America is involved in a great political debate concerning the role and expansion of the power of the federal government, which is now the largest employer in the nation.  A focal point in the debate is whether or not the federal government should provide for the health care of every citizen.  The only way any government can provide anything, medicine or missiles, is by taking the money of its citizens by taxation.  In the case of providing for health care of its people, the federal government takes money from those who have it and pays for the medical treatment of those who don't.  Tax the rich to care for the poor, in which case, the government becomes Robin Hood, the enduring heroic figure of Sherwood Forest.  Just as Robin Hood, the government is thereby redistributing the wealth.

Those who favor this redistribution are "the Robin Hoods."  The Robin Hoods have their line of argument and, on occasion, they'll pull out their Bibles to advance their cause. Citing Jesus as their authority, they turn our attention to Matthew 25:34-40: "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'  ³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' ⁴⁰"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

Going farther into the New Testament, they point to the baby church in Acts 2: "All the believers were together and had everything in common. ⁴⁵Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."  "There it is," say the Robin Hoods, "Jesus tells us and the example of the church shows us that we're to provide for those who can't." They tell us that Acts 2 proves that the early Christians were so enlightened as to be socialists, thus showing us the way today.

However, the Robin Hoods have pulled a slight of the theological hand and failed to mention some pertinent facts.  In context of Matthew 25, Jesus is instructing His disciples concerning the future Great Tribulation in which the Jews and Jewish believers will be persecuted by the Anti-Christ, throwing them into prison, causing them to be destitute. It is the gentile believers of the tribulation who will give them aid and comfort and they, the "sheep," will be rewarded with an inheritance in the Millennial Kingdom for what they've done.  Jesus uses the term, "these brothers of Mine," because they're Jews who will be persecuted.

The Robin Hoods also fail to point out what's happening in the early church with its "selling and giving." The "giving to everyone as they had need" was a voluntary action on the part of those early generous believers; Peter and the apostles didn't force the church to give for the common good.  Peter states this in Acts 5 when he was speaking to the liar Ananias who had sold his land and given some of the proceeds to the church, yet bragging that he had given all of it: Peter points his finger at the liar and asks, "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?"

Here we see that the property was the seller's to sell or not to sell, and once sold, the proceeds were his and his wife's to keep, to waste, to give, to save, or to spend, as he decided and his lying wife decided.

The Robin Hoods fail to tell us that there's no middleman in either of the biblical scenarios.  The Robin Hoods, theological magicians all, insert a go-between in helping the poor: the government.  When Jesus encouraged believers to help the poor, He didn't command us to give the money to the government so the government could give it to the  poor, sick, and hungry.  The Robin Hoods use the middleman (the government) to force the giving; but how can forced giving be "giving?"

The Robin Hoods are insidious--they're teaching us to avoid taking care of other people. The state will – why should we?  In two weeks in August of 2003, in France, 11,000 elderly people died of heatstroke.  As Dennis Prager wrote, "If people in France and elsewhere in Europe take less care of their aging parents, it is because they are taught from childhood to allow others, i.e. the state, to take care of everybody."  The 11,000 avoidable deaths didn't even cause their leader to cancel his vacation and return to France from Canada.

The disciple of Jesus is to be both concerned and active to help the hungry and the poorly clothed [cf. James 1] beginning with those in the faith, but his obedience is not brought about through either the gun or guilt.

It's odd, isn't it.  Jesus is the authority for the Robin Hoods in their social gospel, but those same Robin Hoods who want us to read and heed Matthew 25 and Acts 2, never turn our attention to read and heed John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."  Interesting isn't it--Jesus is their authority in one area, but not in another.  What we're seeing is selective authority as it suits the purpose of the Robin Hoods.  The Robin Hoods will condemn with a vengeance anyone who dares to quote in the public square and believe Jesus' words in John 14, yet will tell us to do what [they think] He's saying in Matthew 25, and that, because He said it, we should do it.

And in this, the subject turns on us. We too can be Robin Hoods. We can practice selective lordship to Christ based on our preferences, our own selective sanctification. We like what the Bible teaches about this, but do not care so much for what the Bible says about that.  Our submission to the lordship of Christ becomes little more than subjection to the authority of what tickles our fancy and what does not, and the result is, we maintain control of our lives.  The Bible is "in" only so long as it fits what I like; it's "out" if it disagrees with me.

We have met Robin Hood and he is us.

Dr. Mike Halsey, Pastor

* This article is not intended to be a political commentary; it is illustrative of Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, and liberals in their use of Christ and His Word.