Posted on 11/12/2014 10:57:18 AM PST by xzins
In the year 257 AD, the Roman emperor Valerian stepped up the persecution of Christians, especially in the city of Rome itself. The principal targets of his campaign were the clergy and laity who came from the upper classes of Roman society.
One of those caught up in Valerian’s persecution was a deacon named Lawrence. Lawrence was in charge of the Church’s property used to support Rome’s poor. Lawrence was offered a deal: in exchange for turning over the property, he would be spared arrest and execution. He agreed, adding that he needed three day to collect the church’s riches.
On the third day, he gathered the sick, aged, widows, orphans, and the poor of the Church, presented them to the official and said, "These are the treasures of the Church."
He was executed on August 10, 258.
Those who would interfere with our providing for the least of Jesus’ brethren—that is, “the treasures of the Church—are opposing God every bit as much as those who would have us change our message and teaching.
Case in point: Last month Fort Lauderdale became the latest American city to limit the ability of churches and nonprofits to feed the homeless outside of certain designated areas.
Think about that, folks. In some places, if a homeless person tells you he’s hungry and you buy him a sandwich and give it to him, you are breaking the law.
Supporters of the law argue that “allowing ministries and others to hand out meals aggravates homelessness because it lures homeless people away from city-run programs.”
Opponents of the law insist “that the cities that have or are trying to pass these laws . . . are doing it because they want to scrub their neighborhoods clean of homeless people, making [those neighborhoods] more appealing to businesses.”
Either, neither, or both of these explanations may be true. But what is definitely true is that the Church must reach out to those in need of our help.
The first people to be arrested for feeding the homeless in public were two pastors and 90-year-old Jim Abbott, who runs an organization named “Love Thy Neighbor, Inc.” According to Abbott, one of the arresting officers told him to “ ‘Drop that plate right now,” ’ as if Abbott were carrying a weapon.
As I record this broadcast, Abbott and the two ministers face a possible sixty days in jail and a $5000 fine.
“Drop that plate” sounds like a line from a Saturday Night Live skit, but it was the voice of the state telling believers that they could not do what God has commanded them and all of us to do.
Folks, this is every bit as much a violation of religious freedom as the HHS mandate or the New Mexico law that punished Elaine Huguenin for not photographing a lesbian commitment ceremony. And how can we forget what just happened in Houston, where the mayor dared to ask pastors to turn in their sermons.
In all of these instances, the state is daring to tell us what our mission is and how we should or should not perform it.
If Christians don’t protest this intrusion, we’re validating our opponents’ claims that our rhetoric about religious freedom is really about the loss of some privileged status or, worse, all about sex.
And if that happens, we’ll miss an opportunity to show that religious freedom is about our ability to show the world what treasure worth having looks like.
Before I leave you today, I want to invite you to check out our website, BreakPoint.org. We’ve got all kinds of first-rate articles, blog posts, and news on cultural trends and events that should be on the radar screen of every Christian. You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Please, visit BreakPoint.org today.
BreakPoint is a Christian worldview ministry that seeks to build and resource a movement of Christians committed to living and defending Christian worldview in all areas of life. Begun by Chuck Colson in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today’s news and trends via radio, interactive media, and print. Today BreakPoint commentaries, co-hosted by Eric Metaxas and John Stonestreet, air daily on more than 1,200 outlets with an estimated weekly listening audience of eight million people. Feel free to contact us at BreakPoint.org where you can read and search answers to common questions.
Free Exercise of religion is a huge threat to the socialists, atheists, etc., so they desperately want it dumbed down to ‘freedom to worship’.
Free Exercise means we can practice our religion 24/7/365 whenever or wherever or however and it is not under the purview of government whatsoever.
‘Free Worship’ means you can meet in your worship building and sing whatever hymn you want.
‘Free Exercise’ means you can be a Christian all the time as you live your life.
I’m a Christian and support the free exercise of religion.
But what restraints if any are appropriate?
For example, I do share my faith. But with a bullhorn in a neighborhood at 3 am?
Similarly feeding folks - if I want to give someone a sandwich I say I should be allowed. But should I set up a thrice daily feeding operation for folks at a neighborhood park? I have been to some of these things. The crazy and high come out in droves. Is that right for the people in that neighborhood, the non-crazy and non-high that want to use the park, the kids of course? I don’t take my kids to homeless centers. People are very aggressive there.
So what reasonable restraints are there, if any?
If there is not a local program set up for street people, I would agree that providing food to people on the street might be a good idea.
If there is a mission or some such outlet for these people, they should be guided to get services there.
Any well meaning churches can donate there at will. They can also deliver food to poor people in homes that need assitance.
What the city is trying to do, is keep all the homeless in one area. They don’t want well meaning people to help the homeless so much that it will attract the homeless from other towns in the region.
If there is a city ordinance against this, Christians should abide by it. Either that or they need to challenge the city officials at the local city council meetings.
Absent that, they can also go to court to challenge the city, if there is no resource for the hungry homeless people.
Not every decision that goes against what “we or good people” want to do, is evil.
If the homeless got so prolific in my area, I wouldn’t want them congregating on my street, sleeping under trees or bushes nearby.
This is the sort of thing they are trying to prevent.
The discussion should not be about restraints when the amendment is about freedom.
The marketplace will take care of people with bullhorns at 3 in the morning. We don’t need government in the ‘religion police’ business.
So, the church in your neighborhood shouldn’t be allowed to offer a free Thanksgiving meal?
That is ‘religion police.’
Leave them alone and let them practice their religion. Everything will be just fine.
On one special occasion like that, I don’t see any harm in it.
It wouldn’t bring others into town on a long standing basis.
Most people would not similarly let the government restrict fire arms or speech. They would consider it a gross violation of the amendments containing these freedoms.
I agree XZins, and you know I might be wrong here too.
This is my opinion, but it’s just one of many.
I do believe that in this day and age of rampant illegal immigration, that communities have some vested interest in trying to avoid attracting large numbers of indigents and or homeless people. (These may mean the same thing, but I view indigents to be more like vagabonds, a population in motion.)
And if every church in the country were to do something like this, then there wouldn't be a problem of bringing in people from other areas, would there?
Christians are commanded to go out and feed the poor. Parks are gathering places for the general public and places where poor people hang out. There should be no restrictions on churches feeding the poor in public parks, just as there are no restrictions on people feeding themselves in the same parks.
Doughty, I’m very concerned about the government trying desperately to redefine ‘free exercise’ as ‘free worship’. We must be willing to have someone handing out gospel tracts on sidewalks, preaching in a park, singing in a mall, trying to talk to us as we walk, knocking on our doors, and starting soup lines, clothing drives, and counseling centers.
Your freeper page says you are a strong Trinitarian believer in Jesus Christ. That’s good. We’re blessed to be able to put our Christian positions up front here on Free Republic.
That should be the norm for living.
And, truly, as Marlowe pointed out, if every church were feeding the poor in their own area, then there would be no problem.
My bottom line: no religion police. Ever.
I understand your position. Like I said, I have advocated for some restraint here, but that’s only my voice.
Let’s think about it this way. Since you don’t agree with any religious restraint, do you then approve of churches that allow illegals to live in the basement, and claim the government has no right to object?
We could probably come up with some other instances where it might be reasoned for the government to have a legitimate voice in the matter.
I also want tracts and reasoned outreach to take place, so I am sensitive to that issue.
I just wonder if at times we don’t draw the line at a place where it would be best if we didn’t.
Take care guys.
Sorry, I’m not convinced there are that many truly “hungry” people in this country. There are many however, who will take advantage of freebies. “If you build it, they will come.”
I would agree with you, provided one condition exists. Define "Religion" by Federal Statute (e.g. All Russian Spetnaz Units cannot declare themselves a "religion.")
I know of at least one religion in which its violent military and unrestrained nature overwhelms whatever spiritual value it may have.
bkmk
Hi Doughty, I approve of churches allowing illegals to sleep in their basements. We are to be helpful, compassionate, friendly with aliens. It is not unfriendly to insist they need to obey laws that say they should return to their own country.
The basis of sanctuary laws in the Old Testament was the right of revenge on one who had caused a death, even if it was not a murder but was an accident.
We really don’t have that condition in this country at this time, so a church would be stretching it to claim OT sanctuary laws applied to them. In an honest case, honest police should be able to honestly arrest wherever a fugitive from justice might be.
So, if someone is being arrested for believing in the trinity, then that is an occasion to engage in civil disobedience. If someone is being arrested for negligent homicide, then there are no revenge rights in this nation at this time.
Do Rastafarians have a constitutional right to smoke marijuana?
Do the FLDS have a constitutional right to practice polygamy?
Do Moloch worshipers have a right to perform human sacrifice?
So you would protect the Free Exercise Clause by abolishing the No Establishment of Religion Clause?
Sorry, but your response sounded like a needle going across a record on my end.
As followers of God, we are not here to make life easier for those who are breaking the laws of our nation. Aiding them in any way makes it easier for them to stay.
It bothers me when Christians do this sort of thing. It basically reveals a mind-set that says churches are right no matter what, even if they are violating federal law that is reasoned.
Can a church execute it’s members? Can it lay down strict rules that are racist in a small town that only has one church, and it wields extreme power? Can the church come up with a rule that says women need to suffer mutilation because the church deems it right to do it?
You see, there are some reasoned limits to what churches should claim the right to do.
When you sign on to help illegal immigrants, you’re signing on the sell out the citizens in your community and nation.
That isn’t God’s plan. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings and all.
You have an obligation to do what is best for your community members. That’s the legal ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.