Who's Really Pro-Life?

The first American Pope has decided to wade into the American abortion debate by invoking a tired old line, the go-to of abortion supporters everywhere: “Someone who says ‘I’m against abortion but says I am in favor of the death penalty’ is not really pro-life." So let's consider, what does it really take to be "pro-life"?

What Do We Do About the Foreigner?

Despite popular sentiment, the Bible really does have a lot to say to modern life, but it's rarely as simple as finding the one verse that speaks to an issue. Thus when someone pulls out a verse and claims it's all you need to know on a political or social issue, it's reasonable to be skeptical. Let's look together at a topic that's generating a lot of heat right now.

Is "do not oppress the foreigner" really all scripture has to say about our immigration debates? I'd like to invite you to look over my shoulder as I wrestle with the issue biblically.

Politics and Poverty

As followers of Christ, we should want the word of God to inform our political views, and when we try to do that, one of the first things we are faced with is that there is no political party who gets it all right. Last time we looked at some things the Bible doesn't say. This time, let's look at what it does say and wrestle a bit with how we apply that in our world.

God and Government

The Bible rarely speaks directly to our political issues, so believers are free to work out their own political views. Obviously we really should let the scriptures shape our political views, but that's a lot of work and much harder than simply mining the Bible for proof texts to support our preexisting views. Many even dispense with the prooftexts, instead using vague, loosely Christian sentiments to ground their political views. OK, that's their right. If you're going to do that, though, be careful that you don't make an all-too-common mistake.

The Foundation of Christian Political Thought

As we enter the fall political season, people naturally ask what the Bible says about our many political issues. It's true that the scriptures do not tell us explicitly how to run a government, but the Lord did not leave us without guidance to answer the most important political questions of our age. Let's look at some passages that can help us navigate our political world.

Lewis on the Dangers of a Christian Political Party

CS Lewis' work is so timeless it's perpetually timely. When I read him, I frequently find myself saying, "This had to be written last year, not in the 1940s." I'd like to share one of his lesser-known essays that has a lot to say about our era.

Rights and Responsibilities

People today are very concerned about making sure they get the rights they are due. That stems partly from how we got started:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those words set the United States apart in 1776. People are born with rights. They are not privileges granted by government; they are granted by the Almighty, and a good government is the one that recognizes and protects those rights.

But there's a problem with the way many Americans — including many American Christians — think of their rights. It is an error to think that God only granted us rights. He also gave us duties:

"As God’s slaves, live as free people, but don’t use your freedom as a way to conceal evil. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the Emperor" (1Pet 2:16-17 HCSB).

"Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor" (Rom 13:7).

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matt 7:12).

Is that enough to make the point? God expects us to fear him, love our neighbor as ourselves, and respect our government leaders among other things. Even though we have rights, we are expected to behave as if other people have a claim on us.

Our society generally recognizes this. We have freedom of speech but a duty to tell the truth, and there are penalties for libel and slander. We have a freedom to assemble but most see a duty to do it in a way that is not a nuisance — and most see closing down highways during rush hour as a violation of that duty.

But when things don't go our way, we tend to focus on our rights to the exclusion of all else. We want our rights to be honored and, all too often, don't care about the affect on anyone else. Americans don't like this, but "my rights" are not the most important thing in the world. My duty to my neighbor may occasionally requires that I set aside some of my rights and privileges. My duty to the duly elected government may require that I do things I don't want to do.

This is something we have to keep in mind all of the time. We need to be mindful of our duties in traffic ("do to others what you would have them do to you"), during the several times a year we pay various taxes, and when we have unwanted trash in our hands and no convenient garbage can. We also need to keep this in mind when we're at the grocery stores and restaurants — the other customers and the staff matter to God. And occasionally the government has to remind us of this. Sometimes the government has to ask us, even tell us, to do things for the greater good.

That's not to say the government never goes too far, but if we are considering pressing for our rights, there are some questions that we should ask ourselves:

• How will my actions affect my neighbor?
• Is the government just flexing its muscles, or is it asking me to do something for the sake of my neighbor?
• If everyone acted like this, what would the result be?

Don't be too quick to demand your rights. We are occasionally obliged to set aside our rights for the sake of our neighbors. If Paul was willing to give up meat (!) for the sake of another's conscience (1Cor 8:13), what might God ask you to tolerate?

To make sure I'm clear, I'm not saying everyone should be a doormat for the state. I'm saying "my rights" cannot be our first priority. Love of neighbor and obedience to God's word must take that place.

Trusting God for the Consequences of Obedience

I hate admitting when I'm wrong.

Unless you're Rip Van Winkle, you're aware of the debates we've been having over immigration in the US in the last few years. The arguments have become vicious. Mostly they're over illegal immigration, but the effects have spilled over onto legal immigration as well. In the midst of this we have a number of humanitarian crises in the Middle East and in Latin America. People's homes have become unsafe, and they say they need somewhere to go — now!

And politically conservative evangelicals (not a completely redundant phrase) find themselves torn between two impulses.

On the one hand, care for the helpless — the widow and orphan, the alien, the refugee, "the least of these" — is frequently and strongly commanded in the Bible. God says again and again that he will judge people (and peoples) based on how they treat the weakest among them.

On the other hand, not only will helping these people be expensive for a nation that feels stretched too thin, this seems like it's just playing into the other (political) side's hands: namely, that these people will help tip American politics to the left for years to come (because the left seems to want to make all illegal immigrants citizens). The result of helping these people now may be to give up any chance of stopping the mass slaughter of unborn children for generations.

What do you do when you feel like you have to choose between obedience and ... obedience?

The first thing to do is recognize the difference between absolute facts and potentialities.

Fact: Refugees.

Potentiality: Maybe conservatives will eventually be able to put the right people on the courts to overturn Roe. Maybe every illegal alien granted citizenship will vote Democrat. Maybe that would let them keep stocking the courts with pro-abortion ideologues.

That's a lot of maybes.

Second, those maybes need to be met with one very important question: Do you believe in the providence of God?

That's the question that has slapped me in the face. I've joked that I believe in the providence of God until I'm stuck in traffic. Well, it's really not a joke. It's pretty true. I say I believe in the providence, even sovereignty, of God, but when push comes to shove, does my life look like it? Or do I let the illusion that I can control anything beyond my own decisions direct my actions?

So I will try to take to heart the message of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego: Just obey, and trust God is in charge of the consequences.

Religion in Political Discourse

Does religion have any place in political discourse?

Tim Keller recently wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times: How Do Christians Fit Into the Two-Party System? They Don’t. It's a great piece, and I recommend you read it. That's not what I want to talk about though.

In the comment section of the article, one of the "NYT picks" comments caught my attention. It's a reasonably well-written example of an attitude I've been seeing more and more in recent years, so I will paste it here:

“As a strong believer in the separation of Church and State, I believe that religion has no place in political discourse. I am sick and tired of so-called Christians and other faith-based groups, using their religious beliefs to influence public policy. You want to pray. Fine. Go to church. You want to live your life in accordance with some religious belief. Fine. Do it in the privacy of your home. But, do not use your religious belief to argue that your right to free speech is infringed upon when you are asked to bake a cake for a same sex couple, provide birth control under your company’s health insurance plan, deny science, etc. In short, do not use your religious beliefs to deny my right to live as I see fit. To influence public policy which denies millions of women, minorities, and children, access to health care, abortion, voting rights, civil rights. I am simply fed up with the hypocrisy to the so-called religious people in this country preaching to the rest of us who simply want to live our lives freely and openly without the burden of dealing with someone’s else’s gods foisted upon us.”

To an apparently growing segment of the population, the mere fact that your point of view is based in your religious beliefs renders it out of bounds.

Aside from the fact that "the separation of Church and State" isn't in the US Constitution, aside from the fact that this view is at odds with the actual text of the 1st Amendment and Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution, it's simply illogical.

The commentor's basic point is that my religious beliefs shouldn't have any affect on what I do outside my church or home. Do whatever you want in private, but don't let it affect how you live your life. Especially don't let it affect how she lives her life.

But she wants her ideas to affect how I live my life. She believes same-sex marriage is good and right, so I must act like it is too. She believes abortion is good and right, so I must act like it is.

Why? Because her ideas aren't based on a religion and mine are. That doesn't matter. But is that really even the case? There are millions who say they are "spiritual but not religious." You don't have to belong to an established religious organization to have "spiritual" beliefs. And in the same way, she has spiritual beliefs — whether her beliefs are that there is no god or that whatever god exists doesn't matter. Her religious beliefs may be different from mine, but they are really just as religious. And she not only wants to live her life based on them, she wants me to do so too.

She doesn't really want people to keep their religious beliefs in private. People acting on their religious beliefs open hospitals, run orphanages, and feed the hungry. They've opposed slavery, wars, and the abuse of women because of their religious beliefs.

And that's the way it's supposed to be. Jesus says if your beliefs don't affect the way you live your life, you don't really believe them.

What is Pro-Life?

Thomas Friedman argued in a recent column that liberals should take the term "pro-life" back from conservatives as a way to win the abortion debate. He says being pro-life requires "respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth."

Friedman is fine with you killing your children as long as it's not where he can see it, but he is pro-life, he says, because he supports gun control, the EPA, and Head Start.

Huh?

Yes, that old canard again. You're not "pro-life" if you don't believe in top-down state control of every aspect of your life — except over your reproductive choices, of course. He praises NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg as "the most 'pro-life' politician in America" because of his bans on smoking and large sugary drinks and his support for gun control, "climate change" regulation, and early childhood education.

It doesn't matter that the ban on sugary drinks is largely illusory, that most "climate change" regulation would punish the poor more than anyone, or that neither early childhood education nor gun control works. He cares about everyone — except unborn children.

As I have argued before, most of our political debates are over how to help people. Everyone's heart is in the right place; we just disagree about what will actually work or what is necessary.

But the abortion debate is over whether it is OK to kill unborn human beings. There is no logical argument than can make anyone who says "yes" to that question "pro-life."

Do We Really Value the Unborn?

Do miscarriages invalidate the prolife philosophy? I've heard this objection to the prolife view a few times. Our friend Vinny has used it a couple of times here. Let's break it up into two parts.

1. Prolifers claim every unborn child is valuable, but there are miscarriages all the time. It's natural. What's the problem with embyo/fetus being aborted?

Yes, babies die before birth all the time. They die after birth, too. People die every day of all kinds of things, natural and otherwise. That's no reason to make murder legal, and it's no reason abortion should be legal.

2. There are countless miscarriages every year. If the unborn are so valuable, why is no one trying to do anything about it? (Implied: Obviously it's just your little group that thinks it's a big deal.)

The response to this is more complicated. First, miscarriages don't devalue the unborn. Ask any woman who's had one.

Second, it is a little "out of sight, out of mind." Especially before the first ultrasound (and in the past, before "quickening"), the whole idea that there's a baby in there is a bit surreal. Losing a child you've never touched is a lot like waking up from a dream. If as many babies died right after birth as die in the first trimester, the response would be greater, not because they are more valuable, but because we could see it happening.

Third, as sad as they are, I think the common attitude is that there was probably something wrong with the child, and that's why it didn't thrive. That may be wishful thinking, but I think that is a part of why there isn't more concern.

Fourth, but people are doing something about it. That's why sonograms abound. It's why we try to fix problems in babies in utero. It's why women who are trying to get pregnant now take folic acid supplements. It's why we have drugs to help thicken uterine linings. That this research doesn't get as much press as breast cancer research doesn't mean it's not there and that it's not important.


The question for the pro-choice crowd is, what happens, and when, to make this valueless blob of tissue suddenly a valuable human baby?

Rape and Abortion

In the wake of Congressman Akin's infamous statement about rape and pregnancy, the left had a field day attacking conservatives on their anti-abortion stance. Many on the right ran for cover, trying to distance themselves from his statements or even his position.

Let me go on the record as saying Mr. Akin's statement about pregnancy from rape is ignorant and demonstrably false.

Let me also go on the record as believing abortion should only be legal to save the life of the mother.

No rape and incest exception? No.

Even as they ridicule, pro-choicers are aware that a rape exception is inconsistent with the pro-life philosophy and use that against us. We may as well stand for what we believe in and be able to explain why.

The fundamental question about aborting an unborn child is this: What is it?

If the unborn is a blob of tissue, little more than a cancerous growth inside the mother or a parasite inside a host, then we shouldn't even be having this conversation. Aborting this little blob has no more moral significance than removing a mole.

If the unborn is a human being at a slightly earlier stage of development than an infant, then we must treat that life with all the care due any other human being.

The circumstances of his conception does not change that.

Rape is a horrible thing. Besides the physical violence, there is emotional trauma that will need a long time to heal, if it ever does.

And aborting the child produced by that attack will not change any of it. Allowing the child to be born, however, brings a little good out of that horrible thing.

After all, our society doesn't put rapists to death. Why would we kill their children? The child is not responsible for the act that brought him into the world.

You may be thinking, "Isn't it cruel to make a woman carry a child conceived in rape to term?" I don't think so. But even if it were, it's not all about her any more. There's another life involved. That innocent little life deserves to be protected. And many women, after carrying such children for nine months, realize they love and cherish that child as much as any other.

And if the mother doesn't want to raise the child, the line to adopt healthy infants is wrapped around the block ... many, many times.

All that said, though, I wouldn't make outlawing abortion after rape part of any party's platform. It's not something many people will be receptive to at this point in time. Tactically, it's something we should ease into.

Life is full of partial victories. If abortion was only legal in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother, the vast majority — by some estimates, 99+% — of abortions would cease. If, in time, we were able to convince people that rape isn't a good reason to abort a baby, that would be ideal, but we shouldn't set ourselves up for a much more difficult fight when we still have the larger one to win.

1% Charity

Election season always supplies lots of noise about taxes. This year expect debate over whether the rich should "pay their fair share" or whether taxing the rich more would amount to "job destroying tax increases."

Conservatives, Christian or not, tend toward the latter, and that's ok as long as we don't forget something important.

First, though, we must ask: What share is "fair?" That question is hard, but critical, to answer. People only talk about the rich (whether it's the 1%, 5%, or 50%) paying more in taxes because tax receipts are not covering everything the government does. Is the fair share whatever it takes to cover the government's expenses?

Asking for "whatever it takes" presents a big danger. If you could tax the rich enough to cover everything the government wants to do (you can't, they don't have enough money, but if you could), government would simply increase what it wants to do. Eventually (like, Tuesday) the rich would not be able to supply enough tax money, so the definition of "rich" would creep downward while "enough" would creep upward. Just like the alternative minimum tax, this would slowly encompass more and more people.

To prevent that creep, we need to decide how much is the most the government can ask of someone. Tax raisers need to commit to a number. That provides a ceiling not only for the tax rate but, ideally, spending.

Not only is "enough" dangerous, it's simply wrong. People who work hard and earn their pay have a right to it. It doesn't matter how they earn it as long as it's honestly earned.

However, as conservatives — again, Christian or not — defend the basic right of people to keep what they earn, they must not forget another important truth: People have a responsibility for their neighbors.

Loving your neighbor as yourself frequently has dollar signs attached to it. From one end of the Bible to the other, God commands us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and tend to the sick. That's not free.

That doesn't mean it has to be done through government — especially the federal government. I've written before that federal "charity" is neither constitutional nor healthy (for anyone involved).

But however it's done, it has to be done.

So defend the right of the 1% to reap the reward of their labor, but don't let them forget their obligation to their neighbor.

Related:
Helping the Poor Biblically
Why Keep Taxes Low?
Conservatives and the Least of These

Free Ham

The left wants to make the HHS contraception rule about contraception, even sex. Some unfortunate choices on the right have helped them. But it's not about contraception; it's about big government and free exercise of religion.

Let's recast the argument in other terms so everyone remembers what's really going on.

Today the Obama administration announced new rules requiring all restaurants to provide a free ham sandwich to anyone who asks for one. The rule only requires bread and ham; cheese, vegetables, and condiments would still be paid for by the customer.

Restaurant groups quickly complained about the cost of complying with such a mandate, but supporters insisted that food is a fundamental right to which all citizens are entitled.

Religious groups cried foul, claiming many business owners — e.g., Jewish, Muslim, and vegetarian — cannot in good conscience serve a ham sandwich to customers, but government officials (who asked to remain anonymous because they had not been authorized to speak on the issue) responded that they were only asked to serve, not eat, the ham.

Hopefully this will raise a number of questions in your mind. By what authority does the government require someone to provide an item, any item, to a third party? Is there really such a right? Does the existence of this right mean that someone else is obliged to provide it to them?

And, most of all, what possessed the government to handle this in a way that would require millions of Americans to violate their religious beliefs?

The contraception flap is not about sex or birth control. It's about what limits we are going to place on our government.

Can I Vote for a Mormon?

After answering the question of whether Mormons are a cult with a solid "yes and no," we should turn to the next question that's on so many minds, since there are two Mormons in the GOP presidential primary right now: Can I vote for one for President of the United States?

It's true that Mormons are pretty far outside of normal, orthodox Christianity, but their belief system still produces a world view that is in line with that of most evangelical Christians, at least on the most practical matters.

We can expect a Mormon president to be pro-life and pro-family — both in the laws they champion and the judges they appoint. As people who are committed to unpopular and difficult lifestyles, we can expect them to support freedom of religious exercise for all Americans. Beyond that, I think you'll find their chosen party labels tell you more about their views and aims than does their religion.

There are understandable concerns about a Mormon president creating interest in the LDS religion, but I can't believe they'll get such a huge boost from that. People may consider the Mormons out of curiousity, but their decision to stay with them or not will say more about traditional Christians than about the Mormon president.

And how far are we willing to take that concern? If we don't vote for a Mormon because it may cause people to become Mormons, next we may have people in the Church of Christ refusing to vote for Baptists or Calvinists refusing to vote for Arminians. Ridiculous? Yeah. So is voting against a Mormon over this.

There's one truth we need to keep in mind in this whole thing: We're looking for a president, not a pastor.

All of the objections to voting for a Mormon for president should fall away if we keep that truth in view.

One last warning: Even if you don't vote for a Mormon in the primary, it's appearing increasingly likely your choice in the general election will be President Obama or a Mormon. If you decide to opt for a candidate of a minor party — the "true Christian" in the race — you will simply be voting for Obama. That's simply the way our system works.

On the Question of Torture

Would you torture a man to save him?

Little Jashon was missing after his mother's body was discovered. The suspect in his mother's murder is a multiple felon who has killed a child before.

At 17-months-old, even if unharmed, this little boy wouldn't survive long without care. As John at Verum Serum points out, this is basically the ticking time bomb from torture debates.

Any torture debate usually turns into a disjointed mess because people start talking past each other. There are three questions that must be asked, and they must be dealt with independently and thoroughly.

1) Is torture ever acceptable?
2) Is torture ever effective?
3) Is [a given act] torture?

The first question must be answered before the second is discussed because if it is never morally acceptable, it doesn't matter if it's effective.

The third question is essential because we have to decide if a procedure is torture before we try to apply the other two questions to it. For instance, if waterboarding is not torture, it's pointless to bring it into arguments about whether torture is wrong. Both questions need to be resolved separately.

In any debate — whether the topic is politics, religion, a new pet, or updating procedures at work — we need to make sure we pay attention to what the questions really are and whether they're being addressed properly. We serve our Master better with a reputation for clear thinking and honest discussion. And the debate may even prove fruitful.

As to the matter at hand, I'd love to know how you would answer the above questions, but the real, and heart-rending, question is, would you torture a man to save that little boy?

I'm afraid I probably would, but I'm pretty sure I'd be a bit sick to my stomach afterward either way.

[Oh, and they've found a body that's probably the boy's.]

The Cause of Abortion

I frequently hear "pro-life" Democrats/liberals say they think the solution to abortion is to deal with the causes of abortion.

They'll tell you abortion is caused by things like poverty, poor birth control education, and social stigmas against unwed mothers. And, of course, the solution to this situation is to have free and liberal abortion laws while throwing lots of money at these problems.

If that is the cause of abortion, maybe, just maybe, that will help. But if it's not?

What if abortion is caused by selfishness?

If a woman has an abortion because "I'm not ready" or "this will interfere with my plans," what will ever change that? As long as people expect the world to revolve around them, there will always be inconvenient babies, and abortion will always be a useful tool to protect their self-interest.

We cannot get rid of abortion by making it no longer "necessary." It will only go away when it is no longer acceptable.

Further Schizophrenia on Abortion

"Scores of healthy foetuses die every year because most hospitals do not give pregnant women what the NHS says is the best test for Down's syndrome.

Dr Anne Mackie, the head of NHS screening programmes, estimated 146 babies a year in England who do not have any abnormality are lost as a result of efforts to detect children with the genetic condition."

The good doctor calls this situation "scandalous and disgraceful." Read the whole story, and you'll get no suggestion that it is in any way unacceptable to abort a baby with Downs. You'll also get no suggestion that it is in any way unacceptable to abort a baby for any other reason.

According to pro-choice rhetoric, it's perfectly fine and morally neutral to abort a child for any reason. You can do it because his timing is inconvenient ("I'm not ready" or "I need to finish school first"), because your chosen method of birth control failed, or because he won't ever be able to live up to your hopes and dreams ("I'm too poor" or a birth defect).

But if the fetus is indeed nothing but a pre-life or potential person, then what does it matter if you accidentally abort one that didn't actually have anything wrong? ("Well, turns out that mole wasn't cancerous.")

If it's a tragedy because a valuable and precious member of the human race died, then every abortion is a tragedy. If it's a tragedy because some mother's heart was broken, then it's always a tragedy.

And if we can't see how we all seem to instinctively know abortion is wrong, that's a tragedy.

-------
related:
America’s Schizophrenic Stance on Abortion

Christians and Healthcare Reform, redux

With all of the emotion that accompanies the health care reform debate, it was only a matter of time until people starting stepping over the line. Still, I’m sad to see statements like, “How can you be a Christian and not support health care reform?”

The truth is that just about everyone thinks things need to change. Not supporting any of the Democratic bills does not constitute thinking that our health care system is fine.

And not supporting a “government option” that appears to be designed to lead to a single-payer system is not un-Christian. People of good will can believe that this will only destroy what is good in our health care system and hurt the very people it is intended to help (along with everyone else).

Besides, the real un-Christian attitude is the one that wants to give all this power to the government, right?

No.

As we’ve discussed before, when the discussion is about how to help people, it is not right to start pointing fingers at our brethren.

The un-Christian attitude, the sinful mindset, is the one that says, “I’ve got my health care; I don’t care about you.”

----------
If you're interested in more on the politics of health care reform, visit My Three Cents.

Related:
Politics, Religion, and Brotherly Love
Conservatives and the Least of These
Physician Heal Thyself

Government, Charity, and Jesus

Recently John Mark Reynolds wrote at Scriptorium Daily, “Moral men have a duty to help their neighbors, but nobody has the right to force other people to help. … When we pass our moral duties over to the state, we lose the power to do charity ourselves, turn an act of charity into coercion, and give the state too much power.”

Someone replied, “What if that charity does not suffice? What is second best? Do you think it is better to take taxes from people and feed the poor, or should we let the poor starve?”

Reynolds’ response is worth reading, but I want to focus on something I think is behind the reader’s comment.

Though I think there may be a place for a government safety net, the Bible is clear that taking care of the poor is an individual responsibility. When people look around them and see the poor, they say, “The church isn’t taking care of the poor, so the government must.”

Those aren’t the only two options. You are supposed to take care of the poor.

Those who say “the church isn’t taking care of the poor” cry for government charity and then drive home in their relatively new cars to sit on store-bought furniture and watch one of their multiple TVs – probably with cable – in an air conditioned living room that is larger than most houses in the world.

Americans – myself included – are accustomed to a level of comfort that was unimaginable a hundred years ago. The vast majority of our wealth, however meager we may feel it to be, goes to support our lifestyles. We then ask someone else to take care of our neighbors.

You might say, “But I give lots of money to charity.” And I hope you do. A great many Christians give at least 10% of their income to their church and more still to various charities. But that still leaves us a lot of money.

To put it into perspective, if you go anywhere people gather right now you’ll hear people talk about how tough times are. Many are struggling to make ends meet. Quite a few have lost jobs. And they’ll be talking on cell phones. Probably iphones. They’ll have ipods and fast food and jewelry.

You may say that is why we’re in this mess. I’m saying that’s the point. We’re in the current economic mess in large part because we think we’re entitled to a certain lifestyle. And we don’t generally let our charity interfere with our lifestyle.

I am confident that if someone asked Jesus what to do about all the poor people around them, He would say, “Help them.”

“But, Lord, the church isn’t doing its job!”

“You help them.”

“By myself? I can’t help everyone.”

“Help as many as you can.”

“I’ve given away a quarter of my income!”

“So you’ve kept 75% of your money?”

How would you argue with that? Would He have to tell you that you could turn off the cable, sell your car, give away half of your clothes, and share your home?

The point is when people say “The church isn’t taking care of the poor, so the government must,” what they’re really saying, “Will someone please keep me from having to sacrifice for the poor?”

I’m not saying it’s wrong to use the money you earn on yourself. I am saying until you are giving ‘til it hurts you have no right to ask the government force your morality on other people.