If you haven’t read or heard about this yet, Arthur C. Brooks, Associate Professor of Public Administration at Syracuse University has published his findings and it blows out of the water the stereotype of the compassionate liberal and mean-spirited religious conservative. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth than this stereotype. Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University, after reading Brooks’ findings noted, "His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least.”

Brooks’ findings confirm that, as a group, those who regularly practice their religion are the most charitable people. This cuts across denominational lines. Those who are regularly practicing Protestants, Catholic and Jews all give charitably at a startlingly high level.

Things that do not matter in regard to charitable giving and volunteerism are household income or educational level. However, if you are a secularist that is an unmarried young male you are very, very unlikely to give to any charitable cause. In short, you are part of the stingiest demographic group in America.

To make things specific, the average annual giving for a religious person is $2,210, but the average for a secularist is $642. Additionally, religious people volunteer twice as often as secularists. Religious people make up 33 percent of the population but give 52 percent of the donations and 45 percent of the hours volunteered. On the other hand, secularists make up 26 percent of the population but contribute a measly 13 percent of the dollars and only 17 percent of the hours volunteered. Secularists, of course, make up the majority of the political liberals.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by Brooks’ findings—they all make sense from a Christian perspective. However, if you are like me, you have heard the endless mantra by secularists, liberals and the media that conservative religious people are miserly and miserable cretins that are hardhearted and mean-spirited. This just isn’t true. In fact, a case could be made that the opposite is closer to the truth. But there is more. Brooks notes that not only does secularism foster selfishness; it has a general negative affect on the social compact.

Brooks ominously notes that as societies become more secular, as in Europe, they tend to not only become less charitable, they even become anti-charitable. This, he explains does not bode will for an increasingly secularized America. Tocqueville wrote that American voluntary associations with their avid charitable support provided a bridge between a dehumanizing individualism and a strong democratic population that undergirded American civic life. What fosters this strong community sentiment in America (identified by both Tocqueville and sociologist Robert Bellah) is the religious obligation one feels to God and their fellow man. Brooks succinctly states, “…secularism, in addition to stimulating enthusiasm for government as an alternative to civil society, may be antithetical to civil society’s key ingredient.”

You can find a summary of the findings here: http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/brooks_print.html

One of our participants (Steamroller Philosopher) posed a question to me that is the subject of this post. It has to do with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 11 regarding the Jewish villages that rejected him. I will get to this in a minute. First, let me set the stage in reference to the question. It has to do with the subject of evil and what is known as the best possible world. Often it is claimed by non-believers that if God is truly all powerful and all good than He would not create a world in which there is suffering or evil. A full response to this is beyond the scope of this post; however, the usual response moves along the line that God has created the best possible world given that He has chosen to create free creatures. The point is, that inherent in creation of free creatures is their ability to do evil things.

My position on the “best of all worlds” issue is that God’s creation of the world was not necessary and, therefore, God’s freedom is such that no possible world needs to be chosen to exist. That being said, God’s gift of freedom does imply that there will be certain things inherent in this actual world. Inherent in freedom is the ability to make decisions that are wrong and evil. Those things that can exist are only those things that do not involve a contradiction. Those things that are absolutely impossible involve a contradiction (i.e. a round circle) and, therefore, are non-things. The fact that absolutely impossible things cannot be created does not indicate any defect in the power of God, but, rather, these things are not feasible in the real world. These absolutely impossible things are not things at all but simply descriptions of what cannot be. Consequently, there cannot be creatures with contingent ability (freedom of will) that do not have the potential for moral fault (choosing evil). When God gave freedom, the freedom to do good and evil came with it.

Now the question, Jesus issues some woe statements in Matthew 11 that have troubled some people:

Matthew 11:20-24 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the Day of Judgment than for you."

The concern here is that God (incarnate in Jesus Christ) did not choose to do the best thing. Jesus tells the citizens of Korazin and Bethsaida that if he had performed miracles in two non-Jewish cities (Tyre and Sidon), the people living in those cities would have repented. Instead, it appears that Jesus wasted both his time and miracles on unrepentant cities.

My response to this falls along a slightly different line of thought than “the best of all worlds” argument. My response is within the context of the actual world that God has created and has to do with divine Providence which is God’s planning and ordering of things for one purpose which is the divine goodness. I think people underestimate the order that God has planned in all things. God is not capricious. In short, after the fall in the Garden of Eden, God set about in an orderly fashion to implement salvation history. Notice these verses:

1 Cor 15:22-24 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

Here in 1 Corinthians 15, in the broadest context possible covering Adam to the Second Coming, Paul notes that there is an order to God’s providential work of salvation. Then Paul says this as well:

Gal 4:4-5 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

In Galatians 4 Paul proclaims that the time of Christ’s coming had to “fully come” and that He needed to be born of a woman under the law—Jewish. All these things speak of order and planning.

Finally, notice this statement by Jesus to His disciples just before He sends them out to evangelize. This is from Matthew 10, just one chapter before the woe sayings in Matthew 11.

Matthew 10:5-7 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Here is the point. In the actual world that God has created, He has providentially planned and ordered things for His goodness. This necessitates that all things be done “decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). Therefore, since salvation history began with one man, Abraham the father of the Jews, then salvation had to first be offered to God’s covenant people at just the right time through a Jewish messiah. This, of course, is exactly what Paul says in Romans 1:16 (“…the Jew first and also for the Greek”). Consequently, we must understand that Jesus’ woe statements to the Jewish communities in Matthew 11 simply describe their hardheartedness and not a failure of God to do the best thing. God did the best thing by first offering salvation to the Jews. This underscores God’s goodness, faithfulness, order and justice. The Jews’ failure to respond to Jesus only describes their unwillingness to avail themselves of God’s blessings.

Perhaps you have a better way to approach this question.

I have noticed over the years that often Christians get giftedness mixed up with holiness. Sometimes we see a pastor or Christian leader who is extremely gifted at some facet of ministry and we tend to think of him/her as someone who is as godly as they are gifted. This, though, is not the case. I have also noticed that often some Christians with very humble gifts are very godly.

It is important for us to remember that a gift is in no way due. It is not merited or earned. A thing can be due in a couple of ways, either according to the nature of a thing or according to the actions of a thing. For instance, according to the nature of humans, we are designed to have hands and feet. If a person is missing their hands or feet, we consider this a sad and deficient situation for the individual. We think this way because it is normal for humans to have two each of hands and feet. It is “due” them. On the other hand, something can be due a person according to one’s actions. When you work for an employer you expect a paycheck—it is your due. Spiritual gifts, however, are given through grace by God and exceed a person’s nature and are not acquired by merit or earned.

Examples of spiritual gifts that exceed a person’s natural abilities include the gifts of prophecy, the working of miracles, divine knowledge, the teaching of God’s Word and even hospitality. Whereas all Christians are to be hospitable, some people are given a special grace to be hospitable in such a way as to minister God’s love toward others in a supernatural way. It is my view that the gift of hospitality is an undervalued spiritual gift of enormous power for both spiritual healing and evangelism.

Returning to the merit-factor of gifts; we sometimes think that because a person has an exceptionally strong spiritual gift that they must in some way be extra close to God. This, however, would defeat the whole meaning of the gift. It is because gifts are unmerited that they are, well, gifts. People don’t deserve them. It is important to keep this in mind when viewing television evangelists, faith healers, pastors and other highly gifted people in the Body of Christ. We can celebrate and accept the blessings of their ministry without investing into them a sense that they are somehow less than fallible. Then when a gifted Christian has a moral fall, it does not shake our faith. Likewise, because of their fall we do not have to discredit God’s work through their gifts. God is the gift-giver and He generously condescends to use broken vessels.

I do not write this to approve of moral fallibility because God desires all of His children to grow in Christ-likeness. Rather, I’ve written this as a caution against viewing giftedness and godliness as one and the same thing.

The Online Etymology Dictionary defines violence as, "Physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. violence, from L. violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible." The question would be what constitutes violence against the human will? Can the human will be violently compelled to act?

Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 10) that whatever is done by the human will cannot, by its very definition, be done out of necessity—the human will is free. However, whatever is done by compulsion is done out of necessity. Therefore, when someone is compelled to act in a certain way by violence, intimidation or force, they are not acting willfully. Augustine, of course, understood that there are two aspects to the will. There is the immediate aspect of the will which is the wishing for something or commanding ourselves by our will. Secondly, there is the actual execution of an act done by our physical abilities as directed by our will. Obviously, as far as the acts done by the will through our physical abilities there can be a violent coercion in that a person can be forced to do or not do something. For instance, the convenience store clerk can be forced to empty the cash register by gunpoint—something the store clerk would never do ordinarily. However, as far as the proper act of the human will, violence or coercion cannot be done to it. In other words, the store clerk does not agree to or initiate the act of emptying out the cash register. Actions done under compulsion are involuntary.

Plants have a built-in power of action. Most plants are naturally moved toward sunlight. It takes an exterior force to keep plants from doing this. Likewise, humans have a built-in power of action which we call the will. However, whereas plants have no conscious knowledge of their desire to move toward sunlight; humans have knowledge of what they decide. The key, though, is that both plants and humans have an interior principle of action given to them by God. Now, just as the plant can be forced to not seek the sunlight by an exterior force and we consider this unnatural; so, the human will can be forced through violence to do things involuntarily. It is the exterior violence that causes the interior human will to act involuntarily. A person may be dragged by force to do something; but whatever he/she does is by force and not really of his/her will.

Theologically speaking, whether one is a strong determinist or a non-determinist we must all agree that God cannot move the human will through violence. We know this, first of all, because the very definition of the proper act of the human will is that it cannot be violently coerced. If God did move the human will by violence then it would not be an act of the human will. In other words, it is an essential impossibility for God to give man a free will and then move the human will against itself—it would not be a human will acting. Therefore, if God can move the will (as Proverbs 21:1 indicates) then it must be by non-violent means.

Have you ever wondered why Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:13 “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” What I mean is, okay, yes, we know that faith, hope and love are the three greatest things and that of these, love is the utmost. But, why—why these three and why is love the greatest? Ever ask yourself this? Well, I’m going to venture a thought or two as to why this trilogy is so important.

First of all, if love is the greatest commandment—and Christ said it was—then it needs to be rightly ordered. Love is one of those things that can be all over the board. People literally love anything and everything from “scrapbooking” to fly-fishing. Love, though, cannot be rightly ordered unless it has its proper goal which is our hope. In other words, biblical hope is actually called the “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13) which is the hope we have of being united with Christ at the consummation of the age. Our hope is in heaven. This is why the New Testament so often commands believers to set their hearts and minds on things above. However, here is the catch; there cannot be any hope if there is no knowledge of the truth. Consequently the first thing necessary is faith because it is by faith one comes to knowledge of the truth. Here I mean faith in the fullest sense, both the subjective human side of faith and the objective content of our faith. Then hope is necessary, so that our intentions may be fixed on the right goal. Finally, love is necessary so that our affections may be perfectly put in order—so that we love God and not “stuff.”

The bottom line is that Paul taught that the whole perfection of this present life consists in faith, hope and love. Faith serves as the arrow shot toward the proper target and hope is the bulls-eye. The archer aims the arrow at the bulls-eye and his whole person is directed toward the right thing—this is love ordering our lives through proper hope informed by faith. Love, of course, begins with love of God and expresses itself in the love of others for the sake of God. It is the greatest and will remain forever.