What Sermon text would you use to preach against welfare?

[christundivided]

It means we need to teach people to take care of poor people.  It also means that, as Christians, we should be doing our part to right the wrongs in the world...and I consider hungry, naked people who cannot work to be very wrong.

Did our Lord provide food for everyone in the world?... or did he take care of His own? Did Christ fill the surrounding Gentiles nations with manna?

It is not your duty to provide something for nothing. It is not your duty to right all the wrongs in this world. I'd say you would do good if you take care of your own first and foremost. Are you neglecting your own to help others?

Nope. I just recognize that what we are saved TO is vastly more important than what we are saved FROM.

Both are equally important. One does not exist without the other. You've made an arbitrary choice when none needs to be made.

Logical fallacy.

Elaborate.

You should expect it if you need it. It's your right as a citizen.

No its not my right. Want to show me rights in the constitution to government welfare assistance? If all you have do is "need" it and be a "citizen"... then what about all the citizens not getting anything?

Then let's hope you don't get hit by a train the same time your wife gets very ill. Because...in that case...she will most likely be very thankful that our system will help her out.

I have family apart from immediate family. They are good Godly people They can help and will help if that happens. I don't expect my "family" the government to help me out.

BUT you have brought up a great point....

Don't you think government has largely tried to insert themselves as the "Big Grand Daddy" in your family? People have too long thought of the government as their greatest asset.

 

[rsc2a]

It means we need to teach people to take care of poor people.  It also means that, as Christians, we should be doing our part to right the wrongs in the world...and I consider hungry, naked people who cannot work to be very wrong.

Did our Lord provide food for everyone in the world?... or did he take care of His own? Did Christ fill the surrounding Gentiles nations with manna?

Umm...believers and non-believers. (See John 6.) Paul also said we should do good for everyone (although our first priority is to individuals in the church).

[quote author=christundivided]It is not your duty to provide something for nothing. It is not your duty to right all the wrongs in this world. I'd say you would do good if you take care of your own first and foremost. Are you neglecting your own to help others?[/quote]

How Christ-like.

[quote author=christundivided]

Nope. I just recognize that what we are saved TO is vastly more important than what we are saved FROM.

Both are equally important. One does not exist without the other. You've made an arbitrary choice when none needs to be made. [/quote]

One does not exist without the other true, but IMO the "why" (saved to) is more important than the "what" (saved from).

[quote author=christundivided]

Logical fallacy.

Elaborate. [/quote]

I do agree that welfare can be good but it has become overwhelmingly BAD for our nation. People have become accustom to following whoever it is that "fills their belly". They could care less of what it cost or whether its ethically acceptable.

See fallacy of hasty generalization.

[quote author=christundivided]

You should expect it if you need it. It's your right as a citizen.

No its not my right. Want to show me rights in the constitution to government welfare assistance? If all you have do is "need" it and be a "citizen"... then what about all the citizens not getting anything?[/quote]

The Congress shall have power to...make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Again - I don't agree with how the government exercises its authority, but to say that it doesn't have the authority to do so is obviously wrong since they are legally doing it.

[quote author=christundivided]

Then let's hope you don't get hit by a train the same time your wife gets very ill. Because...in that case...she will most likely be very thankful that our system will help her out.

I have family apart from immediate family. They are good Godly people They can help and will help if that happens. I don't expect my "family" the government to help me out.[/quote]

You hope...

[quote author=christundivided]BUT you have brought up a great point....

Don't you think government has largely tried to insert themselves as the "Big Grand Daddy" in your family? People have too long thought of the government as their greatest asset.[/quote]

Absolutely.



But back to your original point:

You asked what sermon text one would use to preach against welfare. Later you stated that welfare is not inherently sinful but can be abused. Why would you preach against something that is not sin. Would you likewise preach against eating or sex or taking a nap? (This is assuming preaching against stuff is your style).

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

I do not think that welfare in and of itself is inherently evil, but I think the church should lead the way in that are, not the government.  It starts at home.  The reason we have so much welfare is first and foremost a problem with parents, especially Dads, taking responsibility for their children, and women taking responsibility for not being unwed baby factories.  Countless women have children, the dads disappear, and the women wind up on welfare.  I know, because my step sister was one of these women.  She had 3 children out of wedlock, gave up the first one to her sister at birth, but kept the next two.  She lived in an apartment with a rent of 7 bucks.  She had food stamps, etc.  The only reason she didn't have more is that she had to have her tubes tied because of complications.  She partied and live off the government until she left the kids to party and finally had the kids taken away.  They were adopted by family members.  Let me be clear here:  The reason she got welfare is that she lied and said she didn't know who the father was.  Truth is, he was still coming around to live off the government too, as it was revealed.  But he wasn't living off the government, as they have no money:  he was living off of you and I.  This goes on in millions of cases in this country.  This type of system does no one any good.  That man didn't deserve to eat, and he is worse than an infidel, the scripture says.  But all the bleeding hearts want to keep this farce going.

I say, have welfare, but educate people to work.  That should be the goal.  Teaching them to tell the truth every once in awhile wouldn't hurt either.  But I digress.  Anything is better than the system we now have.  If families would take care of their own, then things would be a lot better.

And then, if members of a church can't work, have no family to help them, I think the church should step in and help.  That would lessen the burden on the government, whom we know has no money except what they get from us.

Let me add one thing:  the church has no money either, except what it gets from us, but I trust my church a lot more than the government to be a good steward of that money.  At least I can see and understand our budget report.

 

[Timothy]

I do not think that welfare in and of itself is inherently evil, but I think the church should lead the way in that are, not the government.  It starts at home.  The reason we have so much welfare is first and foremost a problem with parents, especially Dads, taking responsibility for their children, and women taking responsibility for not being unwed baby factories.  Countless women have children, the dads disappear, and the women wind up on welfare.  I know, because my step sister was one of these women.  She had 3 children out of wedlock, gave up the first one to her sister at birth, but kept the next two.  She lived in an apartment with a rent of 7 bucks.  She had food stamps, etc.  The only reason she didn't have more is that she had to have her tubes tied because of complications.  She partied and live off the government until she left the kids to party and finally had the kids taken away.  They were adopted by family members.  Let me be clear here:  The reason she got welfare is that she lied and said she didn't know who the father was.  Truth is, he was still coming around to live off the government too, as it was revealed.  But he wasn't living off the government, as they have no money:  he was living off of you and I.  This goes on in millions of cases in this country.  This type of system does no one any good.  That man didn't deserve to eat, and he is worse than an infidel, the scripture says.  But all the bleeding hearts want to keep this farce going.

I say, have welfare, but educate people to work.  That should be the goal.  Teaching them to tell the truth every once in awhile wouldn't hurt either.  But I digress.  Anything is better than the system we now have.  If families would take care of their own, then things would be a lot better.

And then, if members of a church can't work, have no family to help them, I think the church should step in and help.  That would lessen the burden on the government, whom we know has no money except what they get from us.

Do you believe every Christian should strive to work and provide never using welfare?

Some small business employers have very high health insurance and in my state you can get the state health insurance for children for free if you make such and such. That family could pay the $1,000 for the employer based insurance, or count it a blessing and sign up for MCHIP.

That $1,000 can purchase a lot of food ...

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

I do not think that welfare in and of itself is inherently evil, but I think the church should lead the way in that are, not the government.  It starts at home.  The reason we have so much welfare is first and foremost a problem with parents, especially Dads, taking responsibility for their children, and women taking responsibility for not being unwed baby factories.  Countless women have children, the dads disappear, and the women wind up on welfare.  I know, because my step sister was one of these women.  She had 3 children out of wedlock, gave up the first one to her sister at birth, but kept the next two.  She lived in an apartment with a rent of 7 bucks.  She had food stamps, etc.  The only reason she didn't have more is that she had to have her tubes tied because of complications.  She partied and live off the government until she left the kids to party and finally had the kids taken away.  They were adopted by family members.  Let me be clear here:  The reason she got welfare is that she lied and said she didn't know who the father was.  Truth is, he was still coming around to live off the government too, as it was revealed.  But he wasn't living off the government, as they have no money:  he was living off of you and I.  This goes on in millions of cases in this country.  This type of system does no one any good.  That man didn't deserve to eat, and he is worse than an infidel, the scripture says.  But all the bleeding hearts want to keep this farce going.

I say, have welfare, but educate people to work.  That should be the goal.  Teaching them to tell the truth every once in awhile wouldn't hurt either.  But I digress.  Anything is better than the system we now have.  If families would take care of their own, then things would be a lot better.

And then, if members of a church can't work, have no family to help them, I think the church should step in and help.  That would lessen the burden on the government, whom we know has no money except what they get from us.

Do you believe every Christian should strive to work and provide never using welfare?

No, I believe every citizen, Christian of not, should stive to work.  Getting off of welfare should be the goal, but I wouldn't say never use welfare.  In some case it is may be warranted.  And we could take care of those instances if it weren't for the abuses I talked about, of which you had no comment.  What about those?  Do you agree with them?

Some small business employers have very high health insurance and in my state you can get the state health insurance for children for free if you make such and such. That family could pay the $1,000 for the employer based insurance, or count it a blessing and sign up for MCHIP.

In my area, people can go to the nearest federally funded hospital and never pay for health care if they can't afford it.  They say the poor don't have health care.  That is just not true.  Go to the emegency room of these hospitals and all you will see are poor and indigent.  None are turned away.  Yes, healthcare is a problem and some people need help.  I just don't want the government controlling it and making it mandantory.  They bankrupt everything they touch.

That $1,000 can purchase a lot of food ...

 

[samspade]

I can't believe any preacher would seriously consider using their sermon time to preach about welfare (either for or against). Welfare IS NOT the issue. The issue is my attitude and response as a follower of Christ to the poor and needy. What the government does or doesn't do is irrelevant to that. The whole idea of preaching against welfare is one more example of focusing on externals (welfare) while ignoring heart issues (my call as a Christian to show love and mercy).

 

[rsc2a]

I do not think that welfare in and of itself is inherently evil, but I think the church should lead the way in that are, not the government.  It starts at home.

This.

I personally believe iff one is in need, the order of request should be as follows: family, your church (provided you have one), local resources (inc other churches), then government.  The government should be a place of last resort for those who have ran out of options, not the first place one turns to because things might possibly go bad at some point.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]I say, have welfare, but educate people to work.  That should be the goal.  Teaching them to tell the truth every once in awhile wouldn't hurt either.  But I digress.  Anything is better than the system we now have.  If families would take care of their own, then things would be a lot better.[/quote]

Yes. I was helping the wifey write a paper for a college class and the point she/we made was:

It is better to teach a man to fish than throw him fish, but you have to at least give him fish long enough for him to survive the lessons. If he's unwilling (not unable) to fish and/or learn how to fish, then you stop throwing more fish at him.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]And then, if members of a church can't work, have no family to help them, I think the church should step in and help.  That would lessen the burden on the government, whom we know has no money except what they get from us.

Let me add one thing:  the church has no money either, except what it gets from us, but I trust my church a lot more than the government to be a good steward of that money.  At least I can see and understand our budget report.[/quote]

Right. It's also why I think even government assistance should be controlled as close to the source as possible. The needs of one city/state aren't the same as the needs of another.

 

[AresMan]

I wouldn't.

It may be a bad policy, but it's in the realm of politics, not religion. I don't go to church to hear someone preach politics.

I agree. I would prefer political bantering be left out of the pulpit.

However, welfare program discussion could come up in exegesis of Scripture.

Pro 21:5 The thoughts of the diligent tend only to plenteousness; but of every one that is hasty only to want.
The diligent are those who work hard and save, will have plenty. Those who are hasty to spend will find themselves lacking.
The social policy today influenced by Keynesian demand-side economics is to make spenders the "heroes" of the economy. If you finance a new car, you are patriotic and are "contributing to the economy." Too many people think they deserve more now than their personal economy is capable of providing, and they are encouraged to get into debt to buy shiny new things they certainly could do without. The diligent are those who plan for the future rather than focus on present consumption.

Pro 13:11 Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.
Vanity here means "dishonest gain." The one who obtains wealth this way has not earned it. He is contrasted with the one who "gathers by labor" shall increase. "Gathering by labor" has the idea of obtaining and amassing little by little. It is increasing one's wealth over time by living within (and below) one's means and saving.
Dishonest gain can happen in many ways: getting welfare by deception when it is not needed, debasing currency and profiting from the redistribution of wealth through inflation, and other ways of obtaining wealth not through labor when one does not qualify for subsistence in the eyes of God.

Pro 13:22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.
What is the mindset of many socialists today? Wealth bestowed through inheritance is not fair! There should be a heavy tax on inheritance!
However, God says that a "good man" leaves an inheritance to his descendants!
He also says that the "just" person eventually acquires the "wealth" of the "sinner." Why? Because the sinner is careless with wealth (think those influenced by wicked Keynesian economics), and those who are just are frugal, save, and pass on capital to their family. Inheritance contributes to the family bond that socialism tries to destroy by making more people independent of family ties but dependent on government.
Laws that go against the grain of God's Word here are evil.

Pro 13:23 Much food is in the tillage of the poor: but there is that is destroyed for want of judgment.
According to God's Word, many who would be considered in the "poor class" that are capable of work ("tillage") have "much food." That is, anyone who lives within his means, is frugal, and saves, even with his modest earnings can have more than enough to sustain him.
What is it that harms the poor? Lack of discernment! Those that think they deserve more than they have tend to spend that way. Getting into debt to buy everything new and shiny keeps the poor on edge. We need to educate everyone--including the poor--about the virtues and rewards of savings, not advocate that their lives by subsidized through coercive government. We should give charity to the handicapped and those who have experienced tragic losses. However, no one should believe they have a legal right to the property of others. Those who need aid should be encouraged to thank their charitable donors, not feel they are entitled to the output of the labor of others. Coercive social welfare destroys the moral perception of both the rich and the poor: it discourages voluntary charity from the wealthy, disconnects the contact between the giver and receiver, and generates an immoral sense of entitlement (rather than gratitude) to the poor.


Obviously, there is so much more that could be gleaned from God's Word!

 

[Ransom]

What Sermon text would you use to preach against welfare?

I wouldn't.

If I were asked what text I might use to preach against welfare abuse, I might go to the aforementioned 2 Thess. 3:10.

 

[christundivided]

I can't believe any preacher would seriously consider using their sermon time to preach about welfare (either for or against). Welfare IS NOT the issue. The issue is my attitude and response as a follower of Christ to the poor and needy. What the government does or doesn't do is irrelevant to that. The whole idea of preaching against welfare is one more example of focusing on externals (welfare) while ignoring heart issues (my call as a Christian to show love and mercy).

Simple questions. Did Christ cloth all the poor and needy his day? Did the church cloth and feed all the poor after the resurrection?

A person's response to personal accountability is a direct reflex of their change in attitude after meeting Christ personally.

 

[christundivided]

I wouldn't.

It may be a bad policy, but it's in the realm of politics, not religion. I don't go to church to hear someone preach politics.

I agree. I would prefer political bantering be left out of the pulpit.

I'm not talking about political banter. I am talking about personal responsibility.

 

[christundivided]

It means we need to teach people to take care of poor people.  It also means that, as Christians, we should be doing our part to right the wrongs in the world...and I consider hungry, naked people who cannot work to be very wrong.

Did our Lord provide food for everyone in the world?... or did he take care of His own? Did Christ fill the surrounding Gentiles nations with manna?

Umm...believers and non-believers. (See John 6.) Paul also said we should do good for everyone (although our first priority is to individuals in the church).

How about referencing some verses instead of entire chapter.

How Christ-like.

There have been many that neglected their own because they trusted "government" to pay/takecare of their loved ones. Such is not Christ-like.

The Congress shall have power to...make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Silly. You didn't even reference the "foregoing powers".

You hope...

I do more than hope. I trust God....and I don't trust the government.

You asked what sermon text one would use to preach against welfare. Later you stated that welfare is not inherently sinful but can be abused. Why would you preach against something that is not sin. Would you likewise preach against eating or sex or taking a nap? (This is assuming preaching against stuff is your style).

I would preach against something that can been taken and made sinful. However, I generally do not consider "governmental welfare a "gift" from God". To say such is entirely nonsense.

I could make the same argument for abortion. I could say government has granted it citizens the inalienable right to murder unborn children. Since the government has established such, then according to Romans 13:2..... It must be a gift from God. I can't see how anyone could make such a silly argument.

Even things that can be used to accomplish good are not necessary a "gift" of God for your benefit. God wants people to choose and choose wisely.

Just because government has chosen to act in a certain way doesn't make that action a "gift" from God.

 

[christundivided]

What Sermon text would you use to preach against welfare?

I wouldn't.

If I were asked what text I might use to preach against welfare abuse, I might go to the aforementioned 2 Thess. 3:10.

Governmental welfare is overwhelming abused.

Give you an example. More people last month WENT ON disability than actually got a job in the US. Since June 09 more than 3.1 million people have filled for disability.

 

[rsc2a]

It means we need to teach people to take care of poor people.  It also means that, as Christians, we should be doing our part to right the wrongs in the world...and I consider hungry, naked people who cannot work to be very wrong.

Did our Lord provide food for everyone in the world?... or did he take care of His own? Did Christ fill the surrounding Gentiles nations with manna?

Umm...believers and non-believers. (See John 6.) Paul also said we should do good for everyone (although our first priority is to individuals in the church).

How about referencing some verses instead of entire chapter.

You kinda got to read the whole chapter to see it. 

What Sermon text would you use to preach against welfare?

I wouldn't.

If I were asked what text I might use to preach against welfare abuse, I might go to the aforementioned 2 Thess. 3:10.

Governmental welfare is overwhelming abused.

Remember that logical fallacy I pointed out....you're still doing it?

[quote author=christundivided]Give you an example. More people last month WENT ON disability than actually got a job in the US. Since June 09 more than 3.1 million people have filled for disability. [/quote]

And? There could be very valid reasons for this. If a massive earthquake struck that destroyed the entire east coast, I would expect more people to file for disability than to gain employment. Again...logical fallacy. (I don't think there are valid reasons in this case but to trot out the statistic as though it proves your claim is fallacious.)

 

[Ransom]

Governmental welfare is overwhelming abused.

So there's something to preach against.

Of course, the abuse of the thing is not the same as the thing itself.  (Or there'd be no difference between using prescription medication under a doctor's supervision, and drug abuse.)

 

[christundivided]

Governmental welfare is overwhelming abused.

So there's something to preach against.

Of course, the abuse of the thing is not the same as the thing itself.  (Or there'd be no difference between using prescription medication under a doctor's supervision, and drug abuse.)

While what you say is true. You must also consider the source of "welfare". Should the government even be involved in charity? Isn't charity better left to those who can actually help and are not hundreds of peoples removed from those that are actually suffering? Government could care less about successfully helping someone. True charity is more than just a hand out without any expectation of those being helped raising above their circumstances to never return again. 

 

[samspade]

I can't believe any preacher would seriously consider using their sermon time to preach about welfare (either for or against). Welfare IS NOT the issue. The issue is my attitude and response as a follower of Christ to the poor and needy. What the government does or doesn't do is irrelevant to that. The whole idea of preaching against welfare is one more example of focusing on externals (welfare) while ignoring heart issues (my call as a Christian to show love and mercy).

Simple questions. Did Christ cloth all the poor and needy his day? Did the church cloth and feed all the poor after the resurrection?

A person's response to personal accountability is a direct reflex of their change in attitude after meeting Christ personally.

I guess I'm missing your point. Are you saying that it's wrong for Christians to offer assistance to the poor and needy?

 

[rsc2a]

I can't believe any preacher would seriously consider using their sermon time to preach about welfare (either for or against). Welfare IS NOT the issue. The issue is my attitude and response as a follower of Christ to the poor and needy. What the government does or doesn't do is irrelevant to that. The whole idea of preaching against welfare is one more example of focusing on externals (welfare) while ignoring heart issues (my call as a Christian to show love and mercy).

Simple questions. Did Christ cloth all the poor and needy his day? Did the church cloth and feed all the poor after the resurrection?

A person's response to personal accountability is a direct reflex of their change in attitude after meeting Christ personally.

I guess I'm missing your point. Are you saying that it's wrong for Christians to offer assistance to the poor and needy?

Sure sounds that way. It also sounds like a person's holiness is directly related to their ability to pay the bills (and assumes that all non-Christians are lazy slackers).

 

[Ransom]

Should the government even be involved in charity?

Good question. You should ask Solomon - the wisest man in the world had a fair bit to say to his son about how kings should care for the poor.  And ask Moses - the Law has all sorts of rules about not harvesting your fields to the very edges for the sake of the poor.

God cares for the poor, and godly government does too.  The abuse of a thing does not make the thing itself illegitimate.

 

[rsc2a]

Should the government even be involved in charity?

Good question. You should ask Solomon - the wisest man in the world had a fair bit to say to his son about how kings should care for the poor.  And ask Moses - the Law has all sorts of rules about not harvesting your fields to the very edges for the sake of the poor.

God cares for the poor, and godly government does too.  The abuse of a thing does not make the thing itself illegitimate.

Yes. My first thought when I read his post was "gleaning laws".