Are Evangelicals compassionate?

[Elijah John]

Listening to a TBN preacher I was taken by how nasty the audience seemed to be. The preacher said several different things, but the line that got applause was the line from Paul, "if they don't work, let them not eat" or words to that effect.

In light of this preacher's and other evangelical sermons against government aide to those in need (supposedly it's the church's job, not the governments) and opposing taxation needed to sustain the safety net, it would be easy to conclude that Evangelicals (in general) are more mean-spirited than they are compassionate.

After all, can the Church really handle

-health care for those who cannot afford it?
-unemployment compensation?
-disability?
-Social Security retirement?

etc, etc.

For debate:

Is the conclusion that Evangelicals (in general) are more mean-spirited than they are compassionate a fair or an unfair conclusion?

Also, TBN preachers in particular send the message that material prosperity is a sign of God's favor, and seem to imply that poverty is a sign of God's displeasure and judgement on a given individual.

Additional question for debate;.

Would the first century Rabbi who taught "blessed are the poor" (and whom these Evangelicals claim to follow) agree with the sentiment that wealth is a sign or God's favor, and poverty is a sign of his judgement?

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Is the conclusion that Evangelicals (in general) are more mean-spirited than they are compassionate a fair or an unfair conclusion?

I don't know any personally, but my guess is, from what I've seen, they might generally start off with good intentions but like most all people, power and money take over and things turn. They start acting and talking how they need to further their money and power desires - maybe even sometimes without knowing.

Would the first century Rabbi who taught "blessed are the poor" (and whom these Evangelicals claim to follow) agree with the sentiment that wealth is a sign or God's favor, and poverty is a sign of his judgement?

Maybe or maybe not. It's hard to think like someone of a different time that was going through different things than I am (we are). Today it might seem like the opposite is true but.... (assuming wealth is $)?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

They are merely passionate, that they have in spades.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

They are merely passionate, that they have in spades.

"Passionate" as opposed to compassionate?

I realize there are many compassionate individual Evangelicals, and probably congregations. But all too often the giving seems more geared to spreading the "Gospel" as they understand it, than it does to aleiviating human suffering. They would do well to re-read James.

What was truly disturbing was that this particular TBN pastor's congregation applauded that line about not working not eating, and not other statements the pastor was making.

Seemed an expression of resentment and mean-spiritedness and not Christian compassion. I have heard this preacher make other similar statements expressing resentment that the government taxes in order to provide the safety net. And other preachers on TBN expressing similar sentiments. Ironic, because the preachers in question are millionaires, yet they begrudge paying taxes for government aide to struggling people.

Alas, such is the prosperity Gospel and it's proponents. Greed and hypocricy alive and well.

[bjs]

After all, can the Church really handle

-health care for those who cannot afford it?
-unemployment compensation?
-disability?
-Social Security retirement?

etc, etc.

As interesting historical note, the church did care for these kinds of needs for a long time. The modern welfare state has its roots in English history. In the 1500’s the Crown, under Henry VIII and others, sized most of the land belonging to the Catholic Church. Up to that point the Church had largely cared for the needs of the elderly, orphaned, and disabled. With the loss of their resources the church could no longer do this and job fell to the State. The resulting raise in taxes made in more difficult for the church to ever take on such an active role again. The massive tax increases of the 1940’s in most western countries to cover new social programs further diminished the church’s ability to take on major needs without government support. With our current tax burden and social programs I don’t think the church could meet these needs unless there was a massive cultural change.


As to the general question: Far and away the most compassionate people I have known in terms of action (personally helping people instead of talking about compassion) have consistently been Evangelicals. However, I have known enough who were so lacking in compassion that I cannot call it trait common to all Evangelicals.

[Elijah John]

After all, can the Church really handle

-health care for those who cannot afford it?
-unemployment compensation?
-disability?
-Social Security retirement?

etc, etc.

As interesting historical note, the church did care for these kinds of needs for a long time. The modern welfare state has its roots in English history. In the 1500’s the Crown, under Henry VIII and others, sized most of the land belonging to the Catholic Church. Up to that point the Church had largely cared for the needs of the elderly, orphaned, and disabled. With the loss of their resources the church could no longer do this and job fell to the State. The resulting raise in taxes made in more difficult for the church to ever take on such an active role again. The massive tax increases of the 1940’s in most western countries to cover new social programs further diminished the church’s ability to take on major needs without government support. With our current tax burden and social programs I don’t think the church could meet these needs unless there was a massive cultural change.


As to the general question: Far and away the most compassionate people I have known in terms of action (personally helping people instead of talking about compassion) have consistently been Evangelicals. However, I have known enough who were so lacking in compassion that I cannot call it trait common to all Evangelicals.

Interesting. Also, you make the observation that the modern, massive tax burden make it difficult for chruches to provide aide without government support. But the Church today enjoys tax-exempt status.

By the way, I have known some extremely compassionate Evangelicals, but also some extremely compassionate atheists as well. I guess I'm thinkin' it's some of the televangelists and their applauding congregations who seem to be giving Christianity a bad witness nowadays.

[bjs]

After all, can the Church really handle

-health care for those who cannot afford it?
-unemployment compensation?
-disability?
-Social Security retirement?

etc, etc.

As interesting historical note, the church did care for these kinds of needs for a long time. The modern welfare state has its roots in English history. In the 1500’s the Crown, under Henry VIII and others, sized most of the land belonging to the Catholic Church. Up to that point the Church had largely cared for the needs of the elderly, orphaned, and disabled. With the loss of their resources the church could no longer do this and job fell to the State. The resulting raise in taxes made in more difficult for the church to ever take on such an active role again. The massive tax increases of the 1940’s in most western countries to cover new social programs further diminished the church’s ability to take on major needs without government support. With our current tax burden and social programs I don’t think the church could meet these needs unless there was a massive cultural change.


As to the general question: Far and away the most compassionate people I have known in terms of action (personally helping people instead of talking about compassion) have consistently been Evangelicals. However, I have known enough who were so lacking in compassion that I cannot call it trait common to all Evangelicals.

Interesting. Also, you make the observation that the modern, massive tax burden make it difficult for chruches to provide aide without government support. But the Church today enjoys tax-exempt status.

By the way, I have known some extremely compassionate Evangelicals, but also some extremely compassionate atheists as well. I guess I'm thinkin' it's some of the televangelists and their applauding congregations who seem to be giving Christianity a bad witness nowadays.

The church is tax exempt. The people giving to the church are not. The tax burden on individuals, religious or otherwise, limits what they can give.

I agree that the show you watched did not put forth a good example of Christian love. That said, I don’t tend to look to TBN or other televangelists for an accurate picture of Christianity. To stay on the air in modern society most people have to take extreme or controversial stances. (We see this in most TV news outlets today.) More reasonable, compassionate preachers that you will find in millions of churches across the country would not stay on air for very long.

We see this in much of society today. The extremes tend to get the attention.

[amortalman]

For debate:

Is the conclusion that Evangelicals (in general) are more mean-spirited than they are compassionate a fair or an unfair conclusion?

It's an unfair conclusion because of lack of supportive evidence. As a former evangelical I can testify that the great majority of evangelicals I knew during my fifteen years as a Christian were compassionate, kind, supportive, loving, and quick to open their wallets and purses to help someone in need. But that was only my experience. I can't speak for them all.

Also, TBN preachers in particular send the message that material prosperity is a sign of God's favor, and seem to imply that poverty is a sign of God's displeasure and judgement on a given individual.

TBN preachers and their ilk preach a prosperity gospel so they can enrich themselves off the generosity of their gullible followers.

Additional question for debate;.

Would the first century Rabbi who taught "blessed are the poor" (and whom these Evangelicals claim to follow) agree with the sentiment that wealth is a sign of God's favor, and poverty is a sign of his judgement?

Jesus never taught that material wealth was a blessing from God, and neither does the New Testament. In fact, it warns against seeking material wealth (Luke 6:24 and 1Timothy 6:10 and other places).

With that said, I can totally understand the audience's applause to the preacher's quote from the Apostle Paul, "if they don't work, let them not eat"

My understanding of that statement was that Paul was talking about people who had the ability to work but preferred to scrounge off others because of laziness, not someone who was incapable of feeding themselves.

Many are doing the same thing today in our government's welfare system. They've learned how to play the system and take unfair advantage of it. The benefits they steal from the government could go to help those who deserve it. To them, I agree. If they won't work, let them not eat.

[bluethread]

Many are doing the same thing today in our government's welfare system. They've learned how to play the system and take unfair advantage of it. The benefits they steal from the government could go to help those who deserve it. To them, I agree. If they won't work, let them not eat.

Just a note. they aren't stealing it from the government. The government is stealing it from us and handing it with little or no oversight. That is why I don't think that the federal government should be involved in social programs. State governments are not much better. I think it is best handled as locally as possible.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by bjs]

You are aware of the massive abuses of power the church had during this time period right? There is a reason the Protestants rose up and seized that power from the church. If everything was honky dory prior to the Protestant revolution there would have been no uprising. Yes the church handled welfare and education. However, those were tools that ensured their power and wealth in the world. It's the same whether its the government or the church neither is different in that respect. At least in this system I have a vote If it was the church in charge I would probably be cut off from society or dead, so I'll take my chances with a secular government.