Christianity Archives - Page 8 of 38

Does God Condone Slavery?

Does God Condone Slavery

One of the more popular attacks made on Christianity and the Bible is this idea.

“The Bible endorses slavery”.

The short response is this: there is a huge difference between endorsing slavery and providing regulations for the institution of slavery that has been consistently practiced across time and culture.

Additionally, we must define terms when we talk about slavery. Slavery in America is a far cry from slavery across time and history. Each iteration of slavery in history is different across time, therefore blanket statements cannot be made about slavery.

I – What was slavery in history?

Human beings have always held slaves. Just because this is what human beings do does not mean that God condones it. There are many behaviors that people engage in that God does not condone – but He allows it to happen so we can use our free moral agency. God also does not condone sex outside of marriage or between people of the same gender, so He placed regulations on marriage.

The institution of slavery has changed significantly throughout history, encompassing a wide range of practices with differing levels of treatment of enslaved individuals. To fully understand the complexities of slavery, it is crucial to examine the cultural context of different eras and regions.

1 – Slavery in Ancient Egypt: The Plight of the Israelites

In ancient Egypt, the Israelites endured a period of brutal slavery. As depicted in the biblical narrative of Exodus, they faced harsh labor, dehumanization, and oppressive conditions. This would continue for about 400 years. The Israelites were subjected to forced labor, building monumental structures such as the pyramids under the command of their Egyptian masters. Their treatment exemplified the extreme end of the spectrum regarding the abuse and mistreatment of enslaved individuals.

Why is it then, when people criticize slavery, that no one points fingers at the Egyptians for their treatment of slaves across centuries? No, but we will take a vacation to go photograph the Spinx, pyramids, and other great structures so we can post them on social media. We call the result of slave labor in Egypt one of the great wonders of the world but tear down historic plantations in America.

This is one of the many examples of a double standard with regard to passing judgment on civilizations that have owned slaves. Much of it is rooted in simple hatred of America. Racist individuals blame America for slavery but turn a blind eye to all other civilizations that have engaged in the same.

2 – Slavery in Ancient Greece and Rome: A Shift in Dynamics

Ancient Greece

In ancient Greece, slavery played a significant role in the socioeconomic system. Slaves were acquired through various means, including capture in wars, debt bondage, and birth into slavery. While the treatment of slaves varied, they generally experienced a lack of personal freedom and were subject to their owners’ authority. However, some slaves in Greece enjoyed relatively better treatment, particularly those who worked as household servants or tutors.

Roman Empire

Slavery in the Roman Empire demonstrated notable shifts in treatment compared to earlier civilizations. The Romans acquired slaves through conquest, trade, and birth. While some slaves endured harsh conditions, such as those engaged in manual labor or as gladiators, others held more privileged positions. Slaves were employed as tutors, doctors, accountants, and administrators, and their skills were valued. Roman society recognized that treating slaves with fairness and respect could help with productivity and loyalty. Some slaves were even able to earn their freedom through work or valor in gladiatorial tournaments.

3 – Cultural Context: Understanding the Variations in Slavery

It is crucial to acknowledge that not all forms of slavery are equal, and the treatment of slaves varied significantly depending on the cultural context. And nearly every nation across history can point to a time when they likely employed some version of slavery. And some even suggest today that a modern form of slavery exists called “wage slavery”, which is not a completely misguided notion.

Slavery in ancient Egypt was characterized by its cruelty and dehumanization, while in ancient Rome, slaves could experience a wide range of treatment, from harsh conditions to relative fairness and respect.

The cultural, social, and economic factors of each society influenced the treatment of slaves. In Rome, for instance, the concept of “paterfamilias” granted masters immense power over their slaves. However, philosophical ideas and shifting moral standards also played a role in shaping attitudes toward slavery. Stoic philosophy, prevalent in ancient Rome, emphasized the moral duty of masters to treat slaves justly and humanely.

Here’s a note from Apologetics Press on Slavery in America:

“Hitting closer to home, the pages of history dealing with the formative years of the United States are despoiled with gruesome stories of ships carrying slaves sold to the Americas by their fellow Africans (and others, e.g., Arabians). These slaves frequently were packed so densely in lower ship decks that many of them died of disease or malnutrition. Those who lived to see the States soon learned that their fate hinged upon those who purchased them. Some slaves were ushered into homes with kind masters, decent living facilities, good food, and freedom to worship. Other slaves were purchased by cruel, greedy people who overworked them, abused them, underfed them, and allowed them no freedom”

II – What was slavery in the Bible?

Slavery means different things in different places.

The Israelites were slaves to Egyptians in the classic sense of slavery. this is what we might traditionally think of when we picture slavery.

There are references to slaves in the new testament, especially the Epistles which advocate for fair and equal treatment of slaves, who were likely closer to employees than actual slaves in some instances. But this is not what we might think of when we picture slaves.

Modern people often picture slavery in America when they are asked to think about what slavery means. Many times, American slavery was closer to voluntary work [if there is such a thing] than what the Israelites were experiencing. In fact, it may be closer to what we classically call “jobs”. And in fact, later in the Biblical text, Christians will be told to “become slaves of righteousness” [Rom 6:18]. And the etymology of the word teaches us that a slave is someone who sets aside the personal desire for the desire of the master [a lesson in itself].

III – Human nature.

Human beings have engaged in various immoral practices throughout history, including slavery. However, it is essential to understand that just because people engage in certain behaviors does not mean that God endorses or condones those actions. God allows humans to exercise their free moral agency, which includes making choices that are contrary to His will.

Slavery is an unfortunate consequence of human free will, not a divine endorsement.

The Bible often portrays God using the behavior of His people to bring about His ultimate purposes. This does not mean that God approves of every action taken by individuals, including slavery. Instead, God may work within the existing societal framework to gradually shape human understanding and guide people toward justice and righteousness.

Throughout history, we have witnessed gradual transformations in societal norms, including the abolition of slavery [thanks to America, the supposed boogeyman of slavery], driven by a growing understanding of human rights and dignity.

When examining the New Testament’s references to slavery, it is key to recognize that the institution described differs significantly from the brutal, dehumanizing slavery that we often associate with historical accounts.

In the context of the New Testament, the term “slavery” referred to a broader range of relationships that encompassed general work and employment arrangements. Slavery in the ancient Roman world involved various degrees of servitude, ranging from indentured laborers to those employed as household servants.

It is important to note that the New Testament teachings emphasized fair treatment and respect for slaves, urging masters to treat their servants justly and kindly. The Bible advocates for human-like work conditions.

IV – Slavery is a Cultural Phenomenon

The Bible is a collection of texts written over a long period of time, reflecting the ethical development and understanding of human societies at various times. God’s attitude and thoughts towards slavery never change because God Himself does not change [Malachi 3:6]. The Bible contains passages that reflect the cultural norms of their time, including slavery, but they should not be seen as definitive statements on God’s stance regarding slavery.

Slavery existed across cultures and across time. God did not approve of it, He simply communicated to His people the manner in which slaves were to be treated which included fairness, decency, and respect that is deserved by all people.

V – America receives the most criticism about slavery even though it was a county that Abolished it.

Very few people sit around criticizing China for the fact that they have slaves even now, in this very day. If you own a smartphone, chances are it was produced as a result of modern slave labor.

But many modern people are too steeped in the irrational hatred of America, which is generally their own country, to have time to pay attention to Chinese slave labor. And even if they knew, most of them likely would not care. After all, “Chinese slavery is something happening “over there”, it does not affect me, so why should I care?”

While slavery has been a dark chapter in human history across various regions, it is important to address the selective criticism leveled at certain countries, particularly America. Despite being a country that abolished slavery, America often receives the majority of the blame and scrutiny regarding its historical involvement in the institution. This focus on America, while important for acknowledging past wrongs, overshadows the ongoing instances of slavery in other parts of the world.

China continues to face accusations of forced labor and human rights abuses.

In recent years, reports have highlighted the existence of modern-day slavery within manufacturing and agriculture in China. However, these instances receive considerably less attention and criticism compared to America’s historical past.

The discrepancies in criticizing different countries suggest that the issue of slavery is often influenced by political, social, and historical factors. While it is essential to confront and acknowledge historical wrongs, it is equally important to shed light on present-day instances of slave owning, irrespective of the country involved.

Matt 19:3-10 outlines the key authority for the fact that there were some things permitted in the Old Testament that did not reflect God’s will.

Because of the hardness of Israel’s heart, God allowed certain things, including divorce and slave owning even though these did not reflect His will.

The OT clearly teaches people to love their neighbors (Lev 19:18). But just because something is a command in scripture does not mean that men will be obedient to it or live out the complete ideal.

Even today, when the complete pattern for the church is laid out in the New Testament, how many denominations and religions try to invent their own path to God? The ideal exists in the NT, but men still fail to live up to it.

Slavery often existed as a form of debtors’ prison or a way to do something with prisoners of war. And as such, humane regulations for the institution were required.

Certain types of slavery are not morally wrong.

When someone is sentenced to prison, he is a slave of the state for a period of years, sometimes even his whole life. And during this time he is forced by the state to do things he would rather not do. His choices cost him his freedom. This is a morally acceptable revocation of freedoms which could accurately be described as slavery.

The Israelites were forced to deal with the nations that they encountered by destroying them completely, but when they were unable to do this, they had to do something with the survivors. Usually, they put them in Servitude or under tribute. They were allowed to live but under slave conditions.

What is better: complete eradication from the face of the earth or a life of servitude?

God does not condone slavery. He simply regulated it in scripture to allow for the humane treatment of people who would otherwise have been left to suffer under the discretion of man.

“Don’t Sound a Trumpet” – Lesson Response

The following are a few notes and comments I made from a sermon that is available to you online on the topic of “Put down your trumpet”. It includes some interesting points that I believe are worth noting. I hope you find it interesting.

42:45 – 43:16 – Does it matter why we do something? The speaker suggests yes because it “causes problems later”. Here is the Transcript from this timestamp:

“Does it matter why we do what we do or does it just matter that we do the right thing? Well I guess you could ask this in a number of different settings couldn’t you?

If you asked within a marriage to a husband or a wife does it matter what you do in a marriage or does it matter why you do it?

I think every husband and every wife would say of course it matters why my husband or why my wife is doing something. I don’t just want them to do the right thing I want them to do it for the right reason”.

“I think” – Note that this is not a fact. This is what the speaker thinks. Based not on reason but emotion. He begins to make a point about what a wife or husband would want. I suppose this is an attempt to translate it into something God would want. For example, “If a wife or husband acts this way then God would act this way too”. This is not a position supported by scripture [Is. 55:8].

“Right Reason” – The speaker refuses to define what the right reason is. Who has the boldness to define such a thing? What is the reason? We seldom take time to define the “right reason” because it would require some combination of biblical evidence and rationality – something we try to avoid in religion if we can. A biblical bit of evidence for this entire cited section is lacking. Not that the evidence is not there, but this is something to note.

What about some comments on rules and motivation?

43:21-43:53 – In a family does it matter why a mother and a father give rules? Does it matter why they discipline? Does it matter why they give their children structure? It certainly does. Because the wrong motivation can lead to to some wrong things occurring in that family. Within that same family, does it matter why children obey or does it just matter that they do what they’re told? Well, it certainly matters why – because if they’re not obeying for the right reasons then that obedience is certainly not what God’s looking for”.

Let’s analyze a few of the statements made here.

“The wrong motivation can lead to some wrong things occurring in that family”. I always enjoy when a speaker takes the following stance “Well if you don’t do it my way, then bad things will happen later. I won’t specify them, but they are things, and they are very, very bad”. It is very common for a speaker to take this stance when discussing sexual discipline. “Don’t have sex before marriage or baaad, very bad things will happen“. This may be true, but the fact that the “problems” are not specified and then the cause of those problems is not identified nor the progression from faulty motivation to negative outcome analyzed, this statement is relegated to opinion.

“That obedience is certainly not what God is looking for”. Well, then what type of obedience is God looking for? Again, what are the so-called “right reasons”? If these are not specified, the entire speech runs into problems because underlying motivation is a core tenant of the speech. But we cannot make assumptions about that topic. But because the speaker does not address the topic, we can only assume.

I also enjoy when people speak for God without BCV [book chapter verse]. If you are going to say God is or is not looking at something, you better immediately back it up with scripture or you are speaking in the place of God without authorization.

Again, this is a doctrinal matter when we start to talk about acceptable and unacceptable forms of obedience – and it demands a “God Said”.

Jeremiah 23:16 – “Thus says the Lord of hosts:

“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you.
They make you worthless;
They speak a vision of their own heart,
Not from the mouth of the Lord.”

When it comes to our actions, it is possible to do:

Good things for the bad/wrong reasons.
Good things for good/right reasons.
Bad things for the good/right reasons.
Bad things for bad/wrong reasons.

These are the 4 possible permutations of this viewpoint. Perhaps there can also be combinations of motivations, which is an intellectually rigorous topic that will not be discussed here.

To analyze the motivations/intents etc. behind actions is of secondary importance as opposed to looking at the outcomes or actions themselves. This is not binary thinking – I am not suggesting that motivations do not matter at all. What I am suggesting is a hierarchy, where the actions themselves are primary and the intentions/motivations are secondary.

I understand that there is a delineation between the old and new laws of the Bible. While the old law focused primarily on the action of the individual, the new law focuses on a person’s attitude and inner person, their thinking center, in conjunction with their actions [because a person’s action will show his heart – Matt 15].

I’m not suggesting an OT style of what might be labeled legalism by the uninformed. At the risk of seeming to be a reductionist, I am suggesting that when a person’s intentions, motivations, attitude, or heart may seem to be opposing what he wants to do, as in temptation, it is his actions that are most important.

Does it matter if your intentions were good if you fail to resist temptation?

Does it matter what you were motivated by or the reason behind why you did something if you failed in the end? No, because at the end of the day you failed, you sinned.

On the other hand: what if I do what’s right despite my intention and motivations?

What if I hold on to righteousness by the skin of my teeth through vicious spiritual warfare [Eph 6]?

What if I’m very motivated to do what’s wrong yet I do what’s right anyways out of love for God?

Or what if I’m very tempted and have a strong desire to sin, but even though I’m not feeling the so-called “loving” emotion at the time, out of an obedient, action-based love for God I keep his commandments [John 14:15, 21]?

As you can see there are times when intentions or motivations are opposed to the righteousness of God and to the lives He requires us to live.

Nevertheless, it is primarily our actions that determine rightness. Actions again are primary while intentions are merely “a shadow of the thing, but not the very image of the thing”.

It perturbs Me when speakers come to moral conclusions without biblical evidence or logical sequencing of events. If someone dares to place a moral requirement on members of the church, he better do so with the explicit authorization of God as evidenced by scripture – the BCV.

It is critical to understand this point about the Bible, and about placing religious requirements on individuals, that each of those requirements has the authorization of the word of God.

Doctrinal matters demand a “God said”. Without “God Said” in conjunction with a logical argument, the religious requirements placed on individuals are relegated to the category of “Opinion”. Worse yet, they should be relegated to the category “doctrines of men”, which by biblical definition constitute vain worship [Matt 15:9]

48:50 – 49:04: “Beware of practicing your righteousness [that’s an entire category of good works that you and I might do publicly or maybe even privately]. Beware of practicing your righteousness – this is not the righteousness that that the Holy Spirit helps us develop in our lives that’s kind of inward righteousness, or the righteousness that God attributes to us when we obey the gospel.”

The speaker also makes a comment about inward righteousness that one develops inwardly with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Unless the speaker means that the Holy Spirit assists the individual through the word of God, then He has no evidence for his statement. Because the only way the Spirit works today is through the word of God. That is the only way the Spirit works that we have biblical evidence for [Heb 4:12, Eph 6:17] which means that all other alleged ways He is claimed to be operating are relegated again to the category of opinion.

If I do not have a book chapter and verse for what I believe, it is an opinion.

While there is nothing wrong with opinions, and we have to use discretion and logic regarding non-black-and-white issues in the scripture, we still have to be careful to not pass off our opinions as biblical facts.

50:14 – 52:25 – “When you give to the needy – did you see that? When you give to the needy. Not if. There’s an assumption being made here by Jesus. The idea of being generous to the poor and the needy, especially among God’s Own people is something that is all through scripture from beginning to end. You certainly find it commanded in the law of Moses and we don’t have time to list all of those passages, but Exodus chapter 23:10-11; Leviticus chapter 10:10; Deuteronomy 15:7-11; etc etc. The law commands generosity to the poor and needy in a variety of ways. The prophets reminded God’s people about the necessity of this in places like Amos chapter 2:6-7; Isaiah 3:14-15; Ezekiel chapter 16:49. We’re reminded of it in Proverbs in the wisdom literature Proverbs 14:31; Proverbs 21;13.

Jesus taught about it His teaching about it. Here he teaches about it in Luke chapter 6:37-38; Matthew 19:21; Mark 14:7. And you certainly see it in the life of the first-century Christian in the first-century Church, don’t you? We see it in Acts chapter 2; Acts chapter 4; James chapter 2:14-16; First John 3:17-18. So it’s an assumption that God’s people are going to give to the needy. And so when Jesus talks about this he’s not saying ‘you really need to be giving to the needy’ – they’re already doing that. In fact, even people who did not even believe in Jesus were practicing this. They were giving alms. They were giving to the poor and needy. That’s an assumption. We’re going to come back to that in just a moment but Jesus assumes that everyone’s doing this. The problem is their motivation they’re doing this before people in order to be seen by them”

Regarding point B on the PowerPoint: The assumption.

The speaker begins to talk about this passage, Matthew 6:1-4 and describes the fact that there is an underlying assumption that Christians will be giving to the poor and needy. Especially those of the household of faith. And I would agree with that statement.

What I don’t agree with is an Inception-style assumption within the assumption. So often you hear speakers today talk about the poor and needy and they’re often indirectly or even directly describing the people you might come across in the street or on highways. I have known of some speakers to even make it a point to suggest that you are neglecting a Christain duty if you drive past the panhandler on the highway. They then place some moral judgment on you based on how you view those people and what you do for those people.

Here’s the problem: these speakers have no idea if those people are actually poor or needy.

The assumption within the assumption is that panhandlers are actually poor.

But as I state frequently, those so-called poor and needy are often better off financially than most of the members of the congregation that are being shamed for not supporting those allegedly poor, needy people.

Panhandlers have a good business going, and they’re providing value to people who give them money. This is a point in and of itself and a side note that deserves further elaboration.

I’ve often wondered why panhandlers and loiterers receive so much money. I wonder this because my underlying belief has always been that if a person receives money he/she must be providing something of value in return. And what value are panhandlers providing?

This question disturbed me for some time until a potential answer became quite clear. People aren’t just giving these loiterers money. No, people giving money are purchasing the right to feel good about themselves. It’s Self-Interest.

They are purchasing a feeling of altruism. They are purchasing the freedom from the guilt they feel when they ignore those panhandlers.

Panhandlers allow donors to lift their spirits and feel morally superior to those who don’t mindlessly donate money. Not that everyone behaves or thinks this way after giving money, but it is a common theme among religious people.

Giving money to the allegedly homeless person provides you with the feeling that you are righteous. And that’s what you’re doing. You’re attempting to purchase righteousness.

It’s not about helping another person primarily, it’s about the emotional and spiritual elevation of the self with the secondary benefit of doing a good deed. Whether or not this is done on a conscious level is irrelevant – because this is based on an analysis of human nature. We are pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding organisms. We seek to avoid the pain of guilt we feel when we drive by those people and seek the pleasure we feel from giving them money. It is an emotional proposition all the way around.

When it comes to the discussion on generosity, and being generous to people, giving of our means, it is important to note that this first extends to people inside the faith.

Being taken care of by religious people is first and foremost one of the benefits of being religious yourself. The religious community is a tight-knit community and they take care of one another. This is one of the benefits of belonging to a religious group – Other people will take care of you when you need it and you have a responsibility to take care of them when they need it. However, this benefit should not be blindly applied to everyone outside the religious community.

Obviously, as resources allow, people outside the community of the religious can and should be taken care of with the application of discretion, but not before the religious themselves have been taken care of – and certainly not without encouraging those people to join the religious community.

You can’t blindly provide people with food and expect them to join the religion. You are just training them to look for a handout.

If they’re getting all the benefits of religion without being a part of religion what is the incentive for them? People will respond to incentives.

55:29 – 55:54 – “What’s the compensation for that what are you going to get out of that? Well, that’s where Jesus says you will have no reward from your father who is in heaven. Later on the same passage, ‘they have received their reward’. In other words, the reward that you get [and there is one] but the reward that you get when you seek the praise of other people for doing good works terminates on itself. That’s it.”

Regarding point E: “Compensation”.

Indeed, everything we do has a reward. everything we do provides us with something or we wouldn’t do it.

Or it provides us the opportunity to even further maximize the benefit in the future of the process of delayed gratification. We as human beings respond to incentives – and this is a good point.

59:55 – 1:00:25 “But let’s move on to what probably is a bigger issue for most of us, and that’s the issue of motivation and sounding a trumpet. The Pharisees are a bold and extreme example of this, but I believe Jesus is encompassing every kind of hypocrisy that this would involve – right down to [listen to this] the secret desire to have all of our Good Deeds discovered and praised by other people.”

“I believe” – Again, what we have is a personal opinion stated without an accompanying “God said”. The speaker does not provide the BCV for this opinion. And he is again committing what I believe to be the intellectual crime of binding moral, and religious requirements on people without the requisite authority. That is not to say the authority for his statement is not in the scripture, but rather that he simply does not cite his authority here while binding a moral requirement on others.

“The secret desire” – The speaker makes the following Point by asking the crowd if we sound a trumpet before our good deeds. He then talks about the secret desire to be seen. I see this frequently in speakers, who condemn the very desire of a thing rather than the thing itself. And maybe that has merit. certainly, there are times we need to analyze behavior to eliminate it down to the very root which would be the desire. But overly demonizing the desire misses the entire point of what it means to resist temptation.

Temptation comes primarily from desire, we learned that in James chapter 1.

We are constantly fighting the desire, the want, the temptation [all synonyms] to do what’s wrong. How many times do we choose God out of loving obedience, yet our emotions and desires pull us toward sin? What would demonstrate greater love to God, that our desire is for Him and that we don’t desire evil at all, or that we have a strong pull towards sin yet out of love we still choose God? It seems to me the latter would be the most noble. Accidental goodness is not better than hard-fought righteousness.

There’s no honor, no nobility, in resisting temptation if we aren’t desiring to do what’s wrong.

That’s what makes it a Temptation in the first place. And if Temptation comes from desire, desire itself cannot be sin. Because we know from Matthew chapter 4 that Christ was tempted. Therefore, Christ was tempted – that means that Christ experienced desire. Do you think after not eating for 40 days that He desired to turn stones into bread and eat? Certainly. Was the desire itself a sin? If it was, we have no hope for salvation.

The discussion on desire and temptation is a linear path of logic that no one can deny. Therefore it is logically and morally incorrect to suggest that desire itself is a sin.

It’s not wrong to desire/want to do wrong. At times we have strange desires that pull us toward evil – but it is in our choices and our actions that we demonstrate that love to God.

There’s no nobility in doing what is right if there is no desire to do what’s wrong. It’s that war against nature that God demands – for he himself is a man of war [Exodus 15:3]. Therefore like Him, we should be people of war: at war with their own desires and temptations.

So when it comes to the alleged “secret desire to be seen” – it’s always going to be there because it will act as a temptation that must be resisted. Even the speaker himself will later acknowledge that it is human nature to want to be seen [1:04:17].

But what do we do with that desire? In other words, even the speaker himself acknowledges that it is the action following the desire that is the critical component of righteousness. We have the desire to be seen, and that’s true, but what do we do with it? What action do we take based on that desire? Do we give into it or do we fight? It’s in the fighting that we find righteousness – and as the speaker would suggest, and rightfully so, humility.

Again, I believe that this lesson was good overall. I just wanted to point out a few of the things that come out in these lessons.

Too Many Social Events Kill Religion

There are far and away too many social activities happening in the modern religious world. This leaves little time for solitude and quiet reflection on God’s word, which is the only Bible-backed tool that leads to increased faith [Rom 10:17].

It is not far-fetched to suggest that imitation of the habits and behaviors of Christ would be likely to result in spiritual development. Why then do we refuse to acknowledge the frequent practice of Christ to withdraw Himself from the crowd, take Himself to a secluded place to be alone and pray?

Matthew 14:22-23: “Immediately Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, while He sent the multitudes away. And when He had sent the multitudes away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray. Now when evening came, He was alone there.“

Mark 1:35: “Now in the morning, having risen a long while before daylight, He went out and departed to a solitary place, and there He prayed.”

Luke 5:16: “So He Himself often withdrew into the wilderness and prayed.”

Luke 6:12: “Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.”

This freed His time and renewed His mind and energy to engage in the most valuable activities. Not VBS. Not social events within everyone’s specific age groups. But the direct preaching of the word of God, the confirmation of that word through the use of miracles, the salvation of souls in addition to the constant war against the urges of the flesh that allowed Christ to be perfect, able to carry our sins to the cross with Him.

In stark contrast to the practices of Christ, many churches today find themselves engrossed in an unending cycle of gatherings and social events.

We are concerned with being entertained. The modern man is interested in “engaging” worship sessions, discussions, mixers, and other events supposedly more “lively” than hearing the simple truth of God preached from a pulpit.

The focus has shifted from the direct preaching of God’s word to a preoccupation with entertainment.

While these activities allegedly create a sense of community and provide enjoyment to some [which is not the purpose of the church or worship], they constantly fall short in terms of fulfilling the primary purpose of a religious institution – which is the spreading of the gospel of Christ and subsequent salvation of souls.

We do ourselves a great disservice by excessively concentrating on these empty activities. They yield very little when it comes to our main purpose in life which is to fear God and keep His commandments [Ecc 12:13-14] and preach the gospel to every creature [Matt 28:19-20].

“Consider your ways,” says the prophet Haggai [Haggai 1:5 & 7] to the people of Israel who did not have their minds and lives centered on God.

As the temple of God sat in ruins, they took plenty of time to construct their own homes. In this section of scripture, the prophet makes it a point to mention twice the importance of considering one’s ways.

Considering one’s ways requires quiet.
It requires solitude.
Reflection requires a calm, deliberate spirit of focus directed inward.

It is a delicate and weighty matter to reflect on our own sins. Solitude is critical in understanding the gravity of sin – an understanding that cannot come without deliberate, effortful thought.

Understandably, engaging in this type of deliberation and effortful thought is not encouraged, nor is it possible with the incessant arbitrary events that many churches today schedule.

Not only are these events simple social gatherings with little to no spiritual emphasis – but additionally religious people have found a way [as they so often do] to make moral judgments about people who do not attend these events.

In their minds, it is as if skipping the summer festival means you are a bad Christian who does not care about God. Skipping the fall festival is equivalent to skipping Sunday morning worship.

Forget the fact that these same judgmental individuals have likely not read the Bible but manage to find a way to attend every social event that provides free food and acts as pseudo-childcare for their poorly behaved and undisciplined children.

Consider the simple practicality of the business of modern-day life. The average man works 45 hours per week [counting his lunch break] and then loses another 5 hours with commute and morning preparations for work. He is left with a respectable amount of time to attend to his family and most importantly develop his relationship with God including the time spent at Sunday morning worship. After this time there is much less left for other important matters of life such as professional development, rest, and recreation.

While some might consider these events “recreation”, I consider them entertainment. And as such they profit little and cost much – both in money and in time, that most precious asset.

These pseudo-spiritual social gatherings manage to eat away several more of the working man’s weekly hours and provide him with nothing in return but the sensation of being drained and the illusion of spiritual growth.

The working man certainly did not develop his thinking apparatus during these events.

Nor did his children develop spiritually because they were too busy “Dunking the Deacon” in the dunking booth and falling down the inflatable slide after eating twelve cupcakes to have any cognizance of that 5-minute devotional someone attempted to lead after an equivalent 5 minutes of preparation and study for that “devo”.

The development of the spiritual mind is a difficult task requiring focused, concentrated effort by all parties involved. The use of constant social events cleverly disguised as spiritual events does not aid, but rather hampers the spiritual development of the individual from the level of the smallest child even to the adult.

This is because the vast majority of spiritual development happens with concentrated, purposeful bible study in the home. To constantly take the family out of the home leaves less time for this most important formative activity – the study of the mind of God.

But other families who were spending little to no time studying the mind of God are all too happy to attend these social events. They are not losing out on spiritual growth because they were not growing spiritually, to begin with. They were decaying slowly while laboring under the delusion of growth.

They think they are improving but they mistake fun and excitement for genuine spirituality. These people are the ones who keep the social events up and going. They plan them, schedule them, participate in them, and think they are great. But these are “sugar” events that lead to nothing more than the rotting decay of the spirituality of the church.

All to say that social events in the church are more of a hindrance than they ever were a help. I would argue that the health of the church would be increased if the frequency of these events were reduced by a minimum of 50%.

Not only would this lead to an improvement in the spiritual growth of families [assuming they use this now free time to study the Bible instead of binge-watch television], but it would counterintuitively improve relationships among the church members. This is due to the fact that many members of religious communities become tired of seeing one another.

Proverbs 25:17 – “Let your foot rarely be in your neighbor’s house, Or he will become weary of you and hate you.”

We were not designed to constantly be around one another.

Yes, I am aware that someone will bring up the passage of first-century Christians being in one another’s homes every day [Acts 2:46], and that is a fine ideal, but it is simply that, an ideal. We will become weary of one another if we are around one another too often.

Anyone who lives with another human being for any length of time learns this lesson swiftly and accurately. Whether it is a wife or a roommate, there are many times when tensions develop because of close quarters and the constant presence of each other.

Take advantage of the fact that being home and separate will allow us to regain that sense of longing to be together. That is a sensation that many in the church lack – and they could easily get it back if they were not spending every waking moment together [only a slight exaggeration].

Reducing arbitrary social events will increase the overall morale in the church by allowing us to have some time to breathe, reflect, and have separate moments away from each other – which is to the benefit of all.

Is Marriage Dangerous for Christian Men?

Marriage carries inherent risks, even for modern Christian men. There is the risk to his wealth. A woman can divorce him [and in the modern day she can do so for no reason] and rob him of his earnings for years to come. This is called alimony.

Modern divorce favors the woman. Why should we be surprised that people do things they are incentivized to do? When women are incentivized by the government to divorce their husbands and to be single mothers, we should not be surprised when they do so.

Another risk involves the permanence of marriage. There is no getting out. It is a permanent contract. The problem is not the fact that it is a permanent commitment, the problem is that this commitment puts both men and women at risk.

Men are put in a position of having only one source of potential sexual intimacy that they can have while remaining obedient to God. No porn or other women are allowed. This gives the woman extraordinary power. She has authority over all the access a man has to his only option of sexuality.

Of course, God knows this outlines a principle of mutual authority over one another’s bodies in marriage.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ²Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. ³Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. ⁴The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5

But just because the command exists has little bearing on the inherent risk built into the power dynamic of marriage. We disobey commandments all the time. So the simple fact that a command exists does not mean people will live in accordance with it.

Based on this passage, neither partner in marriage is allowed to sexually deprive the other. Nonetheless, what is one of the most common complaints of men in marriage? It is generally about sexual frequency, quality, or some other component of sexuality. Now it is the husband’s responsibility to max out his own sexual market value as much as he can, but the power of sexual access remains with the woman.

And because she has that power, she has the ability to singlehandedly shut off a man’s only access to biblically supported sexual gratification. This makes marriage a great risk to a man’s sexual access.

I. Examining Scriptural Perspectives:

A. Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage:

³The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

⁴And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who ^[a]made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ ⁵and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

⁷They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

⁸He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for ^[b]sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

¹⁰His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus Teaches on Celibacy

¹¹But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: ¹²For there are ^[c]eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”
Matthew 19:3-11

Jesus and the apostles discuss marriage as a challenging and demanding commitment.

The Bible has clear and concise teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It is only mankind who has perverted and twisted these teachings to accommodate his personal desires.

The above passage gives the guidelines for a marriage.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.
It is not lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason.
The only reason that a man or woman can divorce their husband or wife is because one party had sex with someone else [fornication/adultery].
A man or woman can remarry if their spouse dies.

It does not simpler than this teaching, but people live as if biblically approved marriage is not a requirement for godly living.

At the end of Christ’s speech on marriage, the apostles came to a logical conclusion: marriage no longer sounds like a good deal for us compared to what we thought it was before.

Marriage sounded okay to them until they learned that Christ’s teaching made marriage permanent.

So the apostles then further deduced that it would be better for a man not to marry at all.

That is quite an interesting conclusion.

Is it rational? I believe it makes rational sense. It is difficult to argue with the logic of the apostles.

Once they heard Christ’s teaching they performed a quick cost-benefit analysis of marriage and determined that marriage was not worth the risk and the cost.

What is even more interesting is Christ’s response to the apostle’s deduction.

Christ doubles down on the teaching and tells the disciples that not everyone can accept the teachings of marriage and some go down the path of the eunuch. He does not argue with them or say they misunderstood Him. Rather he explains the practical ways a Christian man can live without being married.

B. Understanding the Concept of Eunuchs

A eunuch is a person who literally has his genitals removed. Some also argue that the term “eunuch” could be a figure of speech for someone who voluntarily denies himself the opportunity for marriage in favor of serving the kingdom without the removal of the genitals.

So Christ’s response to His apostles’ deduction that “A man is better off if he does not get married” is to educate them on the ways that some men go about living that way.

Christ was not teaching that we should never get married, but to rather be wise and discerning when making that decision.

II. Acknowledging Statistical Realities About Marriage

A. Applying Real-World Statistics:

There are inherent risks to marriage for men. You have to consider them practically. These risk-based stats change from year to year. Look them up to see what they are now, as they will not be included here.

1. Financial risks

Division of assets and potential loss of wealth in case of divorce. Get divorced, lose your stuff – even if that divorce is based on the emotional whim of the woman who has no legitimate reason for the divorce.
Potential alimony payments or financial support obligations.
Joint liabilities and debts accumulated during the marriage. Feminine-centric society expects a “good man” to marry a woman and take care of her student loan debt for her psychology degree while she stays at home without any kids and runs MLMs online.
Changes in financial goals and priorities due to shared expenses and responsibilities. A man has to get used to providing for two. Whatever his dreams were for life, many of them get sacrificed to the altar of “being a good man”. Make sure marriage is worth that sacrifice because it is a steep one.

2. Career risks

Potential disruptions to career progression due to family commitments. Many men, especially in religion, are expected to make career decisions while thinking about their families first. I would argue there is no better way to guarantee misery for a man than for him to manipulate and contort himself based on the wants and expectations of others, even if those others are his own family.
Balancing work and family responsibilities, which may require adjustments or compromises. Marriage can be a blessing but understand that it will come at the cost of much of your personal time.
Relocation or changes in job/school prospects due to the spouse’s career or family needs. How many men have followed the “girl of their dreams” to a college, to a college major and eventual career that does not fit them and is unsatisfying to them? But they believe if they just meet all of a woman’s qualifications for them, they will earn her intimacy. These men are confused about what a woman finds arousing. Desire cannot be negotiated. No amount of placating will make a woman burn with desire for her husband. A man risks lifelong contentment in a career that fits his skill, inclination, and enjoyment for the sake of a woman. That is a massive risk.

3. Emotional risks

Relationship challenges, conflicts, and potential emotional distress. If you hear anything from married Christian men, it’s that “marriage is work” or “marriage is hard“. You hear those statements more often than anything else regarding marriage. So as a result they should stick out in your mind. But a second effect is that we take the statement less seriously because we’ve heard it a thousand times. It’s true though. There are many hard things in life. Each person has to decide for themselves if the reward is worth the difficulty. The same applies to marriage. Decide if the difficulty is worth the reward.
Changes in personal freedom and autonomy. One of the best parts of early college for me was not having to ask anyone if I could do something or tell anyone what I was doing. I came and went as I pleased. In marriage, you cannot always do that. I don’t ask for permission since I’m the source of authority in marriage right below God, but I do inform my wife about what I’m doing so she doesn’t worry. This is not a problem, but it is another thing to think about. And inconvenience where one did not exist before.
Emotional stress associated with maintaining a healthy and fulfilling relationship. Many people suffer emotionally because they worry about their families. Maybe this is a “good worry”, but it is still a worry – an uncomfortable sensation. It is something that comes as a cost of marriage.

4. Lifestyle risks

Adjusting to shared living arrangements, household responsibilities, and potential conflicts over decision-making. Whether married or not, living with other people is no joke. There will absolutely be difficulties and inconveniences. From simple annoyances concerning people not washing their clothes or dishes, to bigger ones like people’s animals damaging household appliances. It is challenging to live with others. If you are going to do so, the reward has to be worth it. For roommates, the reward for putting up with each other is a cheaper living situation – as rent and utilities are split between tenants. This makes the trade worth it for many people. For marriage, there are also rewards, but they come at costs. Nothing is free. Consider if the reward is worth it.
Changes in personal routines, hobbies, and social life due to marriage commitments. You will not be able to live as a married man in exactly the same way you lived as a single man.
The need for compromise and negotiation in various aspects of life, including leisure activities, financial decisions, and long-term goals.

B. The Church and Human Nature:

We continue to make comments about human nature because it is critical to understand. Some have this idea that human nature does not apply in the church. You can tell by some of the statements they make.

“You Christians are supposed to be happy all the time”.
“Wow, You never want to do what is wrong, do you?”
“Being good is easy for you”.
“Marriage is easy for you Christian people”.

People make the incorrect assumption that the moment you walk into a church building you deposit your human nature in a box in the front foyer. Everyone who is a Christian knows this is not the case. We continue to be human beings and have our human nature despite our religious faith.

A man and woman have unique desires and tendencies in marriage. Sometimes these conflict. This conflict results in people taking different actions.

Men want sex, women want security.
Men want a career, women want a family.
Also, Men want skill, women want social interaction.

Of course, these are not all-or-nothing descriptors. Men and women can want various things and have overlapping desires. But nonetheless many have different wants and needs in life and love. Each of these differences can cause conflict. One or more parties will have to compromise. Is that compromise worth the rewards of marriage to you?

III. Selectivity and Discernment in Marriage Partner Choice

A. Emphasizing Selectivity:

It is the role of a man to be wise and discerning when choosing someone to marry. Because if you obey the Bible, that is a permanent decision. There is no going back. There is no getting out. Therefore you must leave nothing to chance and avoid guesswork.

Mutual Faith: This is the foundation. It should go without saying.

Genuine arousal: you have to find ways to determine if your wife is genuinely aroused by you. I do not mean attracted. And I don’t mean compatible. I mean sexually arousing. Is she sexually excited by you? Obviously, as a Christian, you should be avoiding sexual intercourse until marriage. That does not mean you cannot determine if she is aroused by you or not.

Trust and sincerity: Trust and sincerity are essential qualities to look for in a life partner. It is important to choose someone who is honest and trustworthy. This is a question of character. You have to determine this by all of her interactions and even micro-interactions in social settings as well as her behaviors in her private life.

Priorities: it is important to consider your priorities when choosing a life partner. Some important questions to ask yourself include: Do I want to have children? Where do I want to live? Do I want to work or manage the home (or both?)? What do I want to accomplish before I die? What kind of lifestyle do I want to have?

Behavior and etiquette: watching etiquette and basic nature when choosing a life partner. It is important to observe how a potential partner behaves with you and others.

People’s actions are 5-10x more important than their words.

With their behaviors, people will tell you exactly what they think, feel, believe, and want. It is easy to lie with words, but much more difficult to do so with actions.

When people’s words and actions don’t line up, look at their actions. Behavior will always tell you the truth.

If women confuse you with “mixed signals” [of which I would argue there is no such thing, most of the time], then look at their behavior

Compatibility: Compatibility is an important factor to consider when choosing a life partner. It is important to use the logical parts of your brain to determine whether someone is a good fit. Use your mind but also trust your intuition.

Find out what your woman’s values are. First, ask her, then watch her behavior. If her behavior and words are in conflict, believe her actions. Once you have her values, consider if they overlap with yours or not.

True compatibility is core value overlap.

If faith is not at the center of these values, you will have a problem. This is the most important facet. Differing faiths will handicap you as badly as having a wife who is not sexually aroused by you. These are both highly dangerous scenarios.

B. Recognizing Moral and Lifelong Commitment

You have to understand that people of faith are morally bound to maintain a faithful marriage. It is a lifelong commitment. You make a promise to God to be faithful, and you subject yourself to the penalty of judgment if you break that oath.

The cost is steep, but the rewards are also promising for some women. You have to make that decision with wisdom.

IV. Practical Strategies for Risk Mitigation:

A. Pre-nuptial Agreements:

Many unmarried or even married men will chuckle at this suggestion. But you know who isn’t laughing? The divorced man who lost 50% of his net worth will have his wages garnished to pay alimony for the next several years. This man is free from cloudy emotionalism. He has a perfectly rational mind – it’s a shame he acquired that mind too late.

A Pre-nup is asset protection and it makes perfect sense.

If a woman is planning to stay with a man for life, she won’t care about a pre-nuptial agreement. She will have no reason to be annoyed that she won’t get favored in divorce because she isn’t planning to get divorced.

Perhaps some would be insulted and say that a prenup means that the man doesn’t trust the woman. And considering how men fare in divorce courts and the fact that women are more likely to initiate divorce, men have a right to be apprehensive about the modern institution.

A logical woman would understand.

Some would then suggest “Well then what is going to stop a man from going out and cheating on his wife?”. I would say that if the only thing stopping a man from having sex with other women is his fear of losing his wealth, the relationship has bigger problems.

Asset protection: One of the main benefits of a pre-nuptial agreement is that it can protect assets from divorce by allowing financial protection through a pre-arranged, legally binding agreement. A good prenup will protect a man from frivolous divorce based on the emotional whims of the wife. Sure the man could initiate the divorce, but as we mentioned, it is not as likely as a woman initiating it.

A pre-nuptial agreement allows both parties to be open and honest about the assets and debts they bring to the marriage, and it requires the couple to discuss their financial expectations regarding these assets and any future assets they acquire as a couple.

Wealth protection: A pre-nuptial agreement can help you and your future spouse protect your wealth, both the individual wealth you bring to the marriage and the money you will gain throughout your marriage.

It allows you to designate what property should remain separate and what will be shared, which can be particularly useful for couples trying to keep separate significant pieces of personal property, including future inheritances and other anticipated income.

The value of the modern prenup is the protection of the assets and the protection of the asset generational potential of the man.

Debt protection: A pre-nuptial agreement can also protect you from your partner’s debts. It can include a provision that one spouse isn’t obligated to pay the debts of the other spouse.

Inheritance protection: A pre-nuptial agreement can also help protect inheritance rights. It can handle inheritance and ownership rights in the life insurance or disability policies.

Validity: A pre-nuptial agreement can make divorce proceedings less complicated and less expensive, as it can help avoid disputes over property and assets. It can also make the divorce process faster and less stressful. Should Christian people be thinking about divorce before they even get married? No, but a man has a responsibility to protect himself and hedge his bets against the possibility that he is marrying someone who will take him for all he is worth. Marriage is risky even for the Christian man.

Or consider this. If a pre-nuptial agreement is out of the question, what about donating assets to charity in the event of a divorce?

Say that neither party wants a pre-nuptial agreement. Would they agree that in the event of divorce, assets would be split evenly and anything irreconcilable would be donated to charity? If not, consider the motivations of the individual members of the marriage party.

V. Awareness and Preparedness

A. Seeking Wisdom and Guidance:

It is important to seek guidance from men you respect. Oftentimes people like married couples, ministers, or other church leaders would be the ones you should talk to, especially in matters concerning spirituality.

But in this instance, many of these people do not understand the biblical structure of marriage. They have accepted the modern, 21st-century version of marriage that is feminine-centric, dangerous for men, and requires a man to essentially castrate himself and bow to every whim of the woman or risk losing access to his only source of sexual intimacy. This is not what you are after.

When it comes to seeking advice, it is critical that you only take advice from people whose results you want to replicate.

This seems obvious, but people will take advice from anyone these days.

Therefore, if you know men who are in feminine-centric marriages dominated by women [who also “wear the pants”], you probably shouldn’t take their advice unless you want to end up in their situation.

Who wants to end up there? Not a soul.

So if you want to learn from anyone, pick someone who you would happily trade places with. If you wouldn’t trade places with the person giving the advice within the respective field in which they are giving the advice [i.e., if you wouldn’t trade career positions with someone giving career advice or if you wouldn’t trade marriages with the person giving the marriage advice] then reject the advice.

VI. The Covenant of Marriage

A. Honoring the Sacred Covenant:

Divine purpose: Marriage is held in God’s own heart and is a spiritual reality. This means that marriage is not just a human invention, but rather a divine purpose that should be approached with reverence and respect. Even though that is not how it is treated today, that is how God designed it in the beginning. And we should work to get back to that original design for marriage.

Highest commitment: Covenant marriage is the highest commitment two people can make to one another. Just as Christ has made an unshakeable, unbreakable covenant with His bride the Church, so we in covenant marriage make the highest commitment to one another. Meaning marriage is not just a legal contract, but a sacred covenant that should be taken seriously.

God-sealed covenant: God considers marriage to be a covenant relationship. This means that marriage is not a simple human agreement, but a covenant that is sealed by God. This means that marriage is not just a social or legal institution, but a spiritual one as well.

Marriage does have innate risks for men. This is not what God intended, but this is what marriage has become, especially modern marriage.

The risks for men are undeniable, but the benefits are also incredible as well. But not every marriage gets those benefits. Not every marriage is enjoyable. This is why the decision making and groundwork you do before marriage are so important.

Be wise. Marriage is dangerous for men to enter into blindly and without any consideration. You can make it good, but not by accident.

The Truth About the Homeless

Part of this article is used in another upcoming post that contains a few comments on a sermon available online.

It involves a common theme in Christianity: what should we do to help the homeless person on the side of the road who is asking for money?

There is an underlying assumption that Christians will be giving to the poor and needy. And this is a good assumption, as there are biblical commands to take care of those who are legitimately in need. Especially those of the household of faith. And I would agree with that statement that is frequently made by speakers.

⁴⁴Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, ⁴⁵and ^[o]sold their possessions and goods, and divided^[p] them among all, as anyone had need.
Acts 2:44-45

What I don’t agree with is an Inception-style assumption within the assumption.

So often you hear speakers today talk about the poor and needy and they’re often indirectly or even directly describing the people you might come across in the street or on highways. I have known of some speakers to even make it a point to suggest that you are neglecting a Christain duty if you drive past the panhandler on the highway. They then place some moral judgment on you based on how you view and what you do for those people.

Here’s the problem: these speakers have no idea if those people are actually poor and/or needy.

The assumption within the assumption is that panhandlers are actually poor.

I’m not denying that there are people who are legitimately homeless and who need help with their physical needs.

But as I state frequently, many times those so-called poor and needy are better off financially than most of the members of the congregation that are being shamed for not supporting those allegedly poor, needy people.

Kentucky Beggars Earns $100,000 Yearly by Faking Disability

Panhandlers who work deceptively have a good racket going, and they’re providing value to people who give them money.

This is a point in and of itself and a side note that deserves further elaboration.

I’ve often wondered why panhandlers, loiterers, and the allegedly homeless receive so much money in donations from people who drive by them on the road. I frequently wonder this because my underlying belief has always been that if a person receives money he/she must be providing something of value to society. And what value are panhandlers providing?

This question rolled around in my mind for some time until a potential answer became quite clear.

People aren’t just giving money to the supposedly “homeless” person.

No, people are giving money to purchase the right to feel good about themselves and/or morally superior to others who do not give.

They are purchasing a feeling of altruism.

They are purchasing the freedom from the guilt they feel when they ignore a panhandler.

The allegedly homeless allow donors to lift their spirits and feel morally superior to those who don’t mindlessly donate money.

I’m not arguing that everyone behaves or thinks this way after giving money to a homeless person, but it is a common theme among religious people.

Giving money to the allegedly homeless person provides you with the feeling that you are righteous. And that is what you are after.

And that’s what you’re doing. You’re attempting to purchase righteousness. It’s not about helping another person, it’s about the emotional and spiritual elevation of the self. Whether or not this is done on a conscious level is irrelevant – because this is based on an analysis of human nature.

We are pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding organisms. We seek to avoid the pain of guilt we feel when we drive by those people and seek the pleasure we feel from giving them money. It is an emotional proposition all the way around.

And even if you aren’t giving money to feel morally superior, I would argue that the next most likely reason is that you are giving money to avoid guilt.

The second way the allegedly homeless person provides value that people will pay for is they alleviate people’s sense of guilt.

Many people simply feel bad for driving by a homeless person. So they give money to them to make themselves feel better.

Again, it is not about giving money, it is not about helping people who have a legitimate need, it is about purchasing the freedom from guilt.

People are always less kind and altruistic than we give them credit for. If I was a betting man, I would always wager on the side of human nature. Human nature seeks pleasure and avoids pain. Many people give money to the homeless to seek the pleasure of moral superiority or avoid the pain of guilt. I would argue that this is the majority of cases.

Cultural Impact

Have you noticed the rate of panhandlers and allegedly homeless in America increase under the Biden administration? It seems to be clear that certain forms of government are soft on crime, weak on rules, and generate the incentive for pseudo-poverty. It is worth noting that even those under the poverty line in America are wealthy relative to underdeveloped countries experiencing true poverty.

At the time of this writing, there are “help wanted signs everywhere. There are more Jobs available than there are workers to fill those jobs.

Yet despite that, homelessness has remained the same or even increased!

Life is not harder. Living environments and situations are not worse. America and the rest of the modern world are in upward trajectories yet there are still high levels of unemployment and homelessness.

So are the allegedly homeless unable to find work? Or perhaps are they unwilling to work because doing so would require them to take a pay cut? I would argue for the latter.

The note about the government is to suggest that people were not in “poverty” and panhandling at the rate they were previously, but have since increased due to governmental incentives.

When you can get paid for doing nothing, you just became incentivized to do nothing. We cannot be shocked when more people do nothing after being incentivized to do so.

This is one of my concerns with Universal Basic Income (UBI). Some think that it will liberate people and allow them to do what they want for work with less concern for the earning potential of the field. With an extra $10,000 yearly coming from the government, a person would have less financial concerns about being a teacher, artist, or some other profession with low or staggered income [except at extreme levels of professional success].

But I believe, as we have seen with the modern welfare state, UBI will encourage people to sit and do nothing. Once people start receiving payouts, they will demand more – it is human nature. $10,000 will not be enough. They will require more. Human nature requires more.

And individual inactivity will lead to crime. Humans do not do well when they do not have work to do. They will create chaos just to have some excitement.

It is unwise to indiscriminately incentive panhandling by mindlessly giving money to the homeless.

Again, lest anyone gets offended [which no doubt they will], I am not suggesting that there are not legitimately homeless people.

I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t help anyone. And I am not suggesting that everyone who gives to the homeless is mindlessly trying to purchase righteousness or avoid personal feelings of guilt.

What I am requesting is that concerning the matter of giving to the poor, we use discretion, as we should be using it in all endeavors.

The solution is discretion-based giving.

If the goal of the Christian is to convert souls, we cannot hope that the simple provision of money will complete that goal. The Goal of Christianity is not to mindlessly give away as much money and food as possible.

Some Christians suggest that “free-giving” [a more politically correct term for “mindless giving”] of food and money is a way to “make connections” and “connect with the community”.

Oftentimes the community is just looking for a handout. And “Connection” is not the final step in the process of salvation.

Discretion-based giving involves discretion.

This is obvious, but it is a favorite pastime of religious people to mindlessly do what they think are good deeds without any rational thought and without any concern for second and third-order consequences of actions. How many good actions have been taken that have negative downstream consequences?

Resources are limited. We cannot mindlessly give without using our minds first.

If a person who panhandles on the side of the road is one of the many fakes who take advantage of people’s guilt, should that person be given money? Again, not all people are like this. But if they are, should we be giving them money? Is mindlessly giving them money good or bad stewardship?

I would argue that this person should not be given money and it would be poor stewardship to do so.

So there must be some form of criteria by which we can determine the legitimacy of panhandlers. There must also be a framework for how to work on converting these individuals as well.

Even the bible has a discretion-based process for taking care of widows based on if they are true widows or not.

³Honor widows who are really widows. ⁴But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is ^[a]good and acceptable before God. ⁵Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. ⁶But she who lives in ^[b]pleasure is dead while she lives. ⁷And these things command, that they may be blameless. ⁸But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

⁹Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, ¹⁰well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.

¹¹But ^[c]refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, ¹²having condemnation because they have cast off their first ^[d]faith. ¹³And besides they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but also gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not. ¹⁴Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully
1 Timothy 5:3-14

Imagine that, there is a discretionary outline for how to provide for widowed members of the household of faith!

There was a problem in the church with people who were not true widows leeching off the church and being busybodies. And Paul outlines criteria for true widows and what should be done about the busybody younger widows.

If discretion is involved in taking care of widows, and not worldly widows but Christian widows, how much more so should there be a discretionary thought process when providing physical resources to people who are not actually homeless and who are not Christians?

So to answer the question of the article in a line – should we give money to the homeless? If they are truly homeless, we can consider helping. If they are taking advantage of us, we should not. Discretion is required to determine if people are homeless or not. And discretion is needed when determining if they should be given money or not.

Here is a framework and list of tools that people can use to determine if someone should be given money:

Are they legitimately homeless? If you do not know, better to err on the side of caution.
Can you work to convert them? Everyone has a chance at salvation – and this is the goal of giving to people. Are they willing to trade food for Bible study? If they are willing, trade them.
Will they accept a simple meal or do they demand cash only? If they demand money, do not give.
Will they accept a gift card that can only be used at a restaurant? If not, do not give.
Here is a critical question: are they willing to trade some work for food and money? If they answer”no”, you likely know exactly the kind of person they are. What “hungry“, rational person would not trade a little effort for food unless they already knew they could get food in easier ways?

Page 8 of 38

« Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 … 38 Next »