Liberal voices are up in arms because Elon Musk cut off foreign aid. The Christian Left is shouting that it's not ... Christian. One writer (who said, "If there is a god, surely this isn't right.") said "If I were to sum up the life and teachings of Christ, it would be three words: love your neighbor." Now, the truth is Jesus did teach that very thing. I think the suggestion that this was all or even primarily what Jesus taught is way off, starting with "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment" (Matt 22:37-38). Clearly Jesus taught first to love God. But, that aside, we're stuck with a dilemma. "Love your neighbor" is a central issue (as in, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).). The question, though, is "What is this thing called love?"
Liberals and social justice warriors see "love" as a function of wealth, it seems. If you have a lot, you're supposed to give it. "Love your neighbor" means no one should have more than anyone else. But is that love? Our simplistic thinking says, "Making people more comfortable is love." Is it? Scripture argues that God is love, and He offers wrath where needed. Jesus said, "You always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have Me" (Mark 14:7). If helping the poor is a definition of love, what was wrong with Jesus? He could feed 5000; couldn't He feed the world? Conversely, Job was quite clear. "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10). And Joseph considered his brothers' mistreatment of him as intended by God for good (Gen 50:20). If love is defined as seeking the best for others, it appears that "make them feel better" isn't always the best. So we take our babies into the doctor to be jabbed by needles ... in their best interest, because sometimes pain is necessary for love. Hebrews argues, "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). Pain is sometimes necessary for love.
The whole political climate in Washington is not my point here. It was simply the catalyst for my thinking. We are commanded to love our neighbors. Sometimes that's doing good to them. Sometimes we know there's such a thing as "tough love." Ultimately love is defined by God, and we should be diligent to do that version rather than our warm and fuzzy "feel good" version today. Sometimes that's not love at all.
2 comments:
Reading here, we are prompted often to consider the true nature of “love” and how that will look in our lives as Christians. It does seem that the world truly does not understand real love and spends much effort attempting to reinvent the whole concept to suit itself. When I think biblically about love, I am mindful that love is the first fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22); it is preeminent over all Christian traits (1 Cor. 13:1-3, 13); it comes from God (1 John 4:7-12); and it is God’s very essence (1 John 4:16). This explains why the world--which does not know God nor have His Spirit--cannot understand true love and must create an alternate version. May we believers continue to model truth to our neighbors.
I've always wanted to ask these people, is it still loving your neighbor if it is done against your will? I fully agree that Christians should be doing more for our neighbors, foreign and domestic. But doing that through unelected bureaucracy with no knowledge on our part, no love, and worst of all, no Christ. Feeding the poor is a good thing, but what they really need is Christ, and I can guarantee the government isn't giving them Christ along with their condoms, or trans plays, or Sesame Street (to name a few of the things our tax dollars are providing to FOREIGN nations). You want to help the poor, you help the poor, not the government without the will of the people. Forcing charity only produces resentment on one side and entitlement on the other.
Post a Comment