« A Call to Prayer for a Movement of Generosity | Main | What Ministry-Related Blogs Do You Regularly Follow? »

September 02, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ced4953ef00e554da670c8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Christ Does Not Build His Church on the Backs of the Poor:

Comments

I love John Piper. I've sat in his church and had lunch with him. I love his ministry. But I don't agree that this is as clear of a subject as he attempts to make it. There are those who gamble who are not poor, and who do not do it out of compulsion/addiction. There are other scenarios too - like when I waited tables through college and seminary and people would leave lottery tickets (scratch ones) as tips. And I've been given them as gifts and won them in drawings. I've never personally purchased a scratch ticket, and will continue not doing so, as I agree with the good Dr. Piper that gambling is a blight on our society. But that doesn't make it completely black and white as he portrays it.

Recently, some hard working people of my small town won $60 million via Powerball. They had enough money, they weren't addicts, and they are doing good things with the money (they took the one time payment option, so it is quite a bit less than the original $60 million). Perhaps I am too pragmatic for my own good, but I think I too would take the money for my church.

I want to know if he makes sure that all the money give during offering is made in noble ways? What about those who give from stock dividends or from retirees that live and give off IRA's? Why does he talk about the parable of the servants that are left with their masters money and the servant that doesn't risk the money is the way punished? And last I thought it was all God's money anyways?

What some are missing in Pipers statement is that he is not primarily against some individual who gives him offerings that come from lottery winnings, but that he is against the lottery industry as a whole and how it takes advantage of the poor through its marketing, and to Neuhaus's point that it pushes a 'tax' on the poor to raise funds for its projects that it can't get support for through a tax. That seems to be Piper's primary argument, and 'well meaning, non-addicts' and pastors who accept the winnings from this system help to promote the system and give legitimacy to it is his secondary argument.

Look at it in the order the argument flows and then address the question. There might also be other socially acceptable activities that one might compare to the lottery, but we have to ask if they are fundamentally the same thing or whether it is a stretch. (ie: alcohol consumption which is marketed to the poor)

The comments to this entry are closed.