This is a must read: http://www.theage.com.au/national/women-tricked-into-selling-unborn-into-slavery-20080804-3pyt.html?page=-1
God bless,
Bec
Showing posts with label Social Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Justice. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Interesting article from Tim Costello
This is worth a read: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/energy-habits-are-fuelling-food-crisis-20080604-2lu4.html
God bless,
Bec
God bless,
Bec
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Child Sacrifice
I was reading Psalm 106 this morning. It's a record of God's faithfulness to Israel inspite of their unfaithfulness to Him. There are a couple of verses (37-38) that caught my attention in the middle:
Child sacrifice is really a low-light of the Old Testament. The nations surrounding Israel and Judah practised it (see for example 2 Kings 3:27 where the King of Moab sacrificed his son), and many of the corrupt Kings of Israel and Judah also practised child sacrifice to various idols (see for example Ahaz in 2 Kings 16 and Manasseh in 2 Kings 21).
I think it is really easy for us to shake our heads and wonder how could they do this to their own children. I think it is really easy for us to think that we are better than they were, that we are a more civilised people and that we would never ever do anything like this.
But I think we have to stop and look at some of our modern practises and look at whether we too practise child sacrifice. The gods we sacrifice to may not have interesting Canaanite names like Baal or Asherah, but I think we do still have gods that we sacrifice our children to. They are called "convenience" or "a woman's right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" etc etc.
Abortion is the most obvious modern day example of child sacrifice within particularly the western world. We have made up excuses for why it's ok, but an unborn child is still just that-- an unborn child. In the first 10-12 weeks after conception, while they still weigh between 4 and 14 grams:
They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
Child sacrifice is really a low-light of the Old Testament. The nations surrounding Israel and Judah practised it (see for example 2 Kings 3:27 where the King of Moab sacrificed his son), and many of the corrupt Kings of Israel and Judah also practised child sacrifice to various idols (see for example Ahaz in 2 Kings 16 and Manasseh in 2 Kings 21).
I think it is really easy for us to shake our heads and wonder how could they do this to their own children. I think it is really easy for us to think that we are better than they were, that we are a more civilised people and that we would never ever do anything like this.
But I think we have to stop and look at some of our modern practises and look at whether we too practise child sacrifice. The gods we sacrifice to may not have interesting Canaanite names like Baal or Asherah, but I think we do still have gods that we sacrifice our children to. They are called "convenience" or "a woman's right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" etc etc.
Abortion is the most obvious modern day example of child sacrifice within particularly the western world. We have made up excuses for why it's ok, but an unborn child is still just that-- an unborn child. In the first 10-12 weeks after conception, while they still weigh between 4 and 14 grams:
- The child's eyes have developed their colour
- Nearly all their organs have formed and are functioning
- Their fingers and toes have developed
- Their hair and nails have started to grow
- Their genitals are distinctively male/female
- The muscles in their intestinal walls have started to practise the contractions that will allow them to digest food
- Their vocal chords have begun to form
- Their liver starts to function
- The pancreas starts to produce insulin
There is some non-disturbing photos here and some rather disturbing ones here of murdered (aborted) children. Both show how early you can see that they really are human, they are not just "fetuses" or "lumps of tissue".
Abortion is modern day western child sacrifice. But I don't think it stops there. Forms of contraception that are potentially abortive also amount to child sacrifice. Barrier methods that prevent conception are ok, but those that act also in the event of conception to stop the child from implanting in the uterine wall amount to the same as abortion. This means the pill. The normal everyday pill as well as the so-called morning after pill. The normal pill works in two stages, it firstly tries to prevent conception by preventing ovulation. If this fails it uses a secondary method to prevent pregnancy -- and this is where the issue is. The secondary method is to thicken the mucus of the uterine wall so that the child cannot implant. This means that if a child is conceived they die. The morning after pill uses only the second method to prevent pregnancy.
In all of this, I do not mean to point fingers. I have in the past used the pill not knowing, or perhaps not wanting to know, the truth about it. My purpose in discussing this is just to draw attention to behaviours where we might hold one view when it's someone else doing it (i.e. condemning those in the bible who practised child sacrifice) and yet permit the same behaviour under another name, with some more modern reasons (excuses) behind it. I also want to draw attention to the fact that there are also parallels in the motivation. Whenever we do something outside of the will of God, that we think will make our lives better in some way, we are committing idolatry. We are saying that whatever it is that we are doing, will better serve our needs than God. We are placing (in this case) convenience, so-called women's "right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" in the place of Jesus, and sacrificing our children to those gods. When the Israelites practised child sacrifice it was to placate Baal or Asherah, we still sacrifice our children to idols-- the idols just have different names.
Let's return to Psalm 106. In all of this, despite our rebellion and sinfulness, God is still faithful. God still loves us, and there is forgiveness for those who repent. Jesus' death on the cross even deals with this sin of child sacrifice. There is real and total forgiveness, the bible says in Psalm 103:12, "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." This is not about condemnation, this is about renewing our minds, and seeing this from God's perspective. It's only when we do that that we have a chance to change our behaviour and our choices. Truth can be hard, and frankly I had a bit of an argument with God about writing this post because it is heavy and rather uncomfortable. But in Jesus truth comes hand-in-hand with GRACE.
God bless,
Bec
Monday, March 10, 2008
The truth about abortion
If you have any doubts about abortion the following link speaks for itself:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm
Don't view while eating. Kids shouldn't see it either.
God bless,
Bec
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm
Don't view while eating. Kids shouldn't see it either.
God bless,
Bec
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Being a Woman
I have just finished reading Kevin Giles' book The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate. It is such an interesting read, there is so much that comes out of it.
His discussion on how the cultural context of the reader influences interpretation of the Bible I initially found uncomfortable. I like to think that if you do your exegesis properly that the cultural assumptions of the reader don't come into it. However, after reading his section on how the theology around slavery changed as a result of the changes in society that were happening, I can see that this makes sense.
His contention was that up until the 1800s the majority of theologians held that the bible not only regulated but legitimated slavery. That good evangelical theologians made an argument from the bible that blacks were by nature subordinate to whites, and that slavery was a divinely ordained institution. Very few would make that argument now, praise God.
Most interestingly there is actually a better biblical case for slavery than there is for the subordination of women, and yet most theologians who are pro-subordination of women are anti-slavery. It is fascinating that in the same sections of scripture that deal with the "household codes" that say that women should be submissive to their husbands, that slaves should obey their masters, that children should obey their parents, that the slavery clause is interpreted as culturally specific for the first century and not a timeless principle, YET the women clause is held to be a timeless principle.
I have been thinking about all this, and what it all means for me as a woman. Before I knew Christ I was a militant feminist, I wasn't in it for equality, rather because I feared that in my nature I actually wasn't equal I fought to prove that I was better than men. As an intelligent woman I often found that I could out-argue many men, and I rather relished 'proving my worth'. I also thought that to be equal with men meant being like men, particularly in the corporate world. It seemed that the women who moved up the management hierarchy were those who were tough and steely and who were comfortable in highly testosterone filled environments.
When I met Christ my perception of myself as a woman changed. I came to realise that I didn't need to prove anything to anyone about my worth. That my worth and my identity did not come from proving that I was better than or like a man, that I could be a woman, be gentle and soft, as well as intelligent and productive in the workplace. I started to incorporate what Jesus was showing me about myself into the way I worked. In managing my team I focussed on looking after my people rather than being so relentlessly task focussed. It is interesting, shortly later I was made redundant and was looking for work. When I applied for another team lead role at one of the major banks, the feedback from the agent after my interview with the bank was that I was "too nice" and they were looking for more of a "cold hard career bitch".
My response to all this was that wasn't the kind of woman I want to be, and that if that's what they were looking for I was glad not to work there as it would be a nasty environment! But I think in abandoning the 'career bitch' stereotype and also the 'barbie doll' stereotype I've fallen back into another stereotype of womanhood.
This stereotype I think is more subtle and dangerous, because it's so often labelled "biblical womanhood". The difficulty is, as Giles' says, you can make a biblical arguement for the subordination of women, but you can also make a biblical argument for the egalitarian position. I've fallen into the "men and women are equal, but men are more equal than women" line of thinking and that I think is just a product of growing up seeing the "Christian ideal" of women in submission to men.
This I think though was a product of the times. Growing up I heard stories about women who had stayed with their husbands who were abusive, and had heard these women commended for their faithfulness. But in many cases these women could not have supported themselves if they left their husbands, and were living in a time where divorce just did not happen.
What I am wondering is this... times have changed, do the household codes of the first century apply now? The cultural context of the first century is not the same as ours. In the first century the pater familias (the father of the household) had the power of life and death over his wife, children and slaves. In our culture and time any man who killed his wife & kids would be charged with murder. Different times.
Throughout the bible God is shown to be interested in justice and mercy. I think an interesting piece of scripture in this context is Matthew 23:23; God is more interested in "justice, mercy and faithfulness" than quibbling about law. This whole debate on what constitutes a biblical position on subordination could really be seen as quibbling about law. Giles' point about text-jam - where both sides can proof-text their viewpoint until the Lord returns seems to me a quibbling about law.
Maybe the key issue is that in the first century women did not have the opportunity for justice in the way we do now, and so the bible addresses the situation and opportunities of the time. But what does justice for women mean now?
The subordination of women didn't come in until the fall, Genesis 3 is the first place in the bible where a clear and unequivocal statement is made on the subject, God said to Eve "...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (v16). This situation of inequality between the sexes is a result of the fall, not God's eternal purpose.
So I'm seeing a new alternative for how I view myself as a woman. Still do not want to be a militant feminist, I love and respect men WAY too much! And the subordinate woman thing I am seeing isn't right. So maybe the issue is really in defining my value, position, identity and relationships in terms of my gender. Maybe I can be gentle and soft because I'm Bec and it's who God made me, and reflects Christ. Maybe I can be intelligent and be gifted for teaching because those are gifts God gave me for the service of the body regardless of whether I have a Y chromosome or not. Maybe how I relate to people (future hubbie included) is a result of my "Becness" rather than my femaleness. Maybe I should stop trying to shove myself into a cookie-cutter shape of what it means to be "a woman".
God bless,
Bec
His discussion on how the cultural context of the reader influences interpretation of the Bible I initially found uncomfortable. I like to think that if you do your exegesis properly that the cultural assumptions of the reader don't come into it. However, after reading his section on how the theology around slavery changed as a result of the changes in society that were happening, I can see that this makes sense.
His contention was that up until the 1800s the majority of theologians held that the bible not only regulated but legitimated slavery. That good evangelical theologians made an argument from the bible that blacks were by nature subordinate to whites, and that slavery was a divinely ordained institution. Very few would make that argument now, praise God.
Most interestingly there is actually a better biblical case for slavery than there is for the subordination of women, and yet most theologians who are pro-subordination of women are anti-slavery. It is fascinating that in the same sections of scripture that deal with the "household codes" that say that women should be submissive to their husbands, that slaves should obey their masters, that children should obey their parents, that the slavery clause is interpreted as culturally specific for the first century and not a timeless principle, YET the women clause is held to be a timeless principle.
I have been thinking about all this, and what it all means for me as a woman. Before I knew Christ I was a militant feminist, I wasn't in it for equality, rather because I feared that in my nature I actually wasn't equal I fought to prove that I was better than men. As an intelligent woman I often found that I could out-argue many men, and I rather relished 'proving my worth'. I also thought that to be equal with men meant being like men, particularly in the corporate world. It seemed that the women who moved up the management hierarchy were those who were tough and steely and who were comfortable in highly testosterone filled environments.
When I met Christ my perception of myself as a woman changed. I came to realise that I didn't need to prove anything to anyone about my worth. That my worth and my identity did not come from proving that I was better than or like a man, that I could be a woman, be gentle and soft, as well as intelligent and productive in the workplace. I started to incorporate what Jesus was showing me about myself into the way I worked. In managing my team I focussed on looking after my people rather than being so relentlessly task focussed. It is interesting, shortly later I was made redundant and was looking for work. When I applied for another team lead role at one of the major banks, the feedback from the agent after my interview with the bank was that I was "too nice" and they were looking for more of a "cold hard career bitch".
My response to all this was that wasn't the kind of woman I want to be, and that if that's what they were looking for I was glad not to work there as it would be a nasty environment! But I think in abandoning the 'career bitch' stereotype and also the 'barbie doll' stereotype I've fallen back into another stereotype of womanhood.
This stereotype I think is more subtle and dangerous, because it's so often labelled "biblical womanhood". The difficulty is, as Giles' says, you can make a biblical arguement for the subordination of women, but you can also make a biblical argument for the egalitarian position. I've fallen into the "men and women are equal, but men are more equal than women" line of thinking and that I think is just a product of growing up seeing the "Christian ideal" of women in submission to men.
This I think though was a product of the times. Growing up I heard stories about women who had stayed with their husbands who were abusive, and had heard these women commended for their faithfulness. But in many cases these women could not have supported themselves if they left their husbands, and were living in a time where divorce just did not happen.
What I am wondering is this... times have changed, do the household codes of the first century apply now? The cultural context of the first century is not the same as ours. In the first century the pater familias (the father of the household) had the power of life and death over his wife, children and slaves. In our culture and time any man who killed his wife & kids would be charged with murder. Different times.
Throughout the bible God is shown to be interested in justice and mercy. I think an interesting piece of scripture in this context is Matthew 23:23; God is more interested in "justice, mercy and faithfulness" than quibbling about law. This whole debate on what constitutes a biblical position on subordination could really be seen as quibbling about law. Giles' point about text-jam - where both sides can proof-text their viewpoint until the Lord returns seems to me a quibbling about law.
Maybe the key issue is that in the first century women did not have the opportunity for justice in the way we do now, and so the bible addresses the situation and opportunities of the time. But what does justice for women mean now?
The subordination of women didn't come in until the fall, Genesis 3 is the first place in the bible where a clear and unequivocal statement is made on the subject, God said to Eve "...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (v16). This situation of inequality between the sexes is a result of the fall, not God's eternal purpose.
So I'm seeing a new alternative for how I view myself as a woman. Still do not want to be a militant feminist, I love and respect men WAY too much! And the subordinate woman thing I am seeing isn't right. So maybe the issue is really in defining my value, position, identity and relationships in terms of my gender. Maybe I can be gentle and soft because I'm Bec and it's who God made me, and reflects Christ. Maybe I can be intelligent and be gifted for teaching because those are gifts God gave me for the service of the body regardless of whether I have a Y chromosome or not. Maybe how I relate to people (future hubbie included) is a result of my "Becness" rather than my femaleness. Maybe I should stop trying to shove myself into a cookie-cutter shape of what it means to be "a woman".
God bless,
Bec
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Tithing vs Giving
The practise of tithing is quite interesting to me. I find it interesting partly because I was brought up in a tradition that did not practise it, but also because as I understand scripture, tithing is only a requirement if you are Jewish and are living under the Mosaic covenant. Yet tithing is big in so many churches, particularly of the pentecostal persausion.
Old Testament References to Tithing
In the Pentateuch, Gen 14:20, 28:22; Lev 27:30-32; Num 18:21-28 and Deut 12:6-17, 14:22-28, 26:1-12 deal with tithing or giving of a tenth. The Gen 14:20 passage refers to when Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth "of everything". The Gen 28:22 passage refers to when Jacob said "if God blesses me then I will give Him a tenth". However the majority of the treatment of the Pentateuch on tithing is in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and this is where God states tithing as a requirement for His people when they have come into the promised land. At this point in the Old Testament, there was no King in Israel other than God, and the Mosaic Law was how God intended His people, the state of Israel to live. The law formed part of the covenant that God had with the state of Israel, which is different from the covenant He has with us.
According to Lev/Num/Deut the purpose of the tithe was as the inheritance of the Levites as they were not alloted any land in Israel (Num 18:21-28). It seems in some of these passages that the tithe of grain and meat was actually eaten by the giver in the presence of God (Deut 12:17, 14:22-28). Every three years the tithe was collected and given to the Levite, the fatherless and the widow (Deut 26:1-12).
There are further references to the practise in the historical and prophetic writings of the Old Testament; 2 Chron 31:5-6, 12; Neh 10:37-38, 12:44, 13:5-12; Amos 4:4; Malachi 3:8-10. The 2 Chronicles passage shows that no only was the tithe in the law it was practised by the Israelites. Nehemiah 10 records the renewal of the covenant between God and His people after the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem, so is a restatement of the Mosaic Law. Nehemiah 12 records the rededication of the temple, at which point people presented tithes and offerings. Nehemiah 13 records Nehemiah's final reforms. During a period of absence, Tobiah the Ammonite had moved into one of the rooms in the temple, such that the offerings could not be stored in the temple which had driven the Levites back into the fields to provide for themselves. The Nehemiah references really reinforce the covenant that God made between Himself and the Jews, and also shows some of the implications for the Jews when the Law was not obeyed in this regard. The Amos passage is a call for His people to return to God, as is the Malachi passage. The book of Malachi is about how the people of Israel have failed to meet God's requirements and have passed off blemished sacrifices, the teachers have failed to teach God's word, Judah has been unfaithful, and broken covenant with God.
New Testament References to Tithing
In the New Testament tithing is referred to in three places Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42; and Heb 7:2-9. In the Matthew and Luke passages Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for being legalistic and tithing even down to their "mint, dill and cumin" but neglecting the weightier matters of the Law "justice, mercy and faithfulness". Now this passage is often used to prove that Jesus approved of tithing, however it is interpreted out of context. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, who were under the Law and as such definitely should have been tithing. But note that Jesus' concern is more that there are more important matters of Law that they neglect, justice, mercy and faithfulness.
God bless,
Bec
Old Testament References to Tithing
In the Pentateuch, Gen 14:20, 28:22; Lev 27:30-32; Num 18:21-28 and Deut 12:6-17, 14:22-28, 26:1-12 deal with tithing or giving of a tenth. The Gen 14:20 passage refers to when Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth "of everything". The Gen 28:22 passage refers to when Jacob said "if God blesses me then I will give Him a tenth". However the majority of the treatment of the Pentateuch on tithing is in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and this is where God states tithing as a requirement for His people when they have come into the promised land. At this point in the Old Testament, there was no King in Israel other than God, and the Mosaic Law was how God intended His people, the state of Israel to live. The law formed part of the covenant that God had with the state of Israel, which is different from the covenant He has with us.
According to Lev/Num/Deut the purpose of the tithe was as the inheritance of the Levites as they were not alloted any land in Israel (Num 18:21-28). It seems in some of these passages that the tithe of grain and meat was actually eaten by the giver in the presence of God (Deut 12:17, 14:22-28). Every three years the tithe was collected and given to the Levite, the fatherless and the widow (Deut 26:1-12).
There are further references to the practise in the historical and prophetic writings of the Old Testament; 2 Chron 31:5-6, 12; Neh 10:37-38, 12:44, 13:5-12; Amos 4:4; Malachi 3:8-10. The 2 Chronicles passage shows that no only was the tithe in the law it was practised by the Israelites. Nehemiah 10 records the renewal of the covenant between God and His people after the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem, so is a restatement of the Mosaic Law. Nehemiah 12 records the rededication of the temple, at which point people presented tithes and offerings. Nehemiah 13 records Nehemiah's final reforms. During a period of absence, Tobiah the Ammonite had moved into one of the rooms in the temple, such that the offerings could not be stored in the temple which had driven the Levites back into the fields to provide for themselves. The Nehemiah references really reinforce the covenant that God made between Himself and the Jews, and also shows some of the implications for the Jews when the Law was not obeyed in this regard. The Amos passage is a call for His people to return to God, as is the Malachi passage. The book of Malachi is about how the people of Israel have failed to meet God's requirements and have passed off blemished sacrifices, the teachers have failed to teach God's word, Judah has been unfaithful, and broken covenant with God.
New Testament References to Tithing
In the New Testament tithing is referred to in three places Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42; and Heb 7:2-9. In the Matthew and Luke passages Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for being legalistic and tithing even down to their "mint, dill and cumin" but neglecting the weightier matters of the Law "justice, mercy and faithfulness". Now this passage is often used to prove that Jesus approved of tithing, however it is interpreted out of context. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, who were under the Law and as such definitely should have been tithing. But note that Jesus' concern is more that there are more important matters of Law that they neglect, justice, mercy and faithfulness.
The Hebrews passage goes back over the Abraham and Melchizedek incident recorded in Gen 14:20. It does not state an opinion on whether tithing is required for Christians, but rather recounts an historical event to prove another point, which is that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to that of the Levites (because the Levites paid their tithe through Abraham to Melchizedek, and Melchizedek is a type of Christ.)
What is a New Testament view on Christians obeying Mosaic Law?
The issue of whether Christians should have to obey the Mosaic Law came up early in the years following Pentecost. This particularly came to a head when Gentiles started to become Christians. Many Jewish Christians felt that the Gentiles had to follow the law in addition to believing in Jesus to be saved, so they pushed for Gentile Christians to be circumcised. This all came to a head at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-29. A decision had to be made as to whether the Gentile Chritians should be circumcised and made to follow the Law. The determination of the Council was that "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." (v28-29). This does not mention tithing or almsgiving.
The issue of circumcision was a biggie in Galatia, and Paul deals with it very strongly at one point in chapter five encouraging them that if they like circumcision so much, why not go the whole way and emasculate themselves. (Ouch!). Gal 3:3-5,18,29 is illustrative. The problem with the whole circumcision thing (and I would argue tithing) is that it shifts people from a position where their relationship with God is based on Grace to one of Law and works. Paul says to them, "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" And that is what I see happening with the current teaching on tithing, is this idea that the blessings of God are attached to how much you give, which is to say on our "human effort" not the Spirit. Verses 18 and 29 are clear, the inheritance that God gave Abraham was before the Law, it is dependent on God's promise, and we are heirs of Abraham if we belong to Christ. The blessings of God are ours not because we obey the Law, not because we give our tithes, but because He has promised them to us freely and of His grace.
Galatians 5 goes on to tell us that we are free in Christ and we shouldn't let ourselves be reburdened by a "yoke of slavery", by which Paul is referring to obedience to the Law. So we don't have to tithe, but does this mean we shouldn't give? Galatians 5:13 says, "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love." Serving one another in love is the basis from which our giving should spring...
So how should a Christian Give?
It is interesting that although there is not continuity of teaching from the Old Testament to the New Testament on tithing, there is on giving. There is reoccuring teaching on genorosity and on caring for the poor, widows and orphans throughout both the Old and New Testament. I think this is really God's heart, and I'm reminded of Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness..." Mt 23:23. They have forgotten why God wanted the tithe, which as discussed earlier was to care for the Levites, the poor, the widows and orphans. I think this is really the transition point from the Law of Tithing, to the Spirit of Giving. Generosity is encouraged, beyond 10%. Jesus commends the giving of a glass of water, and instructs rich people to sell all they have and give it to the poor. Paul commends the church in Macedonia for giving beyond their means.
Some key passages on Giving:
Old Testament - Deut 15:10-11; Prov 11:24, 21:26, 25:21, 28:27
Gospels - Matt 5:42, 10:42, 19:21, 25:34-46; Mark 9:41, 10:21; Luke 6:30,35,38, 12:33, 14:12-13, 18:22
Pauline - 2 Cor 8:1-15, 9:1-15; 1 Tim 6:17-19
Some key passages on the Poor:
Pentateuch - Lev 23:22, 25:25,35,39; Deut 15:1-11, 24:10-15
Wisdom Literature - Pro 14:31, 17:5, 19:17, 21:13, 22:9,16,22, 28:27, 29:7
Prophetic - Isa 3:14-15, 10:1-2, 14:30, 25:4, 32:7, 41:17, 58:7, 61:1; Jer 5:28, 22:16-17; Eze 18:12, 22:29; Amos 2:7, 4:1, 5:11-12, 8:4-6; Zec 7:10
Gospels - Matt 19:21; Mark 10:21, 12:42-43; Luke 4:18, 7:22, 11:40-42, 12:33, 14:13, 18:22, 19:8, 21:2-3
Epistles - Ro 15:26; Gal 2:10; James 2:2-6
Other NT - Acts 10:5,31, 24:17; Rev 3:17
The other aspect of this is support of ministries. This one is pretty clear, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 that those who preach the gospel should earn their living from it, although Paul himself chose to work as well so that he would not be a burden on those to whom he was ministering.
So practically what does all this mean?
Well it means give as the Spirit leads you, out of a sense of love (1 Cor 13:3). We should be generous and willing to share, this should come out of a love for God and our neighbours, not out of a sense of compulsion or legalism. The key issue here is one of the heart, are we giving out of freedom and gratitude for all that God has given us, or fear that if we don't He won't look after us? Jesus gave us the answer for that; seek first His kingdom and His righteousness and all these things (food, clothing etc) will be given to us as well (Matt 6:25-33)
God bless,
Bec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)