The View From 1776

Pastor Dan Gardner’s sermon at the Cohocton Assembly of God church was based upon a principle enunciated by the Apostle Paul:

You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1)

Moreover, we must walk the walk, not just talk it, as the Old Testament prophet Malachi told the descendants of Levi, roughly 400 years before the advent of Jesus Christ:

“And now this admonition is for you, O priests. 2 If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name,” says the LORD Almighty, “I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me.

3 “Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will spread on your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it. 4 And you will know that I have sent you this admonition so that my covenant with Levi may continue,” says the LORD Almighty. 5 “My covenant was with him, a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him; this called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. 6 True instruction was in his mouth and nothing false was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and turned many from sin.

7 “For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty. 8 But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi,” says the LORD Almighty. 9 “So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.” (Malachi 2:1-9)

Today, as did the priests admonished by Malachi, too many preachers and others professing to impart God’s teachings are spreading false doctrine or ridiculing people who stand up for the Word of God. 

TV commentator Brit Hume, for example, was lambasted by the liberal-progressive media for suggesting that Tiger Woods would find more comfort and regain his moral path by accepting Jesus Christ as his savior than he evidently had found in Buddhism.  Liberal-progressive criticism, from putative Christian churches as well as from atheists and agnostics, was voiced in the name of toleration, which in the realm of secular materialism means that there can be no standards of morality. Religion is declared to be an unscientific “value judgment.” That is false doctrine amounting to worship of the political state and human reason as the sole route to truth.

Too many purportedly Christian ministers today have abandoned Christianity.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:6-9)

Those Christian-in-name-only ministers have reverted to the Social Gospel of the late 19th and early 20th century.  They intone the aims of Christianity, but invoke it in the name of servility to the socialistic political state.  Not the Bible, but an intellectual elite, is to be the source of morality.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. (1 Timothy 4:1)

The result is a lack of balance between platitudes about helping people in in the abstract and the difficult path of individual moral responsibility.  Worship in such churches is as likely to advocate abortion, under the rubric of women’s rights, as to preach the Gospel of life and individual brotherly love.  For some, God is a broad concept, as easily viewed as Gaia the Mother Earth goddess, as the God of the Bible.  Too many of these preachers have forgotten the commandment to have no other gods and to worship only God.

They find it socially inconvenient to proclaim Jesus crucified for our sins and resurrected to give us eternal life.  Their preaching becomes self-gratification or grasping for money or power.  They need to follow the lead of the Apostle Paul:

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Preaching the truth means preaching from the authority of the Bible, the inspired Word of God.  The great throngs who followed Jesus during his ministry loved him and were inspired by him, because, unlike the Pharisees, he taught as one with authority, one who was the Word of God incarnate.  Ministers of the gospel, and we as individuals, must rest our thoughts and utterances in the Bible.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Titus 1:9)

1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5)

Franklin Roosevelt in his 1930s New Deal forced everyone to pay taxes into the Social Security administration, deliberately drawing resources away from the many thousands of local charitable organization chapters to be found in every community around the nation.  With each ratcheting up since then of Federal “security,” what FDR call a Second Bill of Rights that he had imposed upon the nation, we have become less individuals with personal moral responsibility, and more passive members of bureaucratically defined social classes.

What FDR desired, and liberal-progressives still lust for, is Bismarck’s aim in creating the world’s first welfare system: the power to herd citizens like cattle.

----------------------

An American Charity Slump?
By Nathan Tabor

The Obama Administration and both houses of the U.S. Congress are fast-tracking a number of programs designed to increase the size of what’s commonly known as the “welfare state”.

These programs are having a devastating impact on American charitable giving. While the wealthy have been vilified, the census data shows that households earning $200,000-plus, which comprise only 2.6% of all households who submit tax returns, give nearly 50% of all individual charitable contributions.

One of the drawbacks of the Obama Administration’s and the liberal-left’s tax law revision is the decrease in the amount charity-givers may deduct from their annual federal income tax. Ideologues, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others, believe the government should use the “cover” of charity as a means of redistributing wealth.

In other words, President Obama’s version of “charity” is more akin to Karl Marx than it is to Jesus Christ. Obama and his ilk are charitable, to be sure, but they’re charitable with other people’s money.

In the days before Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society, it was the Christian church that provided food, clothing, and shelter for the poor and destitute members of society.

For example, during The Great Depression and thereafter, the majority of “soup kitchens” and “shelters” were run by local churches. The homeless were provided a warm meal, a place to rest, and a chance to hear the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ. Christians in those days understood that if you were to address the needs of the soul, it was best to first address the needs of the body.

While President Obama can’t wait to get his hands on this nation’s health care, many Americans have forgotten that it was the Christian church and Jewish temples that built most of the hospitals and clinics. Religious groups provided medical treatment to people who were given the bums’ rush out of hospitals because they were too poor to pay for treatment.

For example, in New York City, hospitals still bear the names given by religious groups who created them--Saint Vincent’s Hospital, Calvary Hospital, Christ Hospital, and many others. While the city government manages 10 non-profit hospitals, the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies manages 15 health care centers.

But today, we run the grave risk of letting the government undermine support of these charitable institutions and thus eliminating crucial charitable services.

While President Obama and his minions will never tell citizens they should stop giving to faith-based organizations, their actions appear to be intentionally or unintentionally stifling such charitable giving. It’s a fact that many politicians in Washington believe the government is better able to distribute charitable services than people whom they view as simpleminded Bible-thumpers.

According to a survey conducted on behalf of Dunham+Company by Wilson Research Strategies, Americans reported that they are beginning to spend more of their disposable income on entertainment and other household expenses, while continuing to reduce or stop their charitable giving.

Compared to the 2009 study, Dunham+Company’s 2010 New Year’s Philanthropy Survey shows that in spite of a surprising 56% jump in the number of households indicating they have not reduced their household budget as a result of the economy, 37% of the respondents said they continue to reduce their charitable donations and nearly 1 in 4 reported in the survey that they have completely stopped charitable giving. The WRS survey reveals that statistically the 2010 rates are the same as last year’s rates.

However, Rick Dunham, the president and CEO of Dunham+Company, a firm that helps Christian ministries with marketing, fundraising, and media relations, said there are some exceptions.

“When you dig into the data, you find that more of those who frequent religious services indicate that in spite of the economy, they are continuing or increasing their support of charity in 2010 compared to 2009,” he said in a press statement. “Fewer of these households have reduced or stopped their giving. This is especially impressive as there is actually a 10% increase in the number of non-religious households who say they have stopped their giving as we enter 2010.”

Dunham+Company’s survey also indicates that households earning $35,000 or less are much more likely to have reduced or stopped charitable giving (33% more than the national average), whereas households earning $100,000 or more are less likely to have reduced or stopped their charitable giving (38% less than the national average). However, about one in six frequent churchgoers say they do intend to give more, which is 33% greater than those who do not attend church.

While the survey reveals a disturbing reduction in charitable giving, respondents are not enthusiastic about having the federal government come in to pick up the slack.

For example, when asked about their support for federal funding of health care necessitating increased taxes on the wealthy, a whopping 63% of those surveyed rejected such a policy.

“The data related to giving basically remains unchanged from 2009,” Dunham said. “Most charities should expect contributions to remain relatively flat this year, which is not good news for the many non-profits that are struggling. But religious charities should fare better than most as there are a greater number of these households indicating they are supporting charities as we begin this year compared to last year.”

Mr. Dunham points to one bright spot, however, for all charities. The findings do indicate that there should be a resurgence in giving by households making $75,000 or more a year. Among those making $75,000 but less than $100,000, this year’s survey showed an 80% jump in those who intend to increase their support of charity in 2010 (18% in 2010 compared to 10% in 2009) and for households making $100,000 or more there was a 31% jump compared to one year ago (21% in 2010 compared to 16% in 2009).

But now that Obama has unveiled his budget and the increase in taxes on households making $250,000 or more and decreasing the amount they can deduct for charitable giving, this intention to give more may be short-lived.

The economic crisis and now the policies of the Obama Administration may mean a prolonged American charity slump that will wreak havoc on charities for years to come.