positive to me that you are no different or better than any of the other flim-flammin scheming preachers intent on fleecing the gullible public out of their support and money for their own personal cause.

And just as all flim-flammin scheming preachers do, they claim their "motive" for doing so is to help the children, the poor, the sick and the disabled ....... but use the majority of all derived proceeds to benefit them and theirs.

Sherm, your never wavering partisan advocracy for the Democrat Party and their politicians ......... flies in the face of your pseudo sermon telling your potential victims that:

The Bible strongly condemns those who use positions of power or privilege to take advantage of the poor, the marginalized, or the powerless.

Any preacher who "talks the talk", ....... but has never in their life "walked the walk" for more than a couple feet when they were obligated to, ....... is part and parcel of a "social cancer" that consumes the majority of the "life-blood" of a society, ..... the "labors" of the productive working class of the society.

Any "social cancer" that continues unchecked, growing larger as each year goes by and consuming more and more of the "labors" of the productive working class of the society ...... will, ... like all un-checked cancers, .... eventually cause the death of the affected society.

Ignore history and it will repeat itself, ..... over n' over again.



.

sodbuster wrote:Well Aaron do you think Sobran's opinion supercedes the Supreme Court?

Do you think something someone wrote before the Constitution does?

Justice Owen Roberts admitted in 1951 that he changed his vote as is stated in The switch in time that saved nine "to save the judicial integrity and independence of the U.S. Supreme Court."

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.



The opinion of the father of the constitution.

sodbuster wrote:Constitutional.

"establish Justice".

"Promote the general welfare"

"secure the Blessings of Liberty"

The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You've listed 3 reasons our founding fathers believed we needed the constitution to replace the articles of confederation.

I've shown you the err of your ways on the general Welfare clause.

Establish justice means nothing more then living under the rule of law and not under the whims of a king.

And to "to secure the blessings of our liberty" is our founding fathers intent that the United States always remain free by holding true to the Constitution and the specific enumerated duties listed.

We as a country have failed miserably on the third.

I'm sorry Sodbuster but there is no constitutional authority, thus no legal basis for what you are saying.

Well Aaron that is interesting and fascinating stuff about Madison.

I have read that before.

However it does not address the question at hand as to whether, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, nations as well as individuals have an obligation to assist the poor among us.

In addition, if Madison's position had finally prevailed, we would not have navigable waterways or Interstate Highways, making the level of trade and commerce we enjoy impossible.

We live by the constitution Sodbuster, not by the Judeo-Christian tradition which is as it should be.

Especially given the fact that we are predominately a Christian nation founded on Christian beliefs and principals.

That is precisely why our founding fathers put the provisions to limit the scope of government and to stop our government from sponsoring one specific religion over another. They knew that if not for those provision, one religion would gain a foothold on government and dictate policy and they clearly did not want that.

As I said, there is no legal or constitutional basis for your theory.

As for the TV, I think Madison's words are still true today.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

Someone sent me this quote today by Adrian Rogers. I liked the quote but had never heard of the man before. If Sherm hasn't heard of him either, I hope he'll google the name and find out just who he was.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for … that my dear friend … is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

-Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

"Well I have been chastised roundly on here a few times for suggesting that nations have a Biblical admonition/obligation to care for the needy amongst us."

Well Aaron I think we are getting side-tracked here.

Although I disagree with your conclusion that assistance for the needy is unconstitutional, that is not the point I was trying to make.

I am suggesting that Nations have a Biblical-Judeo Christian obligation to help the needy.

As do individuals.

The reason I posted in the religion section is to discuss whether Nations have a moral duty too.

Not just individuals.

Every time I suggest there is a national obligation, I am chastised by the right.

They say assisting the needy is purely personal, and nations should have no interest or obligation.

No Sodbuster I am not getting off track. I am right on track. We as a nation are governed by the Constitution of the United States of America, not the Judeo Christian bible.

I am not admonishing you or even trying to debate you in telling you why we shouldn't care for the needy. I am telling you without a shadow of a doubt in very plain and simple language, your theory has no legal or constitutional basis or foundation. Like it or not, those are the facts.

You're trying to take the teachings of Christ and apply them to the government of the United States of America and I'm sorry, that just doesn't fly.

I do not share the personal responsibility or obligation you feel to care for the needy amongst us. Not with my taxpayer dollars. That is not how our tax payer dollars are meant to be be spent.

If you want to give of your own free will, then by all means do so but do not try to thrust your moral obligations upon our government.

"...your theory has no legal or constitutional basis or foundation."

Well obviously I am not getting my point across.

Whether there is a legal or constitutional basis is irrelevant.

I am talking about a Biblical-Judeo Christian obligation.

And my point is, you cannot expect our government to enact policies that are clearly do not meet the criteria set forth by the Untied States Constitution of the United States. As a retired state trooper, you should understand that without a basis of law, no legal action can be taken.

What do you do when that Biblical-Judeo Christian obligation tells our leaders that pornography is bad and thus, all movies and books that fail to meet strict Judeo Christian values must be destroyed and cannot be viewed by anyone?

And to ensure that you as a private citizen are abiding by strict Judeo Christian obligations in everyday life, they must have complete access to your entire life including all of your personal belongings?

Suppose they determine that you are not entitled to your wifes salary as you have enough on your retirement so every penny she makes must go to meeting Judeo Christian obligations?

What then Sodbuster?

OK let me try a different way.

For the sake of this argument the Constitution does not exist ok..

Only the Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition guide our lives.

Under this scenario do you agree that there is an admonition for the Nation to care for the poor?

I believe that followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition should follow the teachings of the Judeo-Christian religion regardless of where they live or what law they live under and do so without forcing their personal beliefs on others.

And no, I do not believe it is the job on nation states to provide cradle to grave nanny care for the poor. IMO, the best philosophy is, if you don't work, you don't eat mentality.

And if those too lazy to work have children, then take the children from them.

And I think if one were to study the bible closely, it's pretty big on personal responsibility.

sodbuster wrote:"Well I have been chastised roundly on here a few times for suggesting that nations have a Biblical admonition/obligation to care for the needy amongst us."

Well Aaron I think we are getting side-tracked here.

Although I disagree with your conclusion that assistance for the needy is unconstitutional, that is not the point I was trying to make.

I am suggesting that Nations have a Biblical-Judeo Christian obligation to help the needy.

As do individuals.

The reason I posted in the religion section is to discuss whether Nations have a moral duty too.

Not just individuals.

Every time I suggest there is a national obligation, I am chastised by the right.

They say assisting the needy is purely personal, and nations should have no interest or obligation.

Sherm,

When John the Baptist told people with two cloaks to share with those who have none, did he also suggest that they steal their neighbor's cloak (if he had two) to share with the poor? Of course not.

Social justice is right to be demanded of corporations and of individuals. When you speak about government welfare, you might recall that Paul said that whoever doesn't work should not eat, either. When he spoke of the rolls for widows, there were very real and clear restrictions. In the OT, the poor were to be allowed to glean after the harvest (the genesis, no doubt, of the food banks' appeal called "America's Second Harvest.")

The issue is not whether the wealthy have the moral obligation to help the poor. That should be obvious, at least from a Christian standpoint.

The issue is whether in the name of the Bible we can force people to act like Christians. If you want to do so, then to be consistent we must also mandate church attendance and prayers. Care to go down THAT road, Sherm?