• Font Size
  • A
  • A
  • A
Print Images Print

With the Trump White House attempting to impose barely a modicum of fiscal sanity with its first budget, a bunch of people who pridefully and publicly defy and deny God are now claiming to speak for Him.

That’s right, progressives are waxing sanctimonious with their fake compassion again. 

Of course, ignoring God’s Word is kind of progressivism’s jam so you be you.

Please progressives, who advocate for the murder and dismembering of innocent preborn babies, tell us more about this fake compassion of yours.

Please progressives, who support life-threatening sexual immorality, tell us more about this fake compassion of yours.

Please progressives, who advocate government coercion to destroy the lives of conscientious objectors like Barronelle Stutzman, tell us more about this fake compassion of yours.

Please progressives, who advocate government suing nuns to betray their own vows, tell us more about this fake compassion of yours.

Please progressives, who deny kids stuck in under-performing schools the same educational opportunities the Obama children received, tell us more about this fake compassion of yours.

Please progressives, who are willing to risk the public safety of females in vulnerable settings, tell us more about this fake compassion of yours.

Please progressives, who showed no empathy for those who lost their health care or saw their costs skyrocket because of Obamacare, tell us more about this fake compassion of yours.

So I think I’ve made my point. Real compassion really isn’t progressivism’s thing. But for the sake of argument — and because I’m on deadline without a better column idea — let’s play along and take advantage of a teachable moment, shall we?

Does the Bible support a welfare state?

There is absolutely no wealth redistribution, coerced and implemented by the state, either advocated or modeled anywhere in the Bible. In the Old Testament law the state technically did administer charity, but there also was no institutional separation between church and state — they were the same organism. The Levite priests, acting as agents of the state, did collect alms for the poor. But those came in the form of tithes, not progressive income taxes imposed by a secular government.

However, that was what we call a “direct theocracy” form of government. Meaning God directly governed a specific covenant people Himself. He hand-selected its leaders, and removed them by His hand as well. He specifically wrote and revealed its laws, too. These weren’t inspirations, as our laws were originally inspired by the Ten Commandments, for example. These were direct revelations, like when God personally handed Moses two stone tablets to take down the mountain to give to the people.

So if you want to try and emulate that model, you have to take it all the way. For the same God that had His priests collect tithes for the poor, also demanded the state enforce His moral and religious law, too. Does that mean the same progressives bastardizing the Bible to promote a welfare state want worship of Jehovah and sodomy laws enforced, too, as they were back then? Not to mention, since when are progressives down with theocracy?

Now, in the New Testament wealth redistribution is practiced in Acts, but among the church not the state. Meaning church members voluntarily gave what they could to help the brethren within the covenantal Christian religious community. They didn't collect funds for poor Saturn or Emperor worshippers, but Christians gave primarily (and often exclusively) for other Christians. When charity or miracles were given to non-believers, it was with both a spiritual and a material motivation in the hopes of eventually causing them to believe. Thus, charity and mercy weren't social acts, but religious ones with evangelizing and demonstrating the integrity of the faith in mind.

In the New Testament Christians are also told two things about government. One is government’s main purpose, which is to be an “avenging angel against evil doers” — or those who violate God's moral law. The other is to honor the government, including paying your taxes, to those "who honor is due." What does that mean?

It means we are to obey the government as a divinely ordained institution, until it seeks to exceed its divinely given mandate. We know for certain that’s what it means, because the two men who each wrote those words (Peter and Paul) were both martyred for defying government when it declared itself god.

Government has authority over the believer, until it attempts to interfere with our belief and obedience to God. Once government asserts itself in such a manner, believers are to "obey God and not man." This is the choice both Peter and Paul made, to fear the eternal God instead of the earthly government. It’s a choice that cost them their earthly lives, but rewarded them with eternal life instead.

It could certainly be argued a government that confiscates a believer's money for nefarious purposes — murdering children, promotion of immorality, denying their conscience, promotion of pagan ideology, etc. — has definitely exceeded its divinely given mandate. Hence, believers are right — if not obligated — to resist it.

You might be able to exegetically argue believers should support a God-honoring government that installs a welfare state. But we don't have one of those. We have a government wrestling with God for dominion over the conscience of the people. Therefore, you cannot make a valid argument that God supports a welfare state, redistribution scheme imposed by a secular government without either distorting, or outright ignoring, His Word.

Of course, ignoring God’s Word is kind of progressivism’s jam so you be you.

steve deace
Tweets