The Christian Role of Government in Charity
I started a debate on the proper Christian role for government in charity over at David Kuo's web site. (Click "See All Comments" to see the whole discussion.)
I've talked about this subject in this space before. It's an important discussion because it is a major disconnect and disagreement that many Christians have, and as Christians are having this internal discussion about Christianity and partisan politics, I think we need to go deeper and explore, from a Christian perspective, the fundamental purposes of government.
For example, several of the other people in the discussion to this point have stated matter-of-factly that this is government's job, that there is some government obligation.
There is?
Why should government reflect society's values?
This implicitly states that if the social cost is not being "adequately addressed," then there is a need for government to step in. Why?
Anyway, so I think this is a good, interesting, and important discussion.
I've talked about this subject in this space before. It's an important discussion because it is a major disconnect and disagreement that many Christians have, and as Christians are having this internal discussion about Christianity and partisan politics, I think we need to go deeper and explore, from a Christian perspective, the fundamental purposes of government.
For example, several of the other people in the discussion to this point have stated matter-of-factly that this is government's job, that there is some government obligation.
While there is obviously a vital role for government in caring for people ...
There is?
And if government reflects any of the values of society, shouldn't charity be one? Perhaps even the predominant one?
Why should government reflect society's values?
Social costs always exist within a society. These social costs can be addressed in numerous ways and through numerous agencies, but they will always arise. If a social cost is being adequately addressed outside of government there may be no requirement for government to take on a role ...
This implicitly states that if the social cost is not being "adequately addressed," then there is a need for government to step in. Why?
Anyway, so I think this is a good, interesting, and important discussion.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment