Basic HTML Version
fers to our spiritual service to God–
something God does nol measure
"equally"-it also cerlainly shows
lhal lhere is no divine preference for
equalily for its own sake.
The facl is lhal God does nol
choose sides in lhe "class slruggle."
Those who seek lo make il sound as
if God only !oves lhe poor- and
!oves lhe poor
because
lhey are
poor, not because they are the de–
scendants of Adam and po1ential
sons of God- almost never quote
the injunclion in Exodus 23:3: "Nei–
ther shalt lhou countenance a poor
man in his cause." Neilher do lhey
menlion Leviticus
19: 15:
"Ye shall
do no unrighleousness in judgmenl:
thou shalt not respect the person of
the poor, nor honour the person of
lhe mighty." A poor man, according
to these verses, shouldn' t get special
treatment simply because he is poor.
H is economic status should have
nothing to do wilh juslice. This
point is reileraled by the apostle Pe–
ter, who staled that "God is no re–
specter o f persons" (Acls
10:34).
Christian Vlolence?
Those who believe in the radical
theology have very little hesitation
about using violence to overlhrow
"oppressive governmenls." They be–
lieve that because they are on the
s ide of lhe poor, violence is justified.
Should they succeed in coming 10
power, they Jeave littlc doubt as to
what they would do. They would
have the governmenl confiscate lhe
earnings and wealth of the middle
and upper classes.
And rhey would
do so in God's narne!
But they wou ld be wrong to use
the authority ofScripture for whal is
really just baptized Communism!
The Bible teaches lhal when those
who have money o r wealth provide
for or give 10 lhe poor, lhey should
be doing so individually out of gen–
uine concern and love, nol because
the government tax collector is
threatening them with jail terms. As
the apostle Paul said about giving, it
should be "every man according as
he purposeth in his heart ... not
grudgingly, or of necessity"
(JI
Cor.
9:7).
But What About the Poor?
One of the radical Chrislians puts it
very simply: "The Bible regards
The
PLAIN TRUTH December 1978
poverly in the midst of plenty as
sin." Another says, "The idea of in–
d ividuals within the community of
faith accumulating wealth while
others suffer need is abhorrent to
the bíblica! authors." The implica–
tion is that as long as there are poor
people around, none of the others
should ever enjoy plenty, or quality
goods, or anything more than just
the bare necessities of life.
But this view is not bíblica!! The
Bible has many kind and com–
passionale words for the poor- bul
only the poor whose poverly is no
fault of lheir own. Their poverty is
The Bible teaches tha t
there is no thing wrong
with working hard and
earning wealth in a
good, honest manner.
the result of dependency, or circum–
stances beyond the individual's con–
tro l. This is the poverly which is
suffered by widows and orphans,
the sick and di sabled, thc aged.
Here the Bible is clear: Chri stia ns
a re obligated to compassionately as–
sist these unfortunate individuals,
even to the poinl of sacrifice. The
relief of such human distress is one
of the fundamentals of true religion.
There is, indeed, a duty lo give to
the poor when you have lhe means
todo so.
But there is anolher class of poor
persons that the Bible speaks of. As
harsh as it may sound,
sorne
people
are poor through their own fault. To
be blunt,
sorne
people are poor be–
cause of laziness. The Bible makes
this very clear:
"He becometh poor that dealeth
wilh a slack hand" (Prov. 10:4).
"T he slothful man saith, T here is
a !ion without,
1
shall be slain in the
streets (that is, he makes excuses for
not working]" (Prov. 22:
13).
" He also that is slothful in his
work is brother to him that is a great
waster" (Prov. 18 :9).
" 1
went by the field of the sloth–
ful , and by the vineyard of the man
void of understanding; and, lo, it
was all grown over with thorns, and
nettles had covered the face lhereof,
and the stone wall thereof was bro–
ken down" (Prov.
24:30-31).
This las l prover b is particularly
appropriate to lhe poverty of many
urban slums. Unless people are will–
ing to expend the effort to care for
lheir properly, it soon deteriorates.
Consider the almos! proverbial case
of the slum family which is moved
by a cily rcdevelopment agency to a
nice middle-class suburb and within
a short time has allowed their new
quarters to get into a run-down, di–
lapida ted condition. It is because
lhey are unwilling to take care of
what they havt:!
Pleasure Before Work
For many people, the inability to
restrain themselves from giving in to
the pleasures of the moment is the
cause of poverly. This fact is vividly
broughl out in
The Unheavenly City,
a book by a Harvard professor of
urban sludies , Edward Banfield. D r.
Banfield documented what Solomon
had firsl recorded in the Bible- that
plain old laziness, and the inability
to control one's emotions and de–
sires, is the reason why many people
live in slum conditions.
Dr. Banfield shows that in many
big-city slums, poverty is the direct
result of an inability to defer gratifi–
cation, even for a short period of
time. Sorne people simply cannot
deny themselves the pleasures of the
moment in order to break out of
their impoverished condition. Such
a person, says Banfiel<t, lives "from
moment to moment. If he has any
awareness of the future, it is of
something fixed , fated , beyond his
control. ... Impulse governs his be-
havior ... he cannot discipline him-
25