Seminary Students on Food Stamps

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 :stirpot:

I paid city, Chattanooga, and county, Hamilton, property taxes.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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 :stirpot:

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

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.
 
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?
 
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.

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 ----------

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?
 
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.

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.

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...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 ----------

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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?
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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."
 
Going through food stamps will be worth it when they back up the Brinks truck for your starting salary after you graduate.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top