Jesus is not a Liberal

Preface: If you just happened upon this study, and you are not a believer in Jesus Christ, the politics and point of view expressed herein are not really the issue, insofar as you are concerned. You face one and only one issue, "What do you think of Christ?" (Matt. 22:42b). Who is Jesus Christ? He Himself claimed, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6). He told Nicodemus, "You must be born again;" (John 3:3b) and then He explained the mechanics to Nicodemus: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten [uniquely-born] Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." (John 3:16–18). That is the only issue before you: do you believe in Jesus Christ? Did He die for your sins?

For those who have believed in Jesus Christ, as with all Biblical studies, you need to make certain that you are in fellowship, which means, you name whatever sins you have committed to God, and God will forgive them. If we acknowledge [name, cite] our sins, He [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1John 1:9).

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum
Kukis Website	A List of Doctrines

No doubt, you have seen graphics like these all over the internet:

The first is from some blogspot (although, apparently, originally from the Christian left) and the second is from quietmike.org, both accessed April 6, 2014.

We ought to expect for there to be false teaching about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

2Peter 2:1–3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

2Tim. 4:3–4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own lust patterns, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Sometime ago, I ran across a posting where someone claimed, "Jesus is a liberal." And we cross-posted on this topic for awhile. Then I collected those unedited posts and put them online here: Was Jesus a Liberal? (HTML) (PDF). In the paper you are reading now, this topic is taken up in a more organized fashion. Also, this is a much longer presentation of this topic.

This treatise was written in 2011 and revised in 2014. This is not a short examination of this topic; it is over 100 pages long. Liberal talking points will be set down next to the words of Jesus so that we can come to an informed conclusion.

Topics
Introduction	Capitalism, Greed and the Dishonesty of Liberalism	"You have your interpretation of the Bible and I have mine"
Is Jesus a liberal? The big picture.	The Specific Teachings of Jesus	The Bible and Socialism
Addendum
Sub-Topics under "The Specific Teachings of Jesus"
Peacemaking, not War Making	The Death Penalty	Anti-War; Anti-Military
Nonviolence	Crime and Punishment	Anti-capitalism
Justice	Corporate Greed and the Religion of Wealth	Paying Taxes & Separation of Church & State
Community	Equality & Social Programs	Public Prayer & Displays of Faith
Strict Enforcement of Religious Laws	Individuality & Personal Spiritual Experience	The Social Gospel
Jesus is anti-gun and/or anti-military	The early church practiced socialism	Jesus is a liberal, because He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."
Summation
Charts and Short Doctrines
The Definition of a Liberal is...	Why Government Does a Lousy Job	"You are of your father, the devil."
Examples of Their Lack of Interest in the Bible	Graphic: John Dear Webpage Word Cloud	Examples of Liberal Websites that Exhibit some Interest in the Bible
Chart: Which Dictator Killed the Most People?	The Bible, Capitalism and Private Property	Morality and Capitalism
Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler	God and the Welfare State
Charts and Short Doctrines in the Addendum
Conservatives Are More Liberal Givers	Who Gives and Who Doesn't?	General Patton on Pacifism and Preaching Pacifism from the Pulpit
The poverty chart	The Full Text of Thomas Jefferson's "Separation of Church and State" Letter	Dennis Wheeler's 12 Important Conservative Beliefs
African-Americans, in the Eyes of the Conservative	Natural Economic Law	Pencils And Politics
Excerpts from Don Closson's "Poverty and Wealth"	State Capitalism	References
Doctrines Alluded to Throughout
Was Jesus a Liberal?	A Model of the Tabernacle	The Ark of the Covenant
The Bible, Wealth and Private Property	Private Property and the Christian	The Laws of Divine Establishment

Introduction: If you are reading this, you are probably a believer in Jesus Christ; that is, a Christian. If you merely espouse the ideals of Jesus or the new covenant of love from Jesus or if you simply believe that Jesus was a wonderful teacher, right up there with Gandhi and Martin Luther King, then you face a far more important question than, capitalism versus socialism, and that is, Who is Jesus? Jesus Christ is the man Who bore your sins on His body on the cross, and He is the only way you are able to have a relationship with God. He told His disciples, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6). When Jesus was asked, "How can we do the works of God?" He answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent." (John 6:29). John the Apostle tells us why he wrote the book of John: These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:31). Peter tells us the basis of our salvation: Jesus himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed (1Peter 2:24; Isa. 53:5). Your relationship with God is far more important, at this point in time, than your feelings about socialism and capitalism.

In the 1970's and 1980's, communist and socialist movements were trying to get a toehold in South America, and they ran into strong resistence from the Catholics there. So, propagandists from this movement took the Bible and Jesus and tried to portray the Bible as a bastion of progressive doctrine and Jesus as a liberal socialist. When dealing with a book that is in excess of 1000 pages, it is easy to come up with a dozen or two verses which appear to support nearly any political view. With the advent of the internet, you can simply google something like "Is Jesus a liberal?" and you will get a dozens of articles and even more graphics that portray Jesus as a liberal.

When it comes to liberals who perpetrate lies about Jesus, I did not have time to list them all; but I have a fairly representative sampling in this extensive examination. To be fair, in some cases, it is a matter of ignorance; and, in many cases, it is a matter of intentional ignorance. Some of them are saved, but they are also trapped by the world-view of liberals; and so they pursue, in their Bibles, justification for liberal doctrine.

Two additional points must be made. Satan will do everything that he can in order to bring about perfect environment on earth, and he will make these sorts of attempts, no matter how many people are killed in the process. Socialism and other human panaceas are of the devil, and the attempt to implement them will never cease to be a force on this earth. Even after people have lived for a full 1000 years under perfect environment, Satan will be let loose for a time, and he will cause a portion of the population to rebel against perfect environment (Rev. 20:7–10).

Secondly, it is not our business as believers to whitewash the devil's world. We certainly find our greatest freedom under capitalism and the least freedom under socialism; however, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ followed by the spiritual growth of the believers in a national entity, no economic or political system is efficacious for sin. We could vote in, say, the most wonderful capitalistic republic known to man, and our lives would still suck without Jesus Christ (besides which, we would burn forever in the Lake of Fire).

This explains how we can live in a country which is the envy of all the world, where people will risk anything to live here; and yet, simultaneously, there are people within this nation who believe that we are a terrible nation. Despite the heaps of failures of socialism all around us, there is still a significant portion of our population who believe a more socialistic state is the direction in which we ought to go.

We live in the United States in a political system where voting is a right and a responsibility. Therefore, we ought to be reasonably informed and vote doctrinally. However, it is not our duty to be involved politically day-and-night (of course, some believers will be called into politics as believers are called into all walks of life). Politics are not the solution; and no political candidate is the solution. The politics of a nation are a result of the national thinking of the people and the attacks of Satan. As people know less and less about, they lean toward liberal politics more and more.

Spiritual maturity in the maximum number of believers ought to be our goal; and that means, we need to be far more mindful of our spiritual growth than of our political impact (and a parent needs to be mindful of the spiritual growth of his children as well). What happens politically in our country is a reflection of the spiritual growth (or lack thereof) of the believers in our country.

It is the same for missionaries in, say, Communist China. We certainly recognize that communism is evil and the political system in China is evil. However, it is not our responsibility to change their system, whether from afar or from within. It is the job of the missionary to plant the seeds of the gospel, and, ideally speaking, to establish local churches where indigenous pastors may proclaim both the gospel and the teaching of the Word of God. It is not up to the missionary to lead or to participate in political reform movements anywhere in the world. When Paul wrote that we ought to obey all higher authorities, he did not distinguish between good and bad governments, or establish a continuum of freedom versus tyranny, with some clearly demarcated point at which, you just start disobeying the government. Paul taught during a time when the Roman authorities would eventually seize him and the rest of the Apostles and execute them on phony, trumped-up charges. Yet, Paul urged us to obey the authorities God has put over us (Rom. 13:1–9).

At one time, Communist China persecuted and killed Christian believers. Now, although Christianity is not sanctioned or encouraged, it is tolerated in China. As a result, there has been growth in the number of believers in China; and, not surprisingly, an increase in free enterprise.

Just so you know, there is the Rahab-exception to patriotism, where a believer, in a nation about to be destroyed or severely damaged by God, can choose to affiliate oneself with a better nation (Joshua 2). This could not be used to justify treasonous behavior against the United States at this time, as it is one of the greatest nations on this earth in terms of being blessed by God. This is not the same thing as, flirting with communism and giving them great propaganda material (as Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam War) and then returning to the United States of America to enjoy great prosperity in our free enterprise system. Rahab the prostitute completely renounced her city-country, and would have faced death, had they been victorious over the Jews.

Capitalism, Greed and the Dishonesty of Liberalism

Liberalism characterizes capitalists as greedy; and, if a capitalist happens to be well-to-do, that is even more proof. It equates wealth with the love of money, which is the root of many kinds of evil (1Tim. 6:10). Greed is a sin, and greed is a manifestation of the sin nature. Having wealth does not make a person greedy; having one's own business does not make a person greedy; and being the CEO of some grand company does not make a person greedy. Making a lot of money as a movie star, as a Wall Street broker, or as a movie star does not make a person guilty of greed. A person can be greedy, whether they are flat broke, working class, middle class or in whatever financial classification you can come up with, because every person has a sin nature. Greed does not have to be satiated in order for it to exist.

The Bible describes the concept of greed in the Ten Commandments—it is covetousness, when used in a negative sense. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's." (Ex. 20:17). In the Hebrew, the word covet is châmad ( ) [pronounced khaw-MAHD] means to desire, to covet, to take pleasure in. It can be used in a negative sense, as we find here; and in a positive sense, as we find in Gen. 2:9, where the trees which God grew are pleasant to the sight. Pleasant is the Niphal (passive) participle of châmad. It is context which determines whether this word is used in a negative (Deut. 5:21 7:25) or positive (Daniel 9:23 10:11) sense.

What ought to be clear is, when you desire something which someone else owns, that is covetousness in the negative sense; that is greed. This greed is a part of the soul of someone who is less well off. One article I read used the example of our captains of industry and finance pulled in billions of dollars on the backs of most people.1 My understanding of what occurred is, some banks willingly took the money which the U.S. government offered them and some did not want to take it, but they were encouraged to take the government loans anyway, the idea being that, we did not want to clearly identify those banks which were weak. One could argue the point that, when you are being told by your President that you must take so much money as a loan, then that is not greed. It is also my understanding that nearly all of the TARP funds have been repaid, with interest, making this almost a non-issue.2

Now, many banks paid out large bonuses to their employees before the TARP money had been repaid, which, when it comes to optics, looked bad. At the same time, it is not necessarily greed that causes a person to take a bonus which is given him. How many of you have turned down a bonus, a raise or an extra perk? You may say, "Well, I worked for it;" and so did they. "But they make more money than I do." Lots of people do. "They make way more money than I do." Then change jobs and do what they do. Are some bankers greedy? Of course, as are some people who are janitors as are some people on welfare. When you have a strong desire for that which is not yours, that is greed. Making money, a lot or a little, is not greed. Accepting a bonus, a perk or a raise is not equivalent to greed.

Greed exists on all economic levels. Recently, there were thousands of people who descended on the capital steps of Madison, Wisconsin demanding that the terms of their union contracts with the government not be changed—these are public employee union members who had collective bargaining. What I saw—and I cannot look into their hearts—appeared to be greed to me. People on the outside may not know how this works, but most public union members understand how "collective bargaining" works for them. Dues are collected by the state on behalf of the union and given directly to the union—these dues are actually payments from taxpayers which go directly from government revenue into the pockets of the union. The union turns around and gives this money to certain politicians (I have heard the estimate that 95% of union money goes to Democrats). If these politicians get into office, they are the very same people who "collectively bargain" with the unions who, in a large part, financed their campaigns (unions, as collective entities, contribute more to political campaigns than any other entity3). So, the Democratic politician, who is supposed to stand up for the taxpayer in these negotiations, was both financed and elected by the very same people he is "collectively bargaining" with. In other words, he has a dog in this fight; if the unions like the end result, he will get more money in the future to be reelected.

Those in public unions know this, and they still go out and march for this legalized bribery to be continued. That sounds a lot like greed to me. They are greedy for money which the taxpayer pays into this rigged system. Under a democratic administration, there was virtually no one who stood up for the taxpayer in this collective bargaining ruse.

I am in the unique position to know people who are partially supported by the state, which pays for a portion of their food, clothing and shelter. These people know their limits, and many will not work additional hours if this means a decrease in benefits. Some will only work for under-the-table wages. They are greedy for money for which they have not worked. These are relatively poor people (they would be considered very rich in other nations). However, greed is not a matter of getting or not getting what you want; greed is the strong desire to have something which is not yours.

For every banker, stock broker or business owner that you can point out as being greedy, I can point out 100 people who are somewhere between poor and middle class who are equally as greedy. That is because greed is a human condition; it is not a condition which is dependent upon economic status.

Furthermore, for every rich person you can find who is undeniably greedy, I can find another business owner who is doing everything possible to keep his business going during this recession so that he (or she) does not have to lay off any employees. You may not realize this but, there are many business owners who make good money in good times; and, in bad times, agonize greatly over laying off a single employee. Many of these business owners make a lot of cutbacks in their own personal lives as well.

This is where liberals are particularly dishonest—they portray possession of wealth as being equivalent to greed. Compared to the rest of the world, most of us, even with middle class salaries and below, are in the top 5% in the world when it comes to wealth, disposable income and material possessions. If wealth is an indicator of greed, then almost all citizens of the United States would have to be counted as greedy, because of our relative wealth (all wealth is relative). However, what is actually the case is, people in the United States give more money out of their own pockets to charities of all sorts—no other country comes close to what Americans give as individuals. Conservatives, who are the ones accused of being the most greedy, give more money than do liberals (see addendum).

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

"You have your interpretation of the Bible and I have mine"

Liberals have gone through the Bible and have pulled out every verse that they could which seems to support liberalism. In many cases, this is simply propaganda. They don't really have any interest in Jesus Christ or in Who He really is or in the Bible.4 This has all come about because communism had a very difficult time getting a foothold in Catholic countries in South America. Then they discovered that the Bible had a lot to say which they could use, which set of verses have been used as the Biblical foundation for Liberation Theology. There are several problems with Catholicism, and one of them is, they don't know their Bible very well. So it is easy for men to enter in to their congregations and lead them astray, which describes what happened with Liberation Theology in South America and explains why, suddenly, so many countries there became communistic. For this reason, the propagandist could care less about what the Bible says, or whether they have done damage to the context when they lift out this or that verse. That is simply not an interest of theirs.

There are others who have given their lives and souls over to liberalism, and they came upon "Jesus is a liberal" as an email forward, or while they were browsing the internet, and they liked it and sent it to all of their friends. Like the propagandists, they do not have any real interest in Jesus Christ or in the Bible. However, everyone likes Jesus to be on their team, so they co-opt Him and His words, but they feel no reverence toward the things that Jesus said that are not supportive of their cause. In other words, their liberalism is first and foremost; and what Jesus says that seems to support their cause is fine; but what the Bible says and Who Jesus really is—those things are not really things the liberal is interested in (I realize that I am painting with a broad brush, but I think that this would be true of, say, 60–80% of all liberals who think that Jesus is a liberal).

Both sets of people—the propagandists and the liberals-first types—may say, "You have your interpretation and I have mine;" but, point of fact, they simply are not that interested in what the Bible really says. It is simply more ammunition for them to use against "Bible thumpers." These same people, in a different setting, will speak disparagingly about fundamentalist Christians, whom they indicate with some belittling vocatives like Bible thumpers, fundies, tea-baggers, etc.

However, there are a few who, perhaps due to a liberal inclination, came across these websites or this viewpoint, and simply accepted it because it went along with their predisposition. Some of these people actually have somewhat of an open mind, and are willing to listen. Certainly, at some point in time, when they have heard the 88th verse which indicates that Jesus is not a liberal, they may express their negative volition by saying, "Well, you have your interpretation of the Bible and I have mine." Most of the time, such people have their point of view, and they simply agree with the Bible when it seems to support their point of view, and disagree when it does not.

The Bible means what it means when taken in context. You cannot simply lift 3 or 4 verses out of context to make a point, if that point is contrary to the context of these verses you have chosen. It is important to note who the audience is; specifically, to whom Jesus is speaking. When Jesus says, "Judge not, lest you be judged;" was He speaking to a room filled with Roman judges, and was He telling them that they ought not to practice their profession? Was Jesus speaking to a group of interviewers in personnel, telling them that they ought not evaluate people who want to work for them, but just hire anyone who comes in the door? Or was He speaking on a more personal level, to individuals, admonishing them?

The words found in the Bible—particularly in the New Testament—have specific meanings which were clearly known at the time they were written or spoken. Today, when we hear the word peacemakers, we might think of Jimmy Carter going to the Middle East and trying to draw up a peace treaty between the Jews and the Egyptians; or we may think of the B–36 peacemaker. However, when interpreting the passage, Blessed are the peacemakers, it is worth our while to consider what this word means, and how the word peace is actually used in the Bible.

Finally, because the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot have internal contradictions. Therefore, if one passage says one thing and another passage seems to say something else, then we need to be able to sort that out, so that both passages have a reasonable meaning and are able to stand together. Sometimes, these passages are ironed out easily because they belong to different dispensations. For instance, Isa. 2:4 (He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore) is all about the Millennium. Joel 3:10 (Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say, "I am a warrior.") speaks of time and of the Tribulation.

Is Jesus a liberal? The big picture.

Liberals love to go to the dictionary and say, "The definition of a liberal is..." and they find some fairly nondescript definition, and then they match this up with something that Jesus said or did.
The Definition of a Liberal is...
Writer	Quotation
Gary Vance writes5	"Liberalism as defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary: 'a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life' "
Milt Hankins, in Giving Jesus was the consummate liberal, writes6	By classic definition, a liberal is one who is "favorable to progress or reform," "in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible," "free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant," "not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values," "characterized by generosity and willingness to give," among other treasured values. One needs look no further than the life of Jesus to discover the consummate liberal.
Rory M7 in Was Jesus a conservative or a liberal?	Liberalism: 1) a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually. based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard; 2) a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Conservatism: 1) disposition in politics to preserve what is established; 2) a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
Rory M's first definition of liberalism sounds pretty conservative to me.
I am not saying that this is an invalid approach; however, the things which liberalism supports is far more extensive than what is listed here under these definitions. Furthermore, many of the programs and philosophies that liberalism supports are clearly in contrast with Jesus, the Bible and Christianity in general.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

At one time, being liberal was synonymous with having and open mind and being willing to consider new ideas. In this day, liberalism often attacks different viewpoints and there are many examples of liberal audiences shutting down conservative speakers, particularly on college campuses.

One of the many dishonest lies from the left is that Jesus is a liberal. Now, I want you to take a little time and just think of the common liberal tenants—what liberals actually believe in—and see if this matches up with the Jesus of the Bible. They always present what they believe is their best foot forward: affordable healthcare for all; feeding school children, helping the poor and needy with government programs, etc. In fact, many just come right out and claim that Jesus was a socialist or a communist or, at the very least, the first anti-
authority hippie political activist.

Gary Vance writes: The labor movement of the early twentieth century was aided significantly when major Christian denominations got behind it. No average American would have a fair wage today if it weren't for liberal Christians and labor activists. Liberal Christians and civil rights activists fought and still fight against conservative America for racial equality. Child labor laws were enacted because liberals fought for them. Medicare and Social Security exist today because of Liberalism. "Bleeding heart liberals" have long advocated for the homeless, the hungry, the less fortunate, and the disenfranchised. The women of America owe liberals a big thank you for their almost equal rights. "Tree hugging liberals" fight for clean air and water standards instead of favoring industrial polluters and short term profiteering that destroy God's green earth.

Liberals believe in affordable health care for all U.S. citizens. They also believe in higher taxes for the rich and lower taxes for the middle class and the poor. Liberals love their spouses and children. Liberals faithfully attend their churches to worship God. Liberals love America and hate terrorism and have proved it by fighting in every war for this country. Liberals come in all shapes, sizes, and color. They are found in the ranks of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, agnostics, and atheists.8

Let's temporarily lay aside the self-serving and dishonest nature of that quotation, and note what is glossed over: socialists and communists kill more people in peacetime than any other sort of government does in war; they kill far more people than Hitler (and Hitler killed a lot of people; Hitler was a socialist, by the way). One tenant of liberalism, abortions for all (which, they call pro-choice), kills millions of unborn children—far more than are killed in war. These are simply the most obvious points. We will take them one-by-one in the text of this doctrine.

There are many liberal tenets that Jesus would be highly unlikely to support, even according to most liberals. Abortion, gay marriage, excessive taxation, premarital sex, and easily obtained divorces are several that most agree Jesus would not accept. Who is on the forefront of atheism, the removal of any vestige of religion connected to the state, including the singing of Christmas hymns in schools, removing the Ten Commandments from being near any judicial building, and removing crosses on public land? These are liberal causes which are not simply championed by a few far, far left-loons, but regularly brought into courts by liberals and supported by the majority of liberals. If they come across a liberal judge, then the law and historical precedent can be set aside in favor of their liberal interpretation of the separation of church and state.

There is a sleight of hand found in most of these articles. A reference will be made to a passage, e.g., Matt. 25:31–46, which reads: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." The writer will then use this to contrast greedy, profit-drive conservatives with kind-hearted, giving liberals. The sleight-of-hand is this: liberals vote for the government to take money away from the rich (the "greedy") and then government is in charge of distributing this money to the poor and the needy. They themselves do not want to be taxed (for the most part) in this regard. They themselves have been shown to be more parsimonious when it comes to giving. However, if they vote to take money from person A and give that money to person B, and call person A a greedy so-and-so9 as they cast their vote; that, they consider to be following what Jesus said. The context of Matt. 25 is completely ignored. Taking money out of their own pocket and giving that to the poor—which would find its support in the Matthew passage—is not really their thing. They want to take the money from your pocket and give to the poor.

By the way, you ought to notice the rationalization given by liberals. Liberals paint the rich often as greedy and as having too much money. The rich are villainized, so that it is much easier to tax them excessively (some to the point of ruining their businesses). After all, if someone is a villain, then who cares if the government destroys their life?

This is an illustration that I have heard Walt E. Williams give on several occasions: it's a cold winter night and there is this little old lady, out in the cold, and she is hungry and in need of medical attention. So, you take out a gun and rob the first person who goes by, and use the spoils of your robbery to buy this woman food and medical care—despite your "noble" motives, you are still stealing. Liberals don't do their stealing with a gun; they do it by voting; they vote to keep their own taxes low, but to raise the taxes of the evil, greedy rich—so that little old lady can get medical care and a hot meal. I don't care how you twist things around, both methods of appropriating money are stealing; and Jesus certainly was not advocating either approach.

Now, if liberals were inclined to tax everyone a straight 10, 20 or 30%, I might be more convinced that they have soft hearts for the poor and downtrodden. I would at least understand that they are willing to tax everyone, including themselves, for the common good. However, nearly 50% of Americans pay no taxes (according to this chart, the bottom 50% of earners pay only 3% of the taxes. .

If public unions said, 50% of our collected dues will be given to private charities, I might believe that these people have some truly noble motives; but that simply is not going to happen. We are supposed to see them as loving and giving and sympathetic simply because they vote for someone else to give to causes that they will not fund out of their own pockets.10

When government is put in charge of our medical care, feeding and educating our children, putting money aside for our retirement, and taking care of the poor, government tends to do a pretty lousy job.

As an aside, let's examine:
Why Government Does a Lousy Job
1.	If you believe in the Bible, or if you have common sense, you understand that greed is a failing of the soul, that both rich and poor people are greedy; and excessively taxing the wealthy does not cure them of their greed (assuming that they are greedy in the first place), it just separates them from some of their wealth, as well as, slowing down the economy, which affects thousands of those who make less money than the "rich."

2.	Since greed is a condition of the soul, when money is in the hands of an impersonal government to hand out, the result is great waste, fraud and abuse. Wal-Mart has a bottom line, and they cannot lose so much to stealing, waste or fraud, so they go to great lengths to prevent this from happening. However, when it comes to the government, there almost is no bottom line; you can always tax more. Furthermore, there are few if any safeguards in place to protect the waste of taxpayer money. Although I have not seen figures on this, I would guess that far more money, as a percentage, is burned up as waste and corruption when spent by the government, than what is taken in profit by a corporation.

3.	Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty began in the middle 1960's. In part, this has been the result: Government payouts-including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance-make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn't taken before the majority of Baby Boomers enter retirement. Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960.1

4.	I have known dozens of people in my lifetime who receive all or a portion of their income from the government, in exchange for which, they have done little or nothing. I am talking about young, healthy reasonably stable individuals who have figured out a way to get the government to cover their bills.

5.	This sort of thing destroys a society. Man was made to work. Adam worked in the garden when in perfect environment; and Adam worked outside of the Garden after the fall (Gen. 2:15 3:19). Paul told the Thessalonians, if one was unwilling to work, then he ought not to eat (2Thess. 3:10).

6.	Furthermore, government harms the souls of liberal Christians. When they see the poor, they may think it is the duty of government and not their duty, to do something about it. Therefore, the liberal tends to give less of his own money when it comes to charity (which studies have shown; and this is true apart from giving to one's church). Holding back when one sees a person in need may be just as easily classified as greed as anything that liberals classify as greed.

7.	A business, large or small, has to make money, or they go out of business. It is as simple as that. So a business is going to do everything it can to reign in theft, waste, fraud and abuse. However, there is almost no incentive for any federal organization to do the same thing. Therefore, such organizations as FNMA or FHLMC waste away hundreds of billions of dollars, at the hands of their managers and the politicians who empower and regulate them. The amount of money frittered away by these institutions make Enron look like a lemonade stand. A few people lost a lot of money because of Enron. The entire economy of the United States was put into jeopardy in part because of FNMA and FHLMC. And, of course, no one has gone to jail over this; and politicians continue to point their fingers at others for the recession our economy suffered.

8.	I write this in 2011. It is clear to almost any informed person that the great problem with our national debt is social security, medicare and medicaid. These are government-run programs, set up with the best of intentions, which are not properly funded, not properly run, and now threaten to bankrupt our country. The worst case scenario is, these government programs destroy our country economically

9.	One of the many problems with a government bureaucracy is, positions are given out as political favors. Have any of the heads of FNMA or FHLMC come out of the mortgage business? How about the watchdogs of the SEC? They were contacted on numerous occasions about Bernie Madoff from reputable people, and yet failed to act for the 2 or so decades he defrauded thousands of Americans. At the same time, SEC employees did manage to log in a lot of time watching pornography on the computer. I suspect that there is far less fraud in, say, Amazon or Ebay, even though there is no government agency providing oversight.

10.	Government programs and government agencies often cannot provide the services or changes which they portend to be able to do.

11.	Poverty is real, and Jesus promised us that it would continue until the end of this era (Matt. 26:11 Mark 14:7 John 12:8). Government cannot solve this problem and its attempts to do so could send this nation into another Great Depression.

12.	Furthermore, it is good for the soul of liberals and conservatives to donate money out of their own pocket—money that they have worked hard for—in order to alleviate the pain and suffering of the poor in their periphery (Mark 14:7).

13.	It is good for the soul of the poor person to work long hours doing hard work to get ahead in life.

14.	The government hurts the souls of those who are poor and the souls of those who ought to be giving money and time to alleviate the pain and suffering of others.

15.	The greatest problem of government to the liberal is, the liberal tries to make the government into God and to try to make government take care of all the things that they do not want to take care of. In this regard, the liberal also looks to he government, rather than to God, to fulfill his needs (or the needs of others). He looks to the government to take care of things that he ought to take care of on his own (retirement, medical care, charity).

16.	As a result, the government nearly always does an inefficient job, often making the problems it is supposed to solve, much worse.

17.	This also gives people the false security that, since they have paid into something for so long, that they ought to be entitled to it years down the road. Government does not work that way. This money collected by the government is not invested, put aside, or placed into some sort of a lockbox. This money is spend as fast as it comes in, and if, 20 years down the road, that program is out of money, too bad, so sad.

18.	Because of our great debt, it is possible that we will see our government be unable to meet some of its obligations, whether it is payment on our debt or fulfillment of the promises to the rapidly aging baby boomers and their needs in their old age.
1 From http://www.cnbc.com/id/41969508 accessed March 10, 2011.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

There is another act of dishonesty here as well: most of these liberals who post an article like "Jesus is a Liberal" show no real interest in the Bible or in Jesus. If you scour their website, you may, from time to time, come upon this or that blurb connecting Jesus to liberalism; but you do not find, generally speaking, any reverence for the Bible or any reverence towards Jesus Christ; nor does there appear to be any in interest in Jesus Christ or the Bible. In most cases, no where else on this website will you have any indication that the Bible is authoritative or that what Jesus taught is authoritative. Similarly, such websites rarely11 contain the gospel message (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) or any personal testimony about the website creator's religious views. Nor will you find links to Bible translations, Bible commentaries, or anything to do with spiritual growth.

My point is, such a person who posts an article, like "Jesus is a liberal;" usually has little or no interest in the Bible and certainly no interest in obeying the mandates of the Bible. For all intents and purposes, these little essays are about 2 things: (1) They are designed to propagandize Christians; and (2) people have this weird obsession to show that Jesus agrees with them or that Jesus is somehow, in some way, like them. They don't do this with Buddha or with Mohammed; they occasionally do this with the founding fathers; but such people have this or that issue (or set of issues), and, sometimes out of nowhere, they will throw in, "And if Jesus were around right now, He'd support this same cause." Essentially, what such a person is doing is, co-opting Jesus and making God in his own image. So, the next time you read some article about global warming, and somewhere in the article, we are informed that Jesus was the first environmentalist, you understand where this person is coming from.

People who post such articles often reveal a tremendous amount of self-
righteousness. Gary Vance writes: The critics of the essay are offended by the idea that liberal Democrats might have a superior ideology. Especially when it comes to some social issues that have spiritual and moral implications.12 He also indicates, possibly not intending to do so, that conservatives are misled into conservatism because, well, to put it bluntly, they just aren't very bright and are easily led astray. He writes: Sadly, good Christians have been herded into the Republican camp by preachers, false prophets, and political hucksters who utilize a few hot button issues to capture their allegiance.13 Concerning the policies of President George W. Bush, he writes: Every move is for the benefit of the rich at all costs. The whole planet and all of heaven looks on and sees this perverted expression of Christianity and are repulsed by it.14 So, if you are a conservative, you are morally inferior to liberals and you probably came to those views because you are not very bright and herd-bound or you are just rich and you want to preserve your wealth at all costs.

Such liberals often have completely lost sight of Who Jesus is and Why He came to this earth. Paul, of the "Jesus is a Liberal" website writes: Our Mission is to promote the Integral Koan (TM), holistic meme, and the original belief and understanding that Jesus IS a Liberal, and to their very core His teachings outline a Liberal, Progressive, Tolerant, Loving, open minded, holistic, and sustainable vision for our World.15 Jesus is not the God-man, the Savior of all mankind; he is just one of many religious leaders who was fundamentally a liberal, according to Paul (website Paul, not the Apostle Paul).

Satan has been a liar from the beginning, and therefore, we ought to expect out right lies, lies of omission, and lies of distortion to be found to support Satan's world view.
"You are of your father, the devil."
1.	The very first thing that Satan said in the Bible was a lie. When in the form of a serpent, speaking to the woman (Eve), he told her: "You certainly will not die [from eating the forbidden fruit]. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:4b–5).

2.	This is why Jesus said of Satan: "He is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44b).

3.	A child often has the nature of his father. When speaking to some Jews who were hostile to Jesus, He told them: "I speak of what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." (John 8:38). This explains why people hated Jesus, lied about Him and wanted to kill Him. Jesus told them: "You are doing the works your father did." (John 8:41a).

4.	Most of the people who write and post these "Jesus is a liberal" articles know that there are serious problems with the content of their articles. They are liars, like their father the devil.

5.	The other option is, they are willfully ignorant, and just post these articles, although they know very little about the Bible and do not find it to be authoritative, anyway.

6.	In many of Jesus' parables, He speaks of the children of the kingdom versus the children of the evil one (e.g., Matt. 13:38). Again, the theme is, Satan is a liar and a murderer, and his children—those who do not believe in Jesus Christ—bear the character flaws of their father.

7.	Early on in the Christian era, it became clear that false teachers (prophets and apostles) would arise and teach another Jesus. 2Cor. 11:4

8.	Such false teachers would go so far as to deny the Lord Who bought them. Sometime, if you come across one of these people who posts an article like "Jesus is a liberal;" email them and ask them if they believe in Jesus Christ. Do they believe that He is the Son of God who has died for their sins? More often than not, they will deny the Lord Who bought them, while they attempt to introduce destructive heresies. Their interest is not the truth (Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life); their interest is pushing a liberal agenda. 2Peter 2:1

9.	Just as Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, so are there false apostles who disguise themselves as apostles of Christ. Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds 2Cor. 11:13–15

10.	There are many deviations of the truth. I do not mean to imply that liberalism is the only false system of lies; there are many. However, liberalism is the topic of this doctrine.

11.	Because liberalism is Satanic, we would expect many liberal arguments to be laced with lies—that is simply how Satan works.
One example of liberal lying is about abortion. Liberals often claim that abortions are needed because of incest and rape. However, abortions based upon these reasons make up 1–3% of the abortions performed. Most abortions performed are after-the-fact birth control abortions.
It is important to note that there are many people alive today who were the result of an incestuous relationship or a rape, many of whom are glad to be given the opportunity of being alive (one is a speaker who goes out and speaks against abortion and against promiscuity, whose father was a rapist). You would be hard-pressed to go out and find a person who was a product of a rape, for instance, and for that person to say, "Yeah, wish I had been aborted."
Present-day advocates present their vision as being the humanitarian approach; "sharing the wealth" with those who less fortunate than ourselves. As we will see, their idea of sharing, is to tax someone else and take that money and give it to people they think should get it. Our President16 used the phrase "spread the wealth around," and certainly meant it, and yet, the smallest amount of money from him could make a difference in the life of his half-brother in Kenya—and yet, insofar a I know, President Obama has never reached out a helping hand to his own half-brother. To be accurate, what Obama should have said is, "sharing your wealth." As will be discussed in greater detail, giving someone who does not work enough money to live on simply encourages him to be unproductive.
Another example of lying is simply inaccurate pronouncements, upon which the rest of one's viewpoints are based. Carl Gobelman, who is not a liberal, but a somewhat confused believer, writes: The first thing I would like to point out that in and of themselves, capitalism and socialism are morally neutral. They are two diametrically opposed economic systems that determine who controls the means of production (i.e., things used by human laborers to create products; such as tools, factories, infrastructure, natural resources and raw materials). In capitalism, the means of production are privately owned; whereas in socialism, the means of production are owned by the state (i.e., government). Therefore, the difference between the two is not a difference between good vs. evil, or right vs. wrong, but private vs. public.17 Obviously, if the Bible speaks to these concepts—which is does—then there is a reasonable chance that we can make some reasonable moral pronouncements concerning socialism and capitalism.
Another example of liberal dishonesty is the arguments for gay marriage. There are many dramatic differences between gay relationships and heterosexual marriages, some of them being:

•	A heterosexual relationship can produce a child, either intentionally or unintentionally, and marriage often provides a protection for the mother and child. There is no such thing as an accidental child in a homosexual relationship (unless the woman in a lesbian relationship cheats).

•	Men and women are fundamentally different, and only a marriage uniquely unites them.

•	There is nothing like the mother-son, mother-daughter, father-son, and father-
daughter relationships. These are unique relationships which cannot all be duplicated in any homosexual union. My own relationship to my mother and to my father were unique experiences, both equally important in my formation. Each individually and collectively imparted information from their gender. My mother remains, to this day, the most important and influential woman in my life; and my father, to this day, remains the more important and influential man in my life. This is normal for most people.

•	Fidelity is dramatically important in a heterosexual marriage; but not so much with a homosexual relationship.

•	It is possible, and once the norm, for 2 heterosexual people to marry and to have had sex with no other person ever. In a considerable number of cases, not even with one another prior to their wedding night. This still occurs, but not as often as it ought to.

•	Mutual gay virginity in a "permanent" relationship is virtually unknown.

•	Virtually every "right" a gay couple desires can be found either in a domestic partnership or in a legal document.

•	Finally, and most importantly, gay marriage is not the end game for gay activists. Gay marriage will provide a legal foothold from which gays will be able to upend society. We have many examples of this throughout the world. Gays tend to be very litigious people, and go after their perceived enemies in the courts (like the boy scouts, like businesses that they do not see as gay-friendly, and various local churches).

Yet, gays try to present gay relationships as being almost exactly like straight ones, and that marriage is something which most gays believe to be a moral imperative, even though faithfulness in such a relationship is not. That is dishonest.
Let's take a purely political example of liberal lying. Have you ever discussed our debt and deficit with a liberal? Most have little or no problems with the Obama deficit, which is over 3x the largest Bush deficit (under a Democratic Congress); but they will still rail about the Bush deficit, if given half a chance. That is simply dishonest. Most conservatives do not care for deficits, whether Bush or Obama signed the final budget.
I write this at a time that we are over 2 years into the Obama administration, and I have recently heard a liberal make the argument that Democrats are fiscally responsible, and they point to President Bill Clinton as proof. I have never seen a liberal admit that maybe a Republican Congress had something to do with balancing our budget under Clinton.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

Liberals make many unsubstantiated statements, which they take as maxims of their liberal creed. Gary Vance writes: Current policies of the Republican Party are pushing citizens into poverty faster than in any other time in modern history.18 And, in reference to President George W. Bush: The current president is the first to politicize his claimed faith to such a great extent.19 Or, in reference to the spiritual condition of those in the Republican party: They embrace the little baby Jesus at Christmas and the dying and resurrected Christ at Easter, but give little thought to the life and teachings of Jesus in between.20 Concerning the political Jesus today: The liberal Jesus challenged the rich to be generous with the poor. The liberal Jesus would much rather have the Beatitudes considered and embraced than public displays of the Ten Commandments. The liberal Jesus would not be arguing for the inclusion of God in the pledge of allegiance because He would find the whole concept of the pledge to be a shallow form of idolatry. The liberal Jesus is just as concerned for the welfare of the born as the unborn. The liberal Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which was Caesars when questioned about taxation.21 At least here, on the same page as this quote, this author references liberal efforts to remove God from our pledge and public displays of the Ten Commandments.

Let me give some examples of various places where I found articles about Jesus being a liberal posted. For most of them, apart from that posted article, one does not find any interest in or reverence toward Jesus Christ or the Bible (which is the source for all of their "proof" quotations).
Examples of Their Lack of Interest in the Bible
Website	Web Address	Article/Website Content
Common Dreams	http://www.commo
ndreams.org/	Wasn't Jesus A Liberal? (Parts I and II). The second essay is almost all typical liberal rant, with few genuine references to the Bible. Most of the last half of this second essay degenerates into a typical liberal anti-Bush rant (aka, Bush Derangement Syndrome).

This website is all about liberal ideology. Even in their multifarious links at the bottom of the page, none of them is the link to a Bible-related website.
Jesus is a Liberal	http://www.jesusis
aliberal.com/	Although this site has many links to quasi-
religious organizations (like Unitarian Universalists and Religious Tolerance), most of these religious sites favor anything but a literal interpretation of the Bible. They have a liberal belief system, and accept the Bible only insofar as it agrees with them. Many of the links go to anti-George Bush, political sites. None of the links lead you to, say, this or that translation of the Bible or to a place where you might have information strictly about the Bible.
John Dear's website	http://www.johnde
ar.org/	John Dear is a Jesuit priest, and he has links to all of his articles, speeches and sermons, as well as how to buy his books. However, his links are all about "peace and justice." None of them were about salvation, Jesus (except as a Gandhi figure) or Bible study. If you wanted to know how to be saved, you would not go to this website. On his list of his articles, Jesus is named 8 times and Gandhi is named 5. None of the articles that I read had anything to do about being saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

Here is a word cloud from John Dear's page. Do you see the words salvation or Bible? Perhaps he is preaching another Jesus?
Ray Dubuque's websites	http://liberalslikec
hrist.org/LLC_Mast
erMenu.htm	Liberals like Christ is one of his many websites. Dubuque is a busy guy, and there are a number of essays on this site; however, I did not find the gospel message anywhere, nor did I find links to Bible translations or to good Bible studies.
There are exceptions to this. Mitt Hankins refers to himself as a retired minister, theologian and freelance writer. There is an entire website devoted to Jesus is a liberal; I don't know if the author died or ran out of steam. I have found the content of the Bible to be virtually endless. Many of the articles at this site have a religious flavor to them; but this is a limited opinion which must ignore about 95% of the Bible.
Another exception, already alluded to, is the Christian Left website, where the gospel is given, and Jesus is spoken of prominently.
On the other hand, websites which touted capitalism as Jesus' preferred economic system often had links to Bible translations, various Bible sites, or statements like: I am a sinner saved by the grace of a sovereign God. I am a husband of one, a father of three, and a student at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, IN.22

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

Here are some examples of liberal websites which appear to have an interest in the Bible.
Examples of Liberal Websites that Exhibit some Interest in the Bible
Website	Web Address	Article/Website Content
The Christian Left	http://www.thechris
tianleft.org/	Although this website asserts that Jesus is a liberal, there is a clear gospel message at the bottom of the page.
The Straight and Narrow	http://www.straight
notnarrow.blogspot
.com/	This is an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Trans-gendered religious website). They do seem to have a genuine interest in the Bible.
Religious Tolerance	http://www.religiou
stolerance.org/	This is a very liberal site, and I did not find anything there by way of free and open discussion; but I did find detailed essays which, for the most part, attempt to give a liberal interpretation to what is found in the Bible. Essays are allowed, but they warn that they will reject any essay which "we feel exhibit hatred against others on the basis of their gender, race, skin color, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, etc." In other words, you cannot submit an essay on what the Bible says about homosexuality, because that would violate their policy. So, their policy comes first, which would reduce alternative opinions.
I only found these 3. I am sure that there are more.

Again, my point is, liberals who incorporate Jesus into their teachings intentionally misinform their readers or are willfully ignorant themselves. Furthermore, it is clear that, they do not have a strong and powerful interest in Jesus or in the Bible; they instead want to co-opt Jesus and ignore that which is not agreeable to them.

It is typical for such websites to lack links to Bible translations or Bible studies.

Just as Satan is the father of lies, they are of their father, the devil.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

The Specific Teachings of Jesus

This is the meat of this doctrine. Everything up to this point is introduction.

It is common for the same two-dozen verses to be trotted out again and again by liberals, with the conclusion, Jesus was a liberal.

The Jesus is a Liberal website23 provides a good set of passages which supposedly link our Lord to liberal thinking. In most cases, the first paragraph of each section, highlighted in yellow, is taken directly from this website. However, I also took points from other liberal sites as well.

Peacemaking, not War Making: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9] Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39] I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]

Various writers and speakers have used the term culture of war in order to describe those evil people who seemingly love war. John Dear writes: Last September, I spoke to some 2,000 students during their annual lecture at a Baptist college in Pennsylvania. After a short prayer service for peace centered on the Beatitudes, I took the stage and got right to the point. "Now let me get this straight," I said. "Jesus says, `Blessed are the peacemakers,' which means he does not say, `Blessed are the warmakers,' which means, the warmakers are not blessed, which means warmakers are cursed, which means, if you want to follow the nonviolent Jesus you have to work for peace, which means, we all have to resist this horrific, evil war on the people of Iraq." 24

For some reason, the liberal turns a blind eye to what led up to Iraq and to what actually went on in Iraq. If U.S. soldiers have perpetrated a horrific, evil war on the people of Iraq, then how is it that Iraqi police and soldiers are fighting side-by-side American soldiers? How is it that, there are more schools there than ever before? How is it that, at the time that I write this (1012), there are revolutions occurring in nearly every Middle East country except Iraq and Afghanistan? For some reason, for people on the left, it is okay that a national ruler slaughters hundreds of thousands of his own people (as Saddam Hussein did), but if the United States goes into Iraq to depose such a man and to give the people freedom and democracy (as we did in Japan and South Korea), that is somehow perpetrating an horrific, evil war on the people.

Like many liberals, John Dear ignores the fact that war was used in the Old Testament in order to achieve peace; and that such an approach is necessary today.

John Dear also wrote, in an open letter to President Bush: I am writing to you to ask you to stop immediately the bombing of Afghanistan, to stop your preparations for other wars, to cut the Pentagon's budget drastically, not increase it; to lift the sanctions on Iraq, end military aid to Israel, stop U.S. support of the occupation of the Palestinians, lift the entire third world debt, dismantle every one of our nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, abandon your Star Wars Missile Shield plans, join the world court and international law, and close our own terrorist training camps, beginning with Fort Benning's School of the Americas.25

This has to be the most idiotic foreign policy advice I have ever heard. It is our nuclear weapons which have deterred our enemies since the end of World War II, and the reason that our wars with China and Russia have been confined to low-level proxy wars. They have the bomb. If we chose to remove our own nuclear weapons and all deterrents to attack, does John Dear actually think the conquering of the United States would be far off?

The Sermon on the Mount is one of the most distorted portions of the Bible, and what is distorted to begin with is the word peacemaker, which is the adjective eirênopoios ( ) [pronounced i-ray-nop-oy-OSS] which means, peacemaker, one who makes [brings about] peace. Strong's #1518. Now, although a case could certainly be made for a person who makes peace between various people who are at odds with one another, this approach is not in keeping with the use of this word in secular literature. This word is used in the literature of that day to refer to a strong ruler, who brings about peace through his strength (which would include the willingness to use his army). So, if one wished to give a secular meaning to this word, having this refer to a secular ruler who keeps the peace through his military and police force is far more reasonable than someone who gathers the leaders of 2 nations and gets them to sign a temporary peace treaty.

However, it seems more likely, given the entire context, that this refers to one who helps to establish peace between man and God. Happinesses to the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God (Matt. 5:9). We do know what a son of God is; You are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26). Given that Jesus is speaking specifically to His disciples (Matt. 5:1), who will be taking the gospel message to the entire world (Matt. 28:19 Mark 16:15), it is most reasonable to assume that Jesus is speaking to a person who reveals the gospel of Jesus Christ to another, which gives them the path to peace with God (Rom. 5:1). That is the way that we ought to understand the word peacemaker.

The Bible often speaks of having peace in one's soul, regardless of the variety of circumstances (Philip. 4:7 2Peter 1:2 2John 1:3). However, this is not someone thing that one person can impart to another (except a pastor teaching his congregation). So, interpreting this as peace in the soul, would put Bible teachers as being blessed for being peacemakers.

The Biblical term peace is also used to indicate lawfulness and stability within a society. In that day and age, one might call the Roman soldier a peacekeeper, because he preserved the peace within a Roman entity. Today, this would be policemen and soldiers.

Pax Romana, a designation of the Roman empire, means Roman peace; and the very liberal Wikipedia writes Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman peace") was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.26 Those who made the peace here would have been the Roman military; those who would have kept the peace would have been policemen, which, in that day, would have been soldiers. Knowing this, how can a theologian call for the reduction of the Pentagon, which is the brains of American peacekeepers around the world?

A very modern example would be what we did in Japan in the late 1940's and early 1950's. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, they surrendered unconditionally, and then we guided them, by means of Douglas MacArthur, to restoring their own national sovereignty, independence and alliance with the United States, their former enemy. This entire process was an act of peacemaking, which included Christian evangelism (which Douglas MacArthur called for on several occasions). Liberals call this nation-building, but it was a good investment of our dollars to develop such a strong ally in Asia. Japan is now one of our greatest allies in Asia, and this was a result of military force coupled with American military leadership in Japan after WWII.

We similarly fought on the side of the South Koreans and achieved peace and stability between them and North Korea. Although our military was never happy with the result, which was essentially a draw in this war; North Korea and South Korea stand side-by-side in stark contrast to communism and atheism versus capitalism and Christianity. There is an excellent comparison of the two nations here:

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/index.html

These interpretations of peacemakers are all reasonable, and in keeping with the context of that day (something liberals have no interest in). However, somehow interpreting this word peacemaker as meaning a person who wants peace at any price and to withdraw all soldiers from this or that theater or war, is simply wrong. If anything, this is capitulation to communist propaganda.

First of all, withdrawing American soldiers does not bring peace to any part of the world. When American soldiers are withdrawn from a theater of war, where no victory was established, the result is often a great slaughter (we still have soldiers in Germany and in South Korea). American withdrawal from Vietnam comes to mind, after which millions of people, citizens and soldiers alike, were killed by the communists. If this withdrawal is viewed as an act of peacemaking, then your concept of peace is quite warped indeed. If peace to you means, you kill (or starve or re-educate) everyone who disagrees with you, I find it hard to imagine that you can somehow connect this to Jesus Christ.

When the war in Vietnam was defunded and our soldiers were suddenly withdrawn from Vietnam. There was celebration among the millions of leftists who believed that they had a hand in this. However, in Vietnam and Laos, 2–3 million people were slaughtered in the streets like dogs in just a few years—far more than had died in the decade that Vietnam was a war zone. So, the idea that withdrawing our soldiers from Vietnam was a good thing and that it brought peace, and that somehow, Jesus is talking about things like this, indicates no knowledge of the horrors which occurred in Vietnam after our withdrawal; and a desire to twist Scripture to say and mean something which cannot be supported by the context or by the words which are used. If you believe that what the communist soldiers did after we withdrew from Vietnam was a good thing and somehow related to Jesus saying happinesses to peacemakers, who caused this to happen—then you might as well stop reading this now—there is no way that you can be convinced.

I have even read of people who blame the United States for the communists killing millions of people after the U.S. military left Vietnam.

Our sudden departure from Vietnam was one of the saddest events of human history, and it did not establish peace, but caused the North Vietnamese to become much more concentrated in their effort to destroy the South Vietnamese resistence. A key part of the establishment of socialism or communism typically involves the destruction of millions of lives, in one way or another. Yet, thousands of liberals will claim, without any real evidence, that Jesus is a socialist, despite the fact that the imposition of socialism often involves the killing of millions of innocents.

Chart from:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wmH-1rT4G3U/Tpws32HG9II/AAAAAAAAGdc/qyeS1xZF_G0/s1600/which
_dictator_killed_the_most_people.jpg accessed April 6, 2014.

As an aside, for many on the left, if they don't see something happening, then it does not concern them. Communists, socialists and other dictatorships do not generally bring in news crews to film how they deal with their opposition. So, because there is no news footage of what happened in South Vietnam after the American soldiers left, many on the left still see that as some great victory for peace. Because we did not see films of Saddam Hussein's killing spree in his own country and in Kuwait, we tend to minimize what he did, as compared sending American forces into Iraq to change the destiny of Iraq. We saw footage of U.S. present in Iraq night after night (until President Obama was elected), and this offended many on the left. Two years into the Obama administration, and the left's outrage over Iraq and Afghanistan seems to have subsided, for the most part. And, of course, the news no longer begins with the latest explosion to come out of that area (as was typical during the Bush years). Again, the left seems to remain blissfully happy if they don't actually see what happens.

The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21; Deut. 5:17]

The Hebrew being quoted actually means, "You will not murder." (Deut. 5:17). To think that this somehow means that there ought not to be any killing whatsoever, is absolutely silly, and ignores the rest of the Bible. The Ten Commandments were first spoken to the people of Israel in Ex. 20. In Ex. 21, there is a requirement for the state to use the death penalty for various infractions of the Law (Ex. 21:12–17). The same God Who said, "You will not murder" in Ex. 20 also instituted the death penalty for murder (Gen. 9:6 Ex. 21:12). Therefore, the idea that Jesus did not support the death penalty is absolutely foolish. In this same Sermon on the Mount, Jesus also said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt. 5:17–18). If Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, then He certainly did not come to abolish capital punishment, which is a part of the law. Paul later wrote, in Rom. 13:3–4 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. What is God's wrath against a murderer? Capital punishment! Ex. 21:12!

Furthermore, as is often the case with liberals and Bible verses, the commandment You will not murder is taken completely out of context. Jesus is saying, in this context, that anger and/or hatred in the soul is a form of murder (Matt. 5:21–22). I cannot tell you how many liberals hold to this idea that we ought not to kill for any reason, and yet will heap huge amounts of scorn, anger and bitterness upon George Bush and Sarah Palin. The same people will quote this verse with this beatific look on their faces, and then, later send you some email with the most vile expression of hatred toward this or that Republican. When they express or send along someone else's email which express hatred toward George Bush or towards Sarah Palin, this is murder, according to Jesus Christ. One of the essays which I read when doing this study, was nothing but a vapid rant against George Bush, with a few Bible verses thrown in and misapplied.

This verse cannot be twisted into saying, there ought to be no killing in war. The same God who said, "You will not murder;" also set up the death penalty for certain offenses in the following chapter. That very same God taught King David to fight in war (Psalm 18:34 144:1). If God is against all war and all murder, why does He teach David to fight? Why does Paul support obedience to national rulers, even when these rulers are pagan? If Jesus is against war, why, when He spoke with the centurion, did Jesus not go on a verbal rant against war and warfare?

Furthermore, this is the same God also instituted an offensive war against the Canaanites. In some cases, entire cities of Canaanites would be completely and thoroughly destroyed, at God's orders (see the Book of Joshua).

To sum up: Thou shalt not kill really means You will not murder. Despite what liberals say, capital punishment and military actions are not murder, but actually condoned by God. Furthermore, hatred—the kind of hatred expressed by liberals toward, say, Sarah Palin—is taught by Jesus to be equivalent to murder. However, I have yet to come across a "Jesus is a liberal" website where liberals are encouraged to end their vicious rhetoric against conservatives. In most cases, one can find that same rhetoric at such a website, or, at the very least, links from that website to such hateful language.

Surprisingly, liberals are generally pro-choice, which position results in the killing of millions of unborn babies. Somehow, they are able to take the position that, maybe we ought not kill vicious convicted criminals but that it is okay to destroy the life within the woman's body, because that is her choice. This is so mixed up, I can barely understand it. However, if we simply remove religion from the picture and take a position from science. What is in the womb is 100% human and it is uniquely human. It may be dependent upon the mother, but all children are completely dependent upon the parents for the first several years of their lives. That does not make them fair game for being murdered by their parents.

Since abortion was made legal in 1973, we've killed over 50 million unborn children (more than we have killed in all of our wars combined). Is this a legacy you want to stand on as a liberal? Do you really and truly believe that Jesus is all for this? And don't try to make arguments based upon incest and rape. That accounts for maybe 1% of all abortions. Most abortions are all about retroactive birth control; nothing more, and nothing less. A baby would be inconvenient, so, let's kill it. Somehow, you really believe that is the moral high road?

Now, one can take a theological position that an unborn baby is not fully human until taking its first breath of air; but that is a theological position and not a scientific one. Do liberals believe that our laws should be based upon theological positions? Of course not! And personally, even though many Christians (including me) hold to this theological position, that does not mean that we ought to disrespect the process that God set into motion. That is, that life in the womb is on its way to becoming human life. Since this is the process by which God brings human life into the world, then we ought to respect this process.

Now, if abortion is an issue that you are unsure about, don't you think you ought to err on the side of life? You may say, "Well, I think there ought to be fewer abortions;" but what does that mean, as millions of children are killed each and every year? Just taking such a position that abortions ought to be rare means pretty much nothing, if the number of abortions continues at some a staggering rate. Furthermore, if you think the number of abortions ought to be fewer, why? If this is just some piece of meaningless tissue, then why shouldn't we be totally unfazed by millions of abortion deaths each year? An abortion is either a meaningful death on some level or it is not. Being pro-choice and, simultaneously saying, "We ought to have fewer abortions" makes very little sense. Awhile ago, some tried to celebrate the idea of having an abortion with tee shirts or ribbons or some damn thing. Obviously, that did not catch on like they expected it to. You know why? Because the woman who would wear such a testimony has just killed her own baby. Hard to be proud of that, no matter where you stand on the pro-life/pro-choice issue. That is something that very few people want to brag about. A woman might say that she is pro-
choice; but rarely would she add, "And I ought to know; I consented to killing 3 fetuses that I carried."

The most glaring example of liberal dishonesty is, abortion, where we have killed far more babies in the United States through abortion than in all of our wars combined. Somehow, that is okay. And I have already discussed the science of this. This is not a religious argument that I am offering up here. We know for a scientific fact that what is in the womb is fully human, from a biological standpoint, and not just some cyst growing inside of the mother. That latter concept is completely anti-science.

In summation, the idea that "You will not kill" applies in every circumstance, except with regards to a child in the womb, is certainly not the position that Jesus took; nor is it the position of the Bible; nor can this position be supported logically or scientifically.

Anti-War; Anti-Military: Thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21; Deut. 5:17] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9]

Because people have not studied the Bible, they somehow think that Jesus or the Bible is anti-war or anti-military. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, Jesus told us that there would be wars and rumors of wars until He returned (the rapture and the 2nd advent) (Matt. 24:6). Secondly, the military is always spoken of highly, and several heroes of the Bible are military men (Moses, Joshua, the heroes of the book of Judges, David). Whereas, there is no list in the Bible of the great pacifists, there is a list of the great military men who served under David (2Sam. 23). If you know anything about the Bible, you know that the highest compliment that Jesus paid to anyone was to a Roman soldier in Matt. 8:5–10. Jesus did not append His comments with, "And, if you desire to be perfect, you will put down your sword and follow Me." Furthermore, if you recall the verse, "And your sin will find you out." Look it up sometime; it is all about being a pacifist and not going to war, when others of your nation are going to war.

Conservatives do not desire to go to war; nor do they look for every opportunity to go to war. However, they recognize war as being a part of life that cannot be removed from life. We may enjoy part of a generation without war, but even that is rare. Liberals seem to think that, by withdrawing our soldiers from wherever, that we will (1) save money and (2) stop war. It is our soldiers who have been parked in Germany and South Korea, along with our missile defense system, which has preserved the peace in much of Europe and that portion of Asia. In case you do not understand macro-economics, when massive war breaks out anywhere, that costs money, whether we are involved or not. I write this in early 2011 when much of the Middle East is in turmoil. This has hiked up our gas prices considerably, and there is no indication that it will end anytime soon. My point is, if you treat war as something that you can sort of wish away or get out of by using "tough diplomacy," you are only fooling yourself. In the past 100 years, during what year was there peace throughout the world? Never! At any given time, there are 5–60 (and more) wars going on throughout the world. This is the way the world is. Jesus promised us: "There will be wars and rumors of wars until I return." (Matt. 24:6). If you study the map of Wars in the World, you will notice that wars tend to happen where there is very little American influence (that is, very few American soldiers).

General George S. Patton knew more about this topic than many of the theologians in his time. He once said: "These pulpit killers [a reference to preachers to false preach pacifism, which results in the death of many] that go around saying that the Bible says that man dare not kill causes the death of many thousands of good soldiers. Damn little those pulpit killers know about the Bible. They know even less about the way God works. They should read all of the Bible, not just the part they like! God never hesitated to kill. God never hesitates to kill when one man or any race of man needed to be punished. God helped David kill Goliath, didn't He? How about Noah and the Ark? All of the rest of the people were killed in the flood! God took the blame for this mass murder. How about the Red Sea which opened up long enough for one race to escape and another race to be killed. Don't talk to me about God not permitting man to kill. War means that we have to kill people. That's all there is to it. It is a sin not to kill if we are serving on God's side. There is no other way to win. Wars must be won for God's sake. He has a part in every war! The quicker we can kill the enemy, the quicker we can go home and listen to the pulpit killers tell us what we did wrong. If it wasn't for us, those pulpit idiots would be shot for standing in their own pulpits. Our task is to kill the enemy before we are killed." See General Patton on Pacifism and Preaching Pacifism from the Pulpit in the Addendum.

Let me get back to the overall topic, which is, whether Jesus is a liberal or not. When it comes to understanding what Jesus said, let me make the point that, this is not a simple matter of interpretation—that is, you interpret it one way, and I interpret it another. I have given context to this verse, and have presented other passages which clearly modify the distorted meaning that liberals give to this edited portion of the verse. I could have gone back to the Greek and Hebrew and done a thorough study, but I don't believe that is necessary. When you read the rest of what Jesus says, then it is clear that this is not a prohibition of killing under any and all circumstances (with the exception of unborn children). The liberal who takes that position clearly has no idea what is in the rest of the Bible, or, more than likely, chooses to ignore the rest of the Bible. Note how this verse was quoted, ignoring the point that Jesus was making. That is an intentional distortion of the Word of God.

Now, let me give you examples where leftists are very hypocritical about Thou shalt not kill. When they march in the streets against this or that politician, they will compare that politician to Hitler (both sides do this), but they never compare that politician to Stalin or Mao, who killed far more people than Hitler did. These leftists threw a royal fit over the U.S. going into Iraq, but the alternatives were (1) allow Saddam Hussein to continue killing his own people by the thousands or (2) once we had deposed Hussein, then we should have left and allowed the people to determine their own government (which would have been chaotic and far bloodier). Their alternatives mean more killing and more deaths; but liberals are fine with that. How does this even make sense?

Nonviolence: John Dear, retired Jesuit priest, writes: Every religion, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, is rooted in nonviolence, but I submit that the only thing we know for sure about Jesus is that he was nonviolent and so, nonviolence is the hallmark of Christianity and the measure of authentic Christian living. Jesus commands that we love one another, love our neighbors, seek justice, forgive those who hurt us, pray for our persecutors, and be as compassionate as God. But at the center of his teaching is the most radical declaration ever uttered: "love your enemies." 27

There is so much dishonesty in this statement, that it is hard to know where to start. Islam, called the Religion of Peace, is said to be rooted in nonviolence. On the day that I write this, nearly 17,000 terror attacks have been carried out by violent Muslims since 9/11/2001.28 While writing the revision in 2014, the number of terror attacks is nearing 23,000. In the past 3 days, there have been terror attacks in Israel, Pakistan, the Philippines and Nigeria.

John Dear writes: I submit that the only thing we know for sure about Jesus is that he was nonviolent. Again, liberal lies (and from the pen of a former Jesuit priest who ought to know better)—and they could care less how much they distort the truth. They simply repeat the lies over and over again. If you are a liberal and reading this, you will still go out, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and continue to spread these same lies. 2 points on this quotation: we know more about Jesus than about any other historical figure who has ever lived (say, prior to a.d. 1500). We have more direct quotations from our Lord and 4 separate biographies of Jesus, 2 by eyewitnesses, 1 by a close associate of an eyewitness, and 1 by a contemporary historian who had access to dozens, if not hundreds, of people who knew Jesus. So, the idea that, "we don't know much about Jesus, except that he was nonviolent" begins with a ridiculous premise. Secondly, although our Lord was not prone to acts of violence, He did turn over the tables of the money changers in the Temple, which approach was anything but nonviolent.

In his open letter to President Bush, John Dear writes: The only solution to these international crises is to overcome evil with goodness, not further evil. That means we need to win the world over with nonviolent love.29 Here is what many pacifists do not grasp: in a society of laws and in a society of Christians, nonviolent protests have an effect. Martin Luther King Jr. could be a nonviolent protestor in the United States and effect change because he was in the United States. Gandhi could effect change in a British-ruled India, because the British rulers and citizens in India were reasonable, peaceful and lawful. Take either of these men and put them in say, China, for instance, and Chinese officials will simply drive a tank over them; end of story, end of their peaceful protesting. Peaceful protests do not work everywhere.

Liberals love that Jesus said, "Love your enemies." These same liberals got apoplectic when it came to President George W. Bush and the things that he did and said (despite the fact that he is a believer in Jesus Christ); and they carried signs comparing him to Hitler (which both parties do). I am sure that there were examples out there somewhere of liberals who loved George Bush, following Jesus' words. I have just never observed this firsthand nor have I read any liberal expressing love for George Bush.

Again, we must compare Scripture with Scripture, and not simply choose our favorite 10 verses, and have them stand in place of the entire Bible. As mentioned before, the Bible is filled with military men, military words, and a list of the greatest military men under King David. God oversaw the destruction of several groups of people throughout the history of Israel. In times of war, you kill the enemy; when it comes to certain crimes, execution is the best deterrent (a dead murderer will never murder again). This does not mean that you do not pray for the salvation or your enemies or for those on death row; nor are we required to hate our enemies in war (in fact, that would be a sin30). So, when we take the words that Jesus spoke—they are quite obviously true—they must be taken in the context of where He said them, to whom was He speaking, and what was meant. Furthermore, Jesus was never in conflict with the Scriptures of His day, the Old Testament ("Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."—Matt. 5:17–18; see also Matt. 26:56 John 10:35).

Crime and Punishment: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7] Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]

A favorite trick of liberals is to take a passage given in one context, and move those words into a different context. For instance, do you really suppose that Jesus was saying that we ought to completely do away with our court system, because we ought not to judge others? Can you be serious? If you are a liberal, do you think all businesses need to do away with personal interviews and applications, and just hire people blindly, so that no one accidentally judges someone else? There are times we are called upon to evaluate a person. You might be hiring someone or recommending someone or renting to someone or loaning money to someone. Are you just supposed to do whatever they want, regardless of their personal history? Do you really think this is the meaning of this verse?

What Jesus is speaking of is judging another person simply on a personal level, which sin is committed all of the time. Let's say, you are a liberal, and you have actually read down this far, let me give you an example as to how you have sinned, according to Matt. 7:1–2: have you called someone a tea-bagger or referred to those in the TEA party movement as tea-baggers (or thought that); you have judged them. Let's say you feel superior to people you consider to be Bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christians—you have judged them. I have heard over and over again, evil motives impugned to specific conservatives (like Bush and Cheney) or to conservatives in general. For instance, Bush and Cheney work for Haliburton; they simply want to take over the oil of Iraq, etc. Of, people are conservative simply because they are greedy capitalists. This is judging.

Or, let's say, you got in an internet debate, and went off on some person, calling him a bunch of mean things—you have judged that person. Then you have maligned them. That is what this passage is all about. It has nothing to do with the function of government when it comes to preserving law and order. It has nothing to do with a business evaluating prospective employees.

Here is another way the left has judged others: when someone has wealth, they accuse that person of being greedy. Or, if someone says something negative about the policies of President Obama, they are accused of being a racist. If oil prices went up under President Bush, he was accused of colluding with oil companies. Let's say that you have decided that bankers and Wall Street types are all greedy, money grubbers, do you grasp that that is judging?

Let me see if I can give you a correct dividing line when it comes to properly judging another person: when a person commits a crime (murder, assault, theft), it is reasonable to weigh the evidence against the person, and, upon a preponderance of evidence, we can determine a person's guilt or innocence. However, when we begin to impute, say, racial hatred to the same person, that is judging a man's heart, these are things which we cannot see. God is able to look upon the heart of man and evaluate him (1Sam. 16:7), but that is outside of our jurisdiction. In other words, hate crime legislation ought not to be a part of our laws (and such laws are not found in the Bible). You can control the thinking of only one person: you. Therefore, when it comes to hatred or anger or implacability, then you ought to monitor yourself, but not others. "And why do you look on the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the splinter out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast the splinter out of your brother's eye." (Matt. 7:3–5).

Now, as to the scribes and pharisees who believed that they ought to be able to stone a woman who is caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1–11). Let me give you the entire passage, so that we know what we are talking about: They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." (John 7:53–8:11).

There are several comments which need to be made about this passage. First of all, it is not found in the most ancient manuscripts, and therefore, its validity is in question. However, secondly, what we have here is a mob which wants to act independently of the Law. It was not lawful for the Jews to execute anyone (John 18:31); so, even though these are scribes and pharisees bringing this woman before Jesus so that they can stone her with His blessing, they are now under Roman rule, and Roman law forbids them to use the death penalty apart from the application of Roman law and the Roman judicial system. Thirdly, this woman was caught in adultery. Where is the man? It is fairly difficult to commit adultery all by yourself, so there was a man involved, and yet, these scribes and pharisees are not bringing both of these people before Jesus, just the woman. So, Jesus, by refusing to give them permission to stone this woman, was not negating the law; He was upholding the law and making a point at the same time (that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God).

The Mosaic Law contained a very specific system of laws and procedures as related to crime and punishment, which included laws of evidence and specific punishments for specific crimes. The idea that we ought to apply Judge not, that you be not judged to the function of criminal law is ridiculous, and at odds with Bible teaching.

Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17). He continually cited the Law as authoritative: "Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?" (Matt. 12:5). Jesus told the scribes and pharisees that they distorted the Law of Moses: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." (Matt. 23:23). Distorting the law of Moses and the words of Jesus is a favorite pastime of many of the liberals I read.

And, as mentioned before, the Jews were now under Roman law, which forbade them from executing anyone without going through the Roman courts.

Anti-capitalism: Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the Temple (Matt. 21:12–13 Mark 11:15–18 John 2:14–16); that was an act of anti-capitalism. One person I read said this proves that Jesus hated bankers.

One of the things which I find fascinating is, these are the verses and stories I had heard the most, having gone to, mostly, liberal churches as a youth. Furthermore, I think in our culture, anything which seems to indicate that Jesus is a liberal in any way, is brought to the forefront, and all else is ignored. Part of this is our culture and part of it is the wiles of the devil.

The opposite of capitalism is a state-run economy, which is socialism. Even though some regimes call themselves communistic, they are really socialistic. The final stage of communism, where the government disappears, but the worker bees continue on, is pure fantasy; it has never happened and it never will happen. Leaders of socialist countries will never give up their power. People who desire power are often easily corrupted; and these people rarely let go of the power they grab (George Washington is one of the rare exceptions; and he set the standard for all presidents who followed him).

Capitalism and freedom go hand-in-hand. Having the ability to make as much money as you want, according to your own hard work and initiative is freedom. Being able to use most of that money in whatever way you choose is freedom. A state-run economy means that bureaucrats make the decisions for much of the economy; often bureaucrats who receive their positions as political favors. They decide how much of your money they ought to have and they decide how to spend the money that you worked for. Socialism and tyranny go hand-in-hand.

Capitalism and a creative spirit go hand-in-hand as well. Being made in God's image, we share His creative streak. Capitalism is all about being creative—what sort of a product are you offering, how you approach your marketing, and how this product is something that others would like to have. Furthermore, that product must be produced at a price people are willing to pay, so there is a great deal of creativity in bringing that to pass.

Under socialism, there is very little creativity. Bureaucrats collect and give out the money; and they make the decisions, for the most part, of what this or that company does. Having received their position as a political favor, these bureaucrats often lack the ability to fully grasp the sector which they are administrating over. One of the great things in capitalism is, a person can start at the bottom of a company and work his way to the top, learning everything about that company in the process. Although this can occur with a bureaucrat, the really plum positions—those with the power an authority—are rarely acquired on the basis of one's ability.

It is also worth noting that, under socialism, more people are killed in "peacetime" than in war (Mao and Stalin killed far more people than Hitler did, and the human beings they destroyed was done during peacetime). There is no peace for those who desire freedom, which is man's natural state (which requires some authority to balance out that freedom, as absolute freedom is anarchy, which is not really freedom for the weak).

Now, let's take a look at the passages which are cited. Mark gives the most details, so let's read what that passage has to say: And they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. And He would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. And He was teaching them and saying to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of thieves." (Mark 11:15–17; Jer. 7:11). Matthew supplies the fact that some animals were sold at the Temple entrance: And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you make it a den of thieves." (Matt. 21:12–13; Jer. 7:11). John 2:14–15 tell us that all manner of animals were being sold in the Temple foyer.

The Tabernacle (a sem-permanent tent) and later the Temple (a permanent structure) were representative of Jesus Christ. Each piece of furniture stood for an aspect of the Person or ministry of Jesus Christ, and all the furniture of the Tabernacle was set up in the form of a cross (which was, in part, hidden). See A Model of the Tabernacle (HTML) (PDF). Although we tend to look back at the Tabernacle and the Temple as a centralized church, these buildings represented Jesus Christ, Who He is and what He would do. Although I have not done a complete study of the Tabernacle or of the Temple, I have done one of the Ark of God, which is the heart of the Tabernacle and the Temple both, which speaks of Jesus Christ and His work in many ways: The Ark of the Covenant (HTML) (PDF).

Animal sacrifices were a central feature of both the Tabernacle and the Temple. These animal sacrifices speak of Jesus Christ, a Lamb without spot of blemish, dying for our sins. Every single Israelite needed to bring in an animal to be sacrificed on his behalf, rich and poor alike. Therefore, God allowed the poor to bring in inexpensive sacrifices, like pigeons or doves. What happened was, a business had been set up, where Temple-approved animals were provided in the foyer of the Temple. Now, of course, there would be a price mark-up on these animals, and this completely destroyed the idea that, salvation is an individual matter which each person must see to; and that salvation is free—it is not paid for at the Temple entrance. These moneychangers destroyed the symbolism of salvation by the grace of God. There was also a proper amount which was to be brought in order to keep the Temple and the priesthood going, which was a half-shekel. These money-
changers overcharged for a half-shekel when it came to paying this ransom money.

Jesus did not come into Jerusalem and shake down bankers or those who had shops and sold things or traders who moved through town. Jesus went to the Temple, which spoke of Him, and removed the elements of impurity from it. Jesus did not do the same thing in secular treasuries.

One of the things which I have spoken of is the dishonesty of liberals. What Jesus does here is not a non-violent act. He overturns these huge tables, which are covered with money and some with cages of birds. He chases them out of the Temple. This is not a non-violent protest. Jesus did not walk back and forth in front of them with a sign, chanting. He did not organize the people or His disciples into some kind of a walkout or a boycott of Temple activities. He bodily removed them. That is violence.

In fact, no matter what lies are spread about Jesus, at no time did He organize a protest, sponsor a boycott, or initiate a walkout. His disciples were never organized in some fashion to stand against the establishment. Jesus told Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But My kingdom is not from the world." (John 18:36b). Leftist organizations are all about changing this world; they are all about getting rid of this, or changing the way that works, or establishing socialism where it was not before. Jesus did not do that. His kingdom was not of this world. Therefore, He did not organize His disciples into a band of revolutionaries.

I have mentioned the websites where I find nonsense like, "Jesus is a liberal." What these websites never talk about is the world to come, and how we are in this world but not of this world (the phrase in the world occurs 24 times in the New Testament). Jesus says to His disciples: "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15:19). However, what we do not find in these websites are a clear distinction between being in this world and being of this world. In nearly every single case, the website is leftist propaganda about doing things in this world in order to change this world, which is not what Jesus taught. What He taught was salvation and our own individual behavior. In almost every passage quoted by the left, the context makes it clear that a person's individual behavior is what is an issue. There is no sense of collectivism and no demand that we change this world into a state-controlled, top-down system of bureaucracy. Socialism is not a part of the teachings of Jesus. Salvation is individual and almost everything that Jesus spoke about was individual. He did not call for us to go out and change the world, He called upon His disciples to change themselves. Their interaction with the world was to rest upon evangelism. Is evangelism the

So there is no misunderstanding, when someone is saved, it does not become their job to change their country into a more capitalistic society. We, as believers in Jesus Christ, are in the world, but we are not of this world. However, it is legitimate, in a free society, to support pro-freedom and pro-capitalism legislation, if we are given the right to do so (that is, if we are a part of the voting franchise. However, this should never be done at the expense of your own spiritual life or growth.
The Bible, Capitalism and Private Property
1.	Jesus is often inaccurately portrayed as some kind of a rebel, revolutionary or the first Che. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus was not a revolutionary; He did not try to overthrow the government or the establishment.

1)	He supported the paying of one's taxes.

2)	Jesus never organized some kind of movement which was pro-
government or anti-government. Jesus did not organize people to march in the streets. He never organized people in such a way as to gain political power of any sort. He never organized people in such a way so that they could gain more government benefits.

3)	There were certainly instances when He faced injustice; and Jesus did not call for His disciples to bring the system down because of these injustices.

4)	When Judas complained that too much money was spent on oils and perfumes for Jesus' feet, and that this money ought to go to the poor; Jesus did not agree with Judas, but He pointed out that, "The poor will be with you always."

2.	Four of the Ten Commandments protect private property.

1)	"You will not murder." (Ex. 20:14). In a socialist society—particularly in a new one—millions of people are often killed or sent off to work farms or reeducated, the latter two often resulting in death. Very often, those killed are believers in Jesus Christ.

2)	"You will not commit adultery." (Ex. 20:14). The wife belongs to the husband, and she is not to be taken sexually by any other man—not even in one's imagination.

3)	"You will not steal." (Ex. 20:15). Essentially, in socialism, what the government is doing by way of redistribution of wealth is stealing. However, we are still to pay our taxes.

4)	"You will not desire your neighbor's house; you shall not desire your neighbor's wife, or anything else which your neighbor owns." (Ex. 20:17). Obeying this command alone would solve most of our social problems. There is always someone out there who has a bigger or nicer house than you; and always someone who has a house which is inferior to your home (the same is true of your car or whatever else it is that you own).

3.	Women in Israel had property rights. Num. 27:1–11

4.	Many of the laws given by God to Israel were all about private property. Ex. 21:1–11 22:1–15

5.	God's promise to Abraham was a land grant to his descendants, which was partially fulfilled in Joshua 13–19. This is known as private property.

6.	The Bible is filled with wealthy individuals: Abraham, Job, David and Solomon. At no time in their lives did God come to them and say, "You guys are just too greedy with all of this wealth; in order to supercharge your lives, you need to give all of this excess to the poor."

1)	In the case of Job, God restored his wealth to him twofold (Job 42:10).

2)	When David sinned his great sin, God said, "I would have given you even more." See 2Sam. 12:8.

3)	Solomon had a tremendous amount of wealth of all kinds. The book of Ecclesiastes.

7.	This needs to be balanced out. It should be clear that God blesses some men with great wealth and it is not our business to try to divest others of their wealth. However, when it comes to our own personal lives, it should not be centered around making money.

1)	Money is not the root of all evil, but the love of money is the root of all evil (1Tim. 6:10a).

2)	Our life does not consist only of our possessions (Luke 12:22–31). I should point out that for those on the left, it is all about changing society into a more socialist model where the outcomes are more equal. The Bible never exhorts us to do this; the Bible never admonishes us to try to change or whitewash the devil's world. The Bible never exhorts us to increase the power of the federal government so that it controls all of the wealth in the land. The whole reason why wealth is not something to be emphasized is, we are in this world, but not of this world. We cannot take our wealth with us.

3)	Therefore, we ought to have a personal understanding of our place in the world and our relationship to wealth; but the Bible does not tell us to go out and determine who is righteous and who is evil in their monetary holdings (and there are just as many wealthy liberals as there are wealthy conservatives).

8.	When it comes to wealth, there is a balance. For instance, the man who does not provide for his own is worse than an infidel (1Tim. 5:8).

9.	There is an incident where Jesus tells one man to sell all that he has and give this to the poor and follow Him (a passage which every leftist quotes but no leftist ever follows), but that requires some explanation. See Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler (which will be covered later in this study).

10.	Wealth is a detail of life. Some have it and some do not. You know people who have more than you by way of the details of life and you know those who have less than you. When God blesses us with wealth, that is an additional blessing and an additional responsibility. Again, at no time did God tell Abraham, Job, David or Solomon that they had too much wealth and that they needed to give it all away. Again, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil.

11.	Hard work is a good thing and wealth is a blessing from God. Behold, what I have observed to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil--
this is the gift of God. For he will not much remember the days of his life because God keeps him occupied with joy in his heart (Eccles. 5:18–20).

12.	If your life revolves around money, then you are confused about the meaning of your life (Luke 12:22–31). Similarly, if your life revolves around the redistribution of other's wealth, you are similarly confused about life (Ex. 20:15, 17).

13.	It is important to note that neither capitalism nor socialism insures against moral corruption. This comes from within; and laws are written to guide those who would be dishonest in business. However, in capitalism, there are many forces guiding a person to be fair and honest. Let's say you have decided to make a business of selling on ebay or Amazon; if you are dishonest in your dealings, or slip-shod in your response, your business often dries up. If you have a brick-and-
mortar store, and you provide shoddy service, word-of-mouth will destroy your business. However, under socialism, if you are the only producer of shoes (since competition is unnecessary under socialism), what is your motivation for making the best shoes possible for the best price? What is your motivation to provide the best and most honest service? Furthermore, if this is a state-run business, what is your motivation to produce, if they are going to pay you the same amount, whether you produce or not?

14.	When the far-left activist reads the Bible, it is not to discover truth, but with the intention of distorting truth. They simply look for passages which might support what they believe in. Therefore, they will ignore the fact that God has blessed many people with material blessings, and God did not rag on every person who had wealth, saying, "You need to give this wealth away." These far-left people take a few passages out of context and ignore the many passages which they disagree with. Such people will use the Bible to develop a manifesto, like Liberation Theology (and Black Liberation Theology), but they cannot be convinced by clear Biblical teaching otherwise. The Bible is not really the basis for their political philosophy; it is simply used in order to support that philosophy. It is not unusual to find such liberals posting side-by-side liberal atheists, and sharing essentially the exact same philosophy.

15.	We find this same approach among those who teach that Jesus is some kind of political revolutionary. They cherry-pick a few passages, take them out of context; yet could not be convinced otherwise by the Bible. That is because their beliefs are far more important than the Bible. They merely use some portions of the Bible as propaganda. They do not see the Bible as the bastion of truth.

16.	Whenever a dishonest liberal tries to equate greed with wealth, they clearly miss the fact that, our spiritual lives are based upon what is in the soul. Paul wrote to the Philippians: I'm not saying this because I'm in any need. I've learned to be content in whatever situation I'm in. I know how to live in poverty or prosperity. No matter what the situation, I've learned the secret of how to live when I'm full or when I'm hungry, when I have too much or when I have too little. I can do everything through Christ Who strengthens me (Philip. 4:11–13). .

17.	Many of the parables of Jesus as based upon free enterprise (capitalism). What is being taught are spiritual principles. However, these principles are based upon the underlying truth of capitalism.

1)	The buying of a field for a treasure which is in the field. That involves the wise investment of capital in order to make a profit. Matt. 13:44

2)	A merchant purchasing a great pearl (probably with the intent of reselling it at a profit). Matt. 13:45–46

3)	The authority of the landowner (the business owner) over his employees. This is about the preeminence of the owner over the labor union. Matt. 20:1–16

4)	Property rights of a wealthy landowner. Matt. 23:33–40

5)	Again, all of these parables are teaching something else; however, they are all based upon the free function of capitalism.

6)	Chim Rickles writes: If we compare those character traits that are valued in the Bible to those valued and rewarded under capitalism, we find that they are remarkably similar. For example, God encourages and rewards honest labor, investment, and thrift. Capitalism rewards these, too. The Bible approves of wealth gained through industriousness and self-control, traits important for success under capitalism. There are instances, moreover, in which the Bible condones generating wealth. The most famous instance, perhaps, is the parable of the talents. The hardworking, responsible, and creative servants not only received their master's praise, but they were given more! The lazy servant, on the other hand, is expelled from his master's presence and he loses what little he had. While support for capitalism was not the intention of the parable, Jesus used an example that resonated with the people, implicitly suggesting that some form of capitalism was both practiced and applauded.1

18.	Taxation by the state is legitimate. In the Old Testament, this was 23⅓% (and a large portion of that went to state-supported religion). However, that state supported religion was only in Israel, which was a theocracy. There are no mandates in the Bible for believers in this age to establish a theocracy. So, if we take out the taxation which was for the Levites, then we are down to a 13⅓% tax. We can also study governments and prosperity and tax rates; and it appears to the most prosperous economies restrict government spending to about 15% of GDP. What a surprise! (Not really)

19.	Jesus taught that taxation by the state is legitimate, even though the state may be seen as illegitimate. Matt. 27:17–21

20.	Much as I would like to tell you that there is a tax which is too high, that is not found in the Bible. However, we know from simple trial and error that, reducing taxes spurs economic activity, which is good for the entire society. We have seen, through the lowering and raising of taxes, through the lowering and raising of federal debt levels, through the increase and decrease of federal employees, that there is a "sweet spot" where more of American is prosperous when this sweet spot is approached. For instance, under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, prosperity and economic activity followed a reduction of taxes. Under Clinton, prosperity went hand-in-hand with reigning in the federal budget. Under FDR and Obama, great expansion of government and government spending was followed by little or no economic recovery.

21.	An even better example is that of North and South Korea. When these nation split up in the Korean war, the North had greater resources (only slightly). North Korea pursued a path of a carefully controlled and government-planned economy, whereas South Korea pursued free market principles (as well as evangelism and Christian growth). South Korea today is one of the strongest economies in the world, whereas, North Korea, which began with greater resources, is one of the weakest economies, where millions of its own people starve because of its evil economic system.

22.	What we have found in practice is, capitalism is married to freedom and socialism is married to state control and tyranny. Most socialist states regulate or outlaw the evangelization and the teaching of the Word of God. The more capitalistic a society is, the more likely there is to be the teaching of the Word of God.

1)	Quite obviously, in societies where the state is ruled by religion, God's Word and evangelization can be outlawed or heavily regulated as well, as is true in most Muslim countries.

2)	Our country found, for most of its history, the sweet spot between the authority of church and state, where these were considered separate entities, where one is not to rule over the other. In the 20th century, godless forces have begun to give the state more power over the church, a topic which will be discussed in greater detail later on.

3)	We have the example of Communist China today, which is allowing more and more free enterprise; and, at the same time, tolerating more and more worship of Jesus Christ.

23.	To sum up, wealth is merely a detail. It is not right or wrong in itself. There are people in the Bible who were rich and others who were poor. Some rich men are spoken of kindly in the Bible, and other rich men are taken to task. It is not their wealth which is at issue, but the state of their souls. If you are a believer, and your life's driving force is all about making a lot of money, to the detriment of your spiritual life (or, even to the detriment of your family), then, you have a spiritual problem. However, it is not up to the state to fix this by taking some of your stuff away. God blesses some people materially, and others He does not. Material wealth is simply a detail of life, and it is certainly not the thrust of some sort of recommended or mandated Bible socialism.

24.	The Bible does promise to most people some measure of material prosperity:

1)	The believer is to honor God with the firstfruits of his produce and God would bless him. Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine (Prov. 3:9–10).

2)	Jesus expressed this in a slightly different way, "Seek first the kingdom of heaven, and all things will be added to you."
Much of this doctrine came from The Bible, Wealth and Private Property (HTML) (PDF). There are other passages covered there, like the sin of Ananias and Sapphira or how the early Jerusalem church became the first socialist commune.
1http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1630727/the_christian_case_for_capitalism_pg2.html
?cat=9 accessed March 20, 2011.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

I found myself quoting several paragraphs from this article, so I decided to gather them up to one place. Chim Rickles makes some excellent points about...
Morality and Capitalism
If we compare those character traits that are valued in the Bible to those valued and rewarded under capitalism, we find that they are remarkably similar. For example, God encourages and rewards honest labor, investment, and thrift. Capitalism rewards these, too. The Bible approves of wealth gained through industriousness and self-control, traits important for success under capitalism.
There are instances, moreover, in which the Bible condones generating wealth. The most famous instance, perhaps, is the parable of the talents. The hardworking, responsible, and creative servants not only received their master's praise, but they were given more! The lazy servant, on the other hand, is expelled from his master's presence and he loses what little he had. While support for capitalism was not the intention of the parable, Jesus used an example that resonated with the people, implicitly suggesting that some form of capitalism was both practiced and applauded.
On the contrary, character traits valued in the Bible, like honesty, industry, and self-control, get you nowhere under an economic system like socialism. If you disagree, spend a little time enveloped in the history of the Soviet Union or China under communism. First, socialism leaves little incentive for people to be creative. Under socialism, workers are told what to do and how and when to do it. Second, those who rose to power under socialist systems were often greedy, conniving, and manipulative.
How we ever thought that capitalism could guarantee good moral character is beyond me. After all, capitalism is a system that came about in a sinful world. It had no chance to be perfect. Thus, capitalism does not corrupt us; we corrupt capitalism. Yet listen to many of today's talking heads and the problem is not humanity, it is capitalism. How ridiculous! If a drunk driver hits and kills a woman, do we blame the car?
It's obvious that capitalism requires good moral character, but it's less obvious that it promotes good moral character. A company's honesty, the sense of trust it builds with its consumers, is rewarded by the consumer. A company that pays closer attention to the needs of its consumers is rewarded more handsomely than one that does not. A company that takes steps to give back to the community is rewarded, in turn, by its consumers. Under socialism, none of this is rewarded. In fact, none of these steps are necessary. There is no competition. If one place sells cars, and you need a car, you will buy it from that one place, regardless of quality, the company's honesty, or its attentiveness to your needs.
Anti-capitalists have hit upon a remarkably effective marketing scheme: pretend that capitalism engenders greed and is sustained through more greed, then show how greedy capitalists have ruined the lives of others. Take Wal-Mart, for example. I can't recount how many stories I have seen in the last decade about the evil Wal-Mart destroying small businesses by undercutting them with cheaper foreign goods, putting a handful of people out of work, and sending our jobs overseas. Never mind that Wal-Mart makes most products affordable to low-income families. Never mind that it employs thousands of people across the country. Never mind that it also employs thousands more across the globe, alleviating the poverty of many, many, people. (By the way, doesn't this qualify as that "helping the poor" business mentioned in the Bible?) Never mind that Wal-Mart's founders, like so many of those "greedy" businessmen, give millions of dollars away through private philanthropy. [Let me insert here that, the dishonesty in this attack is typical of the left, whose ideology trumps morality, in their own eyes].
These things don't matter, unless you forget that God has nothing against acquiring wealth. Hoarding wealth, dishonestly acquiring wealth, seeking wealth to the detriment of one's relationship with God? Yes, He has a problem with that. Using your God-given talents to earn what someone is willing to pay you? No. Don't be silly.
Quoted directly from Chim Rickles' article:

file:///K:/Bible/Miscellaneous%20Bible/References%20from%20web/free%20enterprise/the_christ
ian_case_for_capitalism.html accessed March 20, 2011.

Chim appears to have been influenced or inspired by Albert Mohler's article on the Christian View of the Economic Crisis: http://www.albertmohler.com/2008/09/24/a-christian-view-of-the-economic-crisis/

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

One more thing needs to be said against socialism and in favor of capitalism. In socialism, you are depending upon the state and the leaders of your state for the provision and direction of nearly everything in your life (they oversee the jobs, what kind of work is done, the quality control, the food making and distribution, etc.). When you want or need something (including your rights), socialists are taught this comes from the state. That is not what Jesus taught. The idea that we ought to depend upon the state is in direct opposition to the teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount: "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt. 6:25–33). Our ultimate dependence is always upon God; not upon some complex economic system which is going to guarantee all of our economic needs (in theory; never in practice). The Christian who believes this is less likely to depend upon the state for the provision of anything.

Speaking of which, in none of the research that I did, did I come across a "Jesus is a liberal" website where the socialist propagandist reminded his reader that, we depend upon Jesus first and foremost for all things.

Justice: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. [Matthew 5:6] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7] But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]

One of the things that the left has done is taken a plank of their platform, and attached the words justice or right to it in some way. In the declaration of independence, the founders did not list 3 dozen rights; we had our fundamental rights, which are God-given: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then, in the Bill of Rights, the idea was to list a set of rights that the federal government could not infringe upon. Our current president calls these negative rights, and the concept is, these are things which the government cannot do to us; these are a list of freedoms which the government cannot take from us. They define, very precisely, the relationship between the individual, the state and the federal government by putting restrictions upon the state. The Bill of Rights restricts the federal government.

Our president, who is a man of the left, has stated that there ought to be a list of "positive rights." These are things which the government must do on your behalf, which "rights" are typically found in totalitarian government constitutions.

Let's deal with justice. Righteousness is the principle of God's integrity (or, holiness); justice is the function of God's integrity. This concept of justice and righteousness is extremely important to the God of the Bible. Our salvation is built upon God's justice and righteousness (Gen. 15:6). We are not saved because God looks down on us and says, "You know, that Charlie Brown; he tries so hard. I am going to bring him to heaven when he dies. And Lucy—she is such a good mother. She is exactly the kind of person I want in heaven." This would be an affront to God's essence. God is perfect righteousness and perfect justice and He cannot have contact with unrighteousness. We are all sinners, deserving of death; and we are marked this way from our birth (Psalm 14:1–3 51:5 Rom. 3:10). Our salvation is based upon Jesus Christ coming to this earth and dying for our sins; the punishment we deserve was laid upon our Lord (Rom. 3:21 3:5 4:13 5:7–8). It is because of this, God saves us; it is because of this, God is justified in justifying us (Rom. 4:2–5 22–25 5:6–10). Our salvation is never based upon our own works or our own righteousness (Eph. 2:8–9 Titus 3:5).

What the left has done is, taken something that they favor and associate that something with the word justice; most prominent, social justice. The idea of social justice is, you find someone who makes more money than you think is right for him to make—he lives in a much larger house in a much better neighborhood than you, driving a much better car than you, and if he wants to pull some strings and put his children into Harvard, he can, and pay their tuition in cash. In the mind of the left, that just isn't right, if you do not have the same possessions and ability. Or, as a moderate lefty, you might say, "Well, he makes too much; we should be closer in our salaries." Now, quite obviously, you cannot go over to his house with a gun, and demand that he give you half of his stuff; but, what you can do is vote for someone who promises to dramatically tax him, and then give the money to you in government grants, or whatever. This is not leveling the playing field; this is leveling out the final score of the game. In any case, you have government do for you, what you realize is illegal for you as an individual to do.

In other words, social justice is all about nearly equal outcomes, or a leveling of income disparities. An honest person will say, "In other words, I am in favor of socialism, where we put into society according to our abilities, and we take out of society according to our needs." And the government is exalted to the position of evening out the outcomes.

Most of the time, this is presented in a very dishonest way. When on the campaign trail, candidate Obama accidently used the phrase, spread the wealth around. This is something that he believes in. However, this is not the philosophy of the American people, as a whole. So, rather than come out and say, "Yes, of course; this is exactly what I believe; there is too much wealth inequity and it is up to the government to level things out;" he never reaffirmed this statement, and his press (who all voted for him) attacked the person who got candidate Obama to say these words, as if this man did something wrong, when it was candidate Obama who said those words.

Hence, terms like social justice, which sound very nice and proper, but are all about the redistribution of wealth and government control and distribution of wealth. Individuals, here and there, will admit to it. However, the further one goes up the ladder of power, the less likely they are to be blunt and honest about their beliefs, when it comes to social justice.

Laying all of that aside, what did Jesus teach? Did He ever teach that the government ought to come in and take from the rich and distribute this to the poor? Of course not! In the New Testament, there is very little which is taught about the function of government. We are taught to obey the authorities which are over us, but, at no time, are believers encouraged to rebel against this type of government or to support that type of government. Believers are not encouraged to demonstrate peacefully or violently in order to obtain from government what is rightly theirs (in their eyes).

Jesus spoke to the individual; Jesus spoke about individual responsibility, and Jesus taught about individual action and individual thinking. He did not teach collectivism. What we find in the New Testament is, we ought to obey our leaders; we ought to submit to the laws of our government (Rom. 13:1–9). Paul wrote this when Rome was conquering all kinds of lands and spreading its soldiers far and wide to maintain order. The government of Rome, on many occasions, persecuted believers and the Apostles themselves. However, Paul never called for believers to oppose Rome, to demonstrate against Rome, or to demand a better, more fair and more responsive government. One of the few times that Jesus spoke about our relationship to the government is with regards to taxation; and He said that we ought to be willing to pay our taxes (those on the left love this!).

However, when Jesus came face to face with the government of Rome, He submitted to it. He did not make some grandiose speech about how evil they had become. He did not protest against it, nor did He encourage His disciples to protest against it.

But let's go back to the concept of social justice and a more equal distribution of wealth. This is something which our Lord never taught. Jesus often taught by parables, and the situations which these parables describe are universal, and very often accepted as reasonable. We have the example of the employer and the labor union. An employer went out and found workers, and agreed to pay them a specific amount for a day's work. Then this employer went out, a few hours later, and got more workers and told them he would pay them the same amount to work for most of a day. He eventually found workers to work for a few hours, but they are given a full day's wage. When it came time to pay up, the labor union protested. This was not right! They worked all day, and receive a day's wages; but other people only worked a few hours, and were given the same amount. "That isn't fair! That isn't just!" But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' (Matt. 20:13–15). The underlying meaning of this parable is all about God rewarding His children as He sees fit. However, the simple understanding of this parable is, the owner is allowed to hire workers for whatever price they agree upon, no matter what the members of the labor union think.

When it comes to inequity, what could illustrate inequity more than the parable of the talents? A rich man is going away, and he entrusts his property to his servants, according to their ability, giving one 5 talents, another 2 talents, and another 1 talent. Right from the outset, there is inequality. The rich man does not leave an equal amount in the hands of his servants; he leaves behind varying amounts, according to the ability of these 3 servants. When this man returns, his first servant has doubled his investment, and he is praised. The second man also doubled his investment, for which he is also praised. However, the 3rd man, having been given only 1 talent, hides this talent and returns it to his master when his master returns. Then his master said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents." (Matt. 25:26–28). Like the previous parable, there is an underlying meaning. However, the surface illustration is just the opposite of redistributing wealth so that everyone has an equal amount. These servants did not begin equal and when the parable is over, they have an even more unequal result. People on the left often hate those who gathered enough money to make money by their investments; and they hate it even more if such investments are taxed at a lower rate than income is taxed at. However, the servants who invest wisely are praised; and the servant who does not invest has his money taken from him.

Now, I fully understand that there are leftists who went to the Bible, pulled out a few passages here and there, and used them to try to prove that Jesus was the first socialist. However, what is pathetic is, there are ministers of the gospel and teachers of the faith, who are fully aware of these parables, and yet, in order to sell their own political philosophy, they do not teach them. This is dishonesty in the extreme, from ministers who are supposed to teach the truth.

So there is no misunderstanding, I was not raised a conservative, fundamentalist Christian. I was raised a liberal who believed FDR to be the greatest president ever; and, after I was saved, I had to go through quite a bit of adjustment to hear and believe what the Bible taught. There were a lot of things which were taught that, quite frankly, rubbed me the wrong way, as someone who was a lifetime liberal. However, I had to decide—what is my authority? Are my long-held values which I possessed to be taken as absolute truth? These are values which I held due to parental training, the teaching at a number of schools; and social (peer) pressure. I came out of California in the 1960's, so there was quite a bit of peer pressure. Besides which, I was quite a rebellious person anyway. So, do I believe in the Bible or do I adhere to these long-held beliefs, which were, for the most part, a matter of socialization.

My point is, we all have a number of values that we are brought up with that are anti-
Christian. That is the nature of the beast, so to speak. The idea that a person's values all line up with Christianity from the very beginning is highly unlikely.

What is particularly unfortunate is, some of the source material which I have used here, came from dishonest ministers of the gospel—ministers who know all of these passages which I have placed in this document, and passages which they chose either not to teach or to downplay or to distort. Such ministers ought to be ashamed of themselves, and ought to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. Did they really believe in Jesus Christ, trusting in His substitutionary death? Or were they merely unsaved religious types? One thing that I did not find at any religious leftist website was a call to believe in Jesus Christ; was the dogmatic Biblical statement that "Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father except through Him" (John 14:6). Many of these websites spoke of Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi—without really differentiating them in any way. They were different people, obviously, who lived in different times; but these political-religious sites did not tend to remind the reader that Jesus is the Lord of Glory, our only way of salvation. To the unbeliever, be he a conservative or a liberal, nothing is more important that his attitude toward Jesus Christ. Except in the eyes of the religious liberal. What we think about Gandhi or about Martin Luther King, Jr. is unimportant; what we think about Jesus Christ is the basis of our eternal destiny.

When I first began this project, the closest I came to a gospel message was on www.liberalslikechrist.org where, on the front page, they have Being "Christian" should lead one to be like Christ (and to be as liberal as he was). Immediately I notice, he is not capitalized, and the past tense is used in reference to Jesus. Maybe they believe He is still in the grave? Since then, I have come across The Christian Left, which does, at the bottom of their homepage, have the gospel message. That is a good thing. Their silly political views, notwithstanding, promoting Jesus Christ as Savior is a good beginning.

Corporate Greed and the Religion of Wealth: In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. [John 2:14 & 15.] Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.] Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23] You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]

So there is no misunderstanding, when a person places wealth—or any other thing (e.g., a particular political philosophy)—before Jesus Christ, they are cursed. A liberal who places his liberal philosophy and liberal policies before Jesus Christ is exactly like the rich men spoken of here. Let's get the basics out of the way: when you exercise faith in Jesus Christ, you are saved, and saved forever. You cannot lose that salvation. Satan looks to distract us at two fronts: before we are saved and after we are saved. Satan will use our wealth (or anything else) to keep us from believing in Jesus Christ. However, if we have believed in Jesus Christ, then Satan will use our wealth (or any of the other details of life) to keep our spiritual lives from being effective.

So, at this point, I agree completely with the Biblical passages which are quoted, as they stand on their own, and the context has not been violated too much. If a person devotes his life to wealth (religion, politics, work, sexuality), to the exclusion of spiritual things, then it is very difficult for that person to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Salvation requires faith in Christ; and if our lives are tied so much to these other things that we never consider what Jesus has done, we will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. So, wealth, along with a number of other things, can be a great distraction to salvation. Furthermore, if we are saved, but then continue to let something else dominate our life (e.g., wealth), then our Christian life is worthless. The key is priorities, as Jesus said in Matt. 6:33 "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things [food, clothing and shelter] will be added to you."

Let's consider the verse quoted at the beginning and the philosophy of the left: "You cannot serve both God and money." (Matt. 6:24). So, have those on the left become the "greed police"? Have they become the arbiters of how much is too much? Do they have the magic formula to say, "This much wealth means that you are greedy; this much means that you are not"? There is an awful lot found in the Bible which is between man and God. It is not up to us to determine the inner motivations of man. Remember, "Do not judge, or you will be judged [by God]"? This is where it is properly applied. It is not up to us to find someone who lives in a large house and drives a nice car, and determine, that man is greedy; he has too much, and we need to take it through taxation and give it to the benevolent government! It is not up to determine when someone is being greedy; God is able to do that. God looks upon the heart of man; we look on the outside (1Sam. 16:7 Psalm 7:9 Prov. 15:11 16:2 Jer. 11:20 Heb. 4:13).

Incidentally, this is why conservatives oppose hate crimes legislation—it is not up to us to determine how someone feels when they commit a vicious criminal act. It is fascinating that, those on the left do not want to be judged with regards to the many acts of sin which they commit, which sins are clearly laid out in Scripture; but they believe that they can look inside of our heads and determine whether we are greedy or filled with hatred. This helps to explain why conservatives generally believe that liberals are misguided but liberals generally believe that conservatives operate out of evil intent (do you recall, for instance, how many times Bush and Cheney were accused of colluding with oil companies or with Haliburton?).

Furthermore, higher taxation for the wealthy or for corporations does not tax greed, it taxes productivity. It ignores the requirements that different sized businesses have. As an individual, I may require $2000 in the bank and $5000 in credit, and I am okay for most day to day things. As a small business, I may need $20,000 in the bank and $30,000 in credit to be okay in most situations. However, a larger business which employs, say, 100 people, may require $1 million cash on hand and the ability to access $5 million in credit. The liberal looks at an oil company during a good year, and begrudges them bonuses and profits; yet, gives little thought to that same oil company if they endure 5 bad years of no profits.

When it comes to this particular topic, I devoted one entire study to the concept of Private Property and the Christian (HTML) (PDF).

One of the great narratives in the gospels is the rich young ruler who comes to Jesus and asks what good thing he must do to be saved. Those on the left absolutely love this parable, because it casts this rich man in a bad light, and Jesus concludes by saying, "It is very difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Unfortunately, all the leftist is interested in is, this narrative seems to knock rich people, so they take that from the parable, and ignore what is actually there.
Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler
The parable: Luke 18:18–25 And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" And he said, "All these I have kept from my youth." When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, "How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
First off, no one is saved by keeping the Law of Moses. It is the Mosaic Law which condemns us. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified (Gal. 2:16). For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." (Gal. 3:10; Deut. 27:26).
So, when he comes to Jesus to look to be justified by his own works ("What must I do to have eternal life?"), Jesus must disabuse him of the notion of salvation by works. So, what Jesus does is begin naming the Ten Commandments; He reads of commandments 6, 7, 8 and 9 in that order; and the rich young ruler is bobbing his head up and down, because he has kept these commandments. He knows what is next on the list—commandment #10: you will not covet. He's rich. He has the wired. He doesn't want anything that someone else has; he'll just go out and buy it; or buy a better one. However, what Jesus does is, instead of go to commandment #10, He goes back to commandment #5: Honor your mother and father.
That ought to strike you as odd. Why does Jesus suddenly go back to this commandment? We can surmise by this man's relationship to his own wealth that, he did not give up any of this wealth to help his parents; and there was a gimmick in that age called Corban, where one could declare one's wealth dedicated to God, which meant, it could not be used for other things. So, apart from this man's mad money, the rest was under corban; his parents might need a little cash now and then, but "Sorry, mom; I can't help you with my money; it's under corban." Then Jesus tells him: "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." This man is unable to do that. Wealth to him is not a detail; it is his very being; it is the core of his existence. It is his Achilles' heel.
It is important to note that Jesus told one man, on one occasion, to sell all that he had and to follow Jesus. It this is supposed to be done by all wealthy people, why doesn't Michael Moore do this, who claims to be liberal because he is religious? Why don't all Hollywood liberals do this? This is because, in their minds, this is reasonably applied to other people, but not to themselves.
Secondly, Jesus had contact with other rich men, like Zacchæus, but never tells him to sell all of his possessions (Luke 19:2–6). Joseph of Arimathea owns the tomb where the body of Jesus is laid, and he is rich, and this is never made an issue of (Matt. 27:57–60).
The problem is not that this man is wealthy; the problem is, he loved his wealth above all else, which is suggested when our Lord went back and gave the 5th commandment out of order.
Taken from The Bible, Wealth and Private Property (HTML) (PDF). Those who love this story and think that it supports some kind of left-leaning agenda, pretty much ignore Abraham, Job, David and Solomon, men upon whom God poured a great deal of wealth.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

What is worse is, leftists take passages like those quoted above, and take that as some sort of a mandate for the state to step in to make certain that the rich "are paying their fair share." Again, they see the state as the great equalizer, to make everyone more equal, according to some distorted socialist concept (which they are generally careful not to state clearly, because they know, most people in the United States do not believe that crap).

However, none of the verses which they quote, in or out of context, say anything about the government needing to come in and tax the rich heavily to make everyone equal. That is an ideological leap which they make, without ever providing any intermediary steps. They simply say, "Greed in wealthy people is bad" and then jump to, "The state must take this wealthy and redistribute it." Again, most liberals are careful not to clearly state their end-
game intentions. This is why Obama never reaffirmed his "spread the wealth around" statement. It is what he sincerely believes, but it just slipped out.

In having this philosophy, liberals both consider themselves and their government able to judge the greed which is in the hearts of wealthy men; and they tend to apply redistribution of wealth to people that they do not like: oil people, CEO's, bankers and Wall Street types. You will never find far left people so attacking people in the entertainment industry or those who play some sport. So, somehow, the greedy wealthy just happen to do work that leftists dislike; and the non-greedy wealthy just happen to do the kind of work that those on the left approve of.

In the Bible, high taxation is never used as a recommended system by which greed is neutralized. When the believers in Jerusalem were experiencing great difficult times, they chose, from their own individual free will, to keep their goods in common (Acts 2:44); and they ended up being always in financial need (Rom. 15:26). However, there is never a mandatory requirement to give any set amount to the local church or to participate in sharing all things in common (Acts 5:3–4).

It cannot be emphasized enough that, the Bible does not anywhere propose a socialistic government or call for excessive taxation designed to equalize unequal outcomes nor does it even view unequal outcomes among individuals as some sort of evil (let alone, as an evil that the state ought to fix by the confiscation of wealth). None of this stuff is found in the Bible, and many liberals who know something about that Bible and who suggest that "Jesus is a liberal" are aware of this. If they could find the proverb which reads, "The just government heavily taxes the greedy rich man and gives his excess to the poor," it would be posted on the front door of every IRS agency liberal organization in the land. Liberals would never object to a Bible verse like this being front and center on any federal building. It would be determined that this is not a violation of church and state, but simply a proclamation of the truth.

One of the greatest problems with the left is their inherent dishonesty. Our President knows that he must carefully phase what he says, so that he disguises what he believes in; or puts it into the most palatable language possible. He no longer uses the phrase, "Spreading the wealth around." He wants to do it; he believes in it; but he will not say it. We have the dishonesty of trying to present Jesus as a liberal. A few passages here or there are taken out of context (for the most part), and then the writer then implies great leaps from these parables and narratives to socialism.

Paying Taxes & Separation of Church & State: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 22:21]

There is certainly a proper concept of the separation of church and state, which concept has been bastardized when brought into the 20th century judicial system. Now, here, we have a bare minimum of Scripture on this particular topic. However, what this concept has been used for, is to remove all vestiges of religion from the function of the state. The posting of the Ten Commandments by a courtroom? Get it out of there. A large cross on public land? Get it out of there! How long will it be before the landscape at Arlington Cemetery is changed?

Historically, we have seen that any alliance between church and state is problematic. Whether the state steps in and decides to rule over matters of faith (in communism and socialism) or to establish a church (like the church of England) or whether church leaders somehow gains a powerful foothold in government; the results are almost always universally panned, by believers and unbelievers alike.

First of all, believing in Jesus Christ is a matter of free will. No one is born a Christian by government fiat; and no one can be forced to becoming a Christian. A state may require that all of its citizens embrace Christianity (or whatever), but that does not increased the number of Christians in a society.

The founders of the United States understood this, and devoted a portion of the 1st Amendment to this, writing "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In the 1950's and 60's, a very activist court began to apply an odd interpretation to this clause. First of all, almost anyone can read that and understand what it says. The Congress will not write any laws with regards to the establishment of a religion. Historically, when the Bill of Rights were debated, no one used the phrase "separation of church and state." This phrase came out of a letter which Thomas Jefferson wrote, which phrase was taken out of its context and applied to the 1st Amendment. The idea of the separation of church and state which Jefferson believed in was, the entity of the church could not dictate policies to the government; and the government could not dictate policies to the church. It was a matter of keeping these 2 entities separate when it came to the application of power, but not with respect to expression. The same founding fathers who crafted the constitution and the Bill of Rights also met for church in federal buildings. These same profoundly religious men believed God to be guiding them and that God was part-Author of the constitution. In other words, this amendment was seen by our founding fathers as being very specific and very narrowly applied. Pastors could talk about politics from their pulpits and government people could publically talk about Jesus Christ. These things did not violate the 1st amendment, nor did attending church in federal buildings. That simply made sense. The buildings were not being used on Sundays; there were many believers in government; so why not put the two together? The ACLU might be horrified today, but it was commonplace in the late 1700's and early 1800's.

For most of our lifetimes, we have completely lost the relationship of our founding fathers, Jesus Christ and the constitution; and have actually been taught lies about these things in our schools. I recall very vividly to being taught that our founders were mostly deists, who believed that God "wound up the world, like a watch; and then walked away from it, never to be seen again." Quite frankly, I was not very interested in any kind of history of anything, and very few things do I recall. That is one of the few things which I was taught and that I believed. But, that idea about deism is just so much horse-pucky, yet it has been taught in our schools for decades. When it became apparently that the truth might be taught, then educational activists began to suggest that we begin teaching American history in the 1850's, simply because there was just too much information to teach (so they claimed). The truth is, their lies began to be exposed, so, instead of having children being exposed to the truth, they have decided that it would be better just to leave that stuff out.

When it comes to the separation between church and state, our courts of the1950's and 1960's also made a dramatic change in the concept of the church; instead of maintaining a separate status of the institutions of church and state, the idea of church was transformed into "any form of religious expression." However, the state began, at the same time, to exercise more and more control over church bodies. So, a prayer to open up a school day or to open up a day in Congress is clearly not the establishment of a religion; however, it is a religious expression, and, therefore the courts have sought to silence such religious expressions, under the umbrella of the separation of church and state. However, at the same time, the state exercises greater and greater control over church institutions; determining whether or not to remove a church's exemption because they talk about politics or determining what an army chaplain may or may not say. Our Congress and courts and various organizations authorized by Congress have taken it upon themselves to exercise some control over religious bodies and persons (violating half of the concept of separation of church and state), and, at the same time, attempting to ban public religious expression of public officials (which is, again, an attack upon the true concept of the separation of church and state).

There is nothing in the history of our founding to suggest that the founders were against politicians speaking of spiritual matters or publically praying or publically declaring a day of prayer. Google "Thanksgiving messages presidents" and see what comes up. Religious expression was to be unbridled—no matter who did the expressing. That is more in keeping with the 1st amendment than is restricting state, county and federal agencies and individuals from enjoying free and unfettered religious expression.

Power wants more power; and that is what the state is doing—grabbing more power.

Community: Love your neighbor as yourself. .[Matthew 22:39] So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you. [Matthew 7:12.] If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21] He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. And he who has food, let him do likewise [Luke 3:11b].

Let's just imagine, for a moment, that Jesus really did tell the rich young ruler that he would really have treasure in heaven if he sold all of his goods and gave the proceeds to the poor. How many people on the left have done this? Film maker Michael Moore claims to be a good catholic and he is a strong advocate for the left, and he often quotes these verses. Has he sold all of his goods and given the proceeds to the poor? Of course not! Who on the left can you point to, who has sold all that they have and given that to the poor?

Secondly, there is no way to take this passage, and interpret it to mean, "The government is herein given the authority to come in, tax you excessively, and give that money to the poor (or to one of its pet projects)." There is no mental gyration by which this can be achieved, and yet people quote Matt. 19:21 to support liberalism.

Point in fact: studies have been made of liberal and conservative giving; and conservatives give more to humanitarian causes than do liberals. Seems like it was John Stossel who set up a salvation army representative in San Francisco and in Sioux Falls, ND, a relatively conservative, religious small town where the average salary was much, much lower. Where did these representatives get the most money? From Sioux Falls, the smaller town that was more religious, more conservative and poorer. The story is here.

Liberals like to act as if they are the ones who have the kind hearts and are generous, but generosity to them is to vote for someone who will tax the rich more and give these proceeds to whatever liberal programs the government sets up. Let me break this to you gently: that is not charity; that is not generosity; that is not kindness. That is legalized redistribution of wealth; something which would be illegal if we did it ourselves (took money away from person A to give it to person B).

I mentioned Michael Moore. You would think that, as a liberal, he would in favor of giving lots of his money to Uncle Sam. However, Moore, like many Hollywood people, sets up organizations through which he can funnel money and avoid paying taxes. If memory serves, if these organizations charitably give away just 4% of their income, they are tax-
deductible.

Two of the other verses quoted above—Matt. 7:12 and 22:39—mean what they say they mean. They have absolutely nothing to do with setting up a communistic or socialistic society. They have absolutely nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth.

Let's look at Luke 3:11b: "He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. And he who has food, let him do likewise." First off, this verse cannot be seen as a socialistic verse, because of the context and what the verse itself says. Luke 3:10–11 And the people asked him, saying, "What shall we do then?" He answered and said to them, "He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. And he who has food, let him do likewise." This is John the Baptizer speaking to those who have come to be baptized by him. In the previous verse, John had told the religious authorities that, "And now also the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire." If John is telling the religious authorities of his time that God may cut them down and toss them into the fire for not bringing forth good works, the less-religious types became concerned for their own eternal destiny. John tells them charity. There is absolutely nothing in the text which suggests that socialism is what John is talking about. You, from your own free will, choose to share what you have with one another. You are not giving this to a government to redistribute; government is not requiring that you give in order for them to redistribute this. Furthermore, there were two future situations where this would be very applicable. Over the next 40 years, Roman authorities and the Jewish people would become more and more at odds with one another, which would send many Jews into abject poverty. This would culminate in the fifth stage of of national discipline31 for Israel, where, in a.d. 70, when Jerusalem would be put under siege by the Romans, and the Jews would be killed or deported. Also, a looming event was the Great Tribulation, which would be a time of 7 years when there would be great social upheaval (which is taught primarily in the book of Revelation, but there were a few passages in the Old Testament which taught this as well).

In any case, we will be faced, from time to time, which people who are really in need. Now, I don't refer to street people, but there are those who will come into our lives, have real needs, and we, as believers in Jesus Christ, ought to be able to help them.

Shouldn't we, as a government, take care of people?
God and the Welfare State
1.	The left, as we have seen, is dishonest in almost all that it does. So it is with the welfare state.

2.	Examples of leftist policies:

1)	Free lunch programs at school.

(1)	This was sold to us as children were showing up to school hungry, and we were not getting the most out of them.

(2)	Therefore, someone decided that it was government's job to feed these children.

(3)	This program has grown to a point where 50–100% of the student body of some schools feed their students breakfast and lunch.

(4)	Obviously, children are getting fed at home. Otherwise, every year, after summer, there would be a huge attrition rate of all those who starved to death over the summer. I recall observing with a smile of a mother who, a day or so after the last day of school, was ahead of me in the supermarket line with 5 boxes of cereal and 2 gallons of milk. All parents grasp the concept of feeding their own children, and those who do not, ought to have their children taken from them.

(5)	This same attrition rate would be found over long vacations, like Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving. If children were not being fed, then many would die over those holidays.

(6)	The school breakfast and lunch program ignores the fact that these children were somehow fed between ages 0 and 5.

(7)	One thing we do not have in the United States is an epidemic of starving children. Our epidemic is children who are fed too much of the wrong kinds of foods. I own a couple of small apartments in the bad part of town. When I go over there, I do not see hundreds of malnourished children and adults; I see fat children and fat adults.

(8)	The idea behind a free lunch program is, it takes the responsibility of the children from the parents and puts it on the shoulders of the government, which is what those on the left like to do.

(9)	This carefully inculcates into the minds of children that government provides them their food; not their parents.

2)	Social security.

(1)	Social security was sold as a supplemental income for people who reach retirement age and are strapped for cash.

(2)	For many, this has become nearly their only source of income.

(3)	What has happened is, this has become a program which has removed from many people the need to think about the future and to lay aside various assets in order to help them survive as they get older.

(4)	This has allowed grown children to ignore the needs of their own retired parents.

(5)	This has made workers at age 60–65 think that they ought to retire.

(6)	Furthermore, because the government is wasteful and inefficient, the money that comes in for social security is squandered elsewhere. There is no "lockbox" into which social security funds are placed. The government gets the social security money and spends it all, every single year. Some is spent on social security, but for many years, most of it is just spent. Also, social security benefits are given to a variety of people who are nowhere near retirement age.

(7)	This has brought in a lot of additional revenues into the government, and the future payments which social security is responsible for is simply a can kicked down to road to following generations.

(8)	Again, individual responsibility is removed and put into the hands of the state.

(9)	What Social Security is really about is taxing the poor and the middle class. One political party acts as if taxing the poor and middle class is a very bad thing; but, that is where most of the money is (when it comes to taxation). So, they must be indoctrinated to think that Social Security taking their money somehow sets this money aside for them to use when they are retired. But no money is ever set aside. The government spends it.

3)	Medicare and medical.

(1)	Most of what is said about social security applies here.

(2)	Again, responsibility is taken away from the individual and placed on the shoulders of the state.

(3)	Something which ought to be the responsibility of the individual or of that person' family becomes the state's responsibility.

(4)	Like social security, this is a promise which government cannot really keep.

4)	A government-subsidized life.

(1)	I have frequent contact with a number of people who live a partially or fully subsidized life. The government pays for their food, clothing, utilities and/or rent. They generally receive this money from more than one government source . Many of these people sit at home 3–7 days a week.

(2)	Throughout my life I have known dozens of people who were healthy, reasonably intelligent, and could have worked, but chose to be supported by taxpayers instead.

(3)	This encourages people to be lazy and indolent and this destroys their initiative and our society as a whole.

(4)	The Bible is clearly against laziness. Therefore, a government program which encourages laziness is anti-Biblical.

5)	Only the government is big enough to take care of poor people equally and efficiently.

(1)	I have run into 2 situations where people who were really in need could not get government aid. One was a mother with 4 children and who had cancer and whose husband left her. You would think, that is a no-brainer. Wrong.

(2)	For every family missed by social services, I have known 5 or more families who lied in order to receive social services.

(3)	One big difference when it comes to a church or a private organization helping a family or person in need—this does not tend to define that person's life for the next 5–20 years. That is, a healthy, reasonably intelligent person with the ability to work does not tend to receive private charity for any length of time. However, when it comes to government help, by far, the majority of the people government supports are healthy and reasonably intelligent people who have the ability to work. Furthermore, not only do these people receive aid for decades, but so do their children and their children's children. Their children grow up learning how to work the system as well.

3.	The Bible is very clear about the requirement of a person to work and the individual.

1)	Adam, under perfect environment and in a fallen world was responsible to work. Gen. 2:8, 15 3:17–18

2)	A person who does not provide for his own is called worse than an infidel in 1Tim. 5:8.

3)	A person who does not work should not eat. 2Thess. 3:10

4)	Working of your own bread is a part of the Christian way of life. 2Thess. 3:12

5)	We are to work so that we are not dependent upon anyone. 1Thess. 4:11–12

4.	There was a welfare system set up in Israel, and that system involved work. Those with fields were not to harvest the corners of the fields, so that the poor could come and harvest this food for themselves. Deut. 24:19–21 Ruth 2

5.	The Bible is very much against laziness. Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest. How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man (Prov. 6:6–11). The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied (Prov. 13:4). The way of a sluggard is like a hedge of thorns, but the path of the upright is a level highway (Prov. 15:19). The sluggard does not plow in the autumn; he will seek at harvest and have nothing (Prov. 20:4). See also Prov. 18:19 19:15, 24

6.	Proverbs describes the difference between the liberal and the conservative in Prov. 21:25–26 The desire of the sluggard kills him, for his hands refuse to labor. All day long he craves and craves, but the righteous gives and does not hold back. I read this verse and think of the union workers carrying signs in Wisconsin and Ohio asking for more and more.

7.	Poverty is not the result of bad luck, in many cases, but of poor working habits. Prov. 24:30–34 I passed by the field of a sluggard, by the vineyard of a man lacking sense, and behold, it was all overgrown with thorns; the ground was covered with nettles, and its stone wall was broken down. Then I saw and considered it; I looked and received instruction. A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man. If necessary, you get out there and you wash dishes, sweep floors, work at a MacDonald's; whatever it takes.

8.	God has given personal satisfaction to believers and unbelievers alike in two areas: in life with one's right woman and in your vocation. Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun (Eccles. 9:9). Everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil--this is God's gift to man (Eccles. 3:13). See also Eccles. 2:24 3:22 5:18

9.	There are certainly the helpless in society, and we ought to take care of them; and a myriad of private organizations do this. However, when the welfare state becomes built into government, then sloth and laziness becomes institutionalized. God calls upon individuals to help our family members and other individuals. God calls upon some to set up organizations to help the helpless; but at no time does God does not call upon government to do things for us that we ought to be doing for ourselves. In many places in Scripture, we are called upon to give (which is different from taxation). One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want. Whoever brings blessing will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered. The people curse him who holds back grain, but a blessing is on the head of him who sells it (Prov. 11:24–26). Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed (Prov. 19:17). The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. As it is written, "He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever." He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God. For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God (2Cor. 9:6–12). See also Prov. 22:9 Mal. 3:10
The applicable saying is, government ought never to do what people can do for themselves.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

Equality & Social Programs: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]

Is Jesus really calling for social programs to feed the poor here? Is He not, again, speaking of personal responsibility? Throughout the United States, there are evangelistic missions which first feed the poor and then give them the gospel. This is much more in keeping with what Jesus is saying here.

What has developed on the left over the past few decades has been public workers unions. These are people who work for the state and they collectively bargain for their wages and benefits. In many cases, their union dues are taken out of their check so that they never see these dues; these dues are given directly from the state to the union; and the union then donates a significant portion of these dues to Democratic party, which voted to allow the state to take said monies out of the worker's paycheck. Also, when future collective bargaining sessions occur, the workers can get even a better deal (which means, more money to the union, which means, more money to the Democratic politicians). Now, where does this money ultimately come from? The taxpayer, who has almost no say in this matter. Now, let's go back to what Jesus said: "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." (Luke 14:12–14). Throwing a banquet for your relatives and rich friends sounds a lot like the cozy relationship between Democrats and public unions. The only difference is, the taxpayers—who do not attend this banquet—are the ones who are footing the bill for it.

Public Prayer & Displays of Faith: And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret. [Matthew 6:6 & 7]

I have to go slightly off topic here for a moment. I have noticed that a several of these websites use the KJV. I guess they are unaware that the NKJV has been out for awhile?

Again, liberals take a passage like this and misapply it to such things as the Ten Commandments being displayed at the courtrooms of the land. Given that both Jews and Christians stand by the Ten Commandments, and that Muslims claim to believe in the Old Testament; having the Ten Commandments posted in some form does not establish a state religion. It simply recognizes the importance of objective law in the land preserves freedom.

What Jesus said was quite specific and very easy to understand. The religious hierarchy of that day, which was apostate, would often be seen praying aloud in public places, which made them seem very holy and religious in the eyes of others. Jesus is saying, that is the approbation that they want, and that is the approbation that they get; and that there is no divine blessing involved here. This does not mean that all public displays of religious expression are wrong. This does not mean that there ought not to be a public prayer to begin this or that event or organizational meeting; or that we ought to pray silently before a meal. It simply means that, when you do something for public approbation, and you receive that public approbation, then you have gotten what you wanted.

Let me give you a modern example. Have you ever seen a movie star have himself shown doing this or that good deed, being involved in this or that charity? Some of them certainly do this out of sincerity and they lend their face to the organization in order for that organization to get more money. However, some of them do this simply to be recognized and admired for their charity, and Jesus says, "They have their reward." That is a modern application of this verse. If that celebrity is a believer in Jesus Christ and filled with the Spirit during their involvement with this charity, then there are eternal rewards. If not, then, "They have their reward." The public approbation they desired is the reward for what they have done. For the unbeliever and for the believer out of fellowship, God simply does not figure into the equation.

Jesus prayed before meals; and He publically prayed when instituting the first Passover (Matt. 26:26–29). Therefore, one cannot understand this passage to mean that God does not want us to ever pray publically.

Now, what do liberals really want? They want to see as little religious expression as possible. They don't want to see crosses, they don't want to see the Ten Commandments, they don't want the captain of the high school football team to make a public prayer (or to pray with hiws team), and they damn sure don't want some public official to pray publically and end the prayer with, "In Jesus' name, amen."

When you see movements to stop school children from singing Christmas carols, to require that a school have a winter solstice break rather than a Christmas vacation; when you see people trying to remove the Bible and Bible verses from the classroom and the Ten Commandments from being displayed near a courtroom, the people spearheading these movements are always liberals. Now, they might get a few conservatives and religious types on board to vote with them, but the thrust of these movements is initiated and led by liberals. Take away the ACLU and other activist liberals, and suddenly, few people are concerned about public religious expression. When I was in elementary school and we had Christmas pageants and sang Christmas hymns, no one batted an eye. When I became a teacher in Texas, and we teachers gathered together for a meal, often we prayed publically to think God for this meal. What I have observed in my lifetime is, the more God has been pushed out of the schools, the worse the schools have become. Society has tried to compensate by throwing tons of money at this problem, and yet, the schools become worse and worse. Whereas, at one time, I was about the worst disruption in school, and disciplined many times for it; now, many school campuses have a full-time policeman on campus, and sometimes more than one.

Therefore, no matter how holy many of these liberal Christians sound, one of their objectives is to remove all vestiges of Christianity from our society. They may quote Jesus out of context to support this or that concept, but they want to move society to a point where, we no longer acknowledge Jesus or look to Him (or the Bible) for guidance.

So, here is a tough question for liberals. I was a teacher for many years, and had various sayings by various people on my walls. Can we only have the sayings of secular people? If someone is religious, then we cannot put their words before our youth? What about our founding fathers? The said a lot of religious things. Should such things be banned from the classroom? Would the words of Jesus, quoted by liberals to support their view—could these be posted? How about, "I am the way, the truth and the life?" I know that would simply drive a liberal nuts, to find those words in a public classroom.

Strict Enforcement of Religious Laws: If any of you has a son or a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? [Matthew 12:11] The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. [Mark 2:27.]

The Bible tends to be fairly black and white; there are so many instances where we hear the words good and bad, just and unjust in the Bible. Liberals would like for there to be less of that. They want us to consider situational ethics; if someone murders, we need to explore that person's psyche and his environment. Therefore, passages like this are quoted. However, there is the actual background for these passages. We have the Old Testament, which is God's Word. Along side the Old Testament, there was an oral tradition, which grew up along side of the Old Testament, and became authoritative—particularly during the time of Jesus. This oral tradition was later committed to writing in the MIshna and the Talmud. Jewish law put together 39 categories of forbidden activities; and the laws regarding the Sabbath were many. One of my favorites, which I heard in a Jewish history class is: if you are walking down the street on the Sabbath and you get mud splashed on you, you can allow the mud to dry, grab that portion of your clothing, and squeeze it one time, and you have not violated the Sabbath. This is not a law found in the Bible; this is a part of this oral tradition which grew up along side the Bible, which perverted the teaching of the Bible. So that there is no misunderstanding, this is not in the Bible; this is a man-made religious law.

Therefore, Jesus was not encouraging people to violate the laws found in the Bible; He was talking about their rules and regulations which they developed over hundreds of years, which are not found in the Bible. Again, do not forget that Jesus also said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17). These 3 passages, when taken together, favor (in that time) obedience to the Law of Moses. These same passages disparage following the traditions of men. This section should properly be entitled, "Strict Enforcement of Religious Traditions." However, the person I took most of these opinions from entitled this "Strict Enforcement of Religious Laws" so that we are led to believe that Jesus was against strictly obeying the Mosaic Law. Again, this is liberal dishonesty.

Individuality & Personal Spiritual Experience: Ye are the light of the world. [Matthew 5:14]

Let's look at the entire passage: Jesus, in speaking to His disciplines (see Matt. 5:1), said: "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 5:14–16). Now, do you recall an earlier passage that we studied? "But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Mat 6:7 "And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.". (Matthew 6:6–7). Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Remember, this all occurs within the same sermon. Is He telling us that we ought to publically demonstrate our faith; and yet, hide it? Of course not! In the first instance, Jesus is telling His disciples not to hide their light (divine truth; their relationship to Jesus Christ) from the world. One could reasonably extend this to a nation like ours celebrating our founding fathers and their beliefs, which would mean, public references, prayers and monuments to the Lord of our Founding Fathers, Jesus Christ. That would be far easier to argue from these passages than the idea that we ought to hide all vestiges of Christianity. In the second passage, as already explained, some people do things for public recognition, and Jesus says, in this, they already have their reward. So, the key is not being secretive about your faith; the key is your motivation, the key to your spiritual life is your thinking. Putting these passages together is easily done, when they are correctly interpreted according to their context.

The Social Gospel: But you can't read the Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), or even the Acts of the Apostles without hearing the social gospel loudly and clearly: In Matthew: Whatsoever ye shall do unto the least of my brethren you do also unto me, and so forth. Matthew also says people going off to preach the good news should not take any wallet for their journey --neither two coats nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food. The Corporal Works of Mercy: Cloth the naked, feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted. Does that not sound like a social gospel to you? What else is it if it's not? Of course you hear in rebuttal that what Jesus really meant was, you should do that personally, so that you could have the satisfaction of knowing that you responded to the commandments and you helped a fellow human being. In other words, Jesus never intended it to be done by the government. Really? Where do you find that in the New Testament?32

Bruce Maiman, who wrote the above, basically answers his own question. These works are to be performed individually, not necessarily for personal satisfaction, however, but just because they are right and might further the gospel. The reason we know that this is for individuals and not for government is, Jesus said these words to individuals; He did not say these things to leaders of governments (even though many rulers, like Pilate, were sympathetic to Jesus; and some, like Herod, were interested in meeting Jesus—Luke 23:8). Jesus could have gotten an audience with Pontius Pilate or with Herod probably at any time, and Jesus could have laid out what government should be doing; but He did not do this. Jesus spoke to men who had some authority (like the Centurion). Jesus did not append His remarks with, "Oh, and you know all the stuff I have been saying about helping out your neighbor...that really applies to the state—go back and relay that message to your superior."

This is, in fact, the leap too far that all liberals take (all who try to teach that Jesus is a liberal). Jesus could have had a ministry to government officials, if He so chose to, but He did not. At no time did Jesus specifically give commands which are clearly understood to be commands given to governments. However, for the liberal, it is all about government and what the government ought to be doing for the people; or how the government ought to be restricting religious expression.

Jesus is anti-gun and/or anti-military because He said, "All who take up the sword will perish by the sword." (Matt. 26:52b).

First of all, the context of this verse is, Jesus is assuring that He would be taken to the cross, where He would die for the sins of all mankind. This fact is ignored in its entirety on every left-wing website that touts Jesus as the first far-left revolutionary (not just in the context of this passage, but in general; Jesus as Savior is not found on any of the left-wing website I have gone to). Therefore, Who Jesus is and what God's purpose for Him, is usually ignored by those who try to co-opt Jesus into their political philosophy. Secondly, we have already discussed that Jesus is not anti-military or anti-law enforcement, and have shown that He gave the highest commendation to the Roman centurion, who no doubt carried a sword and used it. However, when it comes to using the sword (or a gun) for a criminal assault, that sets up the criminal for prosecution and execution (which is not followed often enough in the United States).

Paul later writes that those in authority do not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:4). The sword would be used justly in military action, law enforcement and in execution.

Recall that, in another passage, Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword on another occasion (Luke 22:36). In fact, that is probably why Peter has a sword in the passage in question. So how can Jesus be anti-sword (gun) if he tells His Own disciples to purchase one?

The early church practiced socialism: And all who believed were together and had all things common. And they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need. And continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they shared food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:44–47). And the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul. And not one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own. But they had all things common (Acts 4:32). And in those days, the disciples having multiplied, a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews occurred, because their widows were overlooked in the daily serving. And the Twelve called near the multitude of the disciples and said, It is not pleasing to us, leaving the Word of God, to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, look out among you seven men being witnessed to, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this duty (Acts 6:1–3).

It is undeniable that the early church in Jerusalem practiced a form of voluntary socialism. This fact cannot be denied. There were several reasons for this. First of all, believers were heavily persecuted by Jews and Romans alike. Jews who believed in Jesus Christ might see their businesses go under because some would no longer transact business with them (this is a favorite ploy of liberals today, to boycott this or that business in order to get their way). However, what should not be ignored is, this was a completely voluntary system. Ananias and his wife Sapphira both died the sin unto death33 because they represented their gift to the local church as if it were all the proceeds from the sale of a piece of land, when it was, in fact, not. In the midst of this incident, Peter emphasizes that private property was legitimate and it was not wrong for them to own private property. "While it remained [unsold], was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own authority? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God." (Acts 5:4). So, there was no requirement that Ananias and Sapphira sell this land, and there was no requirement for them to give any or all of their proceeds to the church in Jerusalem. The problem was, they dishonestly represented their gift as being the entire proceeds from their land when it wasn't.

The book of Acts tells us about what occurred in the early church and it recorded portions of many amazing sermons delivered during that time period. However, we do not pick a chapter from Acts and simply copy what is done there. When was the last time 11 Apostles got together and elected a 12th Apostle? 2000 years ago, in the first chapter of Acts. We go to the epistles for principles and practice, not to the Acts of the Apostles. Nowhere in the epistles do we have voluntary collectivism as a requirement, much less socialism.

Quite obviously, there are extreme circumstances, and these extreme circumstances require extreme measures. During the holocaust, many hid Jews in their homes and many helped Jews escape Germany and elsewhere because of the persecutions. When you live in a time period of extraordinary circumstances, there will be times that you need to alter your lifestyle or change how you do things. One month, you are living a normal life; the next month, you are hiding Jews or you are helping Jews to get out of a dangerous country. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary actions.

The Christian Jews in the early Jerusalem church faced a great deal of persecution because of the hard-heartedness of the unbelieving Jews, so extraordinary measures were taken. Was this necessary? In some cases, yes. Should this be the guide for our churches today? In a period of great distress, possibly. During a Great Depression, there might be more sharing of material goods within your church. However, this does not mean that you need to, in some grand gesture, give all that you have. Peter makes this quite clear in Acts 5. How do you decide? Doctrine in your soul helps you to determine when you do what. There will be times and people who look to you for help; you have to make a decision as to who you can help and what the extent of this help ought to be (if any).

Now, I can almost guarantee you that, there will be a time in your life—possibly many times—when someone is going to ask you to part from your hard-earned money for whatever reason. That is a doctrinal call on your part. Let each man give according as he has determined in his heart [this is your making a decision based upon the doctrine in your thinking]; not grudgingly, or under compulsion; for God loves a correctly-motivated giver (2Cor. 9:7). Even though the context of this verse is giving to the believers in Jerusalem, it is certainly well-applied to church giving and to giving which occurs outside of the church.

Under any kind of a government, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ and you have money, then that means you have some responsibility to determine what to do with that money. This does not mean that you give it all away. Your first responsibility is to your family. If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel (1Tim. 5:8). This does not mean that you give them whatever they ask for. There was one time, in my family, that we saved for a vacation by working together to pick and sell the apricots from out trees. That was a form of family collectivism. I got an allowance besides that, but I had to work for it. That was my family providing for its own. I found out that, if I wanted more money than that (which I did; which nearly every kids wants) then I had to go out and work for it. That was capitalism and the glories of hard work (which, at that time, I did not like very much; but I liked the money that I earned).

And the Bible teaches that, if you are a young person, you provide for your elders when necessary. If any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to be godly to their own house, and give back to their forebears what is due them; for that is good and pleasing before God (1Tim. 5:4). This is honoring your mother and father (or, grandparents). Paul does not call for a collective to be organized at the church to handle this problem; Paul does not call for social security to be a government function. He calls upon a family to take care of its own, because that is pleasing before God.

Now, think back on the rich man who apparently did not honor his mother or father—do you see how that is related to 1Tim. 5:4? Do you see why Jesus asked him about this particular commandment and then demanded that he sell all that he had and give it to the poor? He had apparently already corban'ed his money—so Jesus is saying, "Take it all the way; give all your wealth away right now, and follow Me."

Jesus is a liberal, because He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." (Matt. 5:5).

I am not sure how exactly meekness is tied to the left, but some of those on the left think that it is. The work is actually the adjective praus ( ) [pronounced prah-OOCE], which means, 1) mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit, meekness. Thayer definition only. R. B. Thieme, Jr. defines this as being grace oriented. Strong's #4239. The fundamental idea here is, this is a person who is teachable. If you are arrogant, you have your own opinion, and that is it. No amount of debate, example, or proof from the Bible will change your mind. When we are saved, we come from a variety of backgrounds; some of us were quite liberal when saved, some conservative, some had little or no interest or affiliation. However, rarely is a person saved whose concepts and norms line up with the Bible. We have to be teachable (meek) in order to shed that which is false. If we do not shed that which is false, we will not grow spiritually. All believers are saved forever. You can be the stupidest believer on planet earth, whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to Bible doctrine, but if you have believed in Jesus Christ, you are saved forever. However, those who will inherit the earth are those who are teachable. Those who will have a real stake in the earth—as God will transform it—are those who are teachable.

There is also the consideration as to whom Jesus was speaking here and how it is to be interpreted according to the dispensation that He was in; however, there is no reason why we need to dig much deeper in order to refute this idea that somehow, meekness is equivalent to liberalism.

As has already been mentioned, most Communist and socialist regimes are simply totalitarian governments which kill hundreds of thousands (and millions) of people in order to institute socialism. How can that be seen as meek?

Dozens of leftist groups supported a flotilla which was sent to the Gaza Strip awhile ago, and Jewish authorities who were going to check the ship for weapons were beaten when they came on board. I am not sure how that qualifies as meek.

In the year that I write this, there have been union demonstrations all over the United States in response to collective bargaining being eliminated or diminished in power. These leftist demonstrators have been loud, belligerent and very destructive, causes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to the Wisconsin capitol of Madison. I don't quite get how this is an example of meekness.

I suppose, somehow, meekness is supposed to be conflated with being a pacifist, but in the examples given above, calling any of these confrontations examples of pacifism is really stretching the concept of pacifism as employed by Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, as has been already clearly taught, thinking that the Bible teaches pacifism at all costs is simply wrong. The Bible has a list of the greatest warriors under David, but no list of the greatest pacifists. The occupation of the military is exalted in the Bible; it is never degraded. And Jesus paid the highest compliment to a military man, who He did not rebuke for being a military man. All of these things have already been covered.

It is quite simple: the Bible does not teach pacifism and, even if it did, liberals only employ pacifism as a tool; when violence works, they use violence instead. The idea is, the end justifies the means. Therefore, a communist leader can kill millions simply because they do not agree with communist doctrine; and many liberals have no problem with this.

Summation: To me, it is always a wonderment that people want to have Jesus on their side. I don't run into too many websites where someone argues, "Confucius is a liberal" or "Mohammed was a true conservative." However, people seem to be overly concerned with our Lord's political affiliation. What is most important to understand about Jesus Christ is, He has come to save that which is lost. He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6). He died for you sins and you are saved by placing your faith in Him. No matter what you think about politics, being a conservative or being a liberal is not the issue. The issue is Jesus Christ, the only way to God.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum
Kukis Website	A List of Doctrines

The Bible and Socialism

It is not difficult to simply define socialism and capitalism:

In socialism, the state owns the land and the means of production.

Communism, by the way, is a theoretical system, where socialism naturally morphs into communism, in which the state simply disappears because there is no longer a need for it. This has never occurred. All communist and all socialist governments are socialistic in nature.

In capitalism, individuals own the land and the means of production. Joint ventures by the government and business is not capitalism.

In socialism, there is a top down control of the economy.

In capitalism, there is a bottom up control of the economy. Quite obviously, some businesses intermingle with government, and get special tax breaks, and this is not pure capitalism.

Liberation theology stresses a collective salvation. President Barack Obama has, on many occasions, made reference to a collective salvation as a part of what he believes in.34 When government functions in accordance with liberation theology, then justice (their concept of it) is collective and coerced.

Christianity focuses on the person of Jesus Christ, and what He did for us on the cross. We believe our response to the cross to be individual and uncoerced.

It ought to be clear to any knowledgeable person that, there is no system which is 100% socialistic or capitalistic. Furthermore, without some kind of order, which is a matter of the authority of the state, true capitalism cannot exist. That is, there is no such thing as a society which is 100% capitalistic, because there must be some government to keep the society orderly and controlled. There must be a set of laws applied to the individuals in society and to the various economic entities in a society.

Because power is so seductive, under any kind of system, there will be those who desire this power, whether they be political figures or the captains of industry. We see this on occasion when someone on the left, like Maxine Waters, will admit that she wants to take over the oil industry.35 We saw this in the economic meltdown of late when mortgage brokers and wall street investors did things which, although morally questionable, they were able to get away with (which was a result of government, in the form of FNMA or FHLMC, interfering with the market36).

Because of the sin nature that we all have, our government was originally set up in such a way as to discourage absolute control by the government over its citizens. It saw private enterprise (which includes the private control of land and businesses) and the church as entities in which power could also be found. In fact, the idea was for government's power to be limited (which is the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights).

God's plan, for over a millennium, was centered on the nation Israel. Therefore, we ought to be able to find capitalism or socialism as the model for the nation Israel under God. What happened? God led the Jews into the Land of Promise; they took the land, and then the land was divided up between individual owners. That is what the middle third of the book of Joshua is all about. Dividing up the land between the various families. Not only did God promise Abraham on many occasions that He would give this land to Abraham's descendants, but this was fulfilled literally and in part when Israel took this land. The land, which was the means of production, was not in the hands of the state; it was owned by the people—by individuals and families. Women had property rights as well. There was no hierarchy set up to determine which crops would be planted or where.

There were safeguards built into the system, so that no one family could become too powerful and so that no person could be oppressed for too long a period of time. Land reverted back to the families which originally possessed it every 50 years; and Israelite slaves were manumitted every 7 years.

When it comes to socialism, many like to point to the book of Acts where the early Christians in the church of Jerusalem held all things in common (Acts 2:44 4:32). The book of Acts is all about what the early church did, right and wrong. For instance, Paul offered up a sacrifice in order to gain a hearing with the Jews, went through the purification rites and offerings were offered up (Acts 21:26). This was flat out wrong for Paul to do and the people of Jerusalem were enraged. So, simply because something occurs in the book of Acts, we cannot assume that is our model for the Christian church today (the early Apostles also elected a 12th Apostle, which was also wrong—Acts 1). What we look for is this: does Paul, Peter, James or John take something found in Acts and institutionalize it with doctrinal mandates in their epistles? Paul mandates the renovation of our thinking in Rom. 12:1–2; but nowhere does he mandate some sort of private socialism, where all of our goods are held in common. This occurred in the church in Jerusalem, where the church suffered tremendous persecution. Therefore, among themselves, they determined that this was the best course of action (that does not mean that it was). In several places in the epistles, we find Paul asking for there to be giving to the Jerusalem church. So, it is clear that they did not prosper in their privatized socialism.

Let's say for a moment that I grant you that, what this church in Jerusalem did was the best thing for them. Note that this is not socialism as we know it. This is more like a commune, where people choose of their own free will to become a part of the commune. True socialism is imposed; this was a voluntary socialism which involved a small segment of society. In any case, neither a command to enter into a private socialism or a state-wide socialism can be found in the epistles of the New Testament.

It ought to be obvious that, we live in a partially socialized country. We began as a country based upon free enterprise and now we have social security, medicare and medicaid. Does this mean we ought to revolt against our government? Does this mean we ought to refuse to pay our taxes? Does this mean we ought to cheat on our taxes in order to keep back the money which would go to pay for those things? Of course not! (for all 3 questions). We pay the taxes which are due, whether they are just or unjust in our own thinking. We function within the government wherein we are born. The most radical choice is to do what Rahab the prostitute did, where she aligned herself with the Jews against her own people. When she made this choice, she did not hedge her bets, and the basis for it was that the Jews were God's people taking the land that God gave them. She chose to believe in and trust that God. If you think another country is more aligned with God, then that is a choice you need to consider. However, note that this is one example in the Bible; and that we do not have a plethora of examples of those who turn against their country. And no believer could look to any Communist government and determine that to be a more righteous government than the United States. That kind of thinking means you do not have enough doctrine to come in out of the rain. My short-term recommendation to you, while getting doctrine in your soul, is to keep your mouth closed and head down when going outside.

At this point in time (I write in 2011), we live in a representative republic and our votes and our opinions matter in steering this country. Therefore, a believer ought to know what he believes; he ought to have a set of doctrinal principles which are a foundation for his opinions, and then vote according to those principles. This does not mean that your life ought to be given over to politics. We have only so many hours on this earth, and our priorities ought to be Bible doctrine, our own family, and work. Because spiritual maturity is far more important than who we vote for, that should be the goal of every believer in Jesus Christ. The more believers with doctrine there are, the greater our country will be.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum
Kukis Website	A List of Doctrines

Addendum

What follows is a few additional comments, along with some related materials to this study, which are primarily secular references.

It would be difficult to list the various types of people who buy into liberalism. Some are extremely dishonest, and attempt to support what they believe with the Bible, even though, truth be told, they could care less about the Bible. It is simply used as a tool to convert others.

I have argued with liberals about certain topics, and it is clear that they took positions which they themselves knew to be false, but it furthered their argument. Argue with a homosexual about the sinfulness of homosexual activity, and he will say, "But this is the way that God made me." He may or may not believe in God, but he is probably aware of studies which have been done of identical twins which clearly indicates that (1) there is a genetic factor in homosexuality but (2) it is not strictly determinative (the same can be said to be true about alcoholism and drug addiction). I have debated with such individuals who, time and time again, assert how this is just how they are from the earliest age; and yet, nearly all are aware of the twins study.

There are some liberals I have encountered where it is hard to tell. They are able to hold contradictory and even nonsensical views in their minds. Are they able to see this? I have no idea. I recall an interview that Bill O'Reilly did with Whoopie Goldberg, and, when pointing out some flaws or contradictions in her thinking, Whoopie said (and this is not an exact quote): "Look, Bill, this his how I feel. What is feel is what I believe."

However, there are sincere liberals, and just as the god of this world blinds man from the gospel (2Cor. 4:4), he blinds them to the truths of divine establishment as well (The Laws of Divine Establishment are designed for believer and unbeliever alike—HTML PDF). Satan has 2 general strategies: to keep the unbeliever away from the gospel in any way possible (and, in many countries, proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ is illegal) and to neutralize the young believer in any way possible. The latter is accomplished in a myriad of ways, which can include an inordinate amount of time spent in political involvement to the exclusion of spiritual growth; false systems of government promoted by Bible verses taken out of context; sin, degeneracy, evil and human good.

It ought to be clear that, when a person lacks spiritual focus, either because they do not believe in Jesus Christ or they have a stunted spiritual growth, then they will look to other places to be saved. It is not unusual for unbelievers and immature believers to gravitate toward a charismatic leader who is appealing. One should not be surprised when these types then look to the government to meet their needs and desires, rather than to God. However, let us recall the words of God: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from Jehovah." (Jer. 17:5b)

This is a 2008 column by George Will.
Conservatives Are More Liberal Givers
Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
From: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html accessed March 24, 2011.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

This is an article entitled Who Gives and Who Doesn't? Putting the Stereotypes to the Test. By John Stossel and Kristina Kendall
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives. telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don't give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more.is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

Rich vs. Poor

The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations.

But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.

Laurie Tanner is one of those people. She says, "I remember a time when honestly, I couldn't afford a gallon of milk for my son. And I had a good friend that stepped in and helped me, and I've never forgotten that."

The United Way helped Vincent Lau when he was a teenager. Now he donates to them. "I'm glad to help, " Lau says.

Workers at the meat packing plant where Lau works make on average around $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees here than anywhere else.

Another employee at the plant, B.J. Motley, has a wife and four kids to support, but he gives part of his paycheck to charity every week

"My mom always says 'it's always good to give,'" he says. "[I've] got a great family and I've been blessed."

And what about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, compared to the rich and the working poor, they give less. "The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor," says Brooks. "The middle class give the least."

The Church Connection

Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.

So how did our little test turn out? Tune into a special edition of "20/20," "Cheap in America," to find out.
Here are 20/20 programs on this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vRk4XiOKWc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk4iBNFumVA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_UptfxPLBI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usK1qEP-rvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv1RE-AY6ag

The abbreviated view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRABUIiMFMY
From: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

George Patton is a great general who understood some portions of the Bible better than some preachers.
General Patton on Pacifism

and Preaching Pacifism from the Pulpit
"They (religious leaders) should read all of the Bible, not just the part they like."
General George S. Patton had a knack for getting straight to the point. He always wanted his commanders to 'get the facts' before making a decision. Sometimes the truth got him into trouble but more often then not he cut to the quick. Here is his take on pacifism and 'pulpit killers' taken from Patton's Principles by Porter B. Williamson, one of his former officers.
"Gen. Patton did not have kind words for those who could not face death. He had harsh words for the religious leaders who opposed the efforts of the military and preached, "Thou shall not kill." Gen. Patton called these types, "pulpit killers!" He commented, "These pulpit killers that go around saying that the Bible says that man dare not kill causes the death of many thousands of good soldiers. Damn little those pulpit killers know about the Bible. They know even less about the way God works. They should read all of the Bible, not just the part they like! God never hesitated to kill. God never hesitates to kill when one man or any race of man needed to be punished. God helped David kill Goliath, didn't he? How about Noah and the Ark? All of the rest of the people were killed in the flood! God took the blame for this mass murder. How about the Red Sea which opened up long enough for one race to escape and another race to be killed. Don't talk to me about God not permitting man to kill. War means that we have to kill people. That's all there is to it. It is a sin not to kill if we are serving on God's side. There is no other way to win. Wars must be won for God's sake. He has a part in every war! The quicker we can kill the enemy, the quicker we can go home and listen to the pulpit killers tell us what we did wrong. If it wasn't for us, those pulpit idiots would be shot for standing in their own pulpits. Our task is to kill the enemy before we are killed."
Many accused Gen. Patton of loving war. In fact, the Patton movie script had him saying, "I love war!" Gen. Patton did not love war, but he had the courage to face the truth that all there is to war is killing people. Gen. Patton hated war far more than the "pulpit killers" he condemned. He often quoted the Bible, saying, "There will always be wars and rumors of wars." Gen. Patton hated those military and political leaders who delayed, regrouped, consolidated gains, defended land, dug fox holes, or would permit any act which would prolong the war without any thought of the soldiers on both sides that would die from the delay."
From: Chapter 5, Principle for Making Decisions, subheading, 'When at war we must kill people.'
As Patton said, people tend to quote the parts of the Bible they like. This is true for all religions. When sacred texts talk of peace and harmony, they are referring of the need to 'love thy neighbor' and to be the non-agressor; but when attacked there is the need to defend liberty, freedom and Peace. When the Great Master and other teachers speak of 'turning the other cheek,' being 'peaceful' and 'non-violent'; what they are saying is that one's emotions should not be violent or filled with hatred and anger when defending life.
Many might be surprised to learn that "Thou shalt not kill," is a deliberate mis-translation. The original statement from God on Mt. Sinai was "Thou shalt not murder." Big distinction but very convenient for the forces of evil that want good people to stand by and do nothing. Most people who cry 'Thou shalt not kill' probably don't believe in most of the other commandments anyway.
It is hypocritical to cry "Peace! Peace!" -When there is no Peace! Freedom is being trampled throughout the world. Without America and Americans like Patton, the criers of peace will be dead along with any recognizable form of Religion or Democracy.

--- the Editor, William House; Reverse Spins
From: http://www.reversespins.com/pattonpacify.html

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

The poverty chart taken from:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJWxZhSMl4I/AAAAAAAAJWg/yEPClygR
biA/s1600/census+2010b.png

Sadly, when senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell was at a Law school, she indicated that the phrase separation of church and state was not in the constitution, and the audience of law students laughed at her. It is not in the constitution; this phrase was appropriated by Supreme Court judges, nearly 200 years after it had been used in a private letter, and used in such a way as to distort its meaning.
The Full Text of Thomas Jefferson's

"Separation of Church and State" Letter
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut

Gentleman,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th. Jefferson

January 1, 1802
It is important to recognize that Thomas Jefferson was merely underlining the first amendment by expressing it in another way. There was no intent here to afford more power to the state or to restrict religious expression. Given the public expression of the faith of our founding fathers, which was often done in public buildings, which was often done while involved in the creation of our union of states, it is clear that the founding fathers did not have the intent, at that time or in the future, to limit religious expression of statesmen even in the performance of their stately duties. To try to teach otherwise is simply a distortion of historical events.
It is interesting to see how distorted our history has become. According to one source, 69% of Americans believe that the phrase the separation of church and state is found in the Bill of Rights. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, when speaking before a group of students at Widener University School of Law was laughed at by law students for saying "Where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?" (start listening at 2:37). It would have been more correct for her to say, "Where in the constitution is the phrase 'separation of church and state.' " However, it is pathetic that law students laughed when she said this.
See http://www.schoolprayerinamerica.info/1separationchurchstate.html for a nice exposition of this.
From http://www.free2pray.info/Danbury.html accessed March 11, 2011. Emphasis mine.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

In doing this research, I came across some websites whose propositions were, quite frankly, too weird to argue about. One example is below (my impression is, Dennis Wheeler is some southern conservative Christian that Ray Dubuque found; however, Dubuque did not give a link to Wheeler's website). These 12 theses are enshrined on Ray Dubuque's website (yes, I am able to count).
Dennis Wheeler's 12 Important Conservative Beliefs
Twelve Important Conservative Beliefs

(as set forth in black and white by Dennis Wheeler )

Thesis # 1.	White, southern Christians are the only true Christians in America

Thesis # 2.	Belief in Science and belief in the Bible don't mix, and true Christians go with the Bible

Thesis # 3.	Man's law needs to be the reflection of God's law (the ten commandments)

Thesis # 4.	"There is no ethical righteousness apart from the law of God"

Thesis # 5.	People aren't entitled to the "rights" claimed for them by "humanistic" theories

Thesis # 6.	God's plan calls for INEQUALITY among human beings, rather than EQUALITY

Thesis # 7.	The Word of God supports absolute authority, RATHER THAN DEMOCRACY

Thesis # 8.	"Civil governments derive their powers from God"

Thesis # 9.	To OPPOSE slavery is to go against God's Word

Thesis # 10	The enslaving of non-Christian black Africans by White European Christians was the best thing that could have happened to them

Thesis # 11	The Civil War won't be over until the true Conservative Christianity of the South triumphs not just there but throughout the rest of the country
From: http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/biblebeltchristianity-1.html And no, I cannot exactly explain how the 12 important conservative beliefs are condensed to 11 theses.
The theses answered:

Thesis #1. White, southern Christians are the only true Christians in America. This seems so absolutely silly; I have no idea how something thinks that this can be a fundamental belief of conservatives, Christians, southern conservatives or southern Christians.

Thesis #2. Belief in Science and belief in the Bible don't mix, and true Christians go with the Bible Almost all of the great scientists of history have been Christians. So to say that the Bible and science somehow do not mix or are in opposition to one another is a silly proposition. Now, in the 20th century, science has become more political and more opposed to Christianity. This would include the idea that some races are inferior (and, some even wanted to remove these races), evolution and global warming. I personally do not believe in evolution, but there are many conservatives who do. However, most of the conservatives I know do not believe in man-made global warming or, even worse, man's solutions to global warming (like mercury-filled light bulbs; we think that is a very bad idea). The idea that science and religion do not mix is actually more of a secular notion from the 20th and 21st century, which is designed by secularists to disparage religion.

Thesis #3. Man's law needs to be the reflection of God's law (the ten commandments) It is reasonable for man's laws to reflect God's law. This is a legitimate principle as related to the Laws of Divine Establishment.

Thesis #4. "There is no ethical righteousness apart from the law of God" The laws of divine establishment are for believers and unbelievers both. Morality must be a part of any nation or that nation will fall apart. This sort of morality is often taken from the law of God, including the Ten Commandments.

Thesis #5. People aren't entitled to the "rights" claimed for them by "humanistic" theories Recently, over the past few decades, a huge number of new rights have been spawned by the left: the right to housing, the right to food, the right to a job, the right to medical care, the right to more equal outcomes, the right to not have others make too much more money than you make, etc. Conservatives believe that, on one end of the spectrum, there is freedom; and on the other, is equality of outcomes. We have seen several nations go from a government-mandated equality (notably, Russia, China and Vietnam). The further these nations move away from equality of outcomes, the more freedom the nation enjoys and the greater prosperity the nation enjoys. Since we already know what happens when government attempts to insure equal outcomes, most conservatives don't really want to see that tried here.

Thesis #6. God's plan calls for INEQUALITY among human beings, rather than EQUALITY Freedom means unequal outcomes. This is a legitimate proposition. The parable of the talents illustrates that, when some people start with so much money, they are able to invest it and make a lot more money; and others, at best, are able just to hide that money under a rock. The more economic freedom that a society has, and the less distributed wealth there is, the greater the chances that all can succeed (because an economy is not a zero-sum game, but something which can grow—the more people who participate as industrious citizens, the more a society grows economically).

Thesis #7. The Word of God supports absolute authority, RATHER THAN DEMOCRACY The Word of God supports obedience to a governmental authority. When one chooses to be disobedient, then they need to take it all the way, like Rahab the Harlot.

Thesis #8. "Civil governments derive their powers from God" Conservatives tend to like this, whether it is true or not. We often take this as an axiom, as it is presented in the Declaration of Independence.

Thesis #9. To OPPOSE slavery is to go against God's Word This is one of the silliest assertions. Slavery has been a human institution which continues even today. This institution was removed from American and England by means of Christians, for the most part. Where this is going on today (and it does occur in America), it is not an institution run by Christians.

Thesis #10. The enslaving of non-Christian black Africans by White European Christians was the best thing that could have happened to them This is actually a true statement and it comes under the heading God works all things together for good (Rom. 8:28a). There are a lot of wicked things in this world which result in good. Despite the pain, suffering and injustice of early slavery in the United States, millions of African Americans are in heaven today because of this. That statement is not a justification for slavery, but a recognition of Rom. 8:28.

Thesis #11. The Civil War won't be over until the true Conservative Christianity of the South triumphs not just there but throughout the rest of the country Maybe, somewhere, there might be a southern conservative who believes this. However, the few who say anything like this publically are mostly just doing it to get a rise out of Yankees (I live in the south and can testify to this firsthand).
Now, apart from #'s 3–6 and 8, I don't know of any conservative or conservative group that believes these things. If you were to stop a conservative on the street and ask them to name the fundamental conservative principles, they might say, "Our rights come from God and not government" and "the Ten Commandments should be the basis for our laws." I would be surprised if 5% of conservatives held to 6 or more of these beliefs as being fundamental to their faith.
The author of this site lists some other views, which he classifies as Christian and/or conservative. Again, few of which, if any, do conservatives hold to:

•	that God never intended blacks to be the equals of whites;

•	that God never intended women to be the equals of men;

•	that God never intended children to be the equals of adults;

•	that God never intended gays to be the equals of straights;

•	that God's cause was defeated when the North prevailed in the Civil War;

•	that the U.S.A. was founded by Christians for Christians, only;

•	that God never intended science to go beyond the bible's view of the world;

•	that God never intended to replace "the divine right of kings" with "democracy";

•	that God never intended government to help the needy;

•	and that it is therefore against God's plan and "unChristian" to support such things.
The author of this site lists some other views, which I will comment on in italics:

•	that God never intended blacks to be the equals of whites; Whereas, there are certainly some racial characteristics which are mostly true of this or that race, all people are potentially sons of God through faith in Christ. We ought not to treat any other race as inferior. By the way, the idea that blacks are inferior to whites can be more reasonably attributed to secularists rather than to Christians. Destroying this or that race because they are inferior is a liberal concept, not a Christian one. The founder of Planned Parenthood was all for reducing the number of Black children, which act is perpetuated in fact in these abortion centers across America.

•	that God never intended women to be the equals of men; Men and woman have different roles, according to the laws of divine establishment and according to Christianity. Attempts to subvert these roles has heaped great evils on our society (e.g., the rise of single motherhood or the homosexual agenda, both of which are attacks against the laws of divine establishment). However, there is nothing in the Bible about women or men being inferior to the other (having or lacking authority is not an indication of superiority or inferiority).

•	that God never intended children to be the equals of adults; This is certainly true; it is our responsibility to properly raise children, which is done best in the household of one father and one mother. Parents may have the goofiest of ideas and be quite secular, but children still have a better chance at being raised right if this is one man and one woman raising them (in other words, much as we might like to, we do not get to restrict the procreation habits of liberal parents—besides, they will take it upon themselves to do this).

•	that God never intended gays to be the equals of straights; Homosexual behavior is a degenerate sin (a sin which is related to pleasure and committed again and again where it sometimes takes over a person's life). A person who views himself as gay can be saved just as a person who views himself as heterosexual can be unsaved. God, through His Word, is able to guide "gays" out of this lifestyle (which has occurred many times in the past (even psychiatry has had some success in this area).

•	that God's cause was defeated when the North prevailed in the Civil War; There were a grave problems on both sides of the Civil War. The South was correct in their notion to retain state sovereignty, which spread out power and took it away from the federal government. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee freed their slaves in order to show that this is now what they were fighting for. Many soldiers left their slaves in charge of their farms and plantations while they were at war. However, slavery was written into the confederate constitution, and slavery is certainly an evil. Had the south voluntarily given up slavery, and yet retained states' rights would have been the ideal outcome to this war.

•	that the U.S.A. was founded by Christians for Christians, only; Most of our founders were believers in Jesus Christ. However, they recognized both a need for morality, Christianity, and the freedom of religious expression (or the lack thereof). I know of no group of Christians who believe that the United States was founded for Christians only.

•	that God never intended science to go beyond the bible's view of the world; This is a canard from the left, which has been, for over a century, trying to drive a wedge in between science and religion. Where this has been successful, evolution, global warming alarmism, and the belief in the inferiority of races has been the result. Although the Bible is not a scientific book, it is filled with things which are in agreement with science hundreds and thousands of years before science discovered these things. See Apologetics, Science and the Bible.

•	that God never intended to replace "the divine right of kings" with "democracy"; I do not know any large group of Christians who believe this; most Christians love this country and love our form of government.

•	that God never intended government to help the needy; This has been taken to an extreme in this country where, at this present time, 35% of all Americans receive some form of support from the government, and a huge percentage of school-age children participate in the government free-lunch program (50%?). We have responsibilities as individuals to help those who are in need, and it is not wrong for the government to provide some assistance. Personally, I would cap all government assistance at helping between 1–3% of the population; when it goes above that, then we are dealing with freeloaders (which is the bulk of welfare and section 8 housing recipients today). Liberals love to have the government provide oodles of support because this allows them to be more selfish with their own wealth (as we have already seen, liberals are wealthier than conservatives, but they give less of themselves to the needy; they love to vote to get others to pay for their programs).

•	and that it is therefore against God's plan and "unChristian" to support such things. Some of the websites which I examined, like this one, were so goofy, even I was surprised.
These came from: http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/biblebeltchristianity-1.html

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

Racism is a theme which I find over and over again which is imputed to conservatives; often, when a person is unable to defeat the argument a conservative makes, they often just call him a "racist" in order to end the argument.
African-Americans, in the Eyes of the Conservative
1.	First of all, most Black conservatives would prefer that they call themselves Americans of African descent (if that is the case), simply because we see the fact that someone being an American as more important than that person's race.

2.	We do not believe in abortion; we find it abhorrent that abortion kills a disproportionate number of Black babies (and more abhorrent that abortion kills babies of any race).

3.	We do not believe that Blacks are inferior to whites, and therefore, should not have preferential treatment of any sort built into the law. We do not believe that there ought to be racial quotas for anything. We accept that there are some out there who are prejudice and, now and again, a Black person will be denied a job, housing or whatever, based upon that prejudice. We believe that Blacks are a strong enough people to rise above that, and we can prove that statistically: prior to the Great Depression, the unemployment rate for Blacks was lower than it was for Whites. Since then, as white liberals have sought to intercede for African-
Americans, their unemployment has steadily risen from around 3% (prior to the great depression) to around 15% today (the actual unemployment number I suspect is closer to 25%). We conservatives believe that Blacks need to be educated as to the facts, so that they turn away from liberalism, which has destroyed them and dashed the American dream for many Blacks.

4.	We believe that any race or class of people can be rendered indolent by government handouts; and that, if the government begins to subsidize single Black mothers, the end result is, you will get more and more single Black mothers who become dependent upon the state. We conservatives do not see this as a failure of Black men or Black women, but of the state for encouraging this. We believe that, when you tax something, you get less of it; and when you subsidize something, you get more of it. Therefore, conservatives find such subsidies as pandering and prejudicial, because, if when proposed with great sincerity, the underlying reason is, "These people simply cannot take care of themselves." That is rejected outright by nearly all conservatives, yet embraced by too many paternalistic liberals.

5.	As a result of the government encouraging Black women to have children out of wedlock, there have been a tremendous number of Black children raised in a single-parent home. This has been very detrimental to those children. Statistics show that, when single-motherhood is removed from, say, a statistical analysis of criminals, there is not a disproportionate of Blacks in jail who came out of two-
parent families. Statistics show that much of the disparity between Blacks and Whites can be traced back to a single-parent home versus a home headed by a mother and a father; which can be traced back to the meddling of the state and federal governments (no matter how well-intentioned this meddling might be).

6.	Conservatives recognize that slavery was a very evil thing which was perpetrated here in the states mostly against Africans. At the same time, many Christian conservatives recognize that this is how many Africans and their descendants were saved—by means of slavery. This is an example of how God works all things together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28).

7.	I personally believe that every African American Christian whose ancestors were brought here forcefully as slaves ought to thank God for what He did, rather than to seek restitution or apologies or some kind of a pass for one's behavior.

1)	Because of the great freedom that we have, any Black American can devise a plan by which he could return to Africa within 1-5 years. However, nearly no one does that, because of the wonderful life which we have here in the states.

2)	However, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions from all parts of Africa who would be willing to come to America, if with only the shirt on their backs, in order to get a chance to make it in life. I've known many Blacks from Africa who would testify to this.

3)	There are reasons for this. Obviously, the economic opportunity in America is nearly unparalleled in the world, and most people know it. However, this economic opportunity is based upon the fact that, the gospel is presented clearly in the United States, and there are churches where people can grow spiritually. This is what makes America great.

8.	The idea that conservatives oppose Barack Obama because of his race is ridiculous. Most conservatives would support a presidential ticket with Allen West or Herman Cain on it. Conservatives oppose Obama because of his policies, which include a dramatically irresponsible fiscal policy at home and an inability to make a quick decision on foreign policy when one is called for.

9.	Conservatives oppose Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton because they are idiots; not because they are black. We feel the same about Lawrence O'Donnell or Chris Matthews.
I personally have one of the most extreme views on Blacks in America, and one that is not held by all conservatives. I believe the God Himself brought over many Blacks from Africa and, since they were brought to a Christian country, many of them believed in Jesus Christ as did most of their descendants. This does not mean that I believe that slavery is a good thing; I simply mean that God took something as ugly and awful as slavery, and worked this out to His Own grand purposes (Rom. 8:28). As a result, millions of Black people who believed in Jesus Christ were a part of the pivot which has continued to preserve our nation, despite its many failings. For this, all people of the United States ought to be thankful; and Blacks ought to celebrate their heritage and how far they have come, rather than to be held back by it.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

Sometimes, when you are having trouble determining whether this or that is Biblically supported or Biblically condemned, and you recognize that you may have a blind spot, due to your culturalization, then recognize that the Bible has a lot to say about those with whom you associate: Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm (Prov. 13:20).
With Whom do you Associate?
1.	The Bible takes very seriously the concept of who one chooses to associate with. Do not be led astray; bad associations ruin good habits (1Cor. 15:33). See also Prov. 28:7 29:3 Isa. 1:23

2.	Therefore, it is reasonable to examine concepts and positions by looking at the people who espouse those concepts and positions.

3.	If you refer to many of the liberal essays which I have linked to and list in the bibliography, it ought to be clear that these people use the Bible in order to make their points. They are unconcerned if they intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret a word (like peacemakers); they are unconcerned when it comes to context (the story of the rich young ruler); and, for the most part, there is nothing on their website which will point a person in the direction of Bible translations or Bible studies.

4.	Because of their intellectual dishonesty, one may reasonably conclude that their ideas and opinions are based upon dishonesty.

5.	These liberals often put their very best foot forward, and ignore the rest of what they stand for. They ignore that communism and socialism is associated with mass murder (as in the U.S.S.R., China and Vietnam); they ignore the dramatic inequities in a socialistic state which inequities socialistic states are supposed to eliminate (there is always a very well-off and small but powerful political class and the workers).

6.	They often hide the fact that liberals are very much in favor of abortion, and that the more liberal a group is, the more fetuses they kill. As has been pointed out, we have destroyed far more fetuses in the past 30 or 40 years than we have killed in all of our wars combined.

7.	My point is, let's say someone is putting forth an idea about which you are not certain. They claim that Jesus, for instance, is the first revolutionary. Now, in case you are uncertain about that position, then you look at the other positions which this person takes; you look at those with whom he associates. That usually tells you whether the questionable position is right or wrong.

8.	Many believers believe that, a person fully becomes a person at birth, and there are many good Biblical reasons for this (many Christians and Jews take this position, and this has long been the tradition of the church). However, from that point, some might conclude, "Abortion is okay, because that is not a real person yet." Let's say that you are on the fence about this concept. Then you look at, who is, in general, associated with this position, that abortion is okay; and who is associated the opposing view that, abortion is wrong (or, wrong, except in certain very limited instances, e.g., the health of the mother is in jeopardy). I have personally concluded that, I want to be associated with those who believe the abortion is wrong more than I want to be associated with those who believe that abortion is reasonable, even when it is retroactive birth control. My conclusion is, God has a process by which we are brought into this world, and we ought to respect that process. One of the most dynamic speakers to the youth who I have witnessed was conceived by rape and given up for adoption by a very courageous young mother. The circumstances of her conception are horrendous. However, it is clear that God has used this woman to His glory. Therefore, I am one of those who believes that we become fully a person at birth, but I do not believe that abortion is justified (except as a decision between a woman and her doctor if the woman's life is at stake).

9.	What also affects my opinion of abortion, apart from the Bible, is the dishonest arguments given in favor of abortion. When something like abortion is argued for, and yet the reasons given occur less than 5% of the time, then the argument falls apart, in my opinion. The arguments I hear in favor of abortion include, "What about rape, incest or health of the mother?" All totaled, these situations make up approximately 3% of all abortions; most abortions are done as retroactive birth control. Therefore, this is a dishonest argument, unless one is arguing for abortions only to be allowed in those 3 cases. Another dishonest argument which I heard is, "Then we will return to back alley abortions and coat-hanger abortions." Again, of all births and abortions, where abortion is legal, illegal, or a mixture of both, only a tiny percentage are these so-called "back alley" abortions. Even when abortions are legal, these same methods occur in a small percentage of cases.

10.	Let me take this concept of association in another direction. Our President makes a case for war before the Congress. Who is our war going to be against? Who will we be killing? In the Old Testament, the Jews went to war against those who sacrificed their own infants to Baal. We have an analogous situation today where many Muslim countries raise their children from the earliest age to hate Jews and to desire to kill Jews, even as a suicide bomber. They actually have cartoons in various Muslim countries aimed toward 3 and 4 year olds with the intent of putting this mindset into them. That is evil. That is no different from people offering up their own infants to Baal. They have lost their own natural affection, which is degeneracy (Rom. 1:26–32).

11.	In World War II, this was an easy choice. The Germans and Italians were rounding up Jews and Christians and killing them in great numbers; and they were intentionally attacking the citizenry of Great Britain (and other countries). This approach is evil; they are at war with honorable people; so, our choice was easy—it was not who they were associating with, but who they opposed in war.

12.	My primary point in all of this is, if you are having trouble with taking a position on this or that, then you look at the people who, in general, support that point of view and you look at the people who are opposed to it. Which side appears to be honest? Which side do you want to be associated with?

13.	Therefore, if an opinion or a position is associated with a righteous people, then that is probably a good opinion or position. If a position is associated with evil and/or degenerate people, then that position is likely wrong. Therefore, when it comes to homosexual marriage, the redistribution of wealth, the concept of free enterprise, or anything else, examine those who agree with that position and those who disagree with that position, and that right there will often tell you whether or not that is a good position.

14.	As an addendum, look at their arguments as well. If their arguments are dishonest in any way, then the opposite of what they believe is probably correct.
And, quite obviously, the Bible ought to be the final, determining factor. However, I gave this illustration for those who recognize that their own personal upbringing may be influencing their opinion.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

God has designed a world which operates under natural economic and moral laws. This is why the Laws of Divine Establishment (HTML) (PDF). are universal.
Natural Economic Law
1.	God has designed this world and the heart of man so that some things work in economics and some do not.

2.	For instance, if the government subsidizes something, we will get more of it; and if the government taxes something, we will get less of it.

3.	One simple example—regardless of the motives, our political leaders decided that, a single mother out there needs help, and, sometimes, you just cannot find the father. Therefore, the government needs to step in and help single mothers. What is the result? Lots and lots of single mothers. In more than a few cases, mothers who are not single, but claim to be single, in order to get benefits. Or, singles mothers who do not marry because this would end their benefits.

1)	In addition to the increase of single mothers, there is an increase of crime, poverty and drug usage, because the children of single mothers are far more likely to do the things we do not want children to do. That is, there is a natural social law. This does not mean that all single mothers are bad or that the children of single mothers are bad; it simply means, that, statistically speaking, the child of a single parent is much more likely to get pregnant before getting married, to have sex at an earlier age, to do more poorly in school, to take drugs and to end up in jail than children where mom and dad live in the home.

2)	This is all related to the laws of divine establishment. The ideal situation is one mother and one father raising however many children. When the government supports a different model, then the children will not be raised correctly. The economic impact, as already noted, will be negative.

4.	During this same time, the government has begun to tax tobacco and cigarettes even more and more. I have no idea about drinking, but I know that cigarette smoking is way down. It is flat-out expensive to smoke.

5.	There are natural laws when it comes to socialism and capitalism.

1)	Vietnam, China and Russia have all begun to lean more toward open markets and free enterprise. They are certainly not fully functioning capitalistic societies, however, as they have given more freedom to their workers, and have allowed them to make more decisions and to go more out on their own, the economies of these countries has improved.

2)	Militarily, people have been very unhappy about the outcome of North and South Korea, but these countries stand side-by-side as a great testimony to free enterprise versus socialism; freedom versus tyranny, a market-
controlled economy versus a government-controlled economy, and Christianity versus atheism. South Korea has become one of the greatest economies in the world whereas, North Korea is subsidized in great part by China. If it were not for China, even more people in North Korea would die of starvation. My plane stopped in South Korea once for 14 hours, so I showed my passport at the gate, walked out into South Korea, and explored the city, to a limited degree. When I was done, I went back to the airport, showed my passport at the gate, and got back to my plane. Had I wandered into North Korea, I might still be there today, in jail, the center of an international incident.

3)	See http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-income.html for a simple chart of the per capita income growth of these two countries. Bear in mind that, when these countries were split, North Korea probably had more natural resources than South Korea.

4)	It has been shown time and time again, the more freedom an employee has, within limits, often the more congenial and productive the workplace is. The more a company allows its workers to be involved in the company, the better the relationships will be between the workers and the company.

5)	As a teacher, when I was given the most amount of freedom, and the administrators took the disciplinary problems out of my hands, I had the greatest success in the classroom. However, as the state became more and more involved in education, the excellence disappeared.

6)	Both socialism and many large companies (historically) have treated their labor force as "worker bees" or as "workers" with very little thought to their humanity. What has been the result is, low productivity and friction between management and labor. The labor union movement in America was built up, in part, over poor working conditions and the poor treatment of workers by management (communist infiltration was another reason). A lot of companies today recognize that, those who work for them ought to be treated well and respected, and the result will be higher productivity and a better relationships between labor and management. Many companies have given stock of their company to workers as bonuses, so the workers themselves have a personal interest in their company doing well.

6.	Jesus spoke of these natural laws when it came to labor negotiations and the authority of management (Matt. 20:1–16), investment and profit (Matt. 25:14–30 Luke 19:12–27, and personal protection of property (Matt. 12:29).

7.	We have seen in our own recent American history examples of government's interaction with the economy, economic growth and personal freedom.

1)	Our current President, Barack Obama, had the most gigantic stimulus bills of U.S. history passed within weeks of becoming president, which meant that the government would pour and pour money into the economy. The result: an anemic economic recovery, at best. It is not necessarily that he had bad intentions, but that he did not follow tried and true ways to jolt the economy.

2)	Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all reduced the level of taxes, and, as a result, despite the economic condition of the country, the economy grew dramatically, and more money came into the U.S. treasury, not less; despite taxes being reduced.

3)	The United States began to slide into a recession in 1920, but we never hear about this, because the government did very little to solve this problem, and there was a quick recovery.

4)	In 1929, our economy dropped, and 2 presidents, Hoover and FDR, both got the government heavily involved in the recovery, and the result was the Great Depression. During this same time period, no other foreign country described itself as being in a great depression.

8.	We have examples in our economy where our government is far too involved in business.

1)	Microsoft, for a time, had no lobbyists, and spent all of its money on innovation and production. After being sued by the government in an anti-
trust suit, Microsoft has begun to employ an army of lobbyists, and this has kept the feds off their back.

2)	General Electric got very close to the Obama administration, to where its CEO was even given a prominent post in the Obama administration. The result was, this past year, GE made billions in profit and paid no taxes, because it did the things which the government wanted it to do. They did not do anything that was illegal; they just employed 935 tax experts to use the U.S. tax code to their advantage. Imagine if their resources were put into product-development instead. When a company must take into consideration an intrusive government, resources for development are diverted.

3)	I doubt that anyone would argue that these companies are better today than they were before developing a close relationship with government; but they have used government to their benefit. There is an artificial, temporary benefit. For instance, GE stock in early 2011 is twice what it was in 2009 (after GE began to cozy up to government), but it is about a sixth of its 2000 price.

4)	The next portion of the addendum speaks to the glories of not having the government involved in business.

9.	Again—and this cannot be emphasized enough—our place as believers in the devil's world is not to make it a better environment. That is, it is not our life's mission to change every nation into a Jeffersonian Democracy/Coolidge-Reagan economy. Our life's mission, after believing in Jesus Christ, is to grow spiritually and allow God to move us from there.

1)	Simple example: if you are a missionary in China, your job is to win souls for Jesus Christ, not to change the economic system of China. As more and more people are evangelized within China, the economy has been changing quite organically for the better.

2)	General example: because we live in a democracy, we ought to know the issues and vote accordingly. However, if you are spending more time learning about "the issues" as opposed to learning Bible doctrine, then your life is spiritually off-kilter.

3)	God deals with our nation on the basis of the number of believers in the nation and the number of mature believers in our nation. Movement in that direction will result in greater blessing from God.

4)	Our nation being more business-friendly is great, but not the key to our prosperity. I gave the illustration of GE developing a closer relationship with government. This may, for a time, boost GE; but it does not impact our nation positively with respect to spiritual things.
There are a lot of people out there who think they need to change society, change the family unit, or change what works naturally in economics. Although these things can be changed, rarely is this change for the better.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

Related to natural economic laws is this great column by George Will about pencils:
Pencils And Politics
Who commands the millions of people involved in making a pencil? Who is in charge? Where is the pencil czar?
By George Will

Improbable as it might seem, perhaps the most important fact for a voter or politician to know is: No one can make a pencil. That truth is the essence of a novella that is, remarkably, both didactic and romantic. Even more remarkable, its author is an economist. If you read Russell Roberts's "The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity" you will see the world afresh-unless you already understand Friedrich Hayek's idea of spontaneous order.

Roberts, an economist at George Mason University and Stanford's Hoover Institution, sets his story in the Bay Area, where some Stanford students are indignant because a Big Box store doubled its prices after an earthquake. A student leader plans to protest Stanford's acceptance of a large gift from Big Box. The student's economics professor, Ruth, rather than attempting to dissuade him, begins leading him and his classmates to an understanding of prices, markets and the marvel of social cooperation. Holding up a Dixon Ticonderoga No. 2, she says: "No one can make a pencil."

Nonsense, her students think-someone made that one. Not really, says Ruth. Loggers felled the cedar trees, truckers hauled them, manufacturers built the machines that cut the wood into five-sided portions to hold graphite mined in Sri Lanka, Mexico, China and Brazil. Miners and smelters produced the aluminum that holds the rubber eraser, produced far away, as were the machines that stamp TICONDEROGA in green paint, made somewhere else, on the finished pencil.

Producing this simple, mundane device is, Ruth says, "an achievement on the order of a jazz quartet improvising a tune when the band members are in separate cities." An unimpressed student says, "So a lot of people work on a pencil. What's the big deal?" Ruth responds: Who commands the millions of people involved in making a pencil? Who is in charge? Where is the pencil czar?

Her point is that markets allow order to emerge without anyone imposing it. The "poetry of the possible" is that things are organized without an organizer. "The graphite miner in Sri Lanka doesn't realize he's cooperating with the cedar farmer in California to serve the pencil customer in Maine." The boss of the pencil factory does not boss very much: He does not decide the prices of the elements of his product-or of his product. No one decides. Everyone buying and selling things does so as prices steer resources hither and yon, harmonizing supplies and demands.

Goods and services, like languages, result from innumerable human actions-but not from any human design. "We," says Ruth, "create them with our actions, but not intentionally. They are tapestries we weave unknowingly." They are "emergent phenomena," the results of human action but not of human design.

When a student asks about the exploitation of housecleaners, Ruth responds that if they are exploited making between $10-above the minimum wage-and $20 an hour, why are they not exploited even more? The answer is that the market makes people pay maids more than the law requires because maids have alternatives.

But back to Big Box doubling prices after the earthquake. The indignant student, who had first gone to Home Depot for a flashlight, says it "didn't try to rip us off." It was, however, out of flashlights. Ruth suggests that the reason Big Box had flashlights was that its prices were high. If prices were left at regular levels, the people who would have got the flashlights would have been those who got to the store first. With the higher prices, "someone who had candles at home decided to do without the flashlight and left it there for you on the shelf." Neither Home Depot nor the student who was angry at Big Box had benefitted from Home Depot's price restraint.

Capitalism, Ruth reminds him, is a profit and loss system. Corfam-Du Pont's fake leather that made awful shoes in the 1960s-and the Edsel quickly vanished. But, Ruth notes, "the post office and ethanol subsidies and agricultural price supports and mediocre public schools live forever." They are insulated from market forces; they are created, in defiance of those forces, by government, which can disregard prices, which means disregarding the rational allocation of resources. To disrupt markets is to tamper with the unseen source of the harmony that is all around us.

The spontaneous emergence of social cooperation—the emergence of a system vastly more complex, responsive and efficient than any government could organize—is not universally acknowledged or appreciated. It discomforts a certain political sensibility, the one that exaggerates the importance of government and the competence of the political class.

Government is important in establishing the legal framework for markets to function. The most competent political class allows markets to work wonders that government cannot replicate. Hayek, a 1974 Nobel laureate in economics, said, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." People, and especially political people, are rarely grateful to be taught their limits. That is why economics is called the dismal science.
From: http://www.newsweek.com/2008/09/13/pencils-and-politics.html

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

Possibly I could be accused of setting up a false dichotomy here. Maybe those on the left do not want a Marxian revolution-imposed socialistic government, but democratic socialism, as is practiced in Europe.
State Capitalism
1.	The term often applied to European-style socialism is state capitalism.

2.	The idea is, the state is better equipped to do very large things.

3.	That is, the state can fund very large projects, can oversee and guide a large economy, and can make greater decisions on a grand scale.

4.	Furthermore, the state can better provide for the needy.

5.	Furthermore, the state can provide a safety net the capitalism will not, because they are greedy.

6.	Let's say this is what the left wants; and for this to come about organically through the progressive movement.

7.	Like most philosophies from the left, this is rooted in dishonesty; the very name of this government-type has little or nothing to do with capitalism. It is like the words rights and justice; liberals affix these to leftist concepts in order to garner support for them, even though rights, justice and capitalism are barely related to the causes being espoused.

8.	From a Biblical standpoint, God could have organized Israel as a top-down government—so that it practiced state capitalism—but He did not.

9.	Let's look at this in practice. Europe has moved from being a collection of religious, capitalistic countries to a social welfare society. As they moved further away from God, they moved closer to a welfare state, where they depend more upon the state for their sustenance. This has required more and more taxation. Government has also, through propaganda, convinced Europeans not to have more children, so many services provided have depended upon bringing in workers from the outside. This has ended up being millions of Muslims, who are destroying many European cities from the inside.

1)	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj-ceoxHc4U

2)	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96hRV6XPUog

10.	As we have seen, when the state begins to provide a safety net, politicians over-
promise (they do this in order to get votes) and it raises up a class of dependents, who live on the state, who figure out how to live taking in state funds without working.

11.	When the needy are cared for by private organizations, this is much harder to develop into a lifestyle.

12.	Where there is need in the United States, private organizations and families have always stepped up to fill the void.

13.	In the United States, the problem with our safety net, which is not as extensive as that offered in Europe is, we do not have the money to pay for it. Again, politicians over-promise and are afraid to be straight with the American people, because they are worried they will not be reelected.

14.	As we have seen with the example of the pencil, it is the unfettered open market which provides goods at the best prices and in the quantities we desire.

15.	Medical costs, we have complained, keep going up and up and up; what can we do? And some have suggested that we get the government involved to hold these prices down.

1)	The first thing that a sensible person realizes is, when you want efficiency and cost savings, you do not go to the government. The government will add a layer of bureaucracy to anything that it does. This bureaucracy will be slow, expensive and run by those who receive these jobs as political favors. This is why you can have the same person first working in the highest levels of the law enforcement and then in the highest levels of FNMA.1

2)	Furthermore, people fail to realize that the government is already deeply involved in medical insurance and medical procedures, and, despite state involvement, costs continue to skyrocket. However, where have prices not skyrocketed? Plastic surgery, eye surgery (for better sight) and optometry services. For the most part, the government has stayed out of these fields, and so, a market for these services has developed, a market which is concerned with quality and price. So, at a time when medical insurance continues to climb, the price to have laser-eye surgery has actually gone down. No government means a free market approach.

16.	A great example of free enterprise in this country is food distribution. I live approximately 2–5 miles away from at least 4 supermarkets where I can buy fresh fruit and vegetables year round. These stores are clean, well-stocked with a variety far beyond my own needs, and, relative to my salary, the food is cheap (as compared to other countries). Under socialism, if the government gets involved, it will become more expensive, more heavily regulated, and there will be far less choice. There are all of these stories of breadlines in the Soviet Union; whereas, I can go to 4 different places (or 5, including bakeries) and have a choice of over a dozen different types of breads in each store.

17.	We have many examples of private-government cooperatives which end up stealing millions from the taxpayers. FNMA and FHLMC are two examples of such services.2 First of all, almost no one knows how the secondary mortgage market works, so these organizations can function without the public being clear as to what it is that they do. Secondly, the money involved with mortgages is a huge amount (I have often said that FNMA makes Enron look like a child's lemonade stand). And people are given high positions in FNMA and FHLMC as political favors, and they walk away after a few years will millions of dollars. Meanwhile, because these organizations are poorly run and do not have to pay attention to the market, the taxpayer continues to prop them up. FNMA and FHLMC are the poster children for state capitalism (as is social security, medicare and medicaid).

18.	My point in all this is, even though state capitalism can be brought about by peaceful means, and is the end game for many liberals, it results in a very corrupt, very expensive and inefficient system.
The idea that we ought to depend upon the state is in direct opposition to the teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount: "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt. 6:25–33).
One needs to bear in mind, even though there is a fairly strong contingent of those who favor socialism (or think they favor socialism/state capitalism) in this land, the means by which they want this achieved is varied and not necessarily non-violent. According to a 2009 Rasmussen poll,37 53% of Americans believe that capitalism is better than socialism, but 20% believe the opposite and 27% are uncertain. The idea that we are in a world where socialism has failed again and again and again, and yet, there are those who have been brainwashed to be uncertain or to believe that socialism is a better system is remarkable. In that 20%, there will be a large contingent who believe in socialism at any price.
1 See http://nation.foxnews.com/fbi/2011/03/23/woman-tied-911-fannie-mae-obamas-fbi-shortlist

2 See http://floppingaces.net/2011/01/03/a-primer-on-the-2007-2009-financial-mess-reader-post/

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

At this point in time, I am worn out from writing this article, but I liked the perspective given by Don Closson, so I will reproduce a few things which he wrote, and include the web address if you want to read the entire article.
Excerpts from Don Closson's "Poverty and Wealth"
It's disheartening to meet young Christians who are convinced of the immorality of capitalism and the free market system. Sincere Christians often quote the second chapter of Acts which describes how the church in Jerusalem held all things in common as proof that socialism or collectivism is more biblical than the free market. Sometimes they use the Marxist critique that "poor nations are poor because rich nations oppress them." It's unusual to meet students who whole-heartedly endorses capitalism. They recognize that it works well enough to make the U.S. the richest nation on earth, but it's not something to be proud of or openly endorse.

There continues to be a heated debate in our country over which economic system is the most just and best able to weather the inevitable economic ups and downs in today's complex worldwide economy. Christians wonder if capitalism is inherently incompatible with Christian ethics. Is it driven by greed and self-interest alone? Does it thrive on oppression? Does it conflict with a biblical view of human nature?
Unfortunately, many Christians act as though the only thing that counts is intention. But when good intentions are not wedded to sound theory, especially sound economic theory, good intentions can often result in actions that produce consequences directly opposite to those we planned.
Even the acceptance of free markets by China and Eastern Europe have not swayed the true believer of Marxist thinking. Our young people will encounter a Marxist critique of capitalism and the free market system at some point in their education. As parents we owe it to our children to have an answer to their certain questions.
The Market System

The market system is the set of rules that creates a voluntary system of exchange resulting in the price, selection, and quantity of products that are made and sold in an economy. Those who support capitalism believe that both parties benefit from the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Marxists, on the other hand, often argue that the free market system results in a win/lose relationship. What are the rules that define a free market system and what role should government play in maintaining it?

The rules of a free market system are simple. First, people should not be coerced into making economic exchanges. This means that they should be free from force, fraud, or theft. Another rule is that people must honor their contracts to buy or sell with another party. Just as local government provides for the traffic signals in a town, government is responsible for enforcing the basic rules of the free market. Traffic signals create order out of potential chaos on our roads. Likewise, the rules of the free market system create order out of potential economic chaos. But in neither case do the rules tell people where to go or what to trade. Both systems are neutral to an individual's personal goals.

The decentralized actions of producers and consumers encourage the production of a vast array of products at prices that people are willing to pay. These goods and services are produced, not because someone is forced to, but because they know that by satisfying needs they can earn an income and satisfy their own desires. Free market capitalism is based on this principle of mutual accommodation. The market also encourages the efficient use of resources. Price is a factor of demand for a product and the scarcity of its components. It is the market which takes into account an almost infinite number of decisions and variables to make goods available at the best possible price. Profits and losses within the market encourage producers to move into or out of the production of a given item. Inefficient production or over-production of an item will result in losses sufficient enough to change a producer's behavior.

Government is necessary for enforcing the basic rules of a free market economy. Its interest should be to make sure that justice prevails, and to ensure the common good. This includes the right to own and exchange property, the enforcement of contracts, as well as laws forbidding the use of force, fraud, and theft. If the government itself begins to intervene beyond this role, it becomes a detriment to the market and can itself become the source of injustice. A system based on, or highly influenced, by government coercion cannot be called a free market system.
Capitalism vs. Socialism

A former president of the Evangelical Theological Society has written that capitalism violates "the basic ethical principles of Christianity" and that there is an essential political and economic dimension to the Kingdom of God which capitalism defiles. This thinking has the effect of placing supporters of capitalism among the heretics and against the Kingdom of God. Does capitalism really violate the gospel message and a biblical worldview? Does socialism offer the only righteous means for creating and distributing wealth?

Capitalism argues that individuals have the right to make decisions about what they own. This not only assumes the right to own property, but to exchange what one owns for something else, and to be free from force in the form of fraud, theft, or the violation of a contract. The moral base of "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not lie" are essential to the success of a capitalistic system. In fact, these basic rules of capitalism are very similar to an Old Testament view of righteousness which focused on the completion of covenant agreements. God is considered a righteous God partially because He fulfills His covenants with His creation.

Marxists love to point to examples like the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos in order to criticize capitalism. This corrupt regime can surely be criticized, but not as an example of capitalism. It is representative of what might be called an interventionist economy. There are three general types of economies: capitalist, interventionist, and socialist. Capitalism and socialism are at the two ends of the continuum with interventionism in the middle. The two opposites represent two possible means of exchange. Capitalism is defined by its advocacy of free or peaceful exchange, allowing individual choice regarding the use of personal property. Socialism is defined by centralized planning, using force to get individuals to conform to its decisions. A system becomes less capitalistic and more interventionist as more and more economic decisions are coerced by the government. It becomes socialistic when basic needs are met only by the government, forcing people to deal with it exclusively. The ideal of capitalism is freedom; the ideal of socialism is forced compliance with government planning.

Critics of capitalism condemn economic systems in which interest groups use the power of government to intervene on their behalf, forcing consumers via taxes or mandates to spend their money or use their talents in a way they would not freely choose. But this isn't capitalism; it's interventionism, and unfortunately a pretty good description of where the U.S. is headed.

Economic Systems and Human Nature

Is capitalism the primary cause of world poverty? Although the Bible does teach that exploitation is one cause of poverty, it also teaches that it results from indigence and sloth as well as accidents, injuries, and illness. When the prophet Amos condemned the Jews for forcing the poor to give them grain, for taking bribes, and depriving the oppressed justice, he was highlighting violations of free market capitalism as well.

Some believe that capitalism is built on greed, which the Bible condemns. However, the Bible does teach a certain level of self-interest. For example, 1 Timothy 5:8 is critical of anyone who does not provide for the needs of his family. And although selfishness exists in capitalistic countries, it is not inherent to the system; it is inherent to humanity. Either we allow people to make choices based on their own self-interest and moral virtue, or we turn those decisions over to a central government. Could it be naïve to think that government officials will use wealth in a morally superior way to those outside of government? History teaches that when power is centralized it has the tendency to be abused.

In a non-coercive free market environment, those who serve the needs of others will prosper. As long as the rule of law prevails and the government isn't allowed to stack the deck for one particular group against another, the market protects us from the greed of others. The free market is by definition one place where coercion is not possible.

Socialists contend that competition is another evil of capitalism, but is competition itself an evil? We can agree that using force, fraud, or theft to compete is morally wrong, but can we really say that all competition is wrong? Scarcity demands competition; as long as resources are limited we will find some competitive means for allocating them. Socialist societies use long waiting lines and bureaucratic red tape to dole out limited goods, and competition is intense for political positions that result in material gain.

There are only two ways to resolve conflict that results from scarcity. One is by force, the other is by free market competition. Non-violent free market competition has helped to alleviate the effects of scarcity by stirring people to high levels of excellence in manufacturing and services. Socialist countries are not usually known for the quantity or quality of their goods and services.

Economist Walter Williams notes that "Capitalism has a strong bias toward serving the common man. . . . Political allocation of resources, regardless of its stated purpose, is strongly biased in favor of the elite."{3} Maybe that is why the elite have such disdain for capitalism.

Critiquing Socialism

Highly collectivist economies are not known for producing what people need at a price they can afford. In the 1920s, economist Ludwig von Mises showed why central planners can never replace the market: they are unable to gather the necessary information to plan accurately. The market system provides incentives to both producers and buyers that are missing in socialistic countries. Under socialism "rewards are not related to effort and commercial risk-taking, but to party membership, bureaucratic status, political fiat and corruption."{4} Sociologist Peter Burger writes, "Simply put, Socialist equality is shared poverty by serfs, coupled with the monopolization of both privilege and power by a small (increasingly hereditary) aristocracy."{5}

One evangelical writer contends that Marxism has "a deep compassion for people. Unlike present political systems-big business, even the Church-it [Marxism] does not seem to have any particular vested interests to defend."{6} In other words, only Marxists really care about people. However, history has not been kind to Marxist collectivism. Some of the worst human rights records have been accumulated by Marxist regimes in the U.S.S.R., China, Cambodia, North Korea and Cuba. I find it hard to imagine that the millions who died at the hands of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, or the Khmer Rouge were very impressed by the compassion of their nation's Marxist leaders.

But what about the example in Acts of all Christians sharing their goods in common or of Barnabas selling his property for the good of other believers? What some people miss is that both of these examples are of individuals making free moral choices to use their property for the good of others. They are making free market decisions regarding their possessions. This can only occur when individuals have the freedom to use their possessions to help others. If all economic decisions are made by centralized planners, moral choice is removed and the option to act upon personal moral convictions is reduced.

Living within a capitalistic society allows believers to exercise their personal responsibility to provide for the poor and less fortunate. This has resulted in remarkable examples of philanthropy in America and other capitalistic nations. In fact, no other people on earth have given as much to other nations as have Americans.

A properly functioning market system is an effective tool against oppression and corruption because it promotes the rule of law for all citizens. However, a strong moral system is necessary to keep it from being controlled by special interests. There are too many examples of economies that have been shaped for the benefit of a few. Christ's advocacy for the poor should make us a strong moral barrier to this kind of corruption.
From: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.5258383/k.C39E/Poverty_and_Wealth.htm accessed March 27, 2011. Footnotes can be accessed on that page. The indented portion comes from Ronald H. Nash, Poverty and Wealth: Why Socialism Doesn't Work (Dallas: Probe Books, 1986).

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum

Most of my references are liberal websites.
References
Wasn't Jesus a Liberal?

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1019-24.htm

Wasn't Jesus a Liberal? Part Two

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1009-31.htm

Jesus is a Liberal (it appears that there has been nothing added to this site since 2006)

http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/index.html

This is equivalent to:

http://www.jesusisaliberal.com/

Milt Hankins article: Giving Jesus was the consummate liberal

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x277053090/Giving-Jesus-was-the-co
nsummate-liberal

Rory M in Was Jesus a conservative or a liberal?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977058043

The homepage of Jesuit Priest, John Dear:

http://www.johndear.org/home.html

Liberals like Christ, a Roy Dubuque website (he has many similar sites):

http://liberalslikechrist.org/LLC_MasterMenu.htm

Does the Bible Support Capitalism?

http://newcreationperson.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/does-the-bible-support-ca
pitalism/

Bruce Maiman's article:

http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/was-jesus-liberal-or-conservative

Tekton, the education and apologetics ministry.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/colmes01.html

The Christian Case for Capitalism:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1630727/the_christian_case_for_capi
talism.html?cat=9

Don Closson's article on "Poverty and Wealth"

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.5258383/k.C39E/Poverty_and_Weal
th.htm

Alan Colmes' Was Jesus a Liberal?: A Critique

http://www.tektonics.org/af/colmes01.html
For further reading, see also:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0500e.asp

http://www.gotquestions.org/capitalism-Bible.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/communism-Bible.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/socialism-Christian.html
When looking over these websites, those which see Jesus as conservative in His politics also have links to the gospel message. Those who see Jesus as a liberal rarely speak of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone or of the resurrection.

Top of the Page	Topics
Charts and Short Doctrines	Addendum
Kukis Website	A List of Doctrines