Charming.
I'll commit a faux pas and answer your ingenuous question with a question. What if the monsters you described ran a soup kitchen and fed the hungry? Would we be wrong to support the care and feeding of the hungry while they did repugnant things on the side. That might be a better expression instead of going for an example so ludicrous no one could support it.
black -
its not an ingenuous question at all.
very simply put - its a bit disquieting when anyone takes ONE SENTENCE out of an ENTIRE BOOK and use it to suggest that checking to be sure the organization(s) you (and your church) choose to support are in line with the same biblical principles you yourselves espouse is somehow "against what Jesus said". I've been sitting under an independent fundamental baptist preacher for nearly 30 years and EVEN I am not that narrow in interpretation.
as BCD states:
I don't think there were a lot of organizations in Jesus' time.
so the terminology "giving alms" is quite likely implying the instance where one individual is giving directly to another- and doing so
at a time when the individual receiving that help is himself very likely known to the giver. clearly not universally true - but likely.
do you honestly not recognize the intent of
this is simply to be sure you (as in "group") are not furthering evil? isn't that pretty close to what you said above?
One of the things very few Christians bother to do is check to see where their tithes are going . . . when your church donates to specific requests for help - or to the various charities it supports do you know what those monies are used for and what that particular charity stands for?
lets address the
"monsters" as you call them via REAL LIFE EXAMPLE right here at home. there was a charity our church (and several other local churches) supported in the mountains - a "boys home". it was discovered after supporting them - and doing so for a number of years, that there was an individual in the employ of this group home - a relative of one of the principals in the organization that had been abusing some of these kids. there had been several "incidents" of sexual abuse that had gone unreported to authorities. in the main these incidents had gone unreported because these kids were castaways without someone to standup for them and those who questioned the "allegations" were belittled and criticized for questioning the "overall good works" of the organization. the long and short of it was that there was KNOWN inappropriate conduct occurring and WE were supporting it. we and several other churches found that unacceptable and STOPPED supporting the home with our donations.
lets face it - there are MONSTERS lurking about everyplace we'd care to look today. there's a thread on the board right now regarding one that supports kiddi porn and another that supports "assisted suicide". the catholic church lost HUGE numbers of its followers given its refusal to prosecute pedophile priests - or even to condemn them at all.
I've come to realize the difficulty you and I seem to have agreeing on things from time to time are rooted in a tendency to make blanket and seemingly all inclusive statements made from a position of a very small segment of an incredibly large work - often seemingly at the exclusion of the remainder of it. to be completely honest its difficult for me to rationalize that perspective.
I'm interested in what you have to say about it. having no direct knowledge of the events surrounding the example I gave above, I honestly believe you misinterpreted the intent of the initial post (#20)
ETA: as regards post 20 above - I do need to state that UNTIL that real life example concerning the boys home occurred for us personally it had NEVER DAWNED ON ME the importance of actually bothering to "check" what "soil" the children of my pennies were being sown to. I can tell you that I do so now with great regularity