The goal of this
command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a
sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless
talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are
talking about or what they so confidently affirm. (I Timothy 1:5-7)
Workers should be paid a decent wage.
The poor should be housed and fed. Medical assistance should be provided to
people. A person’s basic humanity should be acknowledged and respected, as
should control of possessions. These are all good things that good people generally
agree should be done. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and all
that.
If those things are good, then why shouldn’t we pass laws that require all employers to provide a decent wage, and all people to contribute to housing, food, medicine, etc. so that everyone is granted basic humanity. There need to be laws, because there are greedy people out there who won’t do their part unless forced by law. If we have laws to prevent people from doing what is wrong, why shouldn’t we have laws to require people to do what is right? It makes sense.
This perspective doesn’t even have to be religious. It would not be shoving a religion down anyone’s throat. No, we have grown beyond all that. If we enact these laws, others will learn to do what is good and we can all celebrate the fulfillment of the song “Imagine.”
People who want to teach this law would likely reject the Mosaic Law as the law all must obey. That was the law to which Paul likely referred in today’s passage. Instead, they confidently affirm that their law is the solution to all man’s problems. They believe their law would create heaven on earth. What could be the problem with requiring people to live according to laws enacted for everyone’s good?
How do you define good? The government spent $22,000,000,000,000 (twenty-two Trillion) in the war on poverty, and continues to spend about a trillion dollars per year on 80 programs. In 2014, 46.7 million Americans lived at poverty levels. That means they were living with an income equivalent to less than $25,000 per year (with a household of two adults and two children.) That means we could potentially hand $21,000 to the poorest 46.7 million people each year. Of course, that would interfere with the average $24.7 billion paid to the 650,000 caseworkers each year, and that doesn’t address the salaries of those who oversee the caseworkers, or the overhead of running the agencies. How much good are we really doing people when after more than 50 years of such programs, we still have 46.7 million people living in poverty? Is it good to enable people to live at the expense of others, or is it good to require those people to fend for themselves as much as they can, and provide minimal assistance to make up the difference?
Complicating this further is the fact that sociologists are finding that what is most good[1] is a traditional family of husband, wife and children in which at least one of the parents earns a stable income. It is a household in which alcohol, nicotine and other drugs are used minimally, and religious participation is frequent and regular because these things promote a healthy, stable lifestyle. How much less than the most good is still good enough? Is anything less than the “most good” good at all?
More importantly, when the law requires you to do something, you perform as a matter of obligation. You are effectively a slave. Some may think that doesn’t matter if the job gets done, but love coerced is not love. Good compelled is neither good nor loving. What percent of those required to perform do so above the minimum level. If the government takes 15% of your income to take care of the poor, would you be likely to want to give any more? Even if you are kind-hearted enough to do so, would you remember to do so on a regular basis if that 15% were automatically deducted? What does it matter if you miss a month, or two, or ten if you’re already contributing 15%?
How do you know if the money you are required to contribute each month is being used to do the most good possible? Do you even care? After all, some good is being done, isn’t it? What if it isn’t enough? On whom do we impose doing more good? Is there any way to know when someone has been required to do enough good?
It doesn’t seem to matter what law we care to devise. Those who proclaim themselves to be teachers of it fall into the same errors because they don’t consider the nature of laws.
If those things are good, then why shouldn’t we pass laws that require all employers to provide a decent wage, and all people to contribute to housing, food, medicine, etc. so that everyone is granted basic humanity. There need to be laws, because there are greedy people out there who won’t do their part unless forced by law. If we have laws to prevent people from doing what is wrong, why shouldn’t we have laws to require people to do what is right? It makes sense.
This perspective doesn’t even have to be religious. It would not be shoving a religion down anyone’s throat. No, we have grown beyond all that. If we enact these laws, others will learn to do what is good and we can all celebrate the fulfillment of the song “Imagine.”
People who want to teach this law would likely reject the Mosaic Law as the law all must obey. That was the law to which Paul likely referred in today’s passage. Instead, they confidently affirm that their law is the solution to all man’s problems. They believe their law would create heaven on earth. What could be the problem with requiring people to live according to laws enacted for everyone’s good?
How do you define good? The government spent $22,000,000,000,000 (twenty-two Trillion) in the war on poverty, and continues to spend about a trillion dollars per year on 80 programs. In 2014, 46.7 million Americans lived at poverty levels. That means they were living with an income equivalent to less than $25,000 per year (with a household of two adults and two children.) That means we could potentially hand $21,000 to the poorest 46.7 million people each year. Of course, that would interfere with the average $24.7 billion paid to the 650,000 caseworkers each year, and that doesn’t address the salaries of those who oversee the caseworkers, or the overhead of running the agencies. How much good are we really doing people when after more than 50 years of such programs, we still have 46.7 million people living in poverty? Is it good to enable people to live at the expense of others, or is it good to require those people to fend for themselves as much as they can, and provide minimal assistance to make up the difference?
Complicating this further is the fact that sociologists are finding that what is most good[1] is a traditional family of husband, wife and children in which at least one of the parents earns a stable income. It is a household in which alcohol, nicotine and other drugs are used minimally, and religious participation is frequent and regular because these things promote a healthy, stable lifestyle. How much less than the most good is still good enough? Is anything less than the “most good” good at all?
More importantly, when the law requires you to do something, you perform as a matter of obligation. You are effectively a slave. Some may think that doesn’t matter if the job gets done, but love coerced is not love. Good compelled is neither good nor loving. What percent of those required to perform do so above the minimum level. If the government takes 15% of your income to take care of the poor, would you be likely to want to give any more? Even if you are kind-hearted enough to do so, would you remember to do so on a regular basis if that 15% were automatically deducted? What does it matter if you miss a month, or two, or ten if you’re already contributing 15%?
How do you know if the money you are required to contribute each month is being used to do the most good possible? Do you even care? After all, some good is being done, isn’t it? What if it isn’t enough? On whom do we impose doing more good? Is there any way to know when someone has been required to do enough good?
It doesn’t seem to matter what law we care to devise. Those who proclaim themselves to be teachers of it fall into the same errors because they don’t consider the nature of laws.
Comments
Post a Comment