False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie wrote an op-ed in The Onion (oops, I meant the Oregonian) about Ending Homelessness. While I appreciated his concession in the title (“Plan after well-meaning plan in the region misses the mark, failing to address root causes”), the piece reads like a self-parody. Here’s my paraphrase: “We’ve had several expensive, decade-long programs to end homelessness and the situation keeps getting worse, but the programs really helped a lot, and we just need to spend lots more and then everything will be fixed! Oh, and we need to take other people’s money by force to make that happen, because Jesus said to!”
Read it yourself and see what I mean.
He appealed to our need to be our “brother’s keeper.” But does that apply here? That term occurs in Genesis 4:9 (Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”). Most people will note that Cain was referring to his literal brother, not all of humanity. Also, he didn’t say it in reference to being his brother’s caretaker. He had murdered Abel and was basically giving the original version of the smart-aleck response, “It wasn’t my day to watch him.”
So once again Chuck mangles the Bible to advance his politics-disguised-as-religion agenda. He picks a verse that he thinks backs up his point, but he has already mocked the Bible in whole and in part, so why should we take him seriously when he takes a verse out of context to use as a trump card?
This comment seemed a bit hypocritical, considering how Chuck mocks the traditional (read: real and biblical) view of marriage and is pro-legalized abortion:
This rhetoric has found expression in the tea party movement, which rejects traditional religious understandings of justice and compassion and has left even progressive politicians timid.
Yeah, theological liberals are all about traditional religious understandings! Didn’t the early church fathers take their 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades, just like Chuck describes on his blog? Weren’t they pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer funded abortions, just like Chuck & Co.?
I’m all for helping widows and orphans and the truly needy, but I prefer to do it with my own money (We’ve supported the Star of Hope homeless ministry for years, among other things). And if I cite Bible verses to support my views, I use them in context, and I don’t force them on non-believers. Chuck did the opposite of all of that.
Chuck’s version of Jesus has him telling us to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A by force (i.e., taxes) to “give” to neighbor B, even if it puts neighbor B and his descendants in semi-permanent bondage to the government.
One of the common sound bites pro-legalized abortionists like Chuck use against pro-lifers is this: “You shouldn’t complain about abortion if you aren’t going to adopt all the kids!” That argument fails on many levels, but it only seems fair to ask Chuck how many formerly homeless people he is currently housing.
I wonder why Chuck doesn’t apply the “brother’s keeper” line of thinking to the unborn?
If Chuck really wants to solve homelessness he needs to switch political parties. One example: We need to drill for more oil. That not only provides lots of high paying jobs but it lowers energy costs and the costs of nearly everything else people buy — thus helping them stay in their own homes!
Also, the increase in the minimum wage always reduces jobs for young black men, whose unemployment rate sits at 40%. Thanks, Chuck & Co.!
We also need to teach comprehensive sex education, but not in the way Chuck & Co. use that term. I mean telling kids that if they don’t have sex out of wedlock and get a high school degree, their chances of being poor or homeless are very, very low. But if they do the opposite their odds skyrocket. But the Left is too busy supporting Planned Parenthood’s failed program of encouraging kids to have allegedly consequence-free sex when they are “ready,” which, shockingly enough, is right about the time when they want to have sex!
Oh, and you could teach the Biblical model — again, the opposite of what Chuck teaches — and tell them that God designed sex for one man and one woman in a life-long commitment. The odds of that resulting in homelessness is also very, very low.
Side note: I like Oregon Live for allowing an actual discussion. Chuck also writes at the Huffington Post and they censor opposing views, regardless of how politely they are expressed. I was very encouraged by how the other commenters took Chuck to task — there is hope for Oregon!
We’d all like to reduce homelessness. The question is whether we’ll come up with adult solutions that actually improve the situation, or whether we’ll ignore those and just tell the government to fix it — with someone else’s money, of course.
Eternity Matters 
It’s not like he even believes any of that stuff in Genesis happened anyway. See his “statement of faith.” It’s pretty scary stuff.
LikeLike
Exactly. He is a fake on many levels. He mocks the Bible in whole and in part, but he’ll gladly refer to a verse authoritatively when convenient — even if he doesn’t believe it or even know the context.
LikeLike
Excellent read! This will get you fired up for sure
LikeLike
Fred, thanks for visiting and commenting. I hope you don’t mind my pasting your comment from Pastor Timothy’s FB page here, because I thought it was accurate:
LikeLike
The left in general is notorious for their inability to understand cause and effect, especially as it impacts homelessness and poverty. But it is worse when a psuedo-Christian (Oh, forgive me! I am told that I have no right, business or authority to question the salvation or truthfulness of claims to Christianity by another!), by his erroneous (to say the least) teachings exacerbate the problem. There are two main reasons for poverty/homelessness in this country: The lack of personal responsibility, and destructive liberal fiscal policies.
LikeLike
There is also another reason. God did not create all men with equal gifts, talents, abilities, or the like. There are some men that God has been pleased to give much to and some who have been given less. Just as there are some who reach the intellectual and creative heights of Hawking and Shakespeare and those who are the opposite, there are men who are blessed with much and those born with little.
Part of Chuck’s malfunction is he has bought into the humanist myth that all men ought to be equal and have been created equal *in regards to their gifts, talents, and potential for prosperity.*
Now on the other hand, those of us who have more than what we need for our daily bread are called to share from OUR OWN resources and out of OUR OWN VOLITION with those we are able to help. This does not constitute or imply a mandate by the secular government to take by force/compulsion and give to another without discrimination. This is moral blackmail, pure and simple.
LikeLike
Whatever talents or gifts we possess, as long as we can read and learn, we can achieve enough to prevent in impoverished life. It doesn’t take a special talent to live within one’s means, to hold off on starting a family until some steady job can be had, to put away a little first, then pay the bills and then live on what’s left. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but few people do these things regardless of their talent level. Average skills or intelligence are enough for anyone to rise above the poverty level.
LikeLike
He had murdered Abel and was basically giving the original version of the smart-aleck response, “It wasn’t my day to watch him.”
Hey, Neil!
When Cain killed Abel, was there any commandment in existence, at that time, prohibiting murder?
LikeLike
Hi Ray — as Romans notes, the moral law is written on our hearts, so Cain was without excuse. I’m not sure if God had explicitly told Cain that, but some things should be self-evident! The 10 Commandments came later, if that is what you are asking.
LikeLike
Good Morning, Neil.
Yes, I already knew the Decalogue and the Noahide Laws came about after Cain’s time, but I didn’t know if there were some other laws that preceded them. Apparently not. Romans is a new testament book, so I cannot accept what is written in Romans as having any affect on Cain’s behavior. I believe guilt is a learned behavior; therefore, I cannot understand what could possibly make Cain think that killing his brother was wrong since there was nothing around to teach him that killing his brother was wrong. As a result, I do not understand how you can state that “Cain was without excuse. I’m not sure if God had explicitly told Cain that, but some things should be self-evident!”
Tibetans do not have a word for guilt. The Buddhists, not buying into the original sin story, believe that guilt is a learned behavior. “Don’t complain about picking up your toys, there are people who don’t have arms” Excerpted from: http://permissionproject.com/?tag=guilt
Have a great day!
LikeLike
Hi Ray – thanks for the follow up. I agree that Romans is in the NT but what it describes is timeless.
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
From: http://www.kauaikris.com/history.htm
Kapu (Taboo)
The kapu system, the social order of old Hawai’i, was defined by very strict societal rules, do’s and don’ts, and the offender paid with his or her life. Every crime was a capital offense; things like stepping on the chief’s shadow or fishing out of season were paid for with one’s life. Acquittal was possible if the offender could reach a pu’uhonua (place of refuge) and be cleansed as well as exonerated/forgiven by a kahuna (priest)
.
So what you are saying, Neil, is that if you were one of the first missionaries to go to Hawaii and you stepped on the chief’s shadow — without knowing it was a capital offense — then you would not protest being executed because the Book of Romans states that “the moral law is written on our hearts” and, as you wrote, “some things should be self-evident!”
LikeLike
You’re kidding, right? Stepping on a shadow is obviously not a serious crime. Killing your brother is.
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
No, Neil, I am not kidding!
You do not think stepping on a shadow is a serious crime (and neither do I) but the chiefs in Hawaii did and their rules prevailed. All I am trying to point out to you is that unless someone tells you a certain act is a crime, there is no reason for you to assume it is. And, in defense of Cain, he had no way of knowing that killing his brother was a crime.
LikeLike
He did if God had written it on his heart. By your logic, you can’t be held morally accountable for anything you haven’t been specifically told about. Try convincing your boss, the judge, or God of that!
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
Greetings, Neil!
You wrote, ” if God had written it on his heart.” The word “if” implies you have doubts about it. Do you? Perhaps God did not write it on Cain’s heart after all, and Cain did not commit murder. God could not have been too disapproving of Cain because he put a mark on Cain to protect him from anyone seeking vengeance (Adam and Eve being the only other people on earth at that time) (Genesis 4:15)
Also, if God can write his commandments on peoples’ hearts, why bother teaching Christian children the Ten Commandments? They should know all of God’s commandments at birth. Don’t you agree?
You, obviously, subscribe to the philosophy “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Even though we seldom agree, I hope you have a dynamite 4th of July weekend! And avoid stepping on anyone’s shadow; you just never know when a Hawaiian chief will show up.
LikeLike
Hi Ray — I said “if” because I was responding to your hypothetical. I have no doubts that God wired us to know not to kill people.
Thanks for the warning about shadows — I’m all about cultural sensitivity and staying out of trouble!
Hope you have a great and safe 4th!
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike