# The rise of the bleeding heart Christians



## Pergamum (May 16, 2016)

I know several Christians/pastors who seem to take a leftist stance on several social issues.

I am trying to understand it. Or maybe I am just a big heartless meanie.

For instance, they often seem to like to criticize the established church. A common criticism is the cold and heartless nature of the church towards the poor.

They themselves try to spend their money on the poor and even have the poor move in with them (of course, being surprised when they get their household items stolen from). They just want to love people, after all, the say. They always give money to the guy begging for money on the street corner, even if it takes away from their tithe to the established church. 

They seem to have good intentions. But talking to these folks, they seem to have very low boundaries....almost lacking common sense. They seem to enable the poor to make more poor choices and don't seem to demand that old ways of life are forsaken.

In a judgmental smug way, they'll talk about the judgmentalism of the church. They'll speak of "if only more churches loved folks like *WE* did..." etc. It seems to reek of a false piety and false humbleness. 

If a drunk shows up to your church once, rejoice... if he shows up every week and expects to be received as a brother...then maybe it is time to tell him that a change in behavior is necessary. And yet, several pastors I know praise God and go on and on about how many drunk and homeless people show up to their home fellowships and how much they have helped these folks with their financial needs and have given them a helping hand. But when I enquire later about any changes in behavior, there is none. And when I have, on rare, occasion said, "Dude, they're playing you!" then the pastor says, "Naw, they are just in need..." I respond that if they are always in need and never better themselves, it is time to move on and help those who might use that help better. ...then I get accused of just not being loving or patient enough.


Any thoughts?


----------



## Tom Hart (May 16, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Or maybe I am just a big heartless meanie.



That's probably it! Haha!


Two popular maxims swirling around the modern church:

1. 'It's not a religion, it's a relationship.'

2. 'Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.'


Phah! Shallow theology, I say. It's the consequence of a lack of serious doctrine. They fear to cause offence by the preaching of the word, and holiness is chucked out the window.

I have found J. Gresham Machen's observations on the modern church to be quite illuminating. Of course Christianity is life–no one said it wasn't!–but upon what is that life built? Upon doctrine.


----------



## arapahoepark (May 16, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> I know several Christians/pastors who seem to take a leftist stance on several social issues.
> 
> I am trying to understand it. Or maybe I am just a big heartless meanie.
> 
> ...



They are immature Christians who likely don't know what churches do to help the poor. I know our church doesn't do handouts and a lot of the elders, and other church members, feed the homeless. With regard to helping those in need they follow guidelines to see if any family or friends are able to help out first.


----------



## ZackF (May 16, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> And when I have, on rare, occasion said, "Dude, they're playing you!" then the pastor says, "Naw, they are just in need..." I respond that if they are always in need and never better themselves, it is time to move on and help those who might use that help better. ...then I get accused of just not being loving or patient enough.
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?



In my humble opinion, This is a conversation of ships passing in the night over an unnecessarily false dichotomy. 

Those in need are...well in need and at times play people. Sometimes they are now in need because they themselves have played people. 

I seem to remember you posting some years ago about having difficulty turning down people needing money on the mission fields to the detriment of your own savings. While no doubt you've forgotten more real and abject poverty than I've ever seen, I am sure that some of those that came to you just had good game whether you realized it or not. The is answer isn't that you shouldn't have gave but that we can assume you WILL be taken advantage of by some no matter what.


----------



## Pergamum (May 16, 2016)

ZackF said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > And when I have, on rare, occasion said, "Dude, they're playing you!" then the pastor says, "Naw, they are just in need..." I respond that if they are always in need and never better themselves, it is time to move on and help those who might use that help better. ...then I get accused of just not being loving or patient enough.
> ...



A real tangible medical condition in Papua where no other clinic exists for days away is different than a total stranger in the US knocking on your church's door saying he needs money and a place to crash. 

Acute malaria versus "Spent all my money on dope and now my girl kicked me out" seem very different to me.

But yes....if you desire to help the poor and do good and desire always to have an open hand...it is easy to get really mad when taken advantage of.... or when other pastors advocate stupid policies that allow people to easily take advantage of them and then calling such policies generosity. 

For example, it is common on youtube to have (what has been proven to be largely fake videos) of strangers coming up to people and asking for their food or their money. Then it is shown as an evidence of greed when the people say, "What? no, go get your own food. Get away from me!" to the pushy guy who seems to be wearing okay clothes and fashionable tennis shoes but is now hovering over them demanding their lunch. 

I suspect that when churches were overflowing in the 1950's that these folks would not have been so easily tolerated despite the much more religious nature of the US.


----------



## StephenG (May 16, 2016)

Tom Hart said:


> 1. 'It's not a religion, it's a relationship.'
> 
> 2. 'Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.'



Some good resources for responding to these: 

1. "Freestylin': Jesus = Religion" (Jonathan Fisk) 
2. R.C. Sproul Jr. has said: "Preach the Gospel at all times, if necessary, rebuke anyone who says 'if necessary, use words.'"


----------



## earl40 (May 16, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I know several Christians/pastors who seem to take a leftist stance on several social issues.
> ...



As a member of a local church I get to feed, cloth, and treat every person (AKA as thy Neighbor) I run into outside the institution of the local church.


----------



## earl40 (May 16, 2016)

StephenG said:


> Tom Hart said:
> 
> 
> > 1. 'It's not a religion, it's a relationship.'
> ...



I love RC Jr. but I do not preach or baptize and I really hate to even mention this again and again and again. I know I would not understand this area UNLESS someone mentioned it again and again and again.  Personally I am tied of pastors laying on the guilt of what they are supposed to do on those who are not sent to preach.


----------



## Pergamum (May 16, 2016)

earl40 said:


> arapahoepark said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



What does that mean?


----------



## Jack K (May 16, 2016)

I think some faithful churches and true believers in America sense a needed correction. They sense that the (very necessary) battles over fundamental doctrine we've fought in the past century have left the church prone to self-righteousness and protectionism, so that generosity has been somewhat neglected. They sense that the (very necessary) refutation of the social gospel has left the church overly wary of any talk about caring for the poor or working for justice. They sense that by finding like-mindedness on social issues in the Republican party the church may have unwittingly bought into conservative economic and entitlement policies that may not all be founded on Christian faith.

Sensing these things, believers sometimes over-correct. Or they set out to do what they sense is forgotten without really knowing how to do it wisely, or without thinking it through from a number of different angles.

Caring for the poor is not always a simple matter, especially if you're dealing with the "poor" in a nation where many poor people already have a standard of living above that of a well-to-do person in some other parts of the world. But the impulse to care for the poor—even if it is in some ways misguided—is basically an impulse I'm inclined, at the very least, to tolerate.


----------



## earl40 (May 16, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > arapahoepark said:
> ...



It means one does not have to be salt and light within the local body. I am blessed to witness to Jesus by my works and the people that know me know my main motivation goes beyond the walls of the building I worship at every Sunday.


----------



## johnny (May 16, 2016)

Gavin Beers discusses this topic in length in his sermon on the role of deacons.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11241465893

I also remember Bahnsen talking about this, namely, how the government has stolen the traditional roles of the Christian church through their socialist agendas. (or did we through neglect simply surrender them???)

I used to sing in a Prison in a gospel quartet, the Minister in charge of us there was no pushover, He wouldn't allow any nonsense of any kind or even jesting. The prisoners knew that if they acted up, they would not be allowed to come back, and for the most part, they were extremely respectful. I think a Christian need to develop a thick skin and use discernment, and sometimes even say "Get Lost".
Although afterwards, being quick to forgive, we still have the opportunity to say Yes or No.


----------



## Peairtach (May 16, 2016)

I think the creation of deacons, and other aspects of the NT, indicates that every local church should have a ministry to the poor of some kind.

The message of the Gospel must not be overturned or overshadowed or supplanted by that.



> And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, *It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables*. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. *But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. *(Acts 6:1-4)


----------



## MW (May 16, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> In a judgmental smug way, they'll talk about the judgmentalism of the church. They'll speak of "if only more churches loved folks like *WE* did..." etc. It seems to reek of a false piety and false humbleness.



Lev. 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." It is hatred and unbrotherly to sit by and watch people destroy themselves through lack of knowledge or concern.


----------



## Tom Hart (May 16, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> I think the creation of deacons, and other aspects of the NT, indicates that every local church should have a ministry to the poor of some kind.
> 
> The message of the Gospel must not be overturned or overshadowed or supplanted by that.
> 
> ...



I agree. All the church's ministry to the world must not be so far emphasized as to come at the expense of true doctrine.

However, in this passage in Acts, is it not about the community of believers, rather than ministry to the poor?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 16, 2016)

I’m always sorting out these issues: (1) I’m fairly convinced that the deacons’ purpose was focused on the poor of the congregation, at least primarily; but (2) Scripture continually condemns those who oppress the poor, or even fail to “strengthen the hand of the poor.” (Ezek. 16:49).

And, of course, the parable of the Samaritan helping the Hebrew sets out pretty clearly that our duties are not restricted to other church members.

But the question is, how much is it a church function and how much of it is an individual function, as Earl mentioned?

I’m probably as hard hearted as anyone. As a public defender, almost my entire professional life is consumed by the problems that poor people get into. Many, maybe most, game the system one way or another.

But I’m also always asking myself, “why do they game the system?” Often the answer is because of ignorance, habit, lack of awareness of alternatives, or even systemic obstacles that keep them in a cycle they can’t see their way out of. 

I don’t know about the churches that brag about poverty ministries. I don’t pay attention to any of that. But I do take full advantage of whatever help I can find for “my people.” Much of that help comes from Christian ministries of one kind or another. The theology of the sending church is often at odds with what I believe, maybe 7th Day Adventist or Pentecostal type churches are behind them. But generally speaking the Christian charities I know of demand some kind of accountability when reaching out to help. 

We are to be as wise as wolves while being gentle as doves. A person who practices what Perg set out in the opening post is not being very wise. You don’t help a drug addict and chronic thief by opening your home to him. But you can help him in other ways.

The poor are always with us, and one thing I see clearly from the prophets is that ignoring them, suppressing them, or participating in a culture that mocks or shuns them, is not a good thing.

I do think this issue needs to be looked at with clearer eyes illuminated by Scripture. The leftist solution of having the State pay for things is not working. Woolly headed ideas in the church aren’t any better. I don’t think a particular church necessarily has duty to open a soup kitchen as a “ministry”, for example. But Christians who see a need might be encouraged, and find encouragement, doing just that.

Again, I’m looking for clarity on this and just toss out these observations, hoping to get some other useful feedback.


----------



## Miss Marple (May 16, 2016)

The scripture verses that come to my mind are these: 

1. He who will not work, will not eat.
2. Let him who stole steal no more but work willingly with his hands.
3. Let us do good especially to the household of faith

I think the Bible is pretty clear as to what charity is and is not. Some can't work; the unborn, the deranged, the very ill, the frail elderly. The man helped by the Good Samaritan could not work as he was severely injured. All these should get pure charity whether from family churches or individuals. Although a godly man will, if able, put away for an emergency so that he might not have to ask for help. 

We see the biblical command to leave our fields ungleaned. We are not told to glean our fields and set up a restaurant for the shiftless; but to leave something for them to harvest themselves.


----------



## Parakaleo (May 16, 2016)

MW said:


> Lev. 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." It is hatred and unbrotherly to sit by and watch people destroy themselves through lack of knowledge or concern.



Mind if I have these words engraved on a brass plate and put on the wall in my office? I hate myself for cowardice and nodding awkwardly when people tell me their foolish notions.

I'm encouraged by a brother I know who often uses the four simple words, "It's not godly to..."

I was trying to help a young man who did not have a job by introducing him to this brother, who owns his own business. The brother was open to hiring the young man, but found out he didn't have much of a plan to advance himself professionally beyond day-labor. He was living in an extra room of one of his friends' and didn't have a driver's license, so was getting rides from anyone he could.

"It's not godly to be so dependent upon others for your needs, not when you are healthy and have received a basic education," said this brother.

This is the kind of speech that I suspect is _not_ being used by the bleeding-heart ministers Perg mentions.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 16, 2016)

Miss Marple said:


> The scripture verses that come to my mind are these:
> 
> 1. He who will not work, will not eat.
> 2. Let him who stole steal no more but work willingly with his hands.
> ...



Those are helpful verses, but I still am worried about ignoring the verses about taking part in systemic oppression.

One example of too many from last month: A man has a job and is working. He makes just enough to keep a roof over the head of his family. His wife gives birth to a child who tests positive for a drug. Man didn't know about it.

State takes the child and charges child support against the man to pay for foster care. Now he's in a bind, does he pay child support, lose his rental home, keep his driver's license, or does he pay his rent and lose his license, and have tremendous difficulty or inability getting to work?

Sure, we can come up with blame against him: failing to shepherd his home, etc. But nevertheless, he's in a bind that will become a crisis unless someone helps. He wants to work, and isn't a thief.

I'm verging toward ranting--apologies offered. The scenario above was resolved, praise God. But it took at least 12 hours of public-paid time, a judge's time, a clerk's time, state employee time, and some 15 hours travel for all involved to get there.

That's where my concern about systemic oppression of the "poor" comes in. We have a culture that actively, if not consciously, works things to the determent of those least able to cope.

I guess I'm a hard-hearted bleeding heart, after all.


----------



## Miss Marple (May 17, 2016)

I would fully support helping that man. He is willing to work.


----------



## Peairtach (May 17, 2016)

The Victorians had the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor which has been denied or neglected since the modern welfare state got going post -war in Britain, leading to all sorts of problems. The Apostle seems to generally follow that distinction in Christian wisdom and love, e.g. in his dealing with administration of help to widows and their families e.g. in I Timothy.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Hart (May 17, 2016)

It seems to me we need to distinguish between ministering among believers and ministering to the poor (and others) outside the church. It has been suggested that it is incorrect to serve unbelievers while remaining silent about the gospel. This is not an imagined problem, I believe.


----------



## ZackF (May 17, 2016)

Tom Hart said:


> It has been suggested that it is incorrect to serve unbelievers while remaining silent about the gospel.



Another man made rule to add to the pile.


----------



## Pergamum (May 23, 2016)

It appears that most of the help commanded by the NT church is also towards the NT church (believers first).

But, what do we do with the OT verses on helping the stranger and leaving one's fields ungleaned so that the poor may glean there? How are these things applicable to us today?


----------

