Serious question, folks. I am, once again, a guy with more questions than answers.
There is a concept in Christianity called "the social gospel." I don't like the term, but I understand its meaning. The reference is to the things we Christians are supposed to do for the people around us. You know ... take care of widows, feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit those in prison. It's stuff like what Jesus mentioned in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46). The difference in this parable between sheep and goat is that sheep discovered that "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." Did what? That "social gospel" stuff. "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." I won't even question whether we are supposed to do these things. I'll take it as a given. Genuine Christians understand that we are to lay aside self and give to others.
So, I read this in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 -- "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Now I have a dilemma. There are, obviously, those in need who are willing to work but can't find any. I understand that. We should help them. But there are those who are not willing to work. Some of them are intentionally homeless, counting on the kindness of strangers to give them enough to get by. Some have found themselves, for whatever reasons, out of work and then find that unemployment and welfare are just about enough to get by, so why bother? In other words, there is a segment of "needy" people who will not work. So ... what is our responsibility to them? Are we violating this command in 2nd Thessalonians if we give to them? Or are we honoring Christ? Is it true that there are actually people with whom we might come in contact who should not be helped? How do you correlate this?
1 comment:
I have come to the conclusion that everything in life is about balance. Go to one extreme or the other and you've got it wrong. Help the needy, of course, but if they are continually being needy through their own unwillingness to participate, let them not eat. You can never know who you are helping, which is the point of the sheep and goat parable. So, help through the love of Christ, but if you know for a fact that a person is being needy through their own inaction, only help them to a point, ie help them help themselves. Confucius had many good things to say, "Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, and feed him for his life." I don't think there is any allowance for not helping according to the Word, but there are limitations on how much or in what capacity.
Post a Comment