Obama, Matthew 25, and Compassion

I was watching this video of Obama at saddleback Church on this blog, and I was struck by Obama’s answer to the question about the greatest moral failure of the United States.  Here’s what he said:

I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of — that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having — not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. There’s a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of us.

Somehow I don’t think he was just talking about individuals not showing enough compassion to their neighbors.  Like all socialists, Obama is certainly implying that Jesus means that we should embrace socialism:  We should put in place government policies that take care of the poor and downtrodden.

That sounds nice, but it is simply not true.  Let’s look at what Jesus said (Matthew 25, NIV, from biblegateway.com):

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

 37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

 40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

 

Jesus was clearly speaking of individuals caring for their neighbors, not individuals getting their government (or other people) to do it.

If Jesus was suggesting socialism, he would have said something like this:

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you voted to increase taxes on the rich, so that the government could give me something to eat, I was thirsty and you forced your neighbor to give me something to to drink, I was a stranger and you campaigned for a politician who promised to build housing for me, 36I needed clothes and you wrote your senator so that he would make other people pay taxes to buy me clothes, I was sick and you referred me to a government program that would look after me, I was in prison and you fought for a new government visitation program…

  40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you forced your neighbor to do, whatever you forced the rich to do, whatever a government program that you supported did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Yep.  That’s how Obama reads it, I guess.

It’s like this.  True compassion is a poor man coming to my door and I give him food.  Socialist/liberal/democrat compassion is this:  A poor man comes to my door.  I go to my neighbor’s house, put a gun to my neighbors head, and say, “Give this man some food.”

My neighbor gives the man some food.  I say to my neighbor, “Ahh, it feels wonderful to be compassionate, doesn’t it?”

Just one more reason that socialism is unreasonable–it removes the potential for the personal fulfillment that comes from the free exercise of compassion.

6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver (1 Cor 9:6-7, NIV).

The socialistic interpretation of Matthew 25 also ignores the admonitions of the decalogue (thanks to F. A. Harper, writing in the Freeman, 1971, for this insight).  Thou shalt not steal.  Thou shalt not covet.  What is wealth redistribution but stealing that arises from covetousness on the part of those desiring the redistribution?

As a side note, the socialist’s views of compassion seem to have implications for their charitable giving.  it is interesting to compare the charitable giving habits of liberals and conservatives.  Check out these links (pay close attention to what organizations they give to, as well as how much they give):

Obama’s giving

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-tax-returns-low-on_n_93353.html

McCain’s giving

 http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/4437/john-mccain-discloses-data-on-his-charity-giving

 Liberals vs. conservatives

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Mar/20080331Comm002.asp

I like what will says about half way down the page:

 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.