The Bible and Money All Around the Web

For those of you new to Free Money Finance, I post on The Bible and Money every Sunday. Here's why.

Today I'd like to highlight a few posts from around the web that deal with the Bible (or at least Christianity) and money. Here they are -- along with a key quote:

• Work as unto the Lord - Being God's emissary on the job is not difficult; it's impossible in our own strength. Only by yielding our rights to Christ can the world really get a glimpse of Him through us. "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted" (Matthew 23:12). The only way a Christian can avoid the traps of ego, pride, and resentment is to know that God is in total control of all circumstances and strive to please Him.

• One Wallet's Witness - The week my wallet witnessed was a hectic one. But in spite of my packed schedule, God carved out the time and orchestrated three ordinary situations to allow His light to shine, anyway.

• Caring for the poor: Whose job is it -- church or state? - As participants in both church and state, Christians should minister directly to the poor and also advocate to the government on their behalf, specialists stress.

• Church rules drive away longtime parishioner - Lienen's first wife, Ardath, who died 19 years ago, was buried there, just a few steps from the church building. He bought - or at least he thought he bought - four side-by-side plots when she died, and he always intended to be buried next to her. Now, the church had taken away his remaining plots. It meant that a stranger would one day be buried alongside his wife. And that, Lienen decided, was unacceptable. So he had her dug up and moved.

Comments

[pharmboy]

for some reason, nothing fires me up like a discussion about the roles of church and state regarding helping the poor.

a few months back, during our prayers of the faithful at my parish, we were asked to pray that the government help reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

I wrote a letter to our priest explaining that it sure sounded to me like we were praying for communism, and I haven't heard a prayer like it since.

as I read the linked article above, I just couldn't quite imagine Jesus telling people that it's a morally justified action for the government to take thousands of dollars from me (by threat of force) and give it to someone else all in the name of helping the poor.

[Mike W]

In response to pharmboy with a mini-rant on the side.

I think it's everyones responsibility to help others out. Now that being said, I am a conservative (both socially and fiscally). I don't believe in free hand outs to those who don't need them.

I do believe, however, that we have a role in helping those less fortunate out. We have a role in helping our fellow human beings get back up from situations that truly require help. I don't think that is our current welfare/entitlement system as it stands now. That is a crock and the federal government is too large and too much a bureaucracy to properly coordinate it. (Yes I know that it is the states who actually handle a lot of the doling for the federal programs). I believe that the way we should help our fellow citizens is:

- Friends and Family - If someone is suffering in your family and you have the means to help then I believe it is our duty to help responsibly. That means help someone get ahead with important bills. It doesn't mean give a wad of cash to that brother who has a drug problem and will spend it on drugs. It means offer encouragement, offer substance and help towards bills directly, help in finding the right path.

- Churches and Charities - As a Christian, I am called to help the poor and those less fortunate, our churches should have (and the majority do) programs to help those out within the body and within the local community we serve. That is a physical ministry and we see many examples of Jesus reaching out to those around him with physical service. Same goes for charities that are set up for this purpose.

- Government - I don't believe that it is our Federal government's responsibility to tax it's citizens and redstribute a healthy sized portion to social programs that are flawed. I do believe that local and state governments and perhaps some portion of Federal spending should go on programs that work. Programs that are designed to give a temporary leg up. If there is a single mother out there who is on the streets, help her find residency (assuming the first options above failed to do so), help her to afford it and then help her learn to cope with life on her own. Help her get an education, help her get job training and find the career that is right for her. But don't just give blindly without oversight. Make benchmarks and milestones that must be met or the money stops. That is tough, many on the left would scream that I don't care for that woman or her children. I would argue back that if she truly cared for herself or her children she would want to learn how to provide for them. If the government programs are seen as being a true last resort and as a way to get someone to the point where they can provide for themselves then it would cost far less. The other benefit would be we would have more citizens being paid better, spending more on products and increasing our GDP and our economy as a whole. The other benefit is we would have more people with higher self-esteem, more people would stop believing the lie that welfare tells them (you are worthless, you need this money and without it you can't do anything, you can't survive) and we would see generations changed.

Look at that example I referred to. If she lived off entitlement programs, kept her low self esteem and allowed that to rub off on her children there is a strong chance her children would do poorly in school. They too would have low self esteem and believe that they could do nothing for themselves. The cycle would be a lot more likely to repeat in their generation. Now if that mother made it on her own one day, she would be pretty darn proud, that pride would rub off on her children and she would understand the value of hard work and making it on your own. The children would be more likely to understand that and a lot less likely to turn to drugs,violence,dropping out and generally making nothing of themselves.

So I do believe that we should help people. I think that is in line with what Jesus taught. I am not sure where the taxes in Rome were distributed but Jesus did teach that we are to pay our taxes ("Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" Matthew 22:21). I would all but guarantee that you paid your taxes to Rome by threat of force. So we are to pay our taxes and respect the governments to which we belong and their laws so long as they don't contradict the Bible or ask us to do something that our faith tells us not to.

I can only say that since Jesus cared about the poor, wanted his followers to feed them, provide for them (and do so sacrificially), treat them as they would treat Him and told his followers to pay their taxes that I don't think he would have issue with some of the tax dollars going to help those in need. I personally just don't like the way we do it today and I think the government becomes the first stop (even before self-help) for too many people and the aim is not on getting people off of welfare so much as it should be.

[LC]

I don't know how I feel about One Wallets Witness. While I admire the woman's honesty and her willingness to identify herself as a Christian, her tone and words might not have been the right ones. It sounds almost condescending like "I did the right thing because I'm a Christian and we always do the right thing." I think that a better thing to say would be "The Bible says to always be honest" or "I believe that's what Jesus would have done." I just got a bad feeling about what sounded to me like a prideful attitude rather than genuinely sharing her faith.

[Pete]

Thanks as a blogger of personal finance and a christian - I really appreciate these posts. I have to admit the one post about caring for the poor - and who's job it is - church or state - really has me thinking hard, and a bit conflicted. While I agree that the government needs to be involved in caring for the poor, I also think the government has way too much wasteful spending, and often the definitions of those who are poor are often skewed. I think a careful balance is needed, however, we also need to make sure that our government doesn't become the end all save all as far as caring for the poor.

Wow, I feel like i'm talking in circles here.. like i said, I'm conflicted.

[Minimum Wage]

Government can do things to reduce the gap between rich and poor without handouts or redistribution.

School choice, reforming regressive taxes, reducing regulations which hinder business and job creation, reforming building, housing, zoning, and taxing regulations which drive up the cost of housing for the poor.

But all of these things have the support of other interests, and when the interests of the poor are opposed by some other interest(s), the poor lose.

[anna]

@ Mike W

"But don't just give blindly without oversight. Make benchmarks and milestones that must be met or the money stops."

Are you sure this isn't already happening? My understanding is that there are already time limits and criteria that must be met to get aid. There definitely are in my state.

as to this "If she lived off entitlement programs, kept her low self esteem and allowed that to rub off on her children there is a strong chance her children would do poorly in school. They too would have low self esteem and believe that they could do nothing for themselves..."

It's a good point -- I strongly agree that low expectations can diminish a person's chances for success. But I contend that the problem isn't the child's lack of self worth, but the reduced afterschool programs, lack of books, unqualified/poorly paid teachers, substandard buildings, poor nutrition and a home life that limits the child's interaction with parents and family.

The schools where I live are really struggling: the kids don't even have safe (structurally) buildings, not to mention books or money for programs. This isn't an issue of esteem, but of resources.

I think the church can really step in for those areas like helping to provide affordable daycare or even sponsoring a school to help w/books or supplies.

I think that once the resources/infrastructure are there to make a person's work more productive, then there will be fewer in poverty. But that's a huge problem to address, and I don't see how the church, unless it were The Church (as in a huge institution) can coordinate their efforts on a wide scale. I could see if all-faith based groups would be willing to work together, but I don't know ideology won't prevent them from combining their forces. And I don't think that just because they are in a church they'll be the best at allocating resources, staffing, doing strategic planning, preparing the proper oversight, or the other administrative details that are involved with running a program. I mean, they could be, but I don't think the fact that it's a church is going to make them inherently better or more motivated than a person getting a paycheck for the same service.

So I see churches working alone, which is definitely helpful, but to me it's like trying to be a bodybuilder by exercising one muscle fiber at a time: it needs a concerted effort to achieve widespread results in any measurable time.

I liked the article.

And @ Minimum Wage -- your housing comment was dead on. The cost of housing and transportation alone is a huge blow to a lower-income family.