While they are not always perfect about it the various types of Christianity I have been exposed to in childhood typically have strong commitments to helping others in their canon.
I am mostly familiar with the Episcopal, Catholic, United Methodist, and LDS churches. These churches typically tend to strongly support refugees and other humanitarian causes. Even if there is a risk for their members.
While I realize there is not the central control it seems that Evangelical/Fundamentalist/non-denominational churches are far more likely to teach protection of one’s own family/group more often.
With my above noted ignorance I cannot figure out how they ignore passages like Matthew 25:35, Matthew 16:25, James 2:15-17 etc…
Is there a name for this doctrine, or a common way that this is thought or is it just like every church where they pick and choose the parts they/we choose to adhere to?
I don’t know that there is a particular name for what you are describing. I have seen churches that assist in various community service ministries. It may not always be ministries that are readily visible. And, of course, there are churches that do not seem to direct charitable work outward, finding an abundance of need in their own congregation.
One church chooses to open a food pantry or homeless shelter. Another chooses to devote resources to missionary work and clean water development in the third world. The former may seem outwardly more visibly charitable than the latter.
Some churches choose to commit their resources only to those who share their most essential beliefs. Not sure if there’s a specific name for such a practice, though. Tends to be strong amongst those credos who fear contamination by improper beliefs, and work to isolate themselves from those with differing opinions. I’ve heard the term “purity of practice” bandied about, but googling doesn’t link that up with any particular denomination that I can find.
Members, or even whole communities/parishes, of all denominations have probably fallen short of ideal concepts of Christian charity/lovingkindness at different times, and have usually found some way of rationalising it or pointing to some other sort of (in their eyes) “good works” they consider more important or unique to them, even if everyone else thinks them trivial, self-serving or in their own way cruel (e.g., the ways traditional Catholic communities or the Scottish Presbyterian kirk chose to “help” unmarried mothers).
I’m not sure that any have actually formalised a specific “thou shalt not help” of theological principle.
Fundamentalists are inherently under attack from their own community. While their beliefs are probably no more divorced from the original text than other sects and denominations, simply being in the minority and widely condemned is going to make them naturally insular and hateful. The continuation of their beliefs requires maintaining a firm wall between their believers and everyone else.
Some early monastic communities, before 1000 AD at the least — not to mention eremitics, particularly those of the Stylites persuasion — emphasized attaining inward grace far more than conversion or charity to others: particularly in Ireland, which must have been difficult when some of the monks in a monastery were bishops, controlling dioceses, as happened. On the other hand, Ireland had no towns, which would have made it easier not to interact with locals.
I wouldn’t say every branch or order of the RC church has exactly the same commitment to charity, or even to doctrine. Some are more giving, or less judging, than others.
For instance, again in Ireland, the late Magdalen Laundries were run on different principles to St. Francis’s ideals.
As to protties, I have never heard the tiny puritan cults such as the Plymouth Brethren are devoted to good works, although I have no doubt at all they may be extremely generous, in purse if not in spirit. Not quite as much as the Salvation Army though.
In America Millerite-derivative religions may find the terrifying doom of the fast approaching apocalypse deserves more attention than the bellies of those who probably won’t be saved anyway.
I do find Freemasons and Mormons are prone to boasting of the enormous giving they do, hidden under a bushel. It would be impolite to doubt this.
I was raised in the extremely fundamentalist “Churches of Christ”, and most people I knew were quite willing to help others, regardless of belief. They could be a bit judgmental about a lot of things, though…
There is a difference between the personal and the political. For instance Christ said to turn the other cheek if someone slaps you on one. That does not mean churches are obliged to lobby the government to decriminalize assault.
In this case one can help out refugees as individuals without thinking that it is best for our country to take in every refugee in the world or do away with borders. Obviously people of goodwill can have different opinions as to the number and types of refugees can safely be taken in.
This is why I tried to frame the original question asking about the churches positions.
Most of the denominations (and some fundamentalist, churches too, but I was trying to keep from attacking one church) I can find have very clearly stated policies around “Welcoming the Stranger”
To clarify I think that it is difficult for people to see as most institutionalized social injustice does not really provide concrete benefits to groups but instead throws others under the bus.
But I should have added in some old testament, too.
In at least the faiths I grew up in this is not optional, and thus my ask for information from others who didn’t have as much emphasis placed on this particular portion of the bible.
I wonder if you could clarify how you think churches are mistreating people so the replies could be more specific. Are you specifically meaning some people’s attitudes toward the US taking more refugees or is it something else?
When interpreting the Old Testament it is necessary to know that the civic law was given for that place in time. It is not for us to try to recreate the government of biblical Israel in our own country but rather to find the moral lessons of those laws and apply them to our lives. Because of the difficulty of travel there were not really large scale immigration except to Israel but there were people who lived for a time in other lands with the permission of the ruler of those lands. These were called Sojourners and the Bible says to treat them like natives. These can be likened to legal immigrants or temporary legal residents and I know of know Christian church that advocates treated them poorly.
My guess is that most of those churches espouse something known as “Prosperity Theology”, which in essence teaches that followers are rewarded in the present with material goods, rather than in the afterlife. As you can imagine, this is about as heretical as things get with respect to mainstream Christian thought of the past two millennia.
So if you’re a member of one of these churches, the whole message is a rather self-centered one, as opposed to the more mainline belief and message that probably one of the biggest things for Christians to engage in, outside of the personal faith aspects, are to do good works for the poor, downtrodden, sick, orphaned, etc…
With that in mind, it’s not surprising that there’s very little emphasis on charity in some of them, as their whole message is that faith = material wealth, and by extension, little material wealth probably means something is lacking in the faith department.
The Dream Center (formerly Queen of Angels Hospital, near downtown LA) is the local charity arm of the Assemblies of God, and they seem to be doing some seriously good works, focussing on helping the homeless (both on day-to-day survival and longterm levels), helping trafficked women escape prostitution, helping kids who are aging out of foster care get started on their adult lives, etc.
I can’t agree with their theology, but it does seem to be motivating them to do good stuff.
The churches that you were exposed to evidently didn’t teach you much about the Bible.
Matthew 16:25 is talking about eternal life, and therefore has no bearing whatsoever on whether somebody does works of charity.
Matthew 25:35 is explained in verse 40–
“And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
Notice that phrase, “My brethren.” Jesus is talking about Christians helping other Christians, not people in general. This is borne out by Romans 8:16, 17–
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” God would never talk about non-Christians being “brethren.”
James 2:15-17 is exactly the same. James is also talking about Christians helping other Christians, as shown in the very beginning of that passage where he says, “If a brother or sister. . . .”
This usage is still common today, as shown by the song “The Family of God” by Bill Gaither. Part of it goes,
“You will notice we say “brother
and sister” 'round here-
It’s because we’re a family
and these folks are so near.”
Furthermore, denomination very often has little to do with how generous a church is. Size is a vastly better predictor. It has been noted by several people over the years that a small church almost invariably collects a higher per-capita Sunday morning offering than a big church.