You simply won’t find that sort of explicit prescription in Jesus’s teachings. Jesus said (paraphrasing here) “help and care for the needy”. There simply is nothing like, “you are obligated to make sure that a homeless person has a roof over their heads” (or any other very explicit direction for action along those lines) in Jesus’s teachings.
Yes, you can always come up with “but what if” scenarios, but in doing so, you’re missing the point. How an individual Christian handles the details is up to their own discernment, judgment, conscience, and resources.
Ok, this makes sense. It seems at odds with the idea of “sanctuary” within a church, but ok. Is there a religion that prescribes for mandatory “taking in” of an unfortunate into your own home? I believe that someone upthread insinuated that I was looking for a place to crash because of my question, but I assure you that isn’t the case. I’m genuinely curious.
The idea of “sanctuary” (as in, you can seek sanctuary in a church when in need) seems to be more along the lines of political sanctuary, or seeking a safe haven when one is in danger of arrest or persecution. While it’s been a real thing in the past, it definitely was not part of Jesus’s teachings (which seems to be what you’re particularly interested in), and looks to have been something that the Christian church adopted in the centuries after Christ. Regardless, I’m not sure that “legal / political sanctuary” in a church exists today (from the standpoint of the authorities not having any legal right to come into a church to pursue you).
While many churches will try to assist people in need who show up at their door (my best friend is our church secretary, and she probably sees several such people a week come into the office), and some churches do have programs to host the homeless within their walls, a homeless person who walks into a random Christian church shouldn’t expect that they will be able to find shelter within that building.
Edit: apparently, in the 1980s, there was a “Sanctuary movement” in which a number of churches attempted to act as safe havens for political asylum-seekers from Central America. Note that they did so in violation of U.S. law, which does not recognize the right of a church to act as such an asylum.
I’m not sure what the arguing is about.
This is pretty clear:
Basically, give away all that you have and follow me.
Also, Luke 16 contains the parable of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus begged for the scraps off the rich man’s table. When they died, Lazarus when to heaven, and the rich man was tormented in hell.
Basically, Jesus had no use for rich people. He was a communist.
Not trying to be snarky at all,
but many people here answered you by informing you, that those were not in fact his teachings, and you said no one would answer… so think back, maybe he did give an appropriate answer, but one that was not what you wanted.
Perhaps we can drop the BS and agree that when someone who is trustworthy but has fallen on hard times, we should feel compelled to help him/her in any way we can?
OT or NT, aren’t really the point. We do what we can because it’s right, not because some dead person told us to do it.
The idea that Christianity is a set of rules that mandates what you can and cannot do is not the version of Christianity I was raised in. The message from Paul was that no one can follow the Law perfectly. The idea is that, when Jesus said to do something like “sell everything you have and give it to the poor,” he was actually saying to the man “There’s nothing you can do that will make you worthy of following me.” Not because he was bad, but because doing things is not what Jesus requires.
There is salvation by faith, and faith inherently causes good works, or it isn’t true faith. The Bible doesn’t mandate behaviors so much as tell us what those good works are, so we can know our faith is real.
As for what Isaiah said, he was a prophet, and was giving specific instructions. He said that the fasting they were doing was pointless, and that they should instead do these other things to show their devotion to God. And, even for them, the fact that it was replacing fasting meant it was something special, not a continual command.
Now, that doesn’t mean we can’t get value from this. But that value is that helping the poor is good, not that we have to do it specifically in the manner described. You can produce good fruit by paying for shelters, too.
the OP’s statement, and more to the point IMHO, is not do the right thing, but how to do the right thing effectively. When to give a fish, or when teaching one how to fish, or pointing them to a place for them to fish, or pointing them to a fishing master. My take on the teachings of Jesus is that there are no rules to determine this, only wisdom from God, and our willingness to follow.
Or as stated above we can not follow the law perfectly, but I’d go further, we are not designed to follow laws at all (any laws), just live with love for each other, which is also God’s love for us, in this we get God’s help.