The other day I had a conversation with a friend about whether or not he should vote for the local MRDD levy. At first the question for him was not whether he should vote yes or no, but whether or not he should even vote. I have many friends, who I respect greatly, who chose for religious reasons not to participate in our elections. My friend fits this bill, but was wondering if voting for levies for important things such as supporting the local board of MRDD was something completely different than voting for a politician.
He then told me he wondered how he would even vote if he did even chose to vote on the levy. He considers himself more of a libertarian (I think that partially means the less taxes the better) and was wondering if taxing the general public was the best way to help support those who are supported by the board of MRDD. (This guy is a very good guy and would never ever do anything to hurt those with disabilities.) He then wondered allowed if maybe the church should be the one taking care of those with disabilities and not the government.
This gets me to my point (finally!). I’ve heard Christians talk my entire life about how welfare is bad because the Church should be the ones taking care of those needs and that the Church should take back over that role. My question is in God’s dream for His creation does He dream for the Church to take care of the least of these or does He dream for all of humanity, including the church, to do that? Some how I think it makes God happier when an entire city, county, state, or country decides to do something together to help out the cause of the widow, orphan, or alien than if the church just decided to do something.
So what’s wrong with us going to the voting booth on voting day and as a county saying we want to support an organization that helps out people with disabilities? Sure the Church should be helping out as well, but I’m sure God smiles when the rest of humanity gets something right as well. I mean shouldn’t Christians be thrilled when we see the world catching a partial vision of the Kingdom of God and shouldn’t we get involved in those efforts to bring a more holistic perspective to them?
Just some thoughts… hope they made sense.
3 comments:
Kevin,
I think you captured the spirit of my thinking well. I, too, at first think that all humanity joining together for a good cause may be a good thing but then I have to wonder about the Social Gospel. Where is Jesus involved in redemption and restoration. If we take your line of thinking further we should not give any money to church organizations but should desire to be taxed more so that God can be more pleased with more people.? I'm not sure that is the way to go. What do you think?
I agree with the idea that the church should be taking care of these people, but the way to solve that is not by getting rid of secular/government organizations that already take care of them. The church can take a larger role without ending the things already in place to help people.
Travis,
As always it is a balance. Just a thought, but wouldn't it be a good thing if churches didn't have to spend any money on physical needs because there weren't any? Sometimes I wonder if Christians secretly enjoy seeing need so we can respond to it and look good in the process. We would still have a need to give to churches because there are nonphysical needs that the church must attend to that the government never will. Jesus is involved in the redemption and restoration where His people are working. So where is Jesus working in the county board of MRDD? He is at work in this governmental agency through the likes of Mandy Fez and Adam Sylvia. So even though it is a government agency doing a good thing, but not the complete thing,it can be doing the complete thing when the likes of those Christians start working there.
Post a Comment