# Seminary Students on Food Stamps



## Bill The Baptist

I have just recently started attending seminary and my family and I have just moved into campus housing. I was a little shocked to discover that virtually all of the students with families are receiving food stamps. I personally have mixed feelings about that, however I do understand how difficult it is to make ends meet while going to school full-time, especially with five children. It is very difficult to work a regular full-time job and still manage the work load. Most of the students have two or three part-time jobs which gives them the flexibility to work around their school schedule, but do not pay alot. The school of course does not have student loans and most of the students receive little if any ecclessiastical support. My question is this, is it right for a seminary student to accept government assistance while they are in school? And if not, what other choice is there for someone with such a large family?


----------



## Kevin

Yes. If the programme exists & you qualify, participate.

Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.


----------



## AThornquist

I would take all the assistance you need. In fact, I'm a little confused. Why _not_ take it (other than pride)?


----------



## torstar

Not everyone is blessed with family $$$ or grants to pursue studies they cannot easily afford.

I understand and somewhat share your concern though, but I wouldn't say anything.


----------



## Andres

I don't have a problem with government assistance. The problem is with people taking it who don't actually need it (i.e. people who are fully capable of working and _earning _the money)


----------



## Bill The Baptist

AThornquist said:


> I would take all the assistance you need. In fact, I'm a little confused. Why _not_ take it (other than pride)?


 
I tend to agree that you should take whatever assistance you can, but I also understand that some would have a problem with it based on the fact that you are perfectly capable of supporting your own family if you hadn't chosen to attend seminary.


----------



## Andres

Bill The Baptist said:


> I tend to agree that you should take whatever assistance you can, but I also understand that some would have a problem with it based on the fact that you are perfectly capable of supporting your own family if you hadn't chosen to attend seminary.



with that logic, then no one should receive any kind of assistance because everyone would be capable of supporting themselves/their family if only in a different circumstance.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Bill The Baptist said:


> I tend to agree that you should take whatever assistance you can, but I also understand that some would have a problem with it based on the fact that you are perfectly capable of supporting your own family if you hadn't chosen to attend seminary



That is making the assumption that one was perfectly capable of supporting their family.


----------



## Edward

Andres said:


> with that logic, then no one should receive any kind of assistance because everyone would be capable of supporting themselves/their family if only in a different circumstance.



With THAT logic, everyone should receive assistance because they are capable of putting themselves in circumstances where they cannot support their family. 

The real question here is whether the welfare benefits are a means provided so that you can meet God's call to the ministry, or is the lack of ability to attend without government assistance an indication that you haven't been called to go to seminary as a full time student at this time.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Edward said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> with that logic, then no one should receive any kind of assistance because everyone would be capable of supporting themselves/their family if only in a different circumstance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With THAT logic, everyone should receive assistance because they are capable of putting themselves in circumstances where they cannot support their family.
> 
> The real question here is whether the welfare benefits are a means provided so that you can meet God's call to the ministry, or is the lack of ability to attend without government assistance an indication that you haven't been called to go to seminary as a full time student at this time.
Click to expand...


You make some good points, but the reality is that without the benefits of a wealthy family or financial support from your church or loans, it would be impossible for most men with a wife and kids to support to ever attend seminary. Perhaps seminaries should reconsider their policies on student loans. Most of these institutions are eligible to participate in the federal student loan program, but choose not to because they do not believe it is wise to encourage debt. I think they are absolutely right, but they do not leave students with many options other than to resort to things like public assistance.


----------



## Andres

public assistance is a miilion times better than thousands of dollars in student loan debt.


----------



## MMasztal

Andres said:


> I don't have a problem with government assistance. The problem is with people taking it who don't actually need it (i.e. people who are fully capable of working and _earning _the money)


 
 X 3


----------



## athanatos

it depends on their circumstances; they may need it, they may not. But part of the circumstance is their attitude and orientation toward it. A right, or a gift? A temporary situation, or "as long as I can get it"? While this is not stealing, strictly speaking, Ephesians makes the point of saying _get a job so you can provide for others instead of taking what is not yours_. I'd think receiving something as a temporary gift with the understanding that you will soon providing for others, can be justified.

---------- Post added at 04:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------




athanatos said:


> While this is not stealing, strictly speaking



Insofar as it is enforced by the government, that is. Since the funds for securing the food stamps are only received under coercion; i.e. taxation.


----------



## torstar

Grateful my family was able to help pay my way through school, even though I wasn't very focused for the earlier years.


----------



## Scott1

Those "programs" are merely a redistribution of other's wealth through an inefficient, self seeking bureaucracy as middle man.

I found out, _after_ graduating from college that I "qualified" (to have bureaucrats force others to pay for me), but I was convicted enough, based on the way I was raised not to go near that. It never even crossed my mind.

Interestingly, there was a time in graduate school I earned even _less_ than in college- but somehow I never went to the government. 

Did, one time, go to the church, they helped me part way with a dentist, then I made payments, but never to the government.

I'm very glad my parents raised me with a couple key principles- no body _owes_ you anything, and life isn't fair. 

Curiously, this has made me more conscious of my dependence on God, more thankful for what I do have, more likely to save and work for things I want (like college). 

Most curious of all, it has made me more generous with what He gives me, and more disgusted at attempts by government to subterfuge that. (To God be all the glory)


... By the way, this kind of thinking has lead full circle in the United States. We now have a generation of people who think it a _crisis_ to not be able to buy a 3,200 square foot *starter* home, pretty much regardless of their ability to pay. And in two short years we have mortgaged 1.5 trillion dollars of government debt to pay for that false expectation.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Andres said:


> public assistance is a miilion times better than thousands of dollars in student loan debt.


 
I'm not American, so I'm not being affected directly in this case, but do you really mean that having the public taxed to pay for one's schooling is a "million times better" than you being responsible for paying for your own education? I'm not saying that their aren't extreme cases where it would be the right decision to take a hand-out, but where does personal responsibility come into play?


----------



## Andres

well obviously if one can pay for their own schooling, then they shouldn't take government assistance. I thought I made that clear in a previous post. But if the assistance is available, then I would take it. And as a taxpayer it doesn't bother me one bit that people get assistance when they truly need it.


----------



## LawrenceU

Socialism is evil in all of its forms. It is a violation of the eighth commandment. Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?


----------



## seajayrice

Accepting foodstamps sounds like good stewardship. Take every penny you can find, become an expert in government subsidies so you might instruct others to do likewise.


----------



## satz

How do we define whether someone truly "needs" the assistance?

If some is capable of doing without government assistance, but taking the government assistance means he can spend more time with his family and on his studies, and he fulfills the spirit of the requirements set out by the government for the assistance, isn't it a good thing to take the help?


----------



## HoldFast

Bill The Baptist said:


> The school of course does not have student loans and most of the students receive little if any ecclessiastical support.



No student loans available? I find that hard to believe.


----------



## TomVols

SBC Seminaries jettisoned student loans back in the 90s. They make you think they're giving you the gold in Fort Knox by signing your deferral papers from undergrad loans. Now, they will loan short-term money at high interest if you have an emergency, but not to go to school. 

It's a specious argument to say that if you don't have all the money to go to seminary, you're not called. So God only calls the financially well-off? 

And just for the sake of argument, for all those saying you should turn aside Food Stamps, would you turn aside public education? Pell Grants for undergraduate study? State subsidy grants for undergrad work? Tax credits for buying certain items? Tax credits/deductions of any kind? All these things are paid for at some level on the public dole. I get the point as a libertarian (small "l") but maybe my viewpoint is different from having been there and knowing the sacrifice you make just by showing up.

I know pastors who are on food stamps. Should they refuse them? Should any Christian? Why differentiate because the person is a seminarian?


----------



## Edward

Lots of good points on both sides on this thread. 

One thing to keep in mind is that the current model for higher education in this country is not sustainable. Most universities are no longer able to deliver a product which is worth the cost. And the same may be true for seminaries. The current seminaries are trying to adapt by decentralizing their delivery so that you can continued to be employed and be a part time student at your hone locale rather than be a full time student with part time jobs in a distant city. 

Does anyone have a handy list of all of the cities where you can get at least a BR education?


----------



## Notthemama1984

Edward said:


> Does anyone have a handy list of all of the cities where you can get at least a BR education?



Every city. Liberty online has provided a way for anyone to get an undergrad in religion and this degree is accepted at most if not all major seminaries.


----------



## Gage Browning

LawrenceU said:


> Socialism is evil in all of its forms. It is a violation of the eighth commandment. Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?


 
Rev. Underwood- I couldn't agree more! I have seen too many Reformed guys struggle to pay bills, or buy things like starters for their 34 year old cars, or radiators, or even something simple like a gift for their 5 year old's birthday. I say my own father and our poverty growing up, while I saw the Southern Baptists pay guys (put them on staff) and pay their seminary. The SB's seemed to always treat their seminary students better then the Reformed churches I knew. Probably all a money issue, but I knew too many guys who thought poverty was next to godliness.


----------



## TomVols

You didn't just equate the slaughter of innocent lives with a govt issue debit card to buy cereal, did you?


----------



## TomVols

I don't think the question is "Are food stamps lawful?" Clearly, they now are (though I don't believe they were ever in the minds of the Framers, but that's my opinion). The question was "Is this ethical/moral/right?"

Thank you for clarifying your post.


----------



## Edward

Chaplainintraining said:


> Every city. Liberty online has provided a way for anyone to get an undergrad in religion and this degree is accepted at most if not all major seminaries.



I wasn't clear in my post - I was referring to a seminary education. That clarification aside, I wouldn't include Liberty as being broadly reformed.


----------



## Damon Rambo

This is a difficult issue. I believe that the whole "food stamp" system is flawed. The Seminary student would not NEED the foodstamps in the first place, if his money was not being taken and redistributed to others. Even a person with a relatively low income, pays in excess of 20 percent of his or her income to taxes. Social Security (which the younger will never see), Medicare (which the younger will never see), sales tax, property tax, and state income tax, are all HUGE drains on a person. Believe it or not, despite what they are "labeled" for, the recent budget debates have brought to the forefront that the great majority of this money is going to welfare programs, medicare, etc. that is for OTHER people, other than the recipient.

In other words, the so called "hand out" that MOST food stamp recipients are getting, is actually nothing more than a return of their own money!! This of course does not apply to those doing nothing.

Now, putting all of this aside, the questions you must ask are #1 Is receiving food stamps in such a situation sinful? I believe the answer is a resounding "No!" If you are forced into a horrible (I believe) semi-socialist system, because the government is ripping a gargantuan amount of money from your paycheck, it is not wrong to submit to that system and take some of your money back. If that is the case, NONE of you better take tax deductions...

#2 The question is "whose money is it?" Why, the money is the Lord's. And for whatever reason (judgment, perhaps?) God has allowed our country to dip its toes into socialism. Food stamps, then, are absolutely God's provision!

So, in conclusion, I have no problem with ANYONE taking food stamps, Seminary students or no. In fact, I encourage everyone I know of, to let go of their pride, and accept some of their money back through WHATEVER program they qualify for. The amount of money they receive, in most cases, could never possibly match what they paid in. The government makes sure of that. If we are going to live in a "semi-socialist" system, then our Christian duty is to submit to that system until God decides to free us from it.


----------



## jjraby

accepting food stamps to get an education in a field that you aren't guaranteed any type of job and if you get a job aren't guaranteed any type of reasonable pay seems odd. The whole seminary model is broken. churches don't supports and seminaries dont educate in areas that need to be taught.


----------



## jwithnell

> Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?


Or the deacons where they are currently members ...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

jjraby said:


> accepting food stamps to get an education in a field that you aren't guaranteed any type of job and if you get a job aren't guaranteed any type of reasonable pay seems odd. The whole seminary model is broken. churches don't supports and seminaries dont educate in areas that need to be taught.


----------



## LawrenceU

TomVols said:


> And just for the sake of argument, for all those saying you should turn aside Food Stamps, would you turn aside public education? Pell Grants for undergraduate study? State subsidy grants for undergrad work? Tax credits for buying certain items? Tax credits/deductions of any kind? All these things are paid for at some level on the public dole.



Public education: Yes, turn it aside for the same reasons and others.
Pell Grants: Yes, for the same reasons.
State subsidies for undergrad work: Yep.
Tax credits: Apples and Oranges. This is not taking someone else's money it is not sending in yours.

Our nation has become so well trained by socialist tax masters that we don't even flinch at much of the tyranny that is foisted upon us. It is a factor in the increased inflation we have been experiencing for the past 100 years that is rarely discussed. Subsidies and 'assistance' programs are the primary reason for educational expenses increases. They do the same thing in other areas of the economy as well. Just because it is the normal way of doing things, just because it is legal, just because it seems 'wise' does not make it right. By taking that type of assistance one is becoming a slave. Even food stamps enslave.

The chains of tyranny have been forged and are being welded shut on many Christians because of acquiescence to financial assistance. Oh, the rings on ankles and wrists might be comfortable right now because they are lined with velvet, ermine, or sueded, but that will wear away and then the cold iron of slavery will be known.


----------



## satz

LawrenceU said:


> TomVols said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just for the sake of argument, for all those saying you should turn aside Food Stamps, would you turn aside public education? Pell Grants for undergraduate study? State subsidy grants for undergrad work? Tax credits for buying certain items? Tax credits/deductions of any kind? All these things are paid for at some level on the public dole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public education: Yes, turn it aside for the same reasons and others.
> Pell Grants: Yes, for the same reasons.
> State subsidies for undergrad work: Yep.
> Tax credits: Apples and Oranges. This is not taking someone else's money it is not sending in yours.
> 
> Our nation has become so well trained by socialist tax masters that we don't even flinch at much of the tyranny that is foisted upon us. It is a factor in the increased inflation we have been experiencing for the past 100 years that is rarely discussed. Subsidies and 'assistance' programs are the primary reason for educational expenses increases. They do the same thing in other areas of the economy as well. Just because it is the normal way of doing things, just because it is legal, just because it seems 'wise' does not make it right. By taking that type of assistance one is becoming a slave. Even food stamps enslave.
> 
> The chains of tyranny have been forged and are being welded shut on many Christians because of acquiescence to financial assistance. Oh, the rings on ankles and wrists might be comfortable right now because they are lined with velvet, ermine, or sueded, but that will wear away and then the cold iron of slavery will be known.
Click to expand...

 
How does taking food stamps enslave someone? Just because they avail to something once does not mean they are bound to keep using it time and again.


----------



## Damon Rambo

LawrenceU said:


> TomVols said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just for the sake of argument, for all those saying you should turn aside Food Stamps, would you turn aside public education? Pell Grants for undergraduate study? State subsidy grants for undergrad work? Tax credits for buying certain items? Tax credits/deductions of any kind? All these things are paid for at some level on the public dole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public education: Yes, turn it aside for the same reasons and others.
> Pell Grants: Yes, for the same reasons.
> State subsidies for undergrad work: Yep.
> Tax credits: Apples and Oranges. This is not taking someone else's money it is not sending in yours.
Click to expand...


Um, excuse me, but this is incorrect. I will admit for some this is true. Those who do not work, are indeed taking others money. If a person is sitting around on their lazy rear-end taking food stamps and welfare when they could be working, they should be ashamed.

However, a person who IS working, but who does not make enough money, is NOT taking other people's money. For instance, a person making 20,000 a year, pays in about 5,000 (more in some states) a year in taxes (Social Security, Medicare, Property taxes, state income taxes, sales tax). If they take 3,000 a year in food stamps, this is not "taking other people's money." It is keeping their own money, just like tax deductions (BTW, many tax credits and deductions are 'technically' a redistribution of wealth...EIC, School credits, and any other "pre tax" credit...)



> Our nation has become so well trained by socialist tax masters that we don't even flinch at much of the tyranny that is foisted upon us. It is a factor in the increased inflation we have been experiencing for the past 100 years that is rarely discussed. Subsidies and 'assistance' programs are the primary reason for educational expenses increases. They do the same thing in other areas of the economy as well. Just because it is the normal way of doing things, just because it is legal, just because it seems 'wise' does not make it right. By taking that type of assistance one is becoming a slave. Even food stamps enslave.
> 
> The chains of tyranny have been forged and are being welded shut on many Christians because of acquiescence to financial assistance. Oh, the rings on ankles and wrists might be comfortable right now because they are lined with velvet, ermine, or sueded, but that will wear away and then the cold iron of slavery will be known.


 
I VERY much agree with your last paragraph. However, until the laws are changed and the system is fixed, some people have little choice. A person is not relieved from their duties just because the government has a stranglehold on finances. The system is in place, and, just like the wicked Roman government of the 1st century, we are commanded to submit to it, and live in it.


----------



## LawrenceU

Mark, it enslaves because it makes those you use it come to rely upon the source. It is a pernicious evil. I have seen this first hand from folks who one would never think could fall for the trap.

Damon, I know what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is that 3,000.00 in aid does not equal 3,000.00. It is not a revenue neutral programme. The federal and state bureaucratic overhead on the programme is excessive, as are all government initiatives.


----------



## Damon Rambo

LawrenceU said:


> Damon, I know what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is that 3,000.00 in aid does not equal 3,000.00. It is not a revenue neutral programme. The federal and state bureaucratic overhead on the programme is excessive, as are all government initiatives.


 
I understand what you mean, brother. I also understand your frustration with our current system. But a person who is robbed of their money is not responsible for how the thieves use it. Not to mention, that same "overhead" applies to tax deductions, credits, and various other subsidies that even you benefit from, probably unknowingly.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Edward said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every city. Liberty online has provided a way for anyone to get an undergrad in religion and this degree is accepted at most if not all major seminaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't clear in my post - I was referring to a seminary education. That clarification aside, I wouldn't include Liberty as being broadly reformed.
Click to expand...


My apologies. I thought BR stood for Bachelors in Religion. 

Off the top of my head we have:

Charlotte
Jackson
Columbia, SC
Dallas, TX
Philly
Greenville
St. Louis
Escondido
Grand Rapids
Houston
Orlando
Atlanta
DC
Memphis

Every city due to RTS allowing a MA online.

I am sure I am missing some, but that is what comes to mind.


----------



## satz

LawrenceU said:


> Mark, it enslaves because it makes those you use it come to rely upon the source. It is a pernicious evil. I have seen this first hand from folks who one would never think could fall for the trap.


 
But surely anything can be abused and people can make mistakes and become overly dependent on anything.

That doesn't mean it can't be right for someone to use a benefit the government (even if it is a very imperfect government) provides to help out in their situation.


----------



## Damon Rambo

satz said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, it enslaves because it makes those you use it come to rely upon the source. It is a pernicious evil. I have seen this first hand from folks who one would never think could fall for the trap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But surely anything can be abused and people can make mistakes and become overly dependent on anything.
> 
> That doesn't mean it can't be right for someone to use a benefit the government (even if it is a very imperfect government) provides to help out in their situation.
Click to expand...

 
That is exactly right. The question "Should we have such a system?" is different than the question, "Since we are stuck with the system, should we live according to it?" I say NO, to the first, YES to the second.


----------



## kvanlaan

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - Alexander Tyler


----------



## Notthemama1984

Who said that? I have seen the quote numerous times, but never who actually said it.


----------



## Edward

jwithnell said:


> Or the deacons where they are currently members ...



Are we talking about widows and orphans here? Are we talking about men unable to work to support their families? Or are we talking about men who have made choices? 

Instead of being full time students and part time workers, perhaps these men should be full time workers and part time students. I don't see the shortcoming by the deacons.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Edward said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the deacons where they are currently members ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about widows and orphans here? Are we talking about men unable to work to support their families? Or are we talking about men who have made choices?
> 
> Instead of being full time students and part time workers, perhaps these men should be full time workers and part time students. I don't see the shortcoming by the deacons.
Click to expand...

 
I can assure you that all of the men with families in seminary are part time students and full-time workers. The average student in seminary takes five years to get a three year degree. All of us work full time in the sense that we work 40 hours, its just that we tend to have peon type jobs. I was in restaurant management for 15 years and in my last job I made over $60000 a year. The problem with a job like that is that it takes all of your time. You are lucky if you can even go to church one or two Sundays a month, much less try to manage even a part-time school workload. The only way we can manage school at all is to work as many part-time jobs as we can get and work around our school schedule. Unfortunately, these jobs tend to pay in the $8-9 and hour range, which doesn't go far with a large family.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Bill The Baptist said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the deacons where they are currently members ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about widows and orphans here? Are we talking about men unable to work to support their families? Or are we talking about men who have made choices?
> 
> Instead of being full time students and part time workers, perhaps these men should be full time workers and part time students. I don't see the shortcoming by the deacons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can assure you that all of the men with families in seminary are part time students and full-time workers. The average student in seminary takes five years to get a three year degree. All of us work full time in the sense that we work 40 hours, its just that we tend to have peon type jobs. I was in restaurant management for 15 years and in my last job I made over $60000 a year. The problem with a job like that is that it takes all of your time. You are lucky if you can even go to church one or two Sundays a month, much less try to manage even a part-time school workload. The only way we can manage school at all is to work as many part-time jobs as we can get and work around our school schedule. Unfortunately, these jobs tend to pay in the $8-9 and hour range, which doesn't go far with a large family.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly. You are constrained by the system. Were the government not robbing you of the money you pay out on social security, medicare, state income tax, etc., none of the seminarians at your seminary would need the food stamps; there jobs would be enough.

Honestly, this is also one of the reasons I am in favor of Student Loans. You run yourself ragged trying to keep up with Seminary tuition on 8 to 9 dollar an hour jobs, unable to put the full effort into your studies, when even a relatively low paid full time pastor (say the 40,000 dollar per year area) can make payments on that same sum twice as fast (a full time (40 hour) 9 dollar per hour job is less than half, yearly). This is especially true for subsidized (interest free) loans.

It is sad to me the quandary that my beloved "Big Six" puts students in...


----------



## Grillsy

Damon Rambo said:


> Exactly. You are constrained by the system. Were the government not robbing you of the money you pay out on social security, medicare, state income tax, etc., none of the seminarians at your seminary would need the food stamps; there jobs would be enough.



Indeed. If working individuals would be allowed to keep all their earnings rather than have it involuntarily taken from them before they even see their paycheck many would be able to make ends meet so much easier. 



Damon Rambo said:


> Honestly, this is also one of the reasons I am in favor of Student Loans. You run yourself ragged trying to keep up with Seminary tuition on 8 to 9 dollar an hour jobs, unable to put the full effort into your studies, when even a relatively low paid full time pastor (say the 40,000 dollar per year area) can make payments on that same sum twice as fast (a full time (40 hour) 9 dollar per hour job is less than half, yearly). This is especially true for subsidized (interest free) loans.



As much I hate to endorse going in to massive debt, especially for ministry where churches, presbyterys and denominations should be giving much more than they are, Damon's advice is technically accurate and sadly one of the better options.

Damon I don't mean that as an attack on you or your advice, as I think you know, rather it is evidence of the sad state of our over-taxed and over-entitled America.


----------



## SolaScriptura

If God didn't make you rich enough to afford seminary with your own cash, or with the ability to pay-as-you-go, or through the financial support of a church, He obviously didn't want you in seminary.

Bwah ha ha ha!

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

I took 4 years to do my MDiv - that included classes during all the winter and summer sessions as well - because I had to work to support my family.


----------



## Grillsy

SolaScriptura said:


> took 4 years to do my MDiv - that included classes during all the winter and summer sessions as well - because I had to work to support my family.



What about the Army chaplaincy? Did that pay for part of it?


----------



## Notthemama1984

Damon Rambo said:


> Exactly. You are constrained by the system. Were the government not robbing you of the money you pay out on social security, medicare, state income tax, etc., none of the seminarians at your seminary would need the food stamps; there jobs would be enough



That is not true. I only paid 350 in taxes last year. When you are only working peon jobs, you don't have taxes to pay.


----------



## Edward

Bill The Baptist said:


> I can assure you that all of the men with families in seminary are part time students and full-time workers.



All? 100%? No married seminary student that's taking a full load of classes? Maybe I need to start calling seminary registrars tomorrow to see if I can find one with a married student that's taking a full class schedule. Perhaps things have changed greatly in the last few years.


----------



## Notthemama1984

No need to call. I am enrolled in 18 hrs and am not working full time anywhere. I am married.


----------



## Brother John

Wow what a discussion I entered this thread expecting it to be a slam dunk one sided conversation, what a surprise. 

How did the church (particularly the Presbyterians) handle the issue of support for men in seminary throughout church history?

I had someone tell me the other day that when a friend of there's went through seminary in the sixties for the episcopal church he was given free married housing, denomination paid tuition and he was payed a small "salary" so he could be a full student, has anyone heard of such a thing? Is this accurate?


----------



## Notthemama1984

I don't know about other denoms, but the RCC is this way. I also know that a few scholarships are available, but an overwhelming majority of guys have to foot the bill themselves.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grillsy said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> took 4 years to do my MDiv - that included classes during all the winter and summer sessions as well - because I had to work to support my family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Army chaplaincy? Did that pay for part of it?
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## TomVols

Chaplainintraining said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. You are constrained by the system. Were the government not robbing you of the money you pay out on social security, medicare, state income tax, etc., none of the seminarians at your seminary would need the food stamps; there jobs would be enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. I only paid 350 in taxes last year. When you are only working peon jobs, you don't have taxes to pay.
Click to expand...

 You raise an excellent point. The poor in this country pay little in net taxes due to _real_ tax rate. The overwhelming tax burden (via the _real_ tax rate) is borne by the top 3-5% of taxpayers. A very large group of people pay little income tax at all, and a surprising number pay none.


----------



## Notthemama1984

It is worse than that. I paid 350 in taxes, but received a 1,500 refund.


----------



## Grillsy

SolaScriptura said:


> Nope.



Is that normal or did you go to seminary before joining the Army Chaplain Program?


----------



## Edward

Chaplainintraining said:


> No need to call. I am enrolled in 18 hrs and am not working full time anywhere. I am married.



Thanks. I should have remembered your diligent pursuit of a degree from earlier posts. Doffing my hat to you.


----------



## Notthemama1984

No need to tip your hat. I am just a crazy person who luckily can grasp things quickly.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Chaplainintraining said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. You are constrained by the system. Were the government not robbing you of the money you pay out on social security, medicare, state income tax, etc., none of the seminarians at your seminary would need the food stamps; there jobs would be enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. I only paid 350 in taxes last year. When you are only working peon jobs, you don't have taxes to pay.
Click to expand...

 
Wow. How did you get out of mandatory Social Security and Medicare tax? Do you have some kind of special exemption from property taxes, automobile taxes, registration fees, sales tax, state income tax, etc.? Do you not pay the same special taxes on your phone bill, light bill, and natural gas bill? How did you get exemption from the 40 cents per gallon tax on gasoline? The 14.6 cents a gallon state gasoline tax?

The fact is, unless you only made a 1000 bucks for last year, you paid FAR more than 350 dollars in taxes. In fact, if you paid 350 dollars in actual Federal income taxes, you are probably in close to a 50 percent tax bracket in terms of total taxes.

Don't drink the Kool-aid, brother.


----------



## Edward

Damon Rambo said:


> state income tax,



You're showing a Texas address on your tag, as does our brother in Hankamer. If you all are paying a state income tax, you're doing something very wrong.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Edward said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> state income tax,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're showing a Texas address on your tag, as does our brother in Hankamer. If you all are paying a state income tax, you're doing something very wrong.
Click to expand...


LOL. That's true. I didn't see his Texas tag till I was halfway through my post; however, our other taxes and fees make up for it. AND, this does not even take into account the compounding tax principles (we are paying taxes, on taxes, on taxes). At least half of your money goes to the Government, even for people who are technically in a 0 percent Income tax bracket. The upper 3-5 percent pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent..


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Blev3rd said:


> Wow what a discussion I entered this thread expecting it to be a slam dunk one sided conversation, what a surprise.
> 
> How did the church (particularly the Presbyterians) handle the issue of support for men in seminary throughout church history?
> 
> I had someone tell me the other day that when a friend of there's went through seminary in the sixties for the episcopal church he was given free married housing, denomination paid tuition and he was payed a small "salary" so he could be a full student, has anyone heard of such a thing? Is this accurate?


 
I felt the same way you do until I came up here for myself. The problem that we have in the SBC is that there is no organized system for supporting seminary students. It is up to the local churches, and if you come from a small church like I did, there is just not much money to be had. The seminaries don't make it any easier by refusing to participate in the federal student loan program, and the grants that are available are not near enough to pay for school. I understand about not getting into debt, but let's be consistent. Are you telling me that none of the faculty or administration at the seminaries has a loan on their house or their car? Most of us come up here on nothing but faith and had no intention of getting any kind of government assistance, but once you get up here and see how everything is stacked against you, it tends to make you reconsider.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Damon Rambo said:


> How did you get out of mandatory Social Security and Medicare tax?



I am just that poor.

I don't pay property tax either due to the fact that I am living with my wife's grandmother. I do have the other taxes though. I highly doubt I am in the 50 percent bracket. None of the taxes you mentioned equal 50% of my income. They don't come close.

It seems that the highest tax that I pay is the gasoline tax. If every penny I made went to buying gas, I would only be in the 15% bracket if your figures are correct and at 3.50 a gallon. Seeing that some of my income is paying the 7.25% sales tax (I do not have county taxes) and some is 0% (things bought online and groceries), my percentage is much less than 15%.


----------



## hrdiaz

I wonder how many people on this thread have actually been in a financial situation dire enough to _need_ assistance from someone and had no one to help _but_ the government.


----------



## LawrenceU

hrdiaz said:


> I wonder how many people on this thread have actually been in a financial situation dire enough to _need_ assistance from someone and had no one to help _but_ the government.


 
Been there. God provided apart from government assistance.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grillsy said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that normal or did you go to seminary before joining the Army Chaplain Program?
Click to expand...

 
The tuition assistance was being offered by the army reserves. Had I taken any I would have owed the reserves a few years. I didn't want to do the reserves, I wanted to do active duty.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Who said that? I have seen the quote numerous times, but never who actually said it.



Alexander Tyler


----------



## athanatos

LawrenceU said:


> Socialism is evil in all of its forms. It is a violation of the eighth commandment. Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?


 
While I am hesitant to defend Socialism, ... what about how God instituted Israel's social welfare system? Was it stealing that people were taxed and the Levites distributed the tax revenue, especially to the poor, the widow and the orphan?

Also, this would mean that what Joseph did in Egypt was not only clever, but very evil. He saw the famine coming, so he instituted higher taxes to prepare the storehouses; then when the famine came he sold the very same grain back to them. I am not saying that, since it is in the Bible, it must be okay. I am just saying that taxation to provide for those in need was ancient, and even instituted in Israel.

So, I have a hard time believing that the 8th commandment is violated in this.

---------- Post added at 09:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------

P.S.
I agree that the churches ought to help out more (but not under compulsion).


----------



## Notthemama1984

hrdiaz said:


> I wonder how many people on this thread have actually been in a financial situation dire enough to _need_ assistance from someone and had no one to help _but_ the government.


 
I have come pretty close, but no government assistance except for student loans.


----------



## he beholds

Damon Rambo said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, it enslaves because it makes those you use it come to rely upon the source. It is a pernicious evil. I have seen this first hand from folks who one would never think could fall for the trap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But surely anything can be abused and people can make mistakes and become overly dependent on anything.
> 
> That doesn't mean it can't be right for someone to use a benefit the government (even if it is a very imperfect government) provides to help out in their situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right. The question "Should we have such a system?" is different than the question, "Since we are stuck with the system, should we live according to it?" I say NO, to the first, YES to the second.
Click to expand...


That's how I feel. Though, I do see that the civil laws in Israel did include "redistributing" wealth, even in year of Jubilee, etc. 
I think just the fact that one group of people are given extra privileges from the gov't kind of makes it more necessary for others. The system has created an uneven playing field. Maybe how much one makes would actually be enough if there wasn't gov't assistance going to his neighbors who are making the same amount. That enables grocery stores to charge more, etc, rather than letting the actual amounts people can afford contribute more to the discussion on value and costs. (I'm the farthest thing from an economist, but I think I'm on to something.) 

Also, many Christians are also competing, financially-wise, with two income households--thus again making the playing field uneven. Now, we do that voluntarily, so probably a lot of these families could actually make more if the moms/wives go to work. And I'm not saying that the gov't owes me for choosing to be a stay at home mom rather than making the 45,000 or so that I'd make with my degree and skills. But our family's choice does keep an extra $45,000 from coming in. I don't think that is a biblical necessity, and even if I did, I don't need the gov't to make my Christianity possible or plausible, but I would still take whatever I could get. I know, that's a backwards thought for someone who considers herself a libertarian, but does this prevent me from taking the numerous tax credits, etc, that the gov't gives? I will say this, we pay zero dollars for federal income taxes and I happily cash my "return" which we in all honesty don't "need," strictly speaking. We'd survive without the extra funds that come to us every January. Sure, we pay other taxes, but so does everyone. Those aren't the taxes that the federal income tax returns are concerned with. And yes, we do pay social security/medicare taxes, BUT those are set up to come back to us in the future. Whether that happens, it is not exactly like a tax but a loan...which we hope to be able to collect on. 

So even if it wouldn't be how I'd vote, if my husband were in seminary and I could get the courage to shop with food stamps (that'd be my biggest issue, my vanity) I think I'd do it.


----------



## devonturnbaugh

LawrenceU said:


> Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?



I have a wife and two kids and will be able to fully support them through a full time job at a hospital without her needing to work on top of working at being a godly mother. Having said that, I come from a new church plant that does not have the resources to be able to support me at all through seminary financially, so there are lots of circumstance where this is not possible. But overall I would say that government aid should be the last resort. It seems like 1 Tim. 5:8 is pretty clear on that. Though I recognize that it does not speak to it directly I think we need to understand that God has called me to provide for their families not to go to seminary. I say if you cannot do it, then maybe wait til you can. Just my two cents.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Chaplainintraining said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did you get out of mandatory Social Security and Medicare tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just that poor.
> 
> I don't pay property tax either due to the fact that I am living with my wife's grandmother. I do have the other taxes though. I highly doubt I am in the 50 percent bracket. None of the taxes you mentioned equal 50% of my income. They don't come close.
> 
> It seems that the highest tax that I pay is the gasoline tax. If every penny I made went to buying gas, I would only be in the 15% bracket if your figures are correct and at 3.50 a gallon. Seeing that some of my income is paying the 7.25% sales tax (I do not have county taxes) and some is 0% (things bought online and groceries), my percentage is much less than 15%.
Click to expand...

 
Social security tax is 6.2 percent of your gross income, regardless of how little you make. 1.5 percent for Medicare. That is 7.7 percent of your income before anything else. 

I actually made 10,000 dollars one year. Lets use my figures from that years return to see how it broke down...

Social Security: $620 
Medicare: $150
Truck: Registration fees: $110
Property Tax (county): $880
Property Tax (City): $450
Total Sales taxes (Receipts): $757
Utility taxes (Various): $120
Gas tax (average 2.5 gallons per day @ 54.6 cents) : $498 (rounded down)

Total: $3585

Now, this list is not exhaustive, and like I said, it does not include compounding tax burden (If you buy a $1 toy, the production of that toy is made up of a great deal of taxes; corporate taxes, income taxes that the employees that work the line paid, along with employer matching SSI and Medicare, regulatory charges and fees, etc. Then you pay sales tax on top of all of those taxes...Thus, the original price of a toy that ended up costing you a 1.08 after taxes, if all taxes were removed, start to finish, would have only cost you maybe 50 cents...).

---------- Post added at 01:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 PM ----------




devonturnbaugh said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a wife and two kids and will be able to fully support them through a full time job at a hospital without her needing to work on top of working at being a godly mother. Having said that, I come from a new church plant that does not have the resources to be able to support me at all through seminary financially, so there are lots of circumstance where this is not possible. But overall I would say that government aid should be the last resort. It seems like 1 Tim. 5:8 is pretty clear on that. Though I recognize that it does not speak to it directly I think we need to understand that God has called me to provide for their families not to go to seminary. I say if you cannot do it, then maybe wait til you can. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

 
Paul used his rights and resources as a Roman citizen to further the ministry. Why do you think we are forbidden from doing the same? God has called men to provide for their families, no doubt. But if the system is designed where that requires they get that provision from the government, their is nothing in scripture that would forbid it. We are not allowed to "wait" when God says "Go." When God says "Go," we go, and use any non-sinful means we can to accomplish that task. We are living in a semi-socialist system, and as much as we may not like it, we are commanded to submit to it.


----------



## athanatos

Joshua said:


> athanatos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, this would mean that what Joseph did in Egypt was not only clever, but very evil. He saw the famine coming, so he instituted higher taxes to prepare the storehouses; then when the famine came he sold the very same grain back to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to Genesis 41ff? Where does it say he raised taxes or took from landowners?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am referring to Gen 41. I am _assuming it is taxed_, since the people don't own/have immediate access to it. Joseph collects it from all the cities into reserves (v47-49), and then sells it when the famine breaks out (v55-57). I am assuming it is a _higher_ tax, since they weren't doing it before.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

The simplest reading of the text implies that the one fifth was collected from all the land of Egypt. In any case, it is up to the Church to provide where there is need. If the Church wants seminary qualified pastors then they need to be willing to foot the bill. If they are not doing it then they have no right to complain about the source of the money paid.


----------



## Pilgrim

LawrenceU said:


> Socialism is evil in all of its forms. It is a violation of the eighth commandment. Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?



Where are the churches is the bigger issue to my mind. Often there is no support or oversight at all of seminarians. This happens with Presbyterian churches too. A friend of mine did have active oversight by his OPC church but he was told by a professor at RTS that it was quite rare. 

On the other hand, I do see a good deal of local church involvement and work in ministry by NOBTS students in our area, which I understand tends to be somewhat rarer at other seminaries. Whether or not some are on public assistance or are going heavily into debt I cannot say. Some have working wives that help put them through school. Tuition at SBC seminaries is relatively low, lower than many undergraduate schools, especially for members of Southern Baptist churches.


----------



## TomVols

Damon, what year are you using for those figures? Up until this year, the FICA split has been 6.2 SS and 1.45 Medicare. SS is a little less this year.

Also, It's very unusual that you are paying BOTH city and county taxes on your property. I've never heard of a place where municipalities had dual taxation claim. You either live in a township or a county but not both. Maybe it's different in Texas. It usually is


----------



## Pilgrim

Bill The Baptist said:


> Blev3rd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow what a discussion I entered this thread expecting it to be a slam dunk one sided conversation, what a surprise.
> 
> How did the church (particularly the Presbyterians) handle the issue of support for men in seminary throughout church history?
> 
> I had someone tell me the other day that when a friend of there's went through seminary in the sixties for the episcopal church he was given free married housing, denomination paid tuition and he was payed a small "salary" so he could be a full student, has anyone heard of such a thing? Is this accurate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I felt the same way you do until I came up here for myself. The problem that we have in the SBC is that there is no organized system for supporting seminary students. It is up to the local churches, and if you come from a small church like I did, there is just not much money to be had. The seminaries don't make it any easier by refusing to participate in the federal student loan program, and the grants that are available are not near enough to pay for school. I understand about not getting into debt, but let's be consistent. Are you telling me that none of the faculty or administration at the seminaries has a loan on their house or their car? Most of us come up here on nothing but faith and had no intention of getting any kind of government assistance, but once you get up here and see how everything is stacked against you, it tends to make you reconsider.
Click to expand...


With the possible exception of student loans, the SBC system is arguably better than any of the Reformed seminaries with the exception of Greenville, which is unaccredited and very inexpensive and has a provision for going tuition free if the home church meets certain conditions. None of the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have an organized system for supporting seminary students. (The SBC way of sending missionaries with the CP is much more organized than the PCA, which operates more like indep. churches in that respect) With the exception of Covenant Seminary and some of the very small denoms, all of the seminaries are independent and not affiliated with any particular denomination. 

Unlike Presbyterians, many SBC students also take on a pastorate, often at a small or rural church that is unable to support a full time pastor. In some cases there may be support available through an association or somewhat more likely, the state convention.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Tom: Sorry, you are right; Medicare is 1.45, not 1.5. That is a negligible difference, though.

Second, yes, there is both city and county taxes, at least when you live in the city limits, here. Some places even have three different property taxes, although the third tax is usually a private HOA, not the government. 

I have no idea why this is different here...maybe because we do not have State income tax.


----------



## Edward

TomVols said:


> Also, It's very unusual that you are paying BOTH city and county taxes on your property.



Here there is a fairly small city tax, a smaller county tax, a tiny community college tax, and a huge school district tax. Sales taxes are high, but lower than Tennessee, and like Tennessee, no income tax. Car registration is low.


----------



## TomVols

Texas has wierd real estate laws for sure. But TN doesn't have a state income tax and there is no dual municipality taxation.


----------



## Edward

TomVols said:


> Texas has wierd real estate laws for sure.



No, Louisiana has weird real estate (and other) laws.


----------



## Gloria

Edward said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the deacons where they are currently members ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about widows and orphans here? Are we talking about men unable to work to support their families? *Or are we talking about men who have made choices? *
> 
> Instead of being full time students and part time workers, perhaps these men should be full time workers and part time students. I don't see the shortcoming by the deacons.
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly. I don't see the wisdom in a man with a wife and several children going to school full time.


----------



## TomVols

Yes. Those two came to mind, as they are both community property states. Don't get me started on Louisiana..... 



Gloria said:


> I don't see the wisdom in a man with a wife and several children going to school full time.


There's often nothing wise about what we do in following Christ. Sacrifice isn't wise. Nor is it acceptable in America nowadays. Not saying your statement is antithetical to that, btw. Just pointing out that I hear often from people who can't believe people are doing mission work or going to seminary or ____________ because how could they possibly do that to their kids? How will they afford tvs in each room? How will they afford $85 sneakers for all of them? How can they have family night at Ruth Chris? 

I'm not saying the traditional model of a man UHauling his family hours away to do a 95 hour Master's degree is the ultimate sacrifice for Christ. Not saying there may not be a better way. However, our society is so allergic to anything sacrificial that for some, the thought of doing this is tantamount to spousal/child abuse because some creature comforts may have to be punted.


----------



## Elizabeth

Abuse? That's rather a leap. This isn't about giving up TVs or sneakers or restaurants. This is about willfully choosing to have other folk provide for one's family, which is hubby's job.

Not wise, yes. I agree with Gloria. Esp if the husband has not set aside enough $$$ to hold the family over through the studies. 

Food stamps should, at best, be for short-term, devastating circumstances, in my opinion.


----------



## he beholds

Yeah, if my husband wanted to go to seminary, I'd do anything for that to happen, as long as we could be together. (Or even if he wanted to go to school for a "secular" PhD.) I would never say, or think, "Well, dear, your job is to provide for us, so please stay at the job that is sucking the life out of you or please ignore the call to the ministry." Instead, I would say, "OK. well, it's going to be tough. How are we going to do it? Where can we live? Whatever the answer, let's make this happen." 

Seminary men, I hope you don't feel guilty for choosing seminary, even at a juncture where you have dependents. We can't do it all--marry young AND have all of our ducks in a row. (And even if we marry after said ducks are in a row, what happens when plans change?) 
I was happy that my husband married me before he went to grad school, rather than having a long, long engagement.


----------



## Zenas

Who threw the chum in the water?


----------



## mjohnson7

kvanlaan said:


> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - Alexander Tyler




As much as I like the above quote, it was not written/spoken by Alexander Tyler. The gentleman's name was Alexander Fraser Tytler. See this article.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Elizabeth said:


> Abuse? That's rather a leap. This isn't about giving up TVs or sneakers or restaurants. This is about willfully choosing to have other folk provide for one's family, which is hubby's job.
> 
> Not wise, yes. I agree with Gloria. Esp if the husband has not set aside enough $$$ to hold the family over through the studies.
> 
> Food stamps should, at best, be for short-term, devastating circumstances, in my opinion.


 

Then the government needs to quit taking the money from these men in the first place. GETTING BACK money that YOU paid into the system, is not "willfully choosing to have others provide for your family." That is rubbish. All food stamps do, at least for the person who is working and paying taxes, is giving back part of what THEY paid in...

The fact is, under your premise, only those who were born from a rich family, or a member of a mega-church, could go to Seminary. If the government is going to take my money to pay for abortions, they can DARN SURE give some of that money to struggling seminarians. As long as we allow the left to keep sucking up all the resources, while the sinfully prideful conservatives refuse those resources, we are going to be continually taxed out of existence.


----------



## Zenas

Agreed. The arguments proposed against thus far as nonsensical. Only the rich or already established are "morally allowed" to go to seminary.


----------



## Southern Twang

TomVols said:


> Damon, what year are you using for those figures? Up until this year, the FICA split has been 6.2 SS and 1.45 Medicare. SS is a little less this year.
> 
> Also, It's very unusual that you are paying BOTH city and county taxes on your property. I've never heard of a place where municipalities had dual taxation claim. You either live in a township or a county but not both. Maybe it's different in Texas. It usually is



I paid city, Chattanooga, and county, Hamilton, property taxes.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

To all those who are against taking foodstamps, do you now or do you plan on taking Social Security? The reason I ask is because, contrary to what you may have been bamboozled into believing, social security is not a retirement plan whereby the money you put in is put into an account and then paid back to you when you retire. No, the money that you paid in will be long gone way before you ever retire. It went to pay for your parents and grandparents social security, and when you retire it will be your kids and grandkids paying for you. The truth is that Social Security is an entitlement funded by a tax, just like foodstamps. Maybe everyone should just work until they drop dead instead of "choosing" to retire and have the rest of us help support them.


----------



## E Nomine

_kvanlaan 
Puritanboard Doctor 

Join Date:Oct 2006
Posts:7,637Who said that? I have seen the quote numerous times, but never who actually said it. 
Alexander Tyler _


I believe that quote is more a figment of the Internet than a legitimate quote by Tyler (it's still a great quote, no matter who wrote it).

The Mythical Alexander Tyler and His Theory of Democracy by Gary North


----------



## kvanlaan

> As much as I like the above quote, it was not written/spoken by Alexander Tyler. The gentleman's name was Alexander Fraser Tytler. See this article.



I guess that the source I got it from was wrong.



> I believe that quote is more a figment of the Internet than a legitimate quote by Tyler (it's still a great quote, no matter who wrote it).
> 
> The Mythical Alexander Tyler and His Theory of Democracy by Gary North



And maybe there's good reason for it being wrong if the man never existed...

I still like the quote! (You can always attribute it to me, that's OK too.)


----------



## Notthemama1984

The question is then is it correct?


----------



## TomVols

Southern Twang said:


> TomVols said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damon, what year are you using for those figures? Up until this year, the FICA split has been 6.2 SS and 1.45 Medicare. SS is a little less this year.
> 
> Also, It's very unusual that you are paying BOTH city and county taxes on your property. I've never heard of a place where municipalities had dual taxation claim. You either live in a township or a county but not both. Maybe it's different in Texas. It usually is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I paid city, Chattanooga, and county, Hamilton, property taxes.
Click to expand...

On reflection, you are right. A few years ago, the state legislature allowed ad valorem taxes to be assessed by both municipalities. This was part of the annexation law that went through that forbade municipalities from doing what some were doing - annexing everything they could and declaring whatever else they could to be part of their MSA equivalent for annexation futures (and, to keep others from doing what Nashville did, which was eliminate their city charter and form a metro/county government). Where this became an issue is the fact that Muni residents are essentially paying taxes for less services. using your example, you paid Chattanooga city taxes. Unless you live in the 5 mile buffer outside the town limits, you got little in the way of Bradley Co services, but the bulk in Chatt city services. So you're paying for fire, sheriff, schools that you likely would never be able to use since you'd be using city provided services of all these. 

However, a small town near me got in trouble doing this. They annexed and taxed the daylights out of residents and one particular company. The company sued and won, claiming the annexation was improper for various reasons, and won. The city now has to refund its share, and cannot use tax subsidies from the county to do so. So you see the conundrum. There is a huge class action suit now pending with various residents as the plantiffs hoping for a similar fate. Good luck with that. The company's Ace in the hole was relocation. No one cares if a few families pull up stake and leave because someone else will buy the houses they vacate.

Anyway, thanks.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Bill The Baptist said:


> Most of these institutions are eligible to participate in the federal student loan program, but choose not to because they do not believe it is wise to encourage debt.



Another reason many do not participate is that it makes them beholden to gov't policies. Yet one more wrinkle in the case of Erskine (the ARP college and seminary).


----------



## FCC

Bill,
I truly feel for you and your family. My family will be making your circumstances a matter of prayer! There has been much said on here about the pros and cons of accepting government subsidies. I would fall into the camp of it is an illegal action sanctioned by our government and is nothing but a violation of the 8th commandment. 

You are in a difficult situation, trapped in many ways by a system that is in no way God honoring. My father went to the Southern Baptist Seminary in the 1970's. He had a family, only two children at the time, but it would still have been hard. To this day I have extreme respect for my father's work ethic. He managed to make ends meet by working at night, a full time job, and going to school in the day. I do not know how he did this, but he did. He even preached at local churches on the Sabbath, after working all night at a hospital. I remember living in a small trailer and sharing our time with the mice that also lived there with us. We were poor but we were happy! Dad never complained, he just worked and studied and when he was there he always had a smile and a comforting word for his children.

He graduated and we moved to a church. I never understood the finances until recently when he described to us how much he made. I couldn't believe how small the pay was! Yet, we never lacked a thing. We didn't have the extras but we never went hungry. In the midst of it all my parents bargain shopped, went to the Goodwill and Salvation Army, scrapped and saved and brought us kids up learning to work! I still get tears in my eyes when I think of their love and faith that carried them through.

Struggle on my friend. Work, labor, pray and glorify God. He is more than able to meet your needs. Meditate on Psalm 121 and may the Lord preserve thy going out and thy coming in!


----------



## Damon Rambo

No one has yet explained how taking back your own money, that was taken from you, would be an 8th commandment violation. These are not guys that are sitting around sipping Umbrella drinks...they are working, and paying money into that system. They are just getting part of that back. Its no different than taking a tax deduction.

My opinion? If a person is working, is paying money into the system, and allows their family to suffer out of pride, they are violating 1 Timothy 5:8. And anyone who takes a tax deduction (ESPECIALLY a "pre-tax" deduction) or uses public schools (paid for by a lot of people who have no children, and home-schoolers), and yet criticize these men for taking "others money" (even though those who are working are not doing so), are being quite hypocritical...

There is no "theft" here. We have a democratic republic. We willfully voted the men into office who have made these laws. We could've voted them out. We could have put our foot down, went out, and demonstrated. We didn't. It is a free country, and whether through active participation, or silence, we have as a country decided to have these programs. That is not theft.

Is my elderly father "stealing" by receiving his SSI check? No. He paid into the system. IF anyone is breaking the 8th commandment, it is not those taking the benefits, but those who have established the system.

Consider Paul for a moment. Did Paul go, "Wow. If I appeal to Caesar as a Roman citizen, the government (funded by taxpayers), will be out a huge expense, and that would be 'robbing' them. I will just stay here and suffer." No. He utilized all of his rights as a citizen, to further the gospel. He understood what some here are failing to understand; God has established governments. He has endowed them with authority. That means that even Food Stamps are in actuality God's provision.


----------



## Zenas

FCC said:


> There has been much said on here about the pros and cons of accepting government subsidies. I would fall into the camp of it is an illegal action sanctioned by our government and is nothing but a violation of the 8th commandment.



Public schools
Roads
Power Companies
Sewer Systems
Social Security
Produce
Etc.
Etc.
Etc...

Use any of those? You use a government subsidy.


----------



## Grimmson

Bill The Baptist said:


> To all those who are against taking foodstamps, do you now or do you plan on taking Social Security? The reason I ask is because, contrary to what you may have been bamboozled into believing, social security is not a retirement plan whereby the money you put in is put into an account and then paid back to you when you retire. No, the money that you paid in will be long gone way before you ever retire. It went to pay for your parents and grandparents social security, and when you retire it will be your kids and grandkids paying for you. The truth is that Social Security is an entitlement funded by a tax, just like foodstamps. Maybe everyone should just work until they drop dead instead of "choosing" to retire and have the rest of us help support them.


 
I am against the idea of students with families taking foodstamps in principle and I also have no plans of ever seeing a social security check because I doubt that money will be there when I retire. Personally, I think instead of money being given from the government to these students, local churches need to step up and start taking care of these families; with of course services being rendered by the student by means of assisting in visitation, bible studies, and other much needed activities in the church. This is just another example of churches neglecting and delegating their responsibility to another intuition, in this case being the State. Would anyone find it acceptable for their pastor to be on foodstamps? If not, then why deem it acceptable for those who desire the office of an overseer? If he cannot manage his own household, including not only the behavior of his children and wife but also his finances, then how do you expect him to care for God’s church? If a man cannot provide for his family isn’t he in a sense worse then a nonbeliever? A man has the job to care for his family first, that is the responsibility he has accepted when he got married, because he should have know well that marriage will divide his devotion (like in the case of cost going to seminary) due to the much needed care for his wife, see 1 Corinthians 7:32-35. The fact that these students cannot provide for their families can be a black eye on the church and the gospel. There are many conservative non-Christians who would use this to judge the character of the student or pastor, so that he is not above approach. If he doesn’t trust the character of the minister then couldn’t that be considered as an unnecessary stumbling block to the gospel, instead of what is communicated and that is that this person just wants my money because he cannot get a real job? Therefore if these men are called to seminary then the church must assist them somehow so that they will not been seen as parasites, so that their moral character maybe preserved in the minds of the church and the world; and fulfilling the calling of God made manifest by the church so that they can hold the office of overseer based on passages like 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and 5:7-8. Therefore the wise thing to do if churches are not giving assistance to these students is to then go to school part time and work as much as needed to provides the income needed for their family, while at the same time being there as a leader to guide in the needed mental and spiritual growth of his children (instead of leaving it to his wife alone of he must work a ridiculous amount of hours in order to go to school).


----------



## he beholds

Grimmson said:


> Would anyone find it acceptable for their pastor to be on foodstamps? If not, then why deem it acceptable for those who desire the office of an overseer? If he cannot manage his own household, including not only the behavior of his children and wife but also his finances, then how do you expect him to care for God’s church? If a man cannot provide for his family isn’t he in a sense worse then a nonbeliever? A man has the job to care for his family first, that is the responsibility he has accepted when he got married, because he should have know well that marriage will divide his devotion (like in the case of cost going to seminary) due to the much needed care for his wife, see 1 Corinthians 7:32-35.



If my church could not afford to pay our pastor a livable wage, and yet he labored with us all the same, I'd have no problem whatsoever with him taking foodstamps. Now if my church could afford it and just didn't, I'd have a problem with the church and the denomination--not the pastor.


----------



## Grillsy

Damon Rambo said:


> No one has yet explained how taking back your own money, that was taken from you, would be an 8th commandment violation.



I think some, like myself, were saying some of the programs are a violation of the 8th commandment. Taking someone's wages against their will and giving them to someone else.

Furthermore, As you well know, not all of the programs are based on money paid in.


----------



## LawrenceU

Grillsy said:


> I think some, like myself, were saying some of the programs are a violation of the 8th commandment. Taking someone's wages against their will and giving them to someone else.



Bingo!


----------



## Damon Rambo

LawrenceU said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some, like myself, were saying some of the programs are a violation of the 8th commandment. Taking someone's wages against their will and giving them to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!
Click to expand...

 
Right, but that only applies if the person is doing nothing and sitting on their rear-end. If they are working, making, say 20k dollars per year, with three kids, paying out 8,000 dollars per year in taxes (Counting the 6.2 percent Social Security, 1.5 percent Medicare, State Income taxes and Property taxes that go to these programs and other social programs like public schools, etc.), and they qualify for 300 a month in food stamps, they are NOT receiving "other peoples" money. They are receiving their own money back to themselves. There is no 8th commandment violation there. 

It is sad that the government is structured this way, but again, we are commanded to submit to it until we can change it. A person who is struggling, working full time, and not making it, is sinning by not utilizing their rights under present law (the same way Paul did), in order to take care of their family. This goes for Seminary students or anyone else.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Grimmson said:


> Personally, I think instead of money being given from the government to these students, local churches need to step up and start taking care of these families; with of course services being rendered by the student by means of assisting in visitation, bible studies, and other much needed activities in the church. This is just another example of churches neglecting and delegating their responsibility to another intuition, in this case being the State.



But until your preference is reality, what should a student in this situation right now do?


----------



## satz

Grillsy said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some, like myself, were saying some of the programs are a violation of the 8th commandment. Taking someone's wages against their will and giving them to someone else.
Click to expand...


I don't see any justification for saying the 8th Commandment is being violated. The government may be taking wages against a person's will, but that is not stealing, that is their God given authority to tax their citizens.

Its exactly the same thing that a parent telling a child what to do is not slavery - its just enforcement of God ordained authority. 

Taxes may be too high and used for sinful means, and governments will answer for that, but that still does not mean we should lightly toss around the Eighth Commandment.

---------- Post added at 02:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------




Grimmson said:


> Personally, I think instead of money being given from the government to these students, local churches need to step up and start taking care of these families;



If the government is offering programs, and these students can legitimately qualify under the spirt of the requirements, why not take the government aid to ease the burden on the church?


----------



## Damon Rambo

satz said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some, like myself, were saying some of the programs are a violation of the 8th commandment. Taking someone's wages against their will and giving them to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see any justification for saying the 8th Commandment is being violated. The government may be taking wages against a person's will, but that is not stealing, that is their God given authority to tax their citizens.
> 
> Its exactly the same thing that a parent telling a child what to do is not slavery - its just enforcement of God ordained authority.
> 
> Taxes may be too high and used for sinful means, and governments will answer for that, but that still does not mean we should lightly toss around the Eighth Commandment.
Click to expand...

 
Excellent point. Jesus was pretty clear that the taxes belonged to the government (render unto Caesar what is _Caeser's_). The authority is theirs, given by God...


----------



## Southern Twang

Yes, the government may tax us unduly. But that doesn't mean we participate in its unrighteous fruits. The U.S. government, for instance, funds Planned Parenthood. Should Christians somehow engage the services of Planned Parenthood because they qualify for a program with them? Of course not. A large portion of my property taxes go to fund government schools. Do I automatically assume I need to send my kids there? No way. Neither should seminary students seek bread crumbs from the state that have been coerced from their neighbors. 

The real problem has already been highlighted: failure of the church to provide for its future ministers.


----------



## athanatos

Damon Rambo said:


> It is sad that the government is structured this way, but again, we are commanded to submit to it until we can change it. A person who is struggling, working full time, and not making it, is sinning by not utilizing their rights under present law (the same way Paul did), in order to take care of their family. This goes for Seminary students or anyone else.



I agree that it is unfortunate, but how do we best change it? Is it not to demonstrate in lifestyle your opposition, within what is required by law, and the lack of burden shouldered by the taxpayer? That is, not to take food stamps, and so give the impression that the government _must_ intervene due to such rampant poverty?

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 AM ----------




Joshua said:


> Respectfully, I think it's safe to say your importing something in the text which isn't there. First, it doesn't say that the land he used belong to anyone other than himself, as Pharoah.


Did they even have a kind of distinction of land ownership, government owned vs taxpayer owned, like our modern property rights? If they did not view property rights like today, then I am inclined to suggest that he, being a ruler over them, used his authority to take of their abundance on the lands worked by the same people who burdened taxation normally. I am not sure you disagree, but it does change what the expression of taxation would be, right? In that case, he _was_ taxing them the grain and selling it back to them later. The only other option was that he had plots of land all over Egypt and the abundance was just from his own plots.



Gen41 said:


> 46 Joseph was thirty years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt. And Joseph went out from Pharaoh’s presence and traveled throughout Egypt.
> 47 During the seven years of abundance the land produced plentifully.
> 48 Joseph collected all the food produced in those seven years of abundance in Egypt and stored it in the cities. In each city he put the food grown in the fields surrounding it.
> 49 Joseph stored up huge quantities of grain, like the sand of the sea; it was so much that he stopped keeping records because it was beyond measure.


Maybe I am inserting something in the text, but it sounds like it was gathered from _all across Egypt_, not just the personal plots owned by the Pharaoh.



> Secondly, he appointed officers which were doing some kind of authoritative task under Joseph's care (harvesting the field maybe, doing the work or hiring folks to do the work).


I am not sure how this point relates.



> Thirdly, rather than point to a welfare system, which is an 8th Commandment issue,


Why is a welfare system an 8th commandment issue, if, as I said, Israel was taxed to provide for the widow and orphan? Or more importantly, how it can be, if taxation is a necessary part of the government, and God has instituted said authority?



> placing the best construction on Joseph's action, I'd say that if it was not what I previously mentioned, it's likely Joseph, using Pharoah's money, bought up all the necessities in the years of flourishing while they were cheap, then resold it to those in need during the time of dearth.


Ya know, I've never heard that interpretation. Why do you think it is likely, given the text?


----------



## Damon Rambo

Southern Twang said:


> Yes, the government may tax us unduly. But that doesn't mean we participate in its unrighteous fruits. The U.S. government, for instance, funds Planned Parenthood. Should Christians somehow engage the services of Planned Parenthood because they qualify for a program with them? Of course not. A large portion of my property taxes go to fund government schools. Do I automatically assume I need to send my kids there? No way. Neither should seminary students seek bread crumbs from the state that have been coerced from their neighbors.
> 
> The real problem has already been highlighted: failure of the church to provide for its future ministers.


 
We should not participate in its unrighteous fruits, true enough. But should we also not participate in its _righteous_ activities? Should we object to Seminarians getting back a portion of what the government took from them, in order to feed their families? AGAIN; your argument is faulty. You keep saying the money was taken from someone else. It WASN'T. If these Seminary students are working, it is their own money they are receiving back. If you are against that, then you should also logically be against tax cuts, deductions, etc.

Frankly, I am absolutely shocked at the people on here. I will admit right now, that I am NOT completely against food stamps, conceptually. There are people who need help; are we honestly so heartless as to attack a system that is feeding people? There are tons of things that the government should not be doing, and we should absolutely shrink it down, but is making people starve really where we want to make those cuts? When there is close to a 20 percent underemployment rate, and there are literally not as many jobs as people who need them? What is wrong with people?

Sure there are people who abuse the system. Those who are sitting at home on their rears. But it is NOT the seminary student, who is working full time, who is abusing the system. He should either be able to keep all of his money, so that he is able to take care of his family, or at the very least he should be given it back through such programs. 

The idea that "You can't go to seminary unless you are wealthy, or the member of a huge church," is quite sad. Unless YOU are going to step up and help put these men through seminary...

Lets attack the things that need attacking; the murder of the unborn, welfare systems that allow people to put in no effort, and wasteful spending on such things as "Cowboy poetry festivals." Lets put the blame where it belongs, instead of on hard working seminary students who are just trying to serve Christ.


----------



## Grimmson

Scottish Lass said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think instead of money being given from the government to these students, local churches need to step up and start taking care of these families; with of course services being rendered by the student by means of assisting in visitation, bible studies, and other much needed activities in the church. This is just another example of churches neglecting and delegating their responsibility to another intuition, in this case being the State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But until your preference is reality, what should a student in this situation right now do?
Click to expand...

Talk to their pastor, and their session or deacon board. Also if the man is called to pastoral ministry, then to explore that calling in his local church by teaching Sunday school, visiting the sick and home bound, and shadowing his pastor (like the apprentice watching the master in his labor), with regular meetings on what is going on and the biblical/practical/ wisdom for doing what the pastor is doing. During this time of introductory material to church history and systematic theology should be provided while the man’s calling is being tested by his pastor and church. 



satz said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think instead of money being given from the government to these students, local churches need to step up and start taking care of these families;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government is offering programs, and these students can legitimately qualify under the spirt of the requirements, why not take the government aid to ease the burden on the church?
Click to expand...

The acceptance of state money opens up the door towards State influence, whereby the State then has the right to tell you how to parent and run your own house because State money is being spent. It could also dives into the sphere of responsibility that exists in the church towards the family. The government should also not be trying to bail out the church, for two reasons. The first reason is because of the separation that exists between the sphere of the church and the sphere of the State. The second reason is because of the structures and requirements put in place by these churches, they have created their own burden that goes beyond scripture as it relates to the training up of new pastors or elders. If the church cannot take care of its own then we prove to the world that morally we are by far worse or no different then the world. If you cannot trust the church in taking care of their own then you cannot trust their word that Word and Sacrament will care for their soul. We must not divorce the salvation we have in Christ between the body and the soul, for it is a complete salvation and not just spiritual alone. In the end the issue is that of wisdom and responsibility in the church, and the letting go of the strict hyper individualism that exists; for many do not understand on how the one suffering to care for his family while trying to serve Christ, is a poor witness and acts against the church. That the result acts like a cancer to poison the church, whereby the body grows sick and dies because a part of the body was allowed to rot. And if one is to provide the wrong kind of medicine to the cancerous wound then the result could be to cause the cancer to grow faster to bring more harm to the body and testimony of Christ as reflected by the church. I see the State providing as being this wrong medicine. I doubt that ministers in training, going to Calvin’s school, were placed with such a heavy debt as ministers today coming out of seminary. Part of the problem I see is the structure of our seminaries, and the need for the training to become more local and individualistic for the needs of those in training. So that one does not need to move 90 miles or across country to go to a seminary. Training becomes then local and the one in question does not need to quite his job to provide first for his family, plus at the same time not going into debt. Also if there is a great need, the local congregation due to the personal connection of the person in training will provide for that need like a mother handing a hungry child a bottle (that an analogy, not an example). The individualistic training is important because just like homeschooling the individualistic education promotes higher learner and high standards can be put in place by a series of testing, like many of our denominations have, towards the academic requirements placed to be a ministry. 

On a further note, allowing for the State to unburden churches also can open up the door to State involvement, whereby the State is over the church. If you do not have financial freedom as an individual or a church, then you may become enslaved (due to attached strings) by the one whom you are borrowing from. If the student becomes enslaved by the State, and then becomes a pastor, he is still enslaved to the state until he has the means for his freedom. If the pastor is enslaved by the state then the church then may be directly affected negatively due to that enslavement.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Grimmson said:


> The acceptance of state money opens up the door towards State influence, whereby the State then has the right to tell you how to parent and run your own house because State money is being spent. It could also dives into the sphere of responsibility that exists in the church towards the family. The government should also not be trying to bail out the church, for two reasons. The first reason is because of the separation that exists between the sphere of the church and the sphere of the State. The second reason is because of the structures and requirements put in place by these churches, they have created their own burden that goes beyond scripture as it relates to the training up of new pastors or elders. If the church cannot take care of its own then we prove to the world that morally we are by far worse or no different then the world. If you cannot trust the church in taking care of their own then you cannot trust their word that Word and Sacrament will care for their soul. We must not divorce the salvation we have in Christ between the body and the soul, for it is a complete salvation and not just spiritual alone. In the end the issue is that of wisdom and responsibility in the church, and the letting go of the strict hyper individualism that exists; for many do not understand on how the one suffering to care for his family while trying to serve Christ, is a poor witness and acts against the church. That the result acts like a cancer to poison the church, whereby the body grows sick and dies because a part of the body was allowed to rot. And if one is to provide the wrong kind of medicine to the cancerous wound then the result could be to cause the cancer to grow faster to bring more harm to the body and testimony of Christ as reflected by the church. I see the State providing as being this wrong medicine. I doubt that ministers in training, going to Calvin’s school, were placed with such a heavy debt as ministers today coming out of seminary. Part of the problem I see is the structure of our seminaries, and the need for the training to become more local and individualistic for the needs of those in training. So that one does not need to move 90 miles or across country to go to a seminary. Training becomes then local and the one in question does not need to quite his job to provide first for his family, plus at the same time not going into debt. Also if there is a great need, the local congregation due to the personal connection of the person in training will provide for that need like a mother handing a hungry child a bottle (that an analogy, not an example). The individualistic training is important because just like homeschooling the individualistic education promotes higher learner and high standards can be put in place by a series of testing, like many of our denominations have, towards the academic requirements placed to be a ministry.
> 
> On a further note, allowing for the State to unburden churches also can open up the door to State involvement, whereby the State is over the church. If you do not have financial freedom as an individual or a church, then you may become enslaved (due to attached strings) by the one whom you are borrowing from. If the student becomes enslaved by the State, and then becomes a pastor, he is still enslaved to the state until he has the means for his freedom. If the pastor is enslaved by the state then the church then may be directly affected negatively due to that enslavement.


 
To be clear, what you are talking about is personal philosophy, not Biblical mandates. It is one thing to say "This is wise" or "This is not wise" _in my opinion_. It something quite else, to show from scripture that something is sinful, or morally wrong. Scripture is clear that government is given authority by God, and that they have the right to tax. Also, as stated, simply taking part in the rights and privileges of citizenship, such as Paul did on more than one occasion, is not "enslavement" to the government.

As a Democratic Republic, we further elect representatives and collectively agree to live under the laws that they pass. If you don't like the system, elect people to change it. But don't criticize other Christians for submitting to it.


----------



## Grimmson

Damon Rambo said:


> To be clear, what you are talking about is personal philosophy, not Biblical mandates. It is one thing to say "This is wise" or "This is not wise" _in my opinion_. It something quite else, to show from scripture that something is sinful, or morally wrong. Scripture is clear that government is given authority by God, and that they have the right to tax. Also, as stated, simply taking part in the rights and privileges of citizenship, such as Paul did on more than one occasion, is not "enslavement" to the government.
> 
> As a Democratic Republic, we further elect representatives and collectively agree to live under the laws that they pass. If you don't like the system, elect people to change it. But don't criticize other Christians for submitting to it.


 
I never said that I was against taxation, for they have a right from God to tax me. Nor am I against making use of the rights and privileges of being a citizen. What I am concerned about is those strings that are attached to government programs, in which start to affect the sphere of the family and the church. It is those attached strings that we need to be watchful for. Also I think it is important to distinguish rights and privileges as a citizen and programs established by our government. The two are not mutually exclusive; whereby not all citizens receive the same befits or even the case of needing to be a citizen. I have known of non-citizens who have made use of foodstamps.

Notice that I am not criticizing individual Christians, but instead saying that care of those who would be future pastors must fall under the care of the Church, otherwise they should not be called to the sacrifices of ministry. So blame is placed on the church as a body, particularly the leadership, not on the individual Christian that needs aid. 

And in regards to the issue of politics, I do vote for people and send letters to politicans so that aspects of the system may change. I would not have the right to protest if I didn’t. However my issue isn’t with foodstamps as a whole, but over behaviors within the church whereby they neglect those within the body of Christ (those whom Christ died for), and the state has no business as a democratic republic to dictate behavior within the church, the visible kingdom of God on earth. We must not confuse the republic in which we live with the church. For Christ is our King, and we should and must be mindful of our fellow brothers and sisters in need instead of leaving them up to the state. We can provide better care in love, a reflection of Christ’s love for us; and thus show as a testimony of Christ’s love. We should not want our brothers to be in debt to the government, but instead the other way around, so that the state is in debt to the church because of the care shown forth through the Gospel of our Lord. In the end, nothing from the government is free and we must be mindful of that. 

Thus the issue is not with the state, for the state will do what the state will do as a kingdom of man; but instead of the church and how the church handles their own affairs for the training of those who will be in ministry.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Grimmson said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, what you are talking about is personal philosophy, not Biblical mandates. It is one thing to say "This is wise" or "This is not wise" _in my opinion_. It something quite else, to show from scripture that something is sinful, or morally wrong. Scripture is clear that government is given authority by God, and that they have the right to tax. Also, as stated, simply taking part in the rights and privileges of citizenship, such as Paul did on more than one occasion, is not "enslavement" to the government.
> 
> As a Democratic Republic, we further elect representatives and collectively agree to live under the laws that they pass. If you don't like the system, elect people to change it. But don't criticize other Christians for submitting to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that I was against taxation, for they have a right from God to tax me. Nor am I against making use of the rights and privileges of being a citizen. What I am concerned about is those strings that are attached to government programs, in which start to affect the sphere of the family and the church. It is those attached strings that we need to be watchful for. Also I think it is important to distinguish rights and privileges as a citizen and programs established by our government. The two are not mutually exclusive; whereby not all citizens receive the same befits or even the case of needing to be a citizen. I have known of non-citizens who have made use of foodstamps.
> 
> Notice that I am not criticizing individual Christians, but instead saying that care of those who would be future pastors must fall under the care of the Church, otherwise they should not be called to the sacrifices of ministry. So blame is placed on the church as a body, particularly the leadership, not on the individual Christian that needs aid.
> 
> And in regards to the issue of politics, I do vote for people and send letters to politicans so that aspects of the system may change. I would not have the right to protest if I didn’t. However my issue isn’t with foodstamps as a whole, but over behaviors within the church whereby they neglect those within the body of Christ (those whom Christ died for), and the state has no business as a democratic republic to dictate behavior within the church, the visible kingdom of God on earth. We must not confuse the republic in which we live with the church. For Christ is our King, and we should and must be mindful of our fellow brothers and sisters in need instead of leaving them up to the state. We can provide better care in love, a reflection of Christ’s love for us; and thus show as a testimony of Christ’s love. We should not want our brothers to be in debt to the government, but instead the other way around, so that the state is in debt to the church because of the care shown forth through the Gospel of our Lord. In the end, nothing from the government is free and we must be mindful of that.
> 
> Thus the issue is not with the state, for the state will do what the state will do as a kingdom of man; but instead of the church and how the church handles their own affairs for the training of those who will be in ministry.
Click to expand...

 
I acknowledge your point; the church should indeed be taking care of the Seminarians, and helping train them for the next generation. However, smaller churches (I would say less than 100 members, although this would depend upon the resources of the members), cannot afford it. Why? Well, because their members are being forced to pay too-large sums of money to the government for entitlement programs, and bloated government.

My point is, if the Seminarian is a member of such a church, and is working while also attending Seminary, there is no shame or wrong in taking foodstamps. Foodstamps do not have "strings" in the sense that you mean. The person is in no way beholden to the government for accepting the privilege of citizenship, any more than Paul was beholden for appealing to Caesar. 

There is GREAT wrong, however, in the person who has been called to go to Seminary, yet refuses to go. The money is God's, and should He choose to provide through foodstamps, so be it.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Grimmson said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Scottish Lass View Post
> Quote Originally Posted by Grimmson View Post
> Personally, I think instead of money being given from the government to these students, local churches need to step up and start taking care of these families; with of course services being rendered by the student by means of assisting in visitation, bible studies, and other much needed activities in the church. This is just another example of churches neglecting and delegating their responsibility to another intuition, in this case being the State.
> But until your preference is reality, what should a student in this situation right now do?
> Talk to their pastor, and their session or deacon board. Also if the man is called to pastoral ministry, then to explore that calling in his local church by teaching Sunday school, visiting the sick and home bound, and shadowing his pastor (like the apprentice watching the master in his labor), with regular meetings on what is going on and the biblical/practical/ wisdom for doing what the pastor is doing. During this time of introductory material to church history and systematic theology should be provided while the man’s calling is being tested by his pastor and church.



Which is appropriate for someone who has not yet begun seminary. I think most, if not all, of us here would agree that what you describe is a preferable track in many situations. But I asked about a current student; your suggestions don't help make ends meet, unfortunately.


----------



## Grimmson

Scottish Lass said:


> Which is appropriate for someone who has not yet begun seminary. I think most, if not all, of us here would agree that what you describe is a preferable track in many situations. But I asked about a current student; your suggestions don't help make ends meet, unfortunately.


 
Sure it does, if you replace seminary with a pastor or preferably a group of local pastors in that person’s education. Therefore he is forced to leave the seminary if the funds and time are not there. If his church really thought he was called to seminary then something am sure would be worked in assisting the student, even if that means asking for associational help. This shows really where the church’s heart is at. No where in the bible is the MDIV a requirement for being a pastor, however he is to be one that is above reproach. The idea of the student not being able to provide for his family can challenge the ability for him to lead the church if he is not able to take care of his family in the way that he must and must look to the state so that he can receive his religious education. One could make the argument then that the state is then placed higher to the church, since the state is providing the resources for his family instead of the church being the provider. 

It is terrible that some students are placed in such a situation, and we should pray for those that we know of in this situation. 

And one historical point for us Baptists, associations were developed for the training of new pastors; therefore if smaller churches were to get together and combine their efforts then they should be able to provide the means for training new solid pastors. At least that was the way particular Baptists operated.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Grimmson said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is appropriate for someone who has not yet begun seminary. I think most, if not all, of us here would agree that what you describe is a preferable track in many situations. But I asked about a current student; your suggestions don't help make ends meet, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does, if you replace seminary with a pastor or preferably a group of local pastors in that person’s education.
Click to expand...


For a small single pastor church, this is simply not an option. 



> Therefore he is forced to leave the seminary if the funds and time are not there.


But the funds are there. There called "foodstamps." Alternately, if the government reduces its size, and allows the student to keep his money in the first place, the funds would likewise be there.



> If his church really thought he was called to seminary then something am sure would be worked in assisting the student, even if that means asking for associational help.



Not so. There are a ton of independent Baptist Churches that are not members of local associations. Likewise, there are many isolated churches that DO NOT HAVE a local association.



> This shows really where the church’s heart is at.


I don't think so. But I do think what you are expressing seems to be coming more from secular Conservative "pride" work ethic, rather than the Bible. Not bowing to a non-biblical, made up rule, in no way "shows where the church's heart is."



> No where in the bible is the MDIV a requirement for being a pastor, however he is to be one that is above reproach.


Which means, in today's society, that he have the requisite degree. Moreover, the Bible also does not forbid the use of Government rights and privileges, including foodstamps.



> The idea of the student not being able to provide for his family can challenge the ability for him to lead the church if he is not able to take care of his family in the way that he must and must look to the state so that he can receive his religious education.


I am sorry, but that is a stretch. A calculated, wise , move to utilize available government funds, such as Foodstamps, Pell Grants, etc., are an indication of his humility and good stewardship...exactly the type of qualities a pastor needs. 

Again, there is no biblical mandate not to take tax deductions, receive Pell Grants, or take food stamps. Will you likewise refuse to utilize government funded bridges?



> One could make the argument then that the state is then placed higher to the church, since the state is providing the resources for his family instead of the church being the provider.



They might make the argument, but it is a baseless one. Food Stamps do not make one a servant of the government, anymore than using the government built roads to carry the gospel, does. Is my wife "beholden" to the companies producing coupons, because she is wise and utilizes a resource? I am sorry, but such arguments belie logic.



> It is terrible that some students are placed in such a situation, and we should pray for those that we know of in this situation.



We should also avoid making them feel guilty for violating some made up, non-biblical command, and encourage them in their studies...



> And one historical point for us Baptists, associations were developed for the training of new pastors; therefore if smaller churches were to get together and combine their efforts then they should be able to provide the means for training new solid pastors. At least that was the way particular Baptists operated.



They already did this. One of these groups they formed was called "Southern Seminary."


----------



## torstar

Going through food stamps will be worth it when they back up the Brinks truck for your starting salary after you graduate.


----------



## torstar

Zenas said:


> Agreed. The arguments proposed against thus far as nonsensical. Only the rich or already established are "morally allowed" to go to seminary.


 
That IS the sad little secret of life. The more connected and rich your family is the more strikes you get while at the plate. I know a few who have watched 7000 great pitches go by and still will be fine.

And 98% of those who think they are going to bypass this secret without useful gifts/talents and working very hard are going to be very depressed when it sinks in.


----------



## Southern Twang

Apparently "rich" these days is being able to feed your family without government support. Nonsensical.

Why is it churches support missionaries and not also seminarians? That is the crux of the matter. Church support against government support. One is the legitimate, the other is not.


----------



## JBaldwin

This brings up, in my mind, a point brought up already. Where are the churches who sent this men to seminary? Or did they go off without church backing? If the church was more willing to support these men, there wouldn't be a question about food stamps. I am still bothered by the number of churches who send off men to seminary and then watch them starve.


----------



## Andres

JBaldwin said:


> This brings up, in my mind, a point brought up already. Where are the churches who sent this men to seminary? Or did they go off without church backing? If the church was more willing to support these men, there wouldn't be a question about food stamps. I am still bothered by the number of churches who send off men to seminary and then watch them starve.



Many have brought this point up, and while I agree that it certainly has merit, let us also consider the practicality of the the idea. What happens when the church from which the seminarian comes simply cannot afford to support him? I am the church treasurer and without gettting into too many details, there have been times when it was a struggle to keep the lights on and the pastor paid. There simply isn't always extra money available. I can tell you right now if a young man from our church wanted to go to seminary, our church would certainly be supportive in prayers, love, and encouragement, but as far as financial support goes, we couldn't support him with more than a couple hundred dollars a month, and that's a stretch. What would everyone suggest in this situation?


----------



## torstar

Andres said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> This brings up, in my mind, a point brought up already. Where are the churches who sent this men to seminary? Or did they go off without church backing? If the church was more willing to support these men, there wouldn't be a question about food stamps. I am still bothered by the number of churches who send off men to seminary and then watch them starve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many have brought this point up, and while I agree that it certainly has merit, let us also consider the practicality of the the idea. What happens when the church from which the seminarian comes simply cannot afford to support him? I am the church treasurer and without gettting into too many details, there have been times when it was a struggle to keep the lights on and the pastor paid. There simply isn't always extra money available. I can tell you right now if a young man from our church wanted to go to seminary, our church would certainly be supportive in prayers, love, and encouragement, but as far as financial support goes, we couldn't support him with more than a couple hundred dollars a month, and that's a stretch. What would everyone suggest in this situation?
Click to expand...

 

The student would have to get out there and pitch himself and find sponsors.


----------



## LawrenceU

Andres said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> This brings up, in my mind, a point brought up already. Where are the churches who sent this men to seminary? Or did they go off without church backing? If the church was more willing to support these men, there wouldn't be a question about food stamps. I am still bothered by the number of churches who send off men to seminary and then watch them starve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many have brought this point up, and while I agree that it certainly has merit, let us also consider the practicality of the the idea. What happens when the church from which the seminarian comes simply cannot afford to support him? I am the church treasurer and without gettting into too many details, there have been times when it was a struggle to keep the lights on and the pastor paid. There simply isn't always extra money available. I can tell you right now if a young man from our church wanted to go to seminary, our church would certainly be supportive in prayers, love, and encouragement, but as far as financial support goes, we couldn't support him with more than a couple hundred dollars a month, and that's a stretch. What would everyone suggest in this situation?
Click to expand...


This is a great example of just how out of line seminary costs have become. While I am not against brick and mortar seminaries the cost of obtaining a degree from some of them is out of line with what the average congregation can do and is out of line with the average minister's salary when graduated - even decades later for the vast majority. Real reform is needed in the area of ministerial education and training. Frankly, a lot of young men that I know are very ill prepared for pastoral ministry when they receive their MDiv, DMin, etc. from 'excellent' institutions. And, the young men are no slouches either. They have just been trained to be academicians and researchers rather than pastors.


----------



## TomVols

I don't disagree with much of what you said, Lawrence. However, I do take exception with the idea that the seminary education should somehow be seen in terms of financial return on investment. We cannot measure as the world does. The idea that a church may not be able to pay X, therefore, I should only spend Y on my education is faulty. We should be willing to sacrifice financially for God's glory and for the good of souls. 

For the record, it can also be applied to Med students and law students who practice among the low-cost clinics or in legal aid societies. Or take the Vanderbilt-trained teacher who goes to work in Shelby Bottoms. Anyway, you get my point. However, I'm not opposed to reforming ministerial education, particularly how it's financed. It, too, has gone the way of the world in many respects.


----------



## LawrenceU

Tom, I didn't mean to imply that one should view it as a financial return on investment. Rather, men are often saddled with enormous debt that they will spend years paying down, damaging their ability to minister freely, adding stress in their marriages, and potentially causing them to view ministry in terms of dollars rather than service.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Grimmson said:


> Sure it does, if you replace seminary with a pastor or preferably a group of local pastors in that person’s education. Therefore he is forced to leave the seminary if the funds and time are not there. If his church really thought he was called to seminary then something am sure would be worked in assisting the student, even if that means asking for associational help. This shows really where the church’s heart is at. No where in the bible is the MDIV a requirement for being a pastor




Except many churches/denominations all but require an M.Div. The ARP has a grandfather/exception rule, but the default, at least in most Presbyterian circles, is a formal degree. You may disagree, it may not be right, but that's what's needed to secure a call in most cases.


----------



## smhbbag

> Tom, I didn't mean to imply that one should view it as a financial return on investment. Rather, men are often saddled with enormous debt that they will spend years paying down, damaging their ability to minister freely, adding stress in their marriages, and potentially causing them to view ministry in terms of dollars rather than service.





This factor is underestimated by far too many churches. There isn't much of a better start to honoring a minister than to help him take off his slave shackles.


----------



## kvanlaan

I haven't commented on this thread yet as I don't really have a dog in this fight (I am not a seminarian) but have been on this end of things as a family of seven making next to nothing in China. There was no such thing as food stamps there, though we always made it through the month. Here, we are subsidized in almost every way (find me a Canadian who says he is not in some way subsidized by the government and I will find you either a liar or the rarest man in the world). There are programs for everything and there are basically piles of money sitting there to be had for anyone willing to do the paperwork/interview with a socialworker. All you have to do is allow the government into your home, and you're good to go.


----------



## TomVols

LawrenceU said:


> Tom, I didn't mean to imply that one should view it as a financial return on investment. Rather, men are often saddled with enormous debt that they will spend years paying down, damaging their ability to minister freely, adding stress in their marriages, and potentially causing them to view ministry in terms of dollars rather than service.


1. You will get no argument from me that churches should be more helpful to their seminarians and their ministers financially. That helps on the front and back end. You'll also get no peep outta me in terms of seminaries and how they need to reform their financial ways in general. 

2. However, your general premise can apply to all fields. 

3. How men choose to view their debts and their financial status is in some measure up to them. I know a pastor whose salary package at his church is double what the median salary is for his county. Yet he feels he's starving to death and the church should be paying him more. Hard to say that we are too broke or stressed to minister when pastors I know in Mexico are living on $200 bucks a month. 

All that said, I agree with your sentiments. The world at large, and our poor economy right now will do all it can to make ministers feel the pinch (not to mention some ungrateful churches with misguided priorities). Seminaries don't need to add to the problem. I think we'd agree there.


----------



## seajayrice

Can any theonomist dispute the goodness of food stamps for reformed seminarians?


----------



## Edward

TomVols said:


> I know a pastor whose salary package at his church is double what the median salary is for his county.



But how does it measure up against his congregation? And how much would it cost to replace him? 



TomVols said:


> Yet he feels he's starving to death and the church should be paying him more.



Perhaps his elders should help him consider whether he's being called somewhere else.


----------



## TomVols

Edward said:


> But how does it measure up against his congregation?


Median, to slightly above median. 



Edward said:


> And how much would it cost to replace him?


Same. Exactly what they pay him now. 

Some churches fiddle with the dials, so to speak, but some positions pay what they pay. I know D.Min's in ministry who are earning 15k. Their churches pay what they pay. Secularly, it works the same way. I know MBA's who make mid 20s in their jobs because that's what the job pays. 


Edward said:


> Perhaps his elders should help him consider whether he's being called somewhere else.


For reasons too complex to get into here, let me just say this is not necessariliy true, nor would it solve the problem.


----------

