The Letters B Good

Malachi, I am of the opinion that the supply and demand problem is because decades ago, preachers failed to strongly preach the Word accurately and Christians stopped believing the Bible is the answer to today’s problems. Every problem you mentioned is because Christians stepped out of the market place refusing to stand for Christ in their daily lives, in government, at work or at home. There is a very small percentage of homeless in LA who lost their homes from inflation, lost jobs or shrinking wages. Some of those who retained lesser paying jobs started living in rented storage facilities.… Read more »

Would you agree that a 10%, across the board tithe is a heavier burden on lower income earners. A $4500 annual tithe for a couple with 2-3 children earning $45,000/yr, would certainly be a stretch on their budget compared to the same family earning $125,000/yr. Since it appears that your branch of Christianity encourages larger families, that could become an even heavier burden on lower income families.

How does your congregation determine compensation for pastors? Do you compensate elders, too? Are they full time or elected volunteers? I’m sorry, but I’m not familiar with your ecclesiastical polity.

It’s hard to believe God would impose an unfair burden on the poor. As it is, don’t they already suffer more than their share?

Can you apply your principle to the New Testament words on giving? Because honestly, most of the time that I bring up these verses here, they are almost immediately rejected, ignored, or marginalized into meaninglessness, and usually without much discussion at all. Imagine if we took any of these verses as literally and seriously as we take an OT message on tithing to a no-longer existent priestly body. Luke 12:33-34 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no… Read more »

There would be dozens of clear rules among among the verses I have listed here and below, though I don’t find the distinction crucial.

Tithing can’t be our “rule”, considering our lack of Levites, yet it is taught as a rule. Whether we consider these rules or principles, my issue is that they are not taught seriously in our congregations, including here. Our wealthy pursue wealth, store up possessions, charge interest, throw banquets with only their rich friends, and so on without their pastors telling them it’s time to sell off what they own and give it to the poor.

Justin, most of your objections could be made to block discussion of virtually everything. Where are they taught? Well, here, on this blog, for example. I already proved that robustly, that should be good enough. To teach seriously means to teach as if you hope for people to follow. If someone claims, “But I did teach on that passage!” and you find where they mentioned it once in the last 5 years and in that case only to speak on how it didn’t really apply, then no, that’s not teaching it seriously. Yes, I am basing this on sermon choice… Read more »

Jonathan, last week I gave good examples concerning scripture you used woodenly. Concerning John 7, you said that I turned it upside down when, in fact, I only used the verses above yours to give the entire context. You never answered why you considered Matthew 20 to be relevant. Two weeks ago, you indicated that Wilson did not gore any of your oxen and that in fact you didn’t own any. In that same thread, you said that you wrote to Wilson using Matthew 18. If you don’t have gored oxen, why would you think that Matthew 18 applies? Why… Read more »

Dave, it was J.F. who brought up Matthew 18 not me, I explained the relevance of Matthew 20 in clear terms last week, we were discussing Luke 7 not John 7, and I accused you of flipping the burden of proof, not flipping Scripture, because you insisted a rule was Scriptural and then refused to show where it was found in Scripture but instead insisted I prove the opposite rule was in Scripture.

This has gotten to the point of unhelpful rambling.

Jonathan, you are correct it was Luke 7.

Explaining the scripture in context isn’t flipping the burden of proof, but showing that the context needs to be addressed instead of a wooden cut and paste.

The point is and will remain that none of us may demand anything from a host.

Very good answer Demo.

I don’t know if it truly works that way all too often (with the well-off giving much more than 10% and those in need receiving more than the 10% they can give), but I agree that is the ideal if the 10% rule is held.

For the life of me, I can’t follow the calculus your group uses in bringing forward OT laws from iron age tribal cultures into the modern age.

On a side note, Wilson has several side gigs besides pastoring. Should that in any way diminish his compensation as a “full time” pastor?

Will, taken at face value your comment could appear to some to dismiss Biblical wisdom entirely. If that is not what you intended then you should clarify. Personally, I think it quite obvious that there is much in the Old Testament (prohibitions against interest, calls for equality in land distribution, condemnation of those who accumulate at the expense of others, regular forgiveness of debts, rules requiring regular fallowing of the land, and so on) that elucidate principles our modern church has quite forgotten. That being said, of course there are other things in the Old Testament that were only allowed… Read more »

Dismissive is the way I take it, but it is always good to give someone a chance to clarify.

You’re right about the possibility of elucidating principals from the Old Testament, but sometimes what we find quite obviously applicable, or, clearly, no longer applicable, is a product of our indoctrination in a particular Christian tradition, or of a world view shaped in part by influences outside of scripture.

Yup yup.

That may be your reading of my comment but it wasn’t my intention.

Your second paragraph was what I was driving at. I don’t see where Wilson or his followers give much, if any attention to these particular OT injunctions.

Regarding your last paragraph, who determines what was “appropriate for the times”?

Will, the Bible determines what is appropriate.

Agree with the first two paragraphs. I actually would disagree on that last paragraph. though I don’t consider it important enough to make a big deal. If we go by the New Testament examples of the church congregants giving up their excess wealth to the church to distribute, along with the numerous commands against holding wealth and accumulating possessions, then I don’t see the point of taking a salary from the church if one is already comfortably supported via other work. Since the only real destination for such excess wealth is additional giving, taking the salary is basically saying that… Read more »

I can see your argument, more #1 than #2. I think we’re also imagining different situations that do exist in different churches, one where the pastor is largely directed by the church and the other where the church is largely directed by the pastor. Different congregations have very different power balances. You can likely guess which of the two I favor.

I appreciate your reply. I’m aware that the scriptures are not a recipe book and that they require engagement, though many, in the various fundamentalist camps do treat it that way. I simply don’t understand how your branch Calvinism calculates what to keep and what to dismiss. It appears, at least to me, not to value the basic premise that God is agape, e.g., Doug Wilson’s screeds.

I agree with Jonathan’s assessment below concerning pastoral double and triple dipping.

Pastors preach quite extensively on numerous aspects of their parishioners’ lives which they lack direct knowledge of, from impure thoughts to domestic relations to voting decisions. In fact, I think how people spend their money is one of the more outwardly apparent in many cases. When John Chrysostom lambasts his congregation for their profligate spending on themselves while they are failing to support the poor, there is no illusion that he has misjudged his listeners. In addition, since Pastor Wilson states that the tithe is generalized for all giving (which, as you say, he knows little about), every time he… Read more »

No, when he preaches on tithing, as in 10%, he is not automatically preaching on all those other verses that call for far more and by a very different measure. For example, a congregant’s tendency to chase after wealth or accumulate material possessions can be an issue (often a visible issue) quite apart from whether or not they’re giving 10%.

You are excellently demonstrating my earlier point when I said that these verses are only responded to with deflections, not actual reasoned attempts towards obedience .

Yes, I have seen that bickering about what a “brother” is. Always as an excuse not to apply the verse.

If the only reason you ever bring up a verse is in order to marginalize or limit it, then you’re probably not following it. And that is abundantly true for most congregations in all the verses I listed.

And there’s no need to play a mind-reading exercise regarding my thoughts on Leviticus 19:9-10. It is neither preached nor followed, full stop.

I suggest you look back to the previous comment, where you claimed to know what I was thinking when I brought up Leviticus 19:9-10, and then view your own hypocrisy when you claim that I couldn’t possibly know what someone else was thinking when I saw them bring up “but who is my brother anyway?”

The parallelism with “who is my neighbor?” should not be missed.

Jonathan, I actually agree with you. Those passages should all still apply. The only problem is the Leviticus one is built on different cultural practices, so we should utilize the principle there. The other two are absolutely and directly applicable. It is a sin for a Christian to charge interest to another Christian, or someone who is excessively needy. As to tithing, I think you are mostly right as well. It’s not that we “give 10% only”, rather that is the minimum. In reality, all our possessions are God’s, and we should be willing and trying to use them all… Read more »

Thank you Jonathan TCO.

But there’s no need for a deflection to government. I’m not speaking of government at all. If a billion Christians did their duty financially, especially the 300 million or so wealthiest among us, then there would be no need for government aid to the poor. Government safety nets are necessary because Christians by and large are disobedient.

I care far more about what Christians do than about what governments do. And Christians are not following the Bible’s instructions on money.

“Government safety nets are necessary because Christians by and large are disobedient.” Jonathan above

Gentle Readers, this is a social justice statement and is not backed by scripture. It is not a deflection.

For decades, Christians have not stood firm for Christ and the result is that we allowed government to replace God.

If the US government followed scripture, Christians would not be forced at the point of a gun to give to that which is not authorized in scripture. Then Christians could do lots more with the bucks God gives them.

I was not stating it as a Scriptural rule Dave, but as a practical reality. And there is no evidence that American Christians would do significantly more for the poor if taxed less, considering they already have an enormous amount of disposable income and yet give a miniscule proportion of that to the poor, and in fact the proportion does not increase as one becomes wealthier. Instead they buy bigger houses, more cars, bigger TVs, go on more expensive vacations, get nicer phones and other devices, and so on and so forth. This last near retail sales hit record highs… Read more »

Jonathan, government safety nets are not practical reality. That is pure, unadulterated social justice. God makes the pie larger and larger or smaller and smaller at His command. Scripture does not give the government authority to take from one and give to another. That is theft. Joseph stored food for the coming famine. He did not redistribute it to those who didn’t work during the years before the famine. There is no way anyone may argue that Christians would give less or support the needy less if the tax burden were lifted and all were allowed to use their bucks… Read more »

Dave, you are misreading what I stated as “reality”. My statement does not judge “social justice” as good or bad, it is a statement of fact regarding to what degree Christians have been supporting their poor.

And aside from your unlikely hypotheticals, what is your evidence that modern Christians would sufficiently provide for the poor if their tax burden was lowered?

Since the tax burden has been lowered multiple times in the last 40 years, and since the tax burden varies from one area to the next, you should have many opportunities to prove this claim.

Jonathan, the Bible judges social justice as bad. As Christians, we all should. “Now I say this: the one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows generously will also reap generously. Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace overflow to you, so that, always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed;” 2 Thessalonians 9:6-8 “Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure,… Read more »

Yet again you’ve quoted verses out of context that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

We already established extremely well that the Bible demands we provide for the poor. The question isn’t whether we should provide for the poor, the question is why our churches preach on those passages so infrequently, and why modern Christians choose so much more to build up their own wealth and material possessions instead, directly in violation of Biblical instruction. You continue to deflect from that point by focusing on the government boogeyman rather than even addressing the church’s responsibility.

“And aside from your unlikely hypotheticals, what is your evidence that modern Christians would sufficiently provide for the poor if their tax burden was lowered?”

Jonathan, I did not quote out of context. The topic was whether or not Christians would give more if God blessed them with more.

When Christians move away from the Bible social justice moves in.

Go to church tomorrow and worship with fellow Christians. Take off your mask, sing loudly and praise God for all He has done.

Happy Lord’s Day.

They were quite clearly out of context. For example, Luke 6:38 clearly doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with your claim “the Bible judges social justice as bad”. Here is the context: “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind?… Read more »

“And aside from your unlikely hypotheticals, what is your evidence that modern Christians would sufficiently provide for the poor if their tax burden was lowered?” Jonathan, what part of good measure pressed down and for the measure you use will be measured to you did you not understand? or Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace overflow to you, so that, always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed.… Read more »

Dave, those verses don’t support either claim.

They don’t show “social justice is bad”. All societies should have laws that ensure fairness and Israel was no different in the OT. Were OT laws promoting fairness somehow wrong?

And tens of millions of American Christians already have incredible excess wealth. Far more than most 1st-century Christians could imagine. And yet the vast majority are not using it to serve the needs of the poor. So why would they suddenly start doing so just because they had a little more wealth at their disposal?

Demo, in general it all sounds good. In particular, especially here in the good ‘ol USA, it falls apart. Didn’t Calvin mention that giving to the poor had to be watched carefully as there would be many who would take advantage of the rich? He also said something along the lines that only 1 in 100 were worthy and should receive aid. Calvin was strongly in favor of giving to the church and having the church take care of the needy around it. Calvin was in favor of the king taking care of his subjects and in Geneva at the… Read more »

Dave, jumped very quickly from “Scripture does not give the government authority to take from one and give to another. That is theft.” to “Okay yes Calvin did it and that was a Godly government but our context is different.”

Those statements can’t both be true.

But either way, this is a massive deflection from the original topic, which is the question of why the church preaches on OT tithing so much more than it preaches on NT responsibility for the poor. Only you are obsessed with government, which has nothing to do with the church’s own responsibility and preaching.

Demo, this is what I referred to.
“The reformers were instrumental in providing relief for the poor, from government funds.”

The reformers went to the Word. I maintain that we should also run to the Word for all of our problems and all our rejoicing.

Where does scripture allow the government to forcibly take from everyone to pay for social programs taking care of the poor?

Happy Lord’s Day to you and your family.

Dave,

I can’t parse your comments. What are you trying to say?

1. The reformers went to the word. –> I agree!
2. The reformers approved of state run programs for the poor that were funded by confiscation. They also often supported compulsory tithe. —> you agree, right?
3. Scripture doesn’t allow 2. –> ???

Demo, where does scripture allow the government to take the increase from those who work and give it to those who don’t work? On point 2, I don’t agree entirely. In Geneva, the reformers used confiscated public funds to help the needy. The thought being that the king should take care of his subjects. Spurgeon, who followed the reformers in England, did not use public funds, but instead set up a huge, successful enterprise without government funding. Those institutions provided for the needy along with training training them in a trade so they could help others. I think he was… Read more »

Um, that example doesn’t help your case Dave. You explicitly claimed that government anti-poverty programs are against Scripture. Demo is pointing out that you that the Reformers would disagree.

Do you believe the Reformers misinterpreted Scripture in that respect?

And you keep flipping the burden of proof. If you claim something is against Scripture, then you have to prove that. You keep insisting on arguments by omission despite the fact that Scripture is silent on numerous topics, not the least of which is modern democracy.

And Spurgeon scholars appear to think that Spurgeon would say you are dead wrong as well, and in fact if Spurgeon wrote here you would likely trash him with the sort of vehemence you use when you speak to me: As Jonathan Merritt notes, the “prince of preachers” criticized capitalism. He favored government welfare policies to alleviate poverty. And he denounced Christian participation in war.“He was very active in preaching about certain social issues,” says Nettles, author of the forthcoming Living by Revealed Truth: The Life and Pastoral Theology of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. “Spurgeon preached in support of making government low-income housing projects… Read more »

When I said “addressing deeper issues” I was not referring to psychotherapy, but of addressing the circumstances of their lives. Most of the people I know who are depressed need to switch jobs, move back to their old community, or make some other sort of radical life change, because the reason they’re depressed is that they don’t like their life as it is and for good reason. I’m not sure if this was the article I originally read but it covers the same subject – researchers are starting to look at the social causes of depression rather than just treating… Read more »