Theses on the Kindness of Christ

Sharing Options

These affirmations and denials are intended by the session of Christ Church to provide a theological framework for the various mercy ministries operating under the authority of Christ Church, as well as any related teaching ministry connected to or supported by our church. We write with the average parishioner in mind, wanting to encourage active involvement in the mercy work of our church, and in such a way that simply shows us to be overflowing with gratitude as we live out the implications of what God has done for us.

This statement on these issues represents the current position of the session as a session at the time of adoption. This is a working document, and we invite response and feedback. Individual elders may certainly differ with various elements of this statement, but the statement as a whole represents our corporate conviction. The Scripture texts cited are simply meant to “show our work,” and to demonstrate that we are seeking to develop this statement in submission to the teaching of Scripture. But agreement with this document does not require agreement with the citation of any particular verse or passage. In other words, the proof texts are intended to support this statement, but are not to be considered as a part of it.

The statement addresses five broad, interrelated topics. Our statement begins with the problem, an unbelieving world under Mammon, and then moves to a treatment of the sacrificial violence that overthrew the violence of Mammon’s realm. Our statement then moves on to a treatment of the kingdom ethic that believers should embody throughout the course of their lives, first distinguishing sins from crimes, and then moving on to the twin headings of generosity and mercy.

The elders do not intend for this statement to be used in a way that would stifle discussion about these issues in the congregation, or to discourage wide reading or thinking about them. Rather, we simply want the people who support our mercy ministries to know the results of our study and thought, and to know what we consider the scriptural foundation for our work to be. While we do hope to exercise leadership on these issues, we do not want such leadership to be interpreted in a restrictive way.

Because we work closely with Trinity Reformed Church in our work of mercy ministry, these statements were developed in close consultation with their session of elders, and are approved by them as well.

We affirm that we need to understand our relationship to material wealth in light of the biblical narrative of creation, fall, and redemption. God is the maker and sustainer of all material things, and He declared them all to be good (Gen. 1:31). There is no sin resident in things themselves. Nevertheless, as a result of our disobedience and fall in the Garden of Eden, the human race has become hopelessly and idolatrously entangled with the good things of this world, and so even as believers we must therefore constantly guard our hearts with regard to His good gifts. And last, we affirm that just as God did not write off this fallen world, neither should we. Because of the redemption accomplished by Christ, we are laboring for the day when all things in heaven and earth are again reconciled, with our material possessions included.

We deny that the fallenness of the world around us creates any necessary guilt as we receive blessings from God. Our place in the world is to function as the future of the new humanity, and we are therefore called to model a grateful use of the blessings that God bestows. The one who gives sacrificially does so to the Lord. The one who gives generously and remains a steward of the rest does so to the Lord.

We affirm that our central duty with regard to our material goods is gratitude to the God who richly provides us with all things to enjoy (1 Tim. 6:17). We know that God blesses covenantal faithfulness with abundance. He does this with nations in covenant with Him, filling their vats with wine (Dt. 7:13). He also does this with faithful believers in the midst of ungodly nations, as He did with Daniel in Babylon and Joseph in Egypt. So to fly from wealth as an evil in itself is a flight from maturity, and misses one of the central lessons we must learn, which is that of gratitude.

We deny that this requires us in any way to “explain away” the many scriptural warnings about the seductiveness of wealth. If the Lord says that it is easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom (Matt. 19:24), we don’t make the problem any easier by multiplying the number of camels. If Amos castigates those who oppress the poor and crush the needy (Amos 4:1), it is not our right to offer them false comfort. If James tells the rich to weep and wail, we do not want to be found telling them to cheer up (Jas. 5:1). If Paul tells us that a greedy man is not qualified for the eldership (1 Tim. 3:3), we don’t want to maintain that holding to this requirement amounts to “peering into hearts” or “judging motives.”

We affirm that mere possession of wealth is not synonymous with Mammon-worship. We define Mammon as money in its capacity as a false god, as a representative of the world, and the worldly way of conducting human affairs. Therefore, those Christians who are rich in this present world are instructed to keep their hope set on God, and not on false idols, and to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:17-19). So throughout the Bible, the basic antithesis is between the righteous and unrighteous, the elect and reprobate, the obedient and disobedient, the covenant-keeping and covenant-breaking. It is not between rich and poor, black or white, Jew or Gentile, male or female (Gal. 3:27-29). Even though these other divisions can be and have been the occasions of much sin, they are not themselves an expression of the essential division between sin and righteousness.

We deny that faithfulness at this point is easy. The love of Mammon is a subtle sin, and so many believers have entangled themselves by speaking biblical truths while not understanding the remaining sinfulness of their own hearts. “God does not mind His people having money, but does mind money having His people.” This is completely true, and is a good summary of what is being set forth here, and yet it is the kind of truth that can be readily turned into a daub to heal the wound of the people lightly. It is too easy to say the right things and not really do them (Luke 6:46). The true sign that an individual is free from Mammon is true contentment (Phil. 4:12). Whether well-fed or hungry, a content man is established in Christ. Whether well-fed or hungry, a discontent and driven man is always a slave. A godly man knows how to abound, and how to suffer want.

We affirm that the service of Mammon is to be understood as occupying the very center of the system of the unbelieving world, and so we may define it as worldliness—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16). These three lusts summarize nicely the allure that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had for our first parents—it was good for food (Gen. 3:6), it was delightful to look upon (Gen. 3:6), and it promised to make men wise (Gen. 3:6). To serve Mammon is to love the things of this world with an inordinate affection and lust, that is, to love the things of the world in a way prohibited by God. Mammon is a fundamental idol, one that competes with God for our most basic allegiance. But you cannot serve both God and Mammon (Luke 16:13). One must give way to the other in the allegiance of our hearts.

We deny that this means that believers must live in a way separated from all contact with the world of Mammon. Believers are called to learn how to possess and use the currency of Mammon rightly (Luke 6:9, 11). Wealth as such is never condemned in Scripture; it is only in the context of the very common failure to use the instruments of Mammon in the way Christ instructed that we find a scriptural condemnation.

We affirm that that which bears Caesar’s image may be rendered to Caesar; that which has Washington’s picture on it may be mailed to Washington (Luke 20:25). But that which bears the image of God may not be rendered to anyone other than God Himself. One of the charges made against godless merchant empires is that they traffic in the souls of men (Rev. 18:13), buying and selling what they have no right to buy and sell.

We deny that our payment of taxes places the kingdom of God under the authority of the kingdom of men. We pay taxes because God requires it of us (Rom. 13: 6-7), not simply because the magistrate requires it. We pay taxes, not because we are under bondage, but rather because as free men we are resolved not to stumble them (Matt. 17:24-27).

We affirm that the tenacious hold that Mammon has on the unbelieving world is therefore the hold of an all-encompassing cultural/economic system. Such cultural/economic systems are far greater than their respective currencies, and also must be seen as including all the items available for purchase, as well as the deep-seated cultural attitudes that place a peculiar value on those things to be purchased—including sex, glamour, sleek cars, respect, delicacies, gold, guns, empires, computers, diamonds, and more. This is why economic rebellion against God (Ez. 16:49) cannot be separated or detached from homosexual rebellions (Jude 7), militaristic or imperialistic rebellions (Gen. 11:1-4), or luxurious and ostentatious rebellions (Amos 4:1; 2 Sam. 15:6). Mammon represents an idolatrous world and life view, and this is why disobedience in economics, sex, or war will never be separated.

We deny that the law of God can be set at odds with itself. While there are greater and lesser sins (Gen. 18:20; 1 Sam. 2:17), to break the law at just one point is to be guilty of breaking the whole (Jas. 2:10). The worldly system of Mammon must therefore be opposed as a system; we must not allow ourselves to drift into piecemeal opposition. Arrogant materialism, sodomite marriages, abortion mills, and jingoistic nationalism, are all different ways the disobedient culture of Mammon has for rejecting the lordship of Jesus Christ. When taking the field against an opposing football team, you play the entire team and not just the left tackle. You respond to all the plays they run, and not just some of them. As the church seeks to respond, we have to remember the principles of body life, wherein each member of the body performs the function assigned by God. Not every member is called to do every thing, but the church as a whole is called corporately to respond across the board.

We affirm that that which triumphs over Mammon is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. All that Mammon had to offer was offered to Jesus if He would just bow down to Satan (Matt. 4:8), but He refused, preferring rather to conquer those empires of Mammon through His death on the cross (Jn. 12:31), taking and possessing them for His own, by right of conquest. All the principalities, including that of Mammon, are therefore required to submit to Jesus Christ, and are in principle included in His reconciliation of all things in heaven and on earth (Col. 1:16-20). Because Jesus is the Lord of all, the world, by refusing to bow to Him, is attempting a revolution against His lawful kingdom and rule. The true culture of humanity is therefore Christ’s, and the world of Mammon is an attempt at counter culture, one that is doomed to fail.

We deny that Jesus refused the kingdoms offered to Him because He did not want them. Because Jesus conquered sin and death, the Father offered Him the nations for His inheritance, the ends of the earth for His possession (Ps. 2:8). His charge to us was to throw down the temples of Mammon in every city center and replace them with sanctuaries of the triune God (Matt. 28: 18-20), in which money, a former god, comes to occupy a place together with us as a fellow servant.

Summary: Believers must worship Christ alone and detest the worship of Mammon, while at the same time becoming adept in the use of Mammon’s instruments and tools, to the final and complete subversion of its rule and kingdom.

We affirm that the bloodshed of the cross reveals as nothing else could the antithesis between righteousness and unrighteousness. The ultimate revelation of the character of God in this fallen world was the holy wrath which He poured out upon our sin in the death of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:24-25). In that death we see in Jesus the passive and obedient acceptance of that wrath (Phil. 2:8), the way of righteous peace, and the righteous outpouring of God’s hatred of sin, the way of righteous war (2 Cor. 5:21).

We deny that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was ineffectual. This was a cruciform suffering that utterly defeated the principalities and powers (Col. 2:15), those who had held the world in bondage to their closed system of ungodly and bloodthirsty violence (2 Cor. 4:4), but who were now defeated.

We affirm that as a result of this victory of the gospel, the world will gradually be restored to its Edenic state (Rev. 22:2), in which no one will hurt or destroy in all God’s holy mountain (Is. 11:9). This gradual restoration will culminate in the eucatastrophe of the last day, when Christ will come and destroy His last enemy, death. The goal of all human history is therefore to arrive at that place of universal rest and peace, and believers are to strive to be the peacemakers who will be called the children of God (Matt. 5:9).

We deny that the kingdom of God is extended in the same way that other earthly kingdoms are. The central driving force in bringing in Christ’s kingdom is the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ to the nations of men (Matt. 28:18-20), and the establishment and nurture of worshiping communities everywhere gathered around the Word and sacrament (Mal. 1:11; Matt 28:18-20; Heb. 12. 18-26). As such churches are established in every place, they become the living centers of obedient kingdom life as the members of their churches are equipped by the Church to occupy themselves in every lawful vocation in distinctively Christian ways (Eph. 4:12).

We affirm that the biblical vision of the future is therefore ecclesio-centric, with the Church at the center of the kingdom, and not a pan-ecclesial vision, where the Church becomes the entire kingdom. The entire city of God may certainly be called Zion by synecdoche, because the worship at Zion is at the center of her identity. But we should not conclude from the fact that it may be called Zion that the Church proper becomes the entire city. There are many aspects of human life that do not fall directly under the auspices of the Church proper (considered as a liturgical, worshipping community)—such as making love, making orange juice, or making war. Nevertheless, every aspect of human life will eventually come to be oriented rightly to the Church, to the right worship of God, and will be holiness to the Lord (Zech. 14:21). Every aspect of human life comes under the authority of the Church as the Church makes disciples, teaching Christians how they are to live throughout the course of their lives. The point of connection between the Church as the temple of the Kingdom and the Kingdom itself is brought about by the world submitting to the demands of discipleship (Is. 49:23). In that broader sense, the new humanity can and should be spoken of as the Church.

We deny that this eschatological reality precludes believers from participation in unconverted or partially converted kingdoms. Until the day that the peace of the gospel finally works through the nations as leaven through the loaf, and Christ returns to judge the living and the dead, in the meantime it is appropriate and right for members of the Church, as they are called by God, to pursue vocations as civil magistrates, law enforcement officers, or military men (Rom. 16:23; Rom. 13:4; Matt. 8:10;  Luke 3:14). They are to be salt and light in these stations in just the same way that Christians are called to be salt and light in every other lawful vocation (Matt. 5:13-16). Nevertheless, there are times when it comes about that the civil magistrates in command of some such vocations become so corrupt and godless that it may become unwise or even impossible for a believer to participate in such callings for a time. And while participation in such callings is honorable, believers must never make the mistake of thinking that the advancement of God’s kingdom depends in any fundamental way on the power of the sword (2 Cor. 10:4-5; Ps. 20:7). The kingdom we are building is already established in principle and not yet fully realized, and so believers in every vocation must remember to balance their affections and loyalties accordingly.

We affirm that believers, as they discharge their responsibilities in vocations that are at times called upon to shed blood, must constantly remember that they answer to a standard higher than the interests of the nation they serve, even if (especially if) that nation is a professedly Christian one. As servants of God, they are responsible to fight in such a way that the blood they shed is consistent with the biblical tenets of just war (Ps. 144:1), remembering that they are called to stand before the Lord with a clean conscience (1 Tim. 1:5). We affirm, in line with the Christian tradition, that a competent authority must declare war, the war declared must have a just cause, the force used must be proportionate, those deciding to declare war must have sought out all honorable and peaceful means of settling the dispute, and the goal of the war must be a just and equitable peace.

We deny that we may keep our consciences clean by simply accepting what the magistrate says about the justice of his cause. As believers work through these issues, we have an obligation to discern the times in which we live, and to make all such determinations on the basis of a thoughtful study of the Scriptures and evaluation of the world around us (1 Chron. 12:32), and not on the basis of a mere acceptance of the propaganda of carnal men, whether for or against a particular conflict, or whether advanced or protested from the unbelieving left or the secular right (Dt. 8:3). In particular, we need to reject and testify against the implicit and explicit violence of a state that allows the wealthy to prey upon the poor through ungodly conquest, rapacious taxation, ungodly use of economic sanctions, inflating the currency, outlawing jobs for the poor through minimum wage laws, collusion between governments and corporations, or establishing millions of well-paid jobs ostensibly dedicated to “relieving” poverty.

We affirm that if particular wars must be opposed, believers must labor to speak with a unified voice through the Church (Ps. 2:12), and base their opposition on the plain word of God (Prov. 16:12), and not on the basis of sentimentalism, inconvenience, “just so” conspiracy theories, or partisan interests.

We deny that war is to be considered as a good in itself. Believers are never to delight in war for its own sake (Ps. 120:7), but are rather to delight in the righteousness that will result when the days of our warfare have been accomplished (Is. 40:2). The true Christian warrior is one who longs for the day when we shall study war no more (Is. 2:4), whether that warfare is spiritual (Eph. 6:12) or physical (Micah 4:3).

We affirm that violence is universally condemned in Scripture, as that word violence is defined in Scripture.

We deny that righteous bloodshed, under the authority of Christ, is violence.

Summary: The gospel fights in this world as the champion of true peace, and all who love that gospel will understand the relationship of means and ends, and the slow, inexorable progress of the gospel through the centuries.

Sins and Crimes
We affirm the distinction between sins and crimes. A particular activity should be criminal if the Scriptures identify it as the sort of evil that should be forcibly stopped and punished by the magistrate. Theft is both a sin and a crime. Covetousness is a sin, to be judged by God at the last day. Refusal to outlaw covetousness is not to be considered as approval of it, but rather as men staying within their appointed bounds, knowing that they cannot see the heart. At the same time, the civil government does not have to be silent about the destructive nature of sin (as distinct from crime). The magistrate is fully within his authority when he honors the righteous (Rom. 13: 3).

We deny that this means that the Church should be silent when it comes to the sinful mistreatment of the poor by the powerful. Manipulation of the weak by the strong should be confronted as part of the prophetic ministry of the Church. Just as sexual lust should never be criminalized, but should still be rebuked from the pulpit, so also with legal mistreatment of the poor. Because such sin will eventually be brought before the highest court of all, the ministry of Christ should declare this reality beforehand.

We affirm that oppression of the poor is a great evil (Jer. 5:19-31; Ez. 22), regardless of whether the perpetrator is in the public or private sector. If that oppression is carried off by means of fraud, deception, rigged monopolies, abusive employers, or a refusal to pay contracted wages, then the Church should be in the forefront of those disciplining her own members, and requiring the civil magistrate to do what God requires—to punish evil (Rom. 13: 1-6).

We deny that the problem of private sector oppression can be solved by giving the state regulatory powers not granted to the magistrate anywhere in Scripture. When corporations, organized crime, or powerful individuals are abusing people, to respond by giving unscriptural authority to the magistrate usually gives the thieves more instruments to work with as they continue to abuse their victims. One thing worse than powerful corporations disregarding the law would be powerful corporations backed by a powerful state as they disregard the law.

We affirm that the tradition of economic liberty under biblical law was one that developed in the Christian West, and that it developed because of the gospel. Because of widespread faith in the triune God of Scripture, a societal expectation developed that valued security for private property, fixed weights and measures, liberty in buying and selling, and liberty for laborers. This provided a basis for true liberty that overthrew the pagan concept of the command economy.

We deny that economic liberty under biblical law can be sustained apart from a genuine, culture-wide faith in Jesus Christ. Free markets are not our savior; Jesus Christ is. Private property is not our savior; Jesus Christ is. At the same time, when Jesus Christ saves us, the result is salvation that is intended to work its way throughout the entire culture. The fruits of salvation should never be looked to as though they were some kind of a savior, as secular capitalists have often done. The liberty we are defending is the kind of liberty that is the result of the Spirit’s work (Is. 61:1; Luke 4:18; 2 Cor. 3:17).

Summary: When something is classified as a crime, then coercion and force are justified in dealing with it. In order to protect society from unlimited abuses, it is therefore necessary to classify as crimes only those practices which Scripture identifies as criminal.

We affirm that true Christian generosity is an expression of God’s grace (2 Cor. 8:1-6). When we give materially to others as we ought, this is a clear indication that God has given His grace to us. Such grace may abound even in the midst of outward poverty, and indeed frequently thrives in such poverty. True Christian giving is a metaphor of the gospel (2 Cor. 9:13). When men see this spirit of generosity alive, they equate it with our submission to the gospel of Christ.

We deny that giving can be defined by predetermined amounts. True Christian giving, according to circumstance, is proportionate to the resources available (2 Cor. 8:10-12). The widow’s mite was evaluated on this basis (Mk. 12:42ff); we are not required to give what we do not have. In addition, God’s acceptance of proportional giving is calibrated to the presence of a “willing mind” in the giver. God loves a cheerful giver and without that willing mind, a man might give all his goods to the poor without love and have it be considered as nothing (1 Cor. 13: 3).

We affirm that true Christian generosity is a work and gift of the Spirit (2 Cor. 8:7). As the Spirit works in us to cause us to abound in faith, or diligence, or love, or other fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), so also we should see abundance in this grace of generosity as functioning in the same way. The Spirit commands (Dt. 6:5), and the Spirit gives what He commands (Gal. 5:22).

We deny that recipients of such spiritual gifts need not submit to accountability. We also affirm that donors should seek out accountability as well. True Christian giving submits to accountability gladly (2 Cor. 8:16-24). Judas discovered long ago that the poor are a gold mine (Jn. 12:4-6), and many have sought to imitate him since (1 Tim. 6:5). Resentment of financial accountability for those handling donations because the “cause is worthy” or “because people are suffering while we drag this out” demonstrates a lack of biblical understanding.

We affirm that true Christian giving is to be inspired by and imitative of the death of Jesus on the cross (2 Cor. 8:8-9). True Christian generosity is sacrificial. The particular sacrifice may vary, but the attitude should not. Riches are to be seen as an opportunity to give wisely so that others who are poor might become rich.

We deny that true generosity is ever wasted. The biblical giver loses money the way a farmer loses seed. True Christian giving embodies the principles of planting and harvesting (2 Cor. 9:6-11a). We give in order to receive, but only so that we might be able to give again. God loves a cheerful giver, and a proper cheerfulness arises from this understanding of how the world works. Those who give in faith are therefore putting seed in the ground to be blessed by God. Those who give foolishly or rashly are simply throwing seed away.

We affirm that true Christian generosity helps to create a biblical equity (2 Cor. 8:13-15). When the Spirit is at work creating His kind of community, no one suffers in grinding want and no one gives way to arrogant wealth. This equity does not exclude great wealth, but it does exclude an arrogant or preening display of it, a wanton wastefulness in it, or a tight-fisted clutching of it.

We deny that biblical equity resembles the same kind of leveling urged by secular egalitarianism. True Christian generosity strives to encourage others to greater levels of giving in a gracious and open way (2 Cor. 9:1-5). While comparison of giving levels can obviously be abused (Matt. 6:3), nevertheless there is to be enough openness in the body to be able to spur one another on to love and good works (Heb. 10:24).

We affirm that true Christian generosity promotes and cultivates thanksgiving to God (2 Cor. 9:11b-15), and thanksgiving in its turn promotes generosity. Feeling guilty for the material blessings that God has given to us is the antithesis of biblical generosity. Because we are so grateful for what we have received, this should quicken in us a fierce desire to share it with others. But if our wealth is a cancer to our souls, why should we want to spread it around? Gratitude exhibits a heart that gives an enormous amount. Guilt always gives just enough to make the guilt go away. We therefore reject every form of guilt manipulation.

We deny that this means that there is no such thing as true guilt surrounding the use of money. But when men sin with their money, the call of the gospel is always to true repentance—and their repentance is not for the fact of the wealth, but rather for the way it was obtained. For example, a thief must repent of his stealing (Eph. 4:28), and must make restitution (Luke 19:8). Whores and dogs must not bring their earnings into the house of the Lord (Dt. 23:18). An employer who withholds wages from his workers must put it right (Jas. 5:4). The prophets had a great deal to say to those who obtained their wealth through fraud and abuse (e.g. Amos 5:12; 8:4, 6). Restitution in all such instances of financial wrong-doing is necessary, but such restitution is not generosity. So we mean simply that the mere fact of wealth as such does not incur guilt, but should nevertheless be a spur to grateful generosity.

We affirm that our goal is to live before the Lord in such a way that a biblical equity prevails, and that none of our members feel the need to apply to secular and unbelieving sources of mercy work, such as food stamps, welfare, financial aid for poverty relief, (Dt. 15:4; Acts 4:34). We further affirm that our mercy work should not depend in any way on these outside sources of help.

We deny that this means that we must have nothing to do with those who are involved in various forms of social work. We seek to coordinate our efforts with those who work in other such agencies, but do so in order to give, and not to receive. We do not want to receive any aid from unbelievers for what we are extending in the name of Jesus Christ (3 John 7).

Summary: Christian generosity is one of the central ways that believers are called to imitate the life of the triune God, embodying the sacrifice of Jesus, giving as an overflow of love and gratitude, and never from a sense of resentment or guilt. 

We affirm that the basis of our charity is to be our recognition of the mercy we have received from God (2 Cor. 4:1).We do not extend mercy because others have earned it and may demand it of us, but rather we extend it with the knowledge that we received it when we did not deserve it (Eph. 2:1-7). Freely we have received, freely we are to give (Matt. 10:8), and we are to give in this way without thought of repayment (Luke 14:12-13).

We deny that men must earn their right to be shown charity. No one can disqualify himself from the realm of mercy ministry by rebellion or sin. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Those who are merciful shall receive mercy (Matt. 5:7). In mercy we give nothing but what was given to us. At the same time, rebellion and sin do distort a person’s sense of what he needs to receive (Prov. 23:35). But we are called to give, as far as it is possible with us, what a person actually needs and not necessarily what he thinks he needs (Acts 3:6).

We affirm that charity should extend equally to the “deserving poor” (1 Cor. 16:1) as well as to the “undeserving poor” (2 Thess. 3:10). Charity makes a distinction between them, but only in what is given, not in a willingness to give. The deserving poor receive, for example, gifts of money (1 Cor. 16:1), clothing (Matt. 25:38), food (Matt. 25:37), and shelter (Matt. 25:38). The undeserving poor receive accountability (Prov. 6:9), a work ethic (2 Thess. 3:12), and godly teaching (Eph. 4:28). The gleaning laws of the Old Testament recognize this distinction plainly. The poor are defined as those who are “without,” and these different categories exist because people go without different things. Some are without Christ, and are spiritually poor, while others are without food, and are physically poor. Some, in danger of starvation, are absolutely poor, while others in First World countries are relatively poor because they have an older car. Charity should be extended to all, but intelligent charity requires a knowledge of what it is they are going without.

We deny that we live in a world of fixed or dwindling resources. The work of God in the world is a work that multiplies in the power of the Spirit. He multiplies disciples (Acts 6,1,7; 9:31), and He sees to it that the Word of God multiplies (Acts 12:24). In the same way, the blessing of God on a people will see mercy and all His graces multiplied (Jude 2), with the result that as we grow to be more and more like God, we will be growing rich in mercy (Eph. 2:4-10). Wealth under God’s blessing is not a zero-sum game, in which the size of the pie is fixed, resulting in a smaller piece for one man every time another man gets a bigger piece. God has created the world in such a way that His blessings grow and multiply, and the more we learn what charity means, the more those blessings will continue to grow (2 Cor. 9:10). This is another way of saying that the pie grows under the blessing of God. The mere fact of disparity in income levels does not mean that an injustice was done.

We affirm that the tithe is the floor on which we stand (Luke 18:12), not a ceiling we vainly try to touch, or a ceiling we pride ourselves on having touched. The tithe is a rudimentary financial discipline (1 Cor. 9:14), which enables us to grow up into overflowing generosity (2 Cor. 8:2). A tithe of the increase is given as testimony to the realization that God is the God of all increase, and we are merely stewards of all that He owns and has entrusted to use for a time. As a result, the tithe represents and seals true liberation in Christ, although even this can be abused. There was a man who used to fast twice a week, and he tithed everything that came into his house, and yet he went home unjustified (Luke 18:12). Having given the tithe, we are privileged to give up offerings of our own volition.

We deny that we may make common cause with those who deny the infallibility of God’s holy Word. Because we live in an egalitarian and sentimentalist age, we must take care never to allow our work of biblical mercy to be co-opted or confused with the jargon of collectivism, liberation theology, socialism or any other form of statism, with their carping appeals to “justice” in the face of what they think is “oppression.” To the extent that we find ourselves working for the same goals that unbelievers may have, whether they are of the right or the left politically, we must constantly keep the distinction between allies and cobelligerents in mind. Mercy is driven by joy and gratitude (2 Cor. 9:7), never by envy or ressentiment (John 12:5; 1 Cor. 13:3). Our defense of property is driven by our commitment to Scripture (Ex. 20: 15, 17), and not by the fear that the haves project toward the have-nots. For us, the tithe, like the sabbath, represents rest. A tithing society would not be vexed by the problems represented by acute poverty.

We affirm that mercy is extended face to face, individual by individual, and family by family (Luke 10:29). Recipients of true mercy have faces, and so the Church is to be involved in mercy ministry directly (Jas. 1:27), at a personal level. And at the macro-economic level, the Church is privileged to exercise influence by preaching the gospel powerfully, liberating men from their sins and lusts (Lev. 25:10; 2 Cor. 3:17), therefore establishing the foundation of a righteous economic order. Men who have been freed from their sins will create markets that are genuinely free, and they are the only ones who can do this. And markets that are genuinely free are markets that will generate the kind of wealth in which all may participate, obviating over time the need for ongoing mercy ministries or works of charity. Just as there will be no armies or navies in the latter days, so neither will there be flop houses and soup kitchens.

We deny that there is any tension between faith and works, between true love and true doctrine, between the word and the deed. Sound works of mercy will always be accompanied by the soundness of the spoken and written Word.

Summary: Mercy is given to all of us by God, and we are to demonstrate that we grasp what we have been given by extending it to others. This mercy is to be relational, economic, personal, and more.

Call for Action
As God has richly blessed us with salvation, and has added to this material prosperity, we pray that our response would be one of corresponding gratitude and imitative grace. We therefore encourage all of our people to engage themselves gladly in the work of the kingdom, extending the kindness of Christ to others, just as the Father has extended it to us in the power of the Spirit. Freely we have received, and so let us freely give (Matt. 10:8).

Originally posted February 4, 2010.

Leave a Reply

17 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Jane DunsworthkatechoFrederickaMark B. HansonJonathan Recent comment authors

newest oldest
Notify of

This is beautiful! Even breathtaking. I am reminded of what attracted me to this blog in the first place.

God bless you, Mr. Wilson!


“outlawing jobs for the poor through minimum wage laws” A statement like this really doesn’t belong in a general church statement because it is tendentious. While some economists correlate any increase in the minimum wage with increasing unemployment, you know what they say, for every economist there is an equal and opposite economist. There is some possibility that the Bible sets the minimum wage as a living wage, because Deuteronomy 24:14-15 says, “Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within… Read more »


Fredericka’s living wage theory assumes full-time employment, rather than several part-time jobs under different employers. Perhaps Fredericka is arguing that employers should be required to pay a full-time livable wage, even for part-time work. Or perhaps the argument is that there should be no such thing as part-time jobs? However, the unintended consequences of Obamacare are already putting pressure to create more part-time rather than full-time positions.

Mark Hanson
Mark Hanson

Still, it would seem from the scriptures Fredericka cites, that the day’s wage for the day’s work should be sufficient to support the worker (and his family??) for that day (hence payment in full at the end of the day). And of course you would pay him double on the day before Sabbath.
In Jesus’ day that amount was a denarius, but no one took part of it for taxes. In our day, what would the equivalent be? Pretty hard to say, but probably more than the $58 (before taxes) that the current federal minimum wage provides.


Hi katecho, I’m not catching your drift. Why would you pay full-time wages for part-time work? And what does Obamacare have to do with the price of tea in China? I do think that, when you hear about people who work at Wal-Mart and receive food stamps, something is amiss; either eligibility is too broad, or these people are not receiving a living wage.


” In particular, we need to reject and testify against the implicit and explicit violence of a state that allows the wealthy to prey upon the poor through ungodly conquest, rapacious taxation, ungodly use of economic sanctions, inflating the currency, outlawing jobs for the poor through minimum wage laws, collusion between governments and corporations, or establishing millions of well-paid jobs ostensibly dedicated to “relieving” poverty.”

It’s like the statement suddenly became a caricature of a right-wing ideology masquerading as religion for a moment.


Mark Hanson wrote: katecho, Still, it would seem from the scriptures Fredericka cites, that the day’s wage for the day’s work should be sufficient to support the worker (and his family??) for that day (hence payment in full at the end of the day). No one objects to the blessedness of being able to pay at least a minimal living wage for a full day’s work. However, there is no such mandate in the passage Fredericka referred to. We can’t just read into the text what we wish to be there. There are several factors to consider. The context refers… Read more »


Fredericka wrote: I do think that, when you hear about people who work at Wal-Mart and receive food stamps, something is amiss; either eligibility is too broad, or these people are not receiving a living wage. God instructed His people to leave the edges of their fields unharvested, so that the poor could glean them. Would something be amiss if a poor person in those days was employed but still needed to supplement their low income with gleanings? Should they be turned away? Fredericka seems to be supposing that the only ones who might ever need to glean would be… Read more »


“The context refers to the poor, who could be imagined to be hired for part time labor, or even on a one-day basis, by multiple employers. In that case no single employer would be responsible to pay full-time wages, or even know about the wages paid by other employers of that poor person.” Hi katecho. It’s difficult to see the problem here, it’s a simple arithmetical transform, grade school math. You seem to suppose the ‘cost-of-living’ information is available,– for some reason,– on a weekly or yearly basis, whereas the ‘hours worked’ information is counted in hours. So? Here’s a… Read more »


Fredericka wrote: We compute our minimum wage by the hour, without this throwing everyone into inextricable confusion. One can ‘imagine’ anything, but prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine, I suspect day labor worked. . .by the day, there being no quick and easy way to get from one job site to another. We predominantly have wristwatches and calculators and grade school math education in the U.S. too. These weren’t givens in the time of Deuteronomy. It’s nice to mandate that all labor be done in units of hours, but it simply wasn’t the case then. There was… Read more »


“Fredericka seems fixated on the modern 9-to-5 notion of labor.” Hi katecho. Let’s try again, and this time, please read the post you are responding to; I don’t do all this typing just to exercise my fingers. According to the Talmud, working hours were standardized as to region, by the ‘custom of the country.’ Recall, “MISHNAH. One who engages laborers and demands that they commence early or work late — where local usage is not to commence early or work late; he may not compel them. . .Everything depends on local custom.” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Mezia, 83a.) Notice, please,… Read more »

Mark B. Hanson
Mark B. Hanson

kaetcho, I think you misunderstood me a bit, trying to inject a bit of humor and all. My comment on double wages the day before the sabbath was of that sort (but didn’t God do just that with manna in the wilderness?) Ah, must have been my lack of smileys… I don’t think the current U.S. minimum wage is a living wage – my comment was to indicate that I thought the denarius a day was. I had another paragraph in my draft about that, but I left it out to avoid tl;dr syndrome. Nonetheless, there are people in the… Read more »


“But I will agree that increasing the minimum wage to a “living wage” (probably roughly double what it is now, depending on location) would in fact dry up entry-level jobs for the young. . .” Mark, many young people today owe tens of thousands in student loans, and I imagine when they think about how they are going to pay these loans off on entry-level wages, they just sit down and cry. I think if you lowered the minimum wage for people under the age of 21 to, say, three dollars an hour, you would indeed give a shot in… Read more »


How are you folks putting in those paragraph dividers?



I’m using empty “blockquote” HTML tags. When you go to write a reply, look just below the text box and there is a list of HTML tags that you can use. The cite administrator neglected to include the ≪br≫ and ≪p≫ tags, so the only thing similar is the ≪blockquote≫ tag (normally used when quoting blocks of text from others).

So when you want a paragraph break, enter ≪blockquote≫≪/blockquote≫ with no text in between the tags (and use actual greater-than and less-than symbols).

Hope that helps. And I hope the administrator is listening.



Thank you, katecho! (And while I’m talking to you, I share RFB’s appreciation of your comments.)