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?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

A lot of people mistake their sense of compassion with their sense of comfort. If they lose one they lose the other.

Teaching if you don't work you don't eat is compassionate.

[bjs]

[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.

The Reformation was more about theological issues the social ones. The RCC, like all human institutions, has made her fair share of mistakes. However, I think that her care for the poor, both now and over the centuries, is an area where she deserves considerable praise.

Also, giving to the church was voluntary, unlike the current tax system. Your “vote� was if you gave your money or not.

Finally, I am unsure why you think you would have been cut off or dead. I assume in your scenario you were placing yourself as a young orphan, elderly without family, or for some reason unable to support yourself and dependent on charity. I don’t know the specific policies of the RCC in sixteenth century England, but based on their current practices I am unsure why you think you would have been denied charity.

[amortalman]

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.

I don't think handling it locally would work. There just needs to be more oversight and accountability from the federal government. I suppose it's easier to just throw money at it when you have a budget of almost $3 trillion to work with. There's probably enough government waste to fix our nation's infrastructure problem with $$$ left over.

[bluethread]

I don't think handling it locally would work. There just needs to be more oversight and accountability from the federal government. I suppose it's easier to just throw money at it when you have a budget of almost $3 trillion to work with. There's probably enough government waste to fix our nation's infrastructure problem with $$$ left over.

What makes the federal government better at oversight than states, localities and communities?

[amortalman]

I don't think handling it locally would work. There just needs to be more oversight and accountability from the federal government. I suppose it's easier to just throw money at it when you have a budget of almost $3 trillion to work with. There's probably enough government waste to fix our nation's infrastructure problem with $$$ left over.

What makes the federal government better at oversight than states, localities and communities?

Nothing necessarily. But control by the States would not necessarily be better either.