If we are to do good, what does it look like? If we are to live for Christ, again, what does it look like? It has been a trope, for a long time, that we should do what Jesus did: What would Jesus do (WWJD). Often this is taken to be what would the modern good person do. We forget that Christ was not a good person, he was God, and that he did not do what the good people of the era he was incarnage on wanted him to do .
For a start, he healed on the sabbath, in a synagogue. He did not bother demonstrating against the bankers: he whipped them out of the temple. He did not scourge the tax farmers who worked for the despised Romans: St Matthew was a tax collector, who followed Jesus along with Zealots, the nationalists of that time.
And he called rabbis hypocritical dogs. The modern atheists accusations about clergy have nothing of the venom of Christ. Who hated the lies spoke in his name.
But we are not Christ. Nor are we priests. What then can we do?
10Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight. 12When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, “Woman, you are set free from your ailment.” 13When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God. 14But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, “There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day.” 15But the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? 16And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?” 17When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing.
7Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in utmost eagerness, and in our love for you — so we want you to excel also in this generous undertaking.
8I do not say this as a command, but I am testing the genuineness of your love against the earnestness of others.9For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.10And in this matter I am giving my advice: it is appropriate for you who began last year not only to do something but even to desire to do something — 11now finish doing it, so that your eagerness may be matched by completing it according to your means.12For if the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has — not according to what one does not have.13I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between14your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance.15As it is written, “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.”
If you want to find out what is happening, do not trust the media. Be a forensic accountant. Follow the money. It is good to provide: Paul says elsewhere that if a man does not provide for his family he is to be considered an Idolator or Pervert, and cast out. (I paraphrase). We are made to work. You do not retire, you change missions.
But follow the money. Be discerning. Does the money go to where it ought? There are many charities that are corrupt: there are those who spend all their money on marketing. Many do not do what they were set up to do: they preach anything but the gospel, and do more harm than good. This is before we begin to discuss the aid industrial complex, which has enriched many politicians while leaving the poor more destitute.
It is also worth noting that Paul does not demand a tithe to the temple, as is the law, but people to give as they promised. There is something wrong with mandatory giving, as Mundabor notes, when discussing the union rort within the USA.
This week of great victories in the Supreme Court has one case that will have, I believe, serious consequences for US leftists.
We Europeans were astonished to read that if you work for the public sector in the US you can be either a member of the trade unions – supporting all sorts of evil Democratic activism – or decide to stay out. However, if you stay out you pay to that very same trade union about 78% of the union membership as “fee”, because the trade unions give you… a “representation” you do not want.
We had this crap in Italy in some private sectors in the Seventies, when the Communists had north of 30% of the votes. This nonsense has long been thrown in the rubbish bin of history. It is truly amazing to discover that in the XXI Century such things still existed. I don’t even want to think what happens in other trade union strongholds like the car industry. I actually hope they still do, and this is now about to end.
Only one third of public sector employees are trade union members. The others were forced to pay the “fee”.
Boy, this will hurt.
What, therefore, shall we do?
We shall care for the animals we have. We shall provide for our children and little ones. We shall protect the dependant. And we shall look for good, not virtue signals, from those who ask our support.
And ensure that the giving does not go into the salaries of the new, secular, clerisy.
We shall not be like them.