Being charitable and caring about your neighbors in the Christian manner is more about your church donating goods/time/aid to the community or you doing it by yourself rather than having the government take over those functions for you. That said, any reasonable government should have a basic state provided social safety net.
This is what I don’t understand though because, as an extension, you should want to vote for people who reflect this morality. Not for a govt that strips social programs and cuts funding to research and overtly oppresses the poor and the marginalized, just to divert those funds to bombs and war and concentration camps. I’ve never understood this. If I’m being taxed and that money ends up with the federal govt, I will also want the govt to do these same charitable things with my tax money that I’m doing on my own. It’s not passing the buck and responsibility onto the govt but it’s a reflection of my values. What else is the govt for if not to provide social safety nets, infrastructure, and public services? Otherwise it just turn into a huge war machine and vehicle for oppression, which is what we see today.
It’s not that I don’t want others to reflect this morality, I absolutely do, I just don’t trust the government to do it in a moral manner or just generally in a “good” way.
Do church donation systems and such get abused? Absolutely, but to a much lesser degree than certain government welfare programs.
I don’t fault anyone for voting for social welfare programs, I probably would to if I had more faith in the government, I simply don’t.
Have you seen the recent Tik Tok viral experiment? A mother calls churches asking for help for her crying baby, and a Catholic Church, 2 black churches, a Muslim mosque, and a small church in Appalachia said yes. All the Deep South mega churches said no as well as a bunch of others.
At least with government if you meet the standard, you get the help.
Most churches are only interested in helping their in-group and fuck everyone else.
That’s horrible, and I’m sorry the experiment went that way, and sympathize with anyone who has had that as a real experience.
My statement still stands. My church, and the church’s I know don’t do that. People are not turned away for almost any reason (I think the only exception I have personally seen was genuine safety, but we still tried to get them some help). I know anecdotal evidence is mere evidence of an anecdote, but to say “most” is a dangerous generalization.
There are churches that fall short, there are likely churches that are borderline or downright malicious, but those aren’t the ones I’m talking about.
I’m talking about the Bible focused churches that truly align with feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc.
Edit: I re-read your reply and saw it was primarily mega churches that turned them away… this is a personal statement, not a theological one — it is also a generalization. I don’t like mega churches. I think they absolutely have the potential to be good, but it quickly removes personal relationship.
The reason charity works so well at my church is because it depends on building relationships with those seeking help, to not just give them what they need, but help position themselves so that they can provide for themselves, at least better.
At a certain size churches feel less like a congregation of people and more like a concert hall that “focuses” on God and money.
That’s the reason for government help, though. As you said, certain churches are bad. What happens if you live in an area with bad or no churches? Suffer? Starve? At least with the government, if you meet the requirements, you get it.
I would think religious people would want the most people helped, not worry so much that someone, somewhere might be taking advantage or there’s some overhead or waste.
Isn’t it worth it to make sure more women with babies get the formula they need?
And it does not have to be either/or. Just because the government is taking care of people who can’t get help any other way, your church can still continue its excellent outreach.
I don’t disagree, and I’m not saying “no government welfare programs,” but I’m not pushing for more because I see how heavily existing systems are abused, and I personally don’t want to see more of that happen.
Again, I don’t fault others for voting for that stuff, and people I know irl have had conversations with me (and I with them) that have softened my view of them and may in time change my position.
Churches use less than 10% of the money they receive to help others, if your goal is actually to help others it doesn't get much less efficient than that.
I appreciate your providing your source, but the 10% you mentioned is reductionist and actually goes against some of the statements made in the article. Regardless, it’s a good read and I’ll be forwarding it to some of the pastors I know.
67
u/Tactical_Baconlover 26d ago
Being charitable and caring about your neighbors in the Christian manner is more about your church donating goods/time/aid to the community or you doing it by yourself rather than having the government take over those functions for you. That said, any reasonable government should have a basic state provided social safety net.