Rudolf Gwalther on the evil of Christians not helping their poor

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
This one thing is a condemnation of the highly corrupt state of our society today. The Jews feed their poor, despite the fact that they are exiles with no fixed abode. We also hear that the Muslims are extremely generous in giving alms. It is only the Christians who neglect their own, and what happens among them is what happened long ago among the Jews—puffed-up prelates and a mean clique of priests and monks live high off the possessions of the church while the poor go begging when they are the very people whom our forebears wanted to look after by generous giving.

Even in the reformed churches there are very few who do their duty in this respect, so that those who should be supplying the needs of the church rob it, and when they have grown rich of their spoils they become public enemies of the faith, resembling no one so much as Judas Iscariot, who was Christ’s first treasurer. They attract the savage hatred of onlookers, whether they are church members or strangers to the faith. Who would say that people like that are lovers of God? Are these not the times of which were predicted: “Since wickedness will be multiplied, the love of many will grow cold”?

For the reference, see Rudolf Gwalther on the evil of Christians not helping their poor.
 
I am curious about the larger context of this quote. Would he say that a church's congregation is erring if the congregation has persistently poor people in its midst?

I met a pastor of a church recently that paid off the medical debts of all of its members. When I enquired, the church really did not give anything to foreign missions, however. And when I saw some of the congregation they were grossly obese and shaped like fat dog ticks, their medical needs obviously compounded by their atrocious self-care habits (and no...they all can't be "big boned" or have "glandular problems"...most are just FAT! So fat it caused many medical bills...bills that were subsidized or wholly liquidated by the church).... Meanwhile I know shoeless evangelists who regularly go hungry overseas. Our US definition of "poor" is at odds with the definition of poverty experienced and endured around the world.
 
I am curious about the larger context of this quote. Would he say that a church's congregation is erring if the congregation has persistently poor people in its midst?

I met a pastor of a church recently that paid off the medical debts of all of its members. When I enquired, the church really did not give anything to foreign missions, however. And when I saw some of the congregation they were grossly obese and shaped like fat dog ticks, their medical needs obviously compounded by their atrocious self-care habits (and no...they all can't be "big boned" or have "glandular problems"...most are just FAT! So fat it caused many medical bills...bills that were subsidized or wholly liquidated by the church).... Meanwhile I know shoeless evangelists who regularly go hungry overseas. Our US definition of "poor" is at odds with the definition of poverty experienced and endured around the world.

Regretfully, the original source is in Latin (I think). I got the quote from a commentary that consists of brief to medium-length extracts translated from other languages into English. I do not think he would say that a church is in error simply because it has poor people in its midst. Merely, that it is a scandal if we do nothing to help them when they need it.

I am not sure about the issue concerning medical debts, as I do not know the full circumstances. I would agree that the respectable sin of gluttony, which manifests itself in such obesity, does need to be called out more among Christians. #Fatshamingislove - it is our Christian duty to encourage such people to lose weight - the fact that I enjoy it is merely a bonus. ;)
 
In accepting the rebuke I have to wonder if it is yet another symptom of the same heart condition that has so many church members (not to mention regular attending non-members) expect services (eg childcare), programs, facilities, etc yet they are unwilling to tithe let alone give sacrificially.
 
I am curious about the larger context of this quote. Would he say that a church's congregation is erring if the congregation has persistently poor people in its midst?

I met a pastor of a church recently that paid off the medical debts of all of its members. When I enquired, the church really did not give anything to foreign missions, however. And when I saw some of the congregation they were grossly obese and shaped like fat dog ticks, their medical needs obviously compounded by their atrocious self-care habits (and no...they all can't be "big boned" or have "glandular problems"...most are just FAT! So fat it caused many medical bills...bills that were subsidized or wholly liquidated by the church).... Meanwhile I know shoeless evangelists who regularly go hungry overseas. Our US definition of "poor" is at odds with the definition of poverty experienced and endured around the world.
And yet that shoeless evangelist isn't a part of this pastor's flock. Shepherds do have a duty to their own sheep first and foremost.
 
I don't think that changes the truth of what I said. The pastor may well need to attend to the poor health habits of his congregants, but is compassion really based on what one deserves? Perhaps he should be giving more to foreign missions, but it seems unfair to judge him for the kindness to his congregation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top