AI-GENERATED SUMMARY

Pastor Tuuri argues that biblical compassion for the poor is analogic, meaning our mercy toward others must image God’s mercy toward us who were spiritually poor. He contends that true help must be “holistic,” addressing the root causes of poverty—such as sin and lack of productivity—rather than merely providing material relief, citing General Booth’s two-pronged approach of gospel preaching and job training. The sermon explicitly rejects egalitarianism and “leveling,” arguing that these concepts falsely assume a closed economic system where wealth is static and people are mere consumers rather than producers created in God’s image to exercise dominion. Ultimately, Tuuri asserts that aid to the poor is a covenantal duty linked to justice and the Sixth Commandment (preserving life), not a statist function, and warns that mocking the poor invites God’s judgment.

SERMON TRANSCRIPT

Psalm 111 and 112. Praise the Lord. I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart in the company of the upright and in the assembly. Great are the works of the Lord. They are studied by all who delight in them. Splendid and majestic is his work, and his righteousness endures forever. He has made his wonders to be remembered. The Lord is gracious and compassionate. He has given food to those who fear him.

He will remember his covenant forever. He has made known to his people the power of his works in giving them the heritage of the nations. The work of his hands are truth and justice. All his precepts are sure. They are upheld forever and ever. They are performed in truth and uprightness. He has sent redemption to his people. He has ordained his covenant forever. Holy and awesome is his name. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

A good understanding have all those who do his commandments. His praise endures forever. Praise the Lord. How blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his commandments. His descendants will be mighty on earth. The generation of the upright will be blessed. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever. Light arises in the darkness for the upright. He is gracious and compassionate and righteous.

It is well with the man who is gracious and lends. He will maintain his cause in judgment, for he will never be shaken. The righteous will be remembered forever. He will not fear evil tidings. His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord. His heart is upheld. He will not fear until he looks with satisfaction on his adversaries. He has given freely to the poor. His righteousness endures forever. His horn will be exalted in honor.

The wicked will see it and be vexed. He will gnash his teeth and melt away. The desire of the wicked will perish.

Let’s pray. Almighty God, we thank you for your scriptures. We acknowledge before you and gratefully so that they are honey to our lips and true food to our souls. Almighty God, help us to understand these two psalms and what they command us to do in relationship to our fellow men. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.

Most of you are aware that the last two days myself and some other people from our church were at the Reconstruction Conference in Seattle. We got back last night around 10:30 or 11. Otto Scott was one of the speakers yesterday and his first topic was on the arts and Christianity. He took the movie industry and the history of movies and made an interesting observation that sort of stuck with me.

He said that originally the theaters—the movie theaters—had a pit in the front for the richest, boxes for the middle class and a balcony for the poor. Then with the advent of the movie theater, they changed all that to equal seating. Everybody sitting in the same rows in the same sort of seat, which meant people sat in the darkness next to one another. He said also that this caused a great deal of sensation at the time and people were more than a little afraid to sit next to somebody in the dark like that, a complete stranger.

Apparently, and I’m sure his history is accurate, in some of the earliest showings of movies, they would flash up signs on the screen that the ladies would be protected by the management of the theaters—some cause for worry. In any event, I thought that was an interesting observation—that seating pattern of the rich having the best seats in the front, middle class in boxes, and a balcony for the poor. I’ll return to that a little later because I think our initial reaction to that, cultured and formed by our culture of the day, is one of disdain for the lack of egalitarianism that’s shown in that sort of seating arrangement.

We’ll go through some things based on this psalm and other portions of the word of God that talk to the question of the poor in society and our relationship to them. We’ll return to that observation by Otto Scott a little later and analyze it a bit from what we’ve gleaned from scripture.

My basic outline will be: I’m going to draw some theological foundations for a proper understanding of the poor and our relationship to the poor in society—as individuals, as a church, and as civil government. Then on the basis of those theological foundations, we’ll make some practical applications.

The three theological observations will be: First of all, our compassion for the poor is based upon an understanding of God’s compassion for us and for the poor in spirit. In other words, our relationship to God is analogic. Second, mercy is to always be seen in relationship to justice and righteousness. Third, compassion for the poor is a covenantal reality—a covenantal fact.

Based on that, our four points of application are: First, we must help the poor in society. Second, we must truly help the poor in society. Third, compassion for the poor and help for the poor is not egalitarian in perspective. In other words, it’s not an equalizing sort of function. Fourth, compassion for the poor is not to be primarily overseen by the civil magistrate.

Let’s turn back to Psalm 111 and 112. I read these two psalms together. I was going through Psalm 112, which I was originally planning to talk on this morning, and I noticed a phrase in here about righteousness enduring forever. I did a couple of little studies on that and found out that the same phrase is repeated in Psalm 111. I saw that on the basis of that there was a correlation between these two psalms. Nothing new in that really. In Spurgeon’s Treasury of David, he talks about these two psalms as being linked, first of all through the literary device used in the two psalms.

Apparently, Psalms 111 and 112 are the first truly acrostic psalms, and each of the phrases in them begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It’s very regular and very consistent. There are no really variant Hebrew manuscripts that deviate from this pattern. It’s a very solid poetic device used here—an acrostic interpretation of the Psalms with each line beginning with a separate Hebrew letter.

John Noble Coleman noted this fact and he said it’s singular that not only are Psalms 111 and 112 perfectly regular, but furthermore that not one various reading of note or importance occurs in either of these psalms. Spurgeon himself, writing on these psalms, also sees the correlation between Psalm 111 and 112 and says this about it: even the number of verses and clauses of each verse coincides in the two psalms. Also in many of the words and phrases, the reader should carefully compare the two psalms line by line.

The subject of the poem before us is the blessedness of the righteous man, referring to Psalm 112. These two psalms taken together—Psalm 111 stressing attributes of God, Psalm 112 stressing the righteous man—emphasizes again this analogic character to man. Man can be best understood, or only understood, in relationship to his Creator. And so the psalmist here gives us two psalms: first emphasizing God’s characteristics and as a result showing our characteristics.

For instance, in the first portion of the first verse, both psalms obviously begin with “Praise the Lord.” So there’s an obvious connection there. Verse 3 of Psalm 111 says, “Splendid and majestic is his work, and his righteousness endures forever,” describing God. Verse 3 of Psalm 112 says about the righteous man, “Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever.” Our righteousness endures forever because God’s righteousness endures forever.

Specifically in relationship to our subject matter today, verses 4, 5, and 9 in both psalms are correlary. Verse 4 in Psalm 111 says that He—God, in other words—has made his wonders to be remembered. “The Lord is gracious and compassionate.” In verse 4 of Psalm 112, “Light arises in the darkness for the upright. He is gracious and compassionate and righteous.” God is gracious and compassionate. The righteous man who is in correct covenantal relationship to God is gracious and compassionate.

Same verse 5 in Psalm 111 describing God: “He has given food to those who fear him. He will remember his covenant forever.” Verse 5 of Psalm 112: “It is well with the man who is gracious and lends, who gives his food to his fellow man. He will maintain his cause in judgment,” related to God’s covenant mercies. And then in verse 9, Psalm 111: “He has sent redemption to his people. He has ordained his covenant forever. Holy and awesome is his name.” And verse 9 in Psalm 112: “He has given freely to the poor. His righteousness endures forever. His horn will be exalted in honor.”

And so you can see the correlations between these two psalms, and our covenantal relationship to God being founded on his covenant mercies and his righteousness, and therefore our righteousness enduring. God shows covenant mercy to the poor in spirit and demonstrates that through his covenant keeping—Jesus Christ, his Son, to come. And so we, as recipients of that covenant grace, turn around then and display that characteristic of God toward our fellow man, maintaining a correct covenantal relationship to God now through Jesus Christ. He commands us to show that same covenant mercy that he has shown to us to the poor around us, the physically poor as well.

So these two psalms point out the central fact—the theological foundation—that our concern for the poor has to be rooted in an understanding of who the poor really are. God’s compassion for the poor in spirit and for us results in him giving us true food in terms of covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ. We turn around on the basis of that and show that same covenant grace and mercy that he’s shown to us to the poor by giving to the poor.

Now, that sounds real familiar because the last three or four weeks when we’ve talked about the widow, the fatherless, and the stranger, we’ve seen from the word of God that Jesus relates those specific terminologies to us, to his covenant people. That we are truly widows in a sense. We’re truly fatherless, and so he’s adopted us. We’re truly strangers in the land—that is, God’s particular possession and ownership. That was the basis for the Year of Jubilee, and all these things—all these acts of compassion that God commands us to do—must be understood theologically to demonstrate the grace and compassion of God shown to his elect people and to his covenant people, and to people that were truly poor in spirit.

Now, it’s interesting that in relationship to the compassion that we’re to show to our fellow man, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism talks about this. It’s interesting in talking about how this command is related to God’s concern and compassion, to recognize that the discussion of us being compassionate and upstanding toward the poor in our land and to those who are needy comes in the discussion of the Catechism under commandment number six, not commandment number eight, as some would normally expect—you know, “Thou shalt not steal.” I suppose a liberation theologian today would take that as his basis for explaining why we should be compassionate if we don’t share our wealth totally with those around us who don’t have wealth—we’re stealing from them somehow. But that’s not where the Catechism puts it, and I don’t think it’s where God puts it either.

The Catechism puts it under commandment number six: “Thou shalt not kill.” Let me just read what Question 135 from the Westminster Larger Catechism says:

“What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies and lawful endeavors to preserve the life of ourselves and others, by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices which tend to the unjust taking away of the life of any, by just defense thereof against violence. Patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit, a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness, peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior, forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and suffering the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.”

The Westminster divines saw correctly that our compassion for the poor is in the context of life-givingness, and not killing people and not taking away their life. God is said to be the God who gives life, who creates, and who destroys. In Deuteronomy 32, which we’ve referred to frequently in these last few weeks because it’s a compact song of witness about the covenant, talking about the covenant, who the covenant God is, his history with the covenant people, his commandments, his blessings and cursings—in Deuteronomy 32:36-39, we read the following:

“For the Lord will vindicate his people and will have compassion on his servants when he sees that their strength is gone and there is none remaining, bond or free. And he will say, ‘Where are their gods? The rock in which they sought refuge, who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their libation. Let them rise up and help you. Let them be your hiding place. See now that I am He. There is no god beside me. It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, and there is no one who can deliver from my hand.’”

God says that He is the one who will put to death and give life. God is the one who creates and who can destroy. And the life-givingness there is related to providing food for those who are hungry—spiritually hungry, of course. In the context, in 1 Samuel 2:1-10, the same thing is echoed in Hannah’s prayer:

“Hannah said, ‘My heart exalts in the Lord. My horn is exalted in the Lord. My mouth speaks boldly against my enemies, because I rejoice in thy salvation. There is no one holy like the Lord. Indeed, there is no one besides Thee, nor is there any rock like our God. Boast no more so very proudly. Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth, for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and with Him actions are weighed.

“‘The bows of the mighty are shattered, but the feeble gird on strength. Those who were full hire themselves out for bread. But those who are hungry cease to hunger. Even the barren gives birth to seven, but she who has many children languishes. The Lord kills and makes alive. He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and rich. He brings low, he also exalts. He raises the poor from the dust. He lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with nobles and inherit a seat of honor.

“‘For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s words, and He set the world on them. He keeps the feet of his godly ones, but the wicked ones are silenced in darkness. For not by might shall a man prevail. Those who contend with the Lord will be shattered. Against them He will thunder in the heavens. The Lord will judge the ends of the earth, and He will give strength to his king and will exalt the horn of his anointed.’”

God is the one who makes alive, the one who destroys. God is the one who makes rich and makes poor. He takes the poor and exalts them so that their horn is exalted. He does that out of his covenant mercy and out of his total ability as sovereign of the entire world and entire created order. Of course, God is the one in relationship to the poor and the rich who kills and who makes alive. And so the commandment to us to show that same compassion toward the physically poor in our land and the other poor as well is underneath the heading of God’s killing and making alive—the sixth commandment.

We’re not to kill. We’ve been made alive by God for the purpose of showing that life—that covenant-giving life, that life-giving covenant rather—that God has demonstrated to us to other people. And so that’s where the proper understanding of helping the poor should be seen—under the context of the sixth commandment.

Of course, Jesus Christ himself said that was why he came, after all, in his proclamation of what he was doing and that he was indeed the covenant keeper to come. He used very similar words in Luke 4:18:

“‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord’—to preach the gospel to the poor, to bring them up out of the dust of death, as it were, out of the fall into recreation in Jesus Christ, in the new Adam.”

Jesus Christ is the one who makes alive those who have been destroyed by the fall and by the judgment of God upon sinful man. And then when John the Baptist said—of course when he said, “Are you the one who is to come? Are you the Messiah? Is there one to come yet?” Jesus said, “No, tell John this. Tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight. The lame walk. The lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear. The dead are raised up. The poor have the gospel preached to them.”

If we’ve had the gospel preached to us, it’s because we were poor. Jesus said, “After all, blessed are the poor in spirit.” The poor in spirit recognize their position before God as fallen sinners who recognize that spiritually speaking, they are absolutely destitute and dead. And they rely upon God to make alive now that he has destroyed us in rightful judgment against our sin.

God is the one who makes alive and so demonstrates that by preaching the gospel to the poor. Now analogically to that, then we know also that the institutions that God has given us should also be seen as institutions that make alive and destroy. The civil magistrate is, as Luther said, God’s hangman. But he’s more than that. He doesn’t just destroy. He helps to make alive as well. He is to command the righteous of the land to preserve peace of the lands that they may prosper and the kingdom may grow. That’s the function of the civil magistrate. It’s two-natured—to make alive and to destroy as well—being analogic to God.

The church as well makes alive and destroys. The church makes alive through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, through faithful adhering to his scriptures, spreading that message out to create life again in a dead world through the preaching of the gospel of Christ. But the church also recognizes that God’s judgment comes upon those who have cut themselves off from fellowship with him, who continue in their sin. And so the church has to function as a hangman of sorts in terms of excommunication—of acknowledging what God has bound and releasing what God has released, those who come to him in true contrition of heart and spirit.

The church makes alive. The church destroys—through the preaching of the gospel and through a pronouncement of excommunication on the basis of God’s excommunication from heaven. What God has done in heaven we analogically do here on earth in the institutions of the church and the state. Indeed, we’re that same way as individuals. God commands us to have compassion toward the poor, to demonstrate the character of God in bringing life back to those who have no life. And certainly the poor are those who are seen in scripture as ones who do not have life and who are bowed down, as it were, to the point of death.

And God commands us to show mercy and compassion toward them the way that he showed mercy and compassion to us. That’s the first point: our compassion for the poor has to be understood analogically to God’s compassion for the poor in spirit. It demonstrates that same compassion and mercy God shows to us to others.

The second point, though, and we’ll go through this fairly quickly, is that mercy is always seen in the context of scripture in relationship to justice. We know, as we looked at the fatherless and the widows rather, that Jesus said of those cultures or those groups of people that actively work against his law and who actively seek to put down an understanding of him and who turn their backs upon him, God won’t have compassion on those widows. God won’t have compassion on the fatherless who reject him. And God won’t have compassion on the poor who reject him.

After all, the scriptures say that God is the ultimate supreme court, as we said before, who’s always in session for the poor. If the institutions that God has provided to look after the poor don’t do that, and they cry out to God, he answers them. But they cry out, don’t they? That’s what it says: “When the poor cry to me, I answer them.” If the poor cry out to Baal, he won’t answer them, okay?

Justice is always the tempering part of mercy. And it’s the same thing in the context of what we’ve been reading in Psalm 111 and 112. Psalm 111:3 says, “Splendid and majestic is his work, and his righteousness endures forever.” God’s splendid works of compassion and mercy are seen in relationship to his righteousness and his justice. And so it’s true of us analogically in Psalm 112:1: “Praise the Lord. How blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his commandments.”

Our compassion for God leads us to an obedience to his law and to true justice. Justice—compassion to the poor is tempered by mercy, or rather, the mercy is tempered by justice and always seen in relationship to it. Zechariah 7:9 and 10 is one of the verses that talks about the fatherless and the widow and the stranger that we were talking about before, but it also includes the poor. Zechariah 7:9 and 10 says this:

“Thus has the Lord of hosts said: ‘Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother. And do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor, and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.’”

In the same context of the fatherless, the widows and the strangers, God throws in the poor. And he begins that verse out with “Dispense true justice.” Compassion and kindness are seen in the context of the justice of God and his law word. To separate them is wrong.

First Kings 8:41 talks specifically about the stranger and says: “Also concerning the foreigner who is not of thy people Israel, when he comes from a far country for thy name’s sake—for he will hear of thy great name and thy mighty hand and thine outstretched arm—when he comes and prays toward this house, hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to thee, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know thy name, to fear thee as do thy people Israel.”

An understanding of our concern for the stranger and of our concern for the poor is that compassion and concern that we demonstrate to them should lead them to reach out to God, that they might know God and might fear God. If they don’t do that and if they reject God being shown compassion from his people, we’re to cut them off. We’re not to continue to assist them. Justice has to temper mercy.

Proverbs 30—and we’ve talked about this before as well—the words of Agur, the son of Jakeh, the oracle:

“‘Two things I ask of thee. Do not refuse me before I die. Keep deception and lies far from me. Give me neither poverty nor riches. Feed me with the food that is my portion, lest I be full and deny thee and say, “Who is the Lord?” Or lest I be in want and steal and profane the name of my God.’”

He’s saying, “Keep me from poverty because I may sin against you. I will profane the name of my God if I am poor. And if I’m too rich, I may turn my back upon you.” Now that’s not always true. Of course it doesn’t mean if you’re poor you have to turn to stealing and blaspheming the name of God and profane his name. The point is that if you do that and you profane the name of God, you’ve rejected your whole source of help to begin with. And so justice has to temper mercy.

So we see that our compassion for the poor and for those in our society is seen contextually in the relationship of God to us, which has reference specifically to his character being compassionate and merciful, and it also has relationship to his law and to his justice. Mercy and justice lead to the third point: we understand that this is a relationship to the covenant of God, and the covenant permeates Psalm 111 and 112 by specific reference and by inference as well.

Compassion for the poor, as we’ve said before—compassion for the widow, the fatherless and the stranger—demonstrates proper understanding of the covenant that God has made with his people. The covenant of grace, the covenant of compassion and mercy, and yet also tempered with justice. God has graciously demonstrated covenant mercies to us. And he called us into correct relationship to him that we would obey his commandments and have justice, exercise justice and righteousness in our lives as well.

Obedience to God’s covenant law, the nature of the covenant, all these things are demonstrated in our compassion to the poor. And also, and of course, in relationship to that, the blessings and cursings of God are seen as well. We know that God, as we said before, makes alive and kills. He makes alive those who demonstrate their true electedness in Jesus Christ through their exercise of justice and righteousness by keeping his commandments. And he excommunicates or kills those who walk in disobedience to the commands.

And so we see various references, and I’ll just quote a few here from scripture. Psalm 10, for instance: “The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor. Let them be taken in the devices that they themselves have imagined.” Proverbs 17:5: “Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his maker, and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.” Proverbs 22: “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.”

God says, “If you don’t have compassion for the poor, if you don’t demonstrate proper understanding of the covenant grace and covenant justice, if you don’t do those things, then God’s cursings will come upon us.” And the cursings here, as we saw with the other groups we’ve talked about, is in terms of our actual disobedience. If we try to steal from the poor, God will throw us into a condition of want. If we don’t open our hand to the poor the way that God has commanded us to do, then he’ll cause our hand to be empty, and we’ll have nothing to offer to the poor. We’ll be the one out begging with that open hand.

What does all this mean to us today? And the fact that compassion to the poor is a covenantal fact and demonstrates God’s covenant mercy and God’s covenant justice.

Well, I think that obviously what these verses tell us is that number one, we have to help the poor. Okay? It’s not an option to the Christian life. It is a commandment of God seen in the context of the covenant, demonstrating correct covenantal understanding.

Now, in order to help the poor though, you have to identify the poor. Who are the poor, after all? And if we understand this analogic relationship of compassion for the poor being a result of the compassion that God’s shown to us, and we understand that Jesus told us to be compassionate to those who are poor in spirit, we recognize the poor is not just a group of people who have a limited amount of financial resources. That’s not the only definition of the poor.

This week, I don’t know how many of you got the recent publication from the Rutherford Institute. It was interesting, as I was studying through some of this stuff, that there are two articles in here—editorials, one by Whitehead, another by Udo Middleman—having to do specifically with the poor. And I thought, well, that’s kind of neat. It’s what I’ve been studying, after all. And Whitehead makes this great point himself: that we have to properly seek to identify who are the poor in society. And he says some of the following things, most of which I agree with. There are a couple that I don’t, and I ought to mention those.

The poor is a special category of people. I would add others to this category of poor. The unborn child on his way to an abortion clinic to be killed is the poor. Okay, there’s certainly some truth to that. The child without a real home because of a broken family is poor in the generic sense of the word, and that’s true as well.

However, he also said a few things in here which I don’t particularly agree with. He said: “The woman who has an abortion and will suffer mentally and physically because of it is the poor.” Well, I don’t know. You could carry that reasoning out and say, well, the abortionist, you know, who commits the murder himself will probably suffer physically and emotionally as well. And I don’t think I want to classify him as the poor. And he goes on even with a worse one: “The hooker who was victimized by prostitution is the poor.”

Funny thinking, in terms of the context that we understand—we read earlier that compassion is tempered with justice. The hooker who deliberately violates the commandments of God is hardly to be seen in the context of the poor that are shown as those who cry out to God for relief.

But anyway, overall it’s a pretty good article, and I’m glad that he brought up that point about trying to properly identify the poor. But it is obvious that, although we talk about these other categories of people, the poor primarily has reference to us in terms of our relationship to those who don’t have physical resources. That’s the primary reference. There are other references as well. We talked about some of the implications in terms of the fatherless and widows and strangers. But primarily what we want to talk about today are those who don’t actually have the physical resources for sustenance of life itself. And we have to obviously help those, as well as help these other groups of people who are poor as well.

Ari McMaster, one of the other four speakers yesterday—an economist—pointed out that in his experience, and I think that there are examples in how Jesus treated the poor as well, if people are starving and don’t have food, it’s very difficult to reach them with the gospel. They need sustenance. They need to have their eyes brightened, as it were, and then you can preach the gospel to them. It was this understanding that led General Booth to create the Salvation Army. He knew that people had to be brought to a point of at least a…

Show Full Transcript (30,570 characters)
Collapse Transcript

COMMUNION HOMILY

No communion homily recorded.

Q&A SESSION

# Q&A Session Transcript – Reformation Covenant Church
**Pastor Dennis Tuuri**

**Pastor Tuuri:** You have to obviously help the poor. You have to correctly identify the poor. We have to have resources in order to help them. Second point I want to make though is that we must holistically help the poor—to use a current buzz word. And I hope that if I use the word holistically, those of you who might read Constance Cumbey won’t think I’m a New Ager or something. There was some discussion of that at the conference as well.

Somebody told me that Constance Cumbey says whenever she hears talk about the one and the many, then she knows that’s New Age—you know, very goofy. Well, anyway, we must holistically help the poor. We must identify the causes of poverty to truly help them. We have to help the immediate need, of course, but God has shown us the true causes of our poverty before him are spiritual poverty. And he’s shown us that poverty itself is normally a cursing of his upon disobedience.

I mean, Jesus said the poor you’ll always have with you. We read it tells us in the book of Deuteronomy that if we obey God there’ll be no more poor in the land. But in the same context he says you’re always going to have poverty in the land. Well the clarification is you’re always going to have sin. Sin is going to result in cursings and that cursing is poverty. So poverty is normally—well, you can’t say this individualistically of course—but normally in a culture it’s a sign of God’s curse upon people.

And so you’ve got to help people. You got to alleviate hunger and poverty so you can preach them the gospel. But you’ve got to get behind all that and show them the true cause of their poverty. And that’s why you preach the gospel. But the gospel, as we’ve seen in this church, is more full-orbed than all that, isn’t it? Than just preaching the good news of Jesus Christ and going on your way and leaving them in their original state.

Again, according to Rushdoony’s talk yesterday, Booth saw this. And Booth had a two-pronged attack. One was to alleviate immediate need and preach the gospel. The other was to train people to be productive members of society. Again, he apparently had set up job retraining programs. I had a quote here. I guess I don’t. Yes, in 1866 to 1868 Booth had sponsored temperance meetings, evening classes for reading, writing and arithmetic.

He taught the poor not only—he didn’t just fill their bellies and preach the gospel to them. He showed them the results of the gospel: to be productive citizens, to be dominion-oriented, how to read, to do math. He set up reading rooms, soup kitchens, rescue operations for fallen girls and unemployment services. And it helped poor people desiring to immigrate. He set up unemployment services. Now, the second portion of the second prong of his attack never got fully implemented, but that was the whole point.

It wasn’t just to relieve immediate needs. It was to address the underlying causes for poverty. Udo Middleman also in this recent edition of the Rutherford Institute says this: He says that to give even generously to those in need without also giving generously the reason for our surplus in the first place—rooted in the biblical outlook—is to fall back into the camp of materialists. If all we do is give them of that surplus and not show them how we got that surplus—obedience to God’s law, becoming productive citizens, reaping the blessings that go with covenant obedience on the part of his people—if we don’t show that to them, we’re saying that all we are is economic man and all we got to do is fill their stomachs and continue to do that without realizing there’s ethical problems that have to be addressed.

So we’ve got to truly help the poor, but we have to holistically do it. And that means we have to identify the true root causes of poverty and address those things as well. That means of course that we have to know true resources to give them to help the true underlying causes.

And those resources are found in the covenant. And that’s what Psalms 111 and 112 are all about: is that our relationship in Psalm 112 to the poor—to relieve the poverty—is rooted in our covenant relationship to God. And we show that to other people. That’s the true resource: that covenant of God and the covenant-keeping of Jesus Christ. That’s the true message of the gospel and all the implications of that in terms of covenantal life.

The third point of application is that true helping of the poor then is not egalitarian and it’s not leveling in its nature. In other words, I mean by that true compassion for the poor will not—is not a system of just taking all the wealth in a given area—all of Beaverton—and making everybody level. It’s not a question of equalizing everybody because that’s an attempt, as it were, to get rid of the sovereignty of God and covenant blessings and cursings—trying to say there are no blessings or cursings, everybody’s equal—and that of course is a major thrust of many people today supposedly concerned with the poor from a Christian perspective. I say supposedly for good reason.

Why isn’t it egalitarian or leveling in its perspective? Well, number one, it doesn’t work. And after all, God is a God of reality and he’s created systems that work. It just does not work to level everybody. It just does not happen.

I can give you lots of—I brought copies today of various prefaces and reviews of books dealing with the war on poverty, so-called, in this country in the last four or five, last twenty or thirty years, and the tremendous failures that have come about as a result of this egalitarian approach toward helping the poor. Basically it doesn’t work because it assumes several things that are incorrect.

You know, we don’t have a closed system here. We don’t have x amount of wealth and that’s it. If I’ve got $20, you’re only going to have $5—only $25 altogether. That’s not the way it works. That assumes that there’s no production that goes on. There is an understanding in all that process that people are basically net consumers as opposed to being net producers. Okay? And that’s why people don’t like people who have a lot of kids. They figure if there’s only—let’s say, you know, twenty bowls of soup to feed this church, for instance—then if you have a bunch of kids, you’re going to have more than your share of the soup.

And so your wealth has produced poverty on the part of somebody else. Well, that’s goofy. It doesn’t reflect reality because in reality, we go out and we work. God’s called us to work and to exercise dominion. And that means to produce, not just to consume. You see the difference there?

Now, the people who probably espouse those sort of systems—that’s probably all they do is consume. After all, they’re not really out there productive. But hopefully, we’re being productive in this church and we’re creating more soup—creating in the sense of recreating, taking the raw materials that God has given us and using it for the good of mankind. After all, one of the greatest sources of productivity that we’ve seen in the last twenty or thirty years in terms of the computer: the basic element of the computer is sand. Okay, they take sand—silica—and they make integrated circuits out of it and produce a tremendously productive, effective piece of equipment.

Tremendous good can come out of computers, and that’s a direct result of exercising dominion and taking the raw resources that God has for us and making them productive. So the sense of egalitarianism or leveling assumes a closed system, which is not correct in that sense. It assumes that people are basically consumers and not producers. And hopefully if you’re in correct covenant relationship to God, you’ll understand that means he’s made you a productive element of society, not a net consumer.

There’s a book by Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource, in which he says that man’s mind is the ultimate resource that produces productivity and capacity for producing wealth and increasing the number of food available in the whole country, and that’s certainly true. I remember whenever I think about these sort of things, Marshall Foster—I don’t know, I guess it was probably four or five years ago—gave a talk over at Bible Temple saying that what the starving people in Africa need is not for Americans to have fewer kids.

It’s for Christians, productive Christians, to have ten, fifteen, twenty kids. That will help the people in Africa because those kids will be productive. They’ll produce more goods and services. They’ll produce more food. They’ll grow better things and they’ll be able to feed more people in the rest of the world. You hear a lot of talk about how America has, you know, consumes x amount of the food of the entire world with only a small amount of the population.

The point is they make most of it as well. They make—they export food. In other words, we don’t eat anywhere near as much as we make. Well, anyway, Foster’s perspective is good because we understand that people are the resource in terms of their mind. But we understand as biblical Christians that actually it’s the covenant-keeping people that God has brought in relationship to Jesus Christ who are the true productive members of society and who will produce true wealth and godly systems to help the other people who are starving in the world.

Egalitarian systems of helping the poor end up producing sinners. Now we said that compassion for the poor is to demonstrate to them the compassion that God shows us in the covenant, and it has an ethical ramification to it. If you turn around and all you try to do at the poor is say the reason you’re poor is because this rich so-and-so over here has all your goods and services, what do you do to the poor guy?

You turn him into a covetous person or envy who wants to destroy the rich man. The egalitarian approach produces sin. It produces ethical rebellion to the compassion that God is trying to demonstrate in the covenant. Okay? It’s completely off the mark. It produces sin on the part of the poor, and is that helping the poor—to create a sinful attitude toward his situation? That’s exactly what the person in Proverbs—Proverbs 30—was saying.

He didn’t want to happen to him: “I don’t want to steal. I don’t want to fall into that sin.” And egalitarian perspectives toward helping the poor in our society produces sin on the part of those same people. And so continues to enslave them, make them more enslaved and more oppressed.

Actually, Third World revolutionary Frantz Fanon says this: “The question which is looming on the horizon is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity must reply to this question or be shaken to pieces by it.” Well, you know, there is a shaking going on, but it’s not the shaking that he looks for. He looks for the poor to shake the foundations of society in a revolutionary fashion and so bring about chaos, which I suppose he thinks will lead to order.

In truth, and in reality, the shaking that’s going on is exhibiting—yesterday at the Reconstruction conference, God’s word is being preached in its full-orbed relationship to everything that we do and say. And that’s the shaping that God is affecting because God is, after all, the sovereign of history. And the egalitarian systems that are being promoted by Third World revolutionaries and socialist Christians such as Ron Sider are those elements that are going to be shaken out of the world in terms of judgment by God—in terms of his justice.

This should help us to understand a correct attitude toward Otto Scott’s discussion in the movie theaters and the seating arrangements. Now, when I first heard him say that, I thought he was saying it in a deleterious fashion—saying it was bad. You know, he had these classes of seats, as it were. But then I got to think through it and I thought, well, now wait a minute. That just shows the egalitarianism that’s been built into my system, and I’m trying to reform that out on the basis of biblical theology and understanding of the person of God.

So understanding of the work of God and his compassion to us and his producing blessings and cursings helps me to understand that seating arrangement is probably a good one. After all, it produces an ability of people to purchase whatever seats they want. It’s not discriminatory. They didn’t judge a man when he came into the theater on the basis of how he looked and said, “You sit here or you sit here.” It was an economic determination.

And if the poor wanted to have a better seat up front, that he would hopefully work harder, try to get more in relationship to God and correct understanding of his law-word, reap the blessings from that and as a result move up in terms of the seating arrangement. Or he could save his resources and purchase a seat in the front.

I think that when we react harshly to things like that, it’s because the egalitarian or the equalizing sort of system we’ve been taught to think in terms of—I know that as a parent, one of the things that just is hard to deal with, and it’s not easy to root out of our children, is this idea of fairness.

You know, I remember I guess it was three or four years ago, we were at Judge Beers’s place out at Klamath, and I and my kids were playing down below and one of them had a truck or something and the other one didn’t. And somebody said, “That’s not fair.” You know, and the judge said something about “creeping egalitarianism,” and you know, I didn’t even spot it until he showed me. But as soon as he said it, I understood absolutely that’s correct.

And then he sensitized me to it. And then as I watched my children play, I’d begin to see that happen and I’d take corrective action. And there’s of course several parables you can use to teach your children that our concept of fair is not God’s concept of fair. You have to know that though that it’s going to creep into your home because our world is just full of it right now.

True compassion for the poor though is not egalitarian.

And fourth and finally, true compassion for the poor is not statist. Those who call for an egalitarian or equalizing or leveling position try to achieve that ends through statist mechanisms. And again those book reviews I mentioned earlier—if you want to get copies of those, let me know and I’ll let you have copies—are good in terms of critiquing that.

Howard Phillips talked about this yesterday in his talk in terms of political action and the tax system. He went on for about probably at least fifteen minutes on the Packwood tax bill—tax reform bill—and doesn’t like it at all. And he said a lot of good, interesting things about it that I hadn’t thought through much. But anyway, it led to his observations that a graduated system of taxation means that the more money you have, the more you have to pay to achieve justice, which is after all the point of the civil magistrate—to have justice in terms of civil laws.

You have to purchase justice at a higher price. And so it builds in this system of the rich having to purchase justice, and which seems at first to favor the poor and it may well do that. But on the other hand, if the rich has a lot of money, he can purchase more justice too, can’t he? And we’ve seen that of course in our court systems where the rich can purchase better and bigger and more technically oriented lawyers and get them off in various crimes.

So on either end of the scale—whichever way it works out, whatever particular wave you’re in terms of the history of those sort of movements—if you’re in either a position where the poor are rising up to claim their portion out of your pocket, or if you’re in a position where the rich are trying to use their money to suppress and oppress other people, either end of that is wrong.

Neither end of that has its root causes in anything other than this unequal purchasing of justice on the part of people. That’s a statist mechanism to try to achieve a leveling process or a redistribution of wealth within the system, and it has ramifications in terms of civil justice. It perverts the whole process, and of course there are lots of horror stories about how a statist perspectives on trying to achieve compassion for the poor are misused.

I just noticed a couple here that I wanted to mention. A Chicago CETA program paid a young employee $750 a month to teach ghetto youths how to slap various parts of their bodies arhythmically in order to become human drums. NBC Nightly News reported in 1981 that another CETA program—half a million dollars was spent to train people to deal blackjack, spin roulette wheels, and run craps tables in the casinos of Atlantic City.

It’s a great way to help the poor, isn’t it? Those people who seek to use egalitarian statist perspectives to help the poor end up oppressing the poor—is what they end up doing—either overtly through an accumulation of wealth in their hands, or through the back door, which is to create covetous attitudes, as I mentioned earlier, and create sin on the part of the poor.

The government programs can be seen to break down the very facility—the family—that God has designed rather to increase productivity. And I won’t go into it a great deal. Most of you are probably aware of the fact that as a direct result of the war on poverty, the ghettos have become unlivable in America.

Walter Williams, a black economist, talks about how when he was a kid, his parents could sleep outside in the ghettos in Philadelphia, for instance—so-called ghettos. There was peace there. There’s prosperity because the families were intact. Yet, the war on poverty created situations where they drove the fathers, as it were, or gave them economic incentives to be away from the family. They broke down the family structure. They broke down order, and as a result in even greater poverty and greater oppression for those people who have to live in those ghettos.

So those sort of systems end up hurting people and oppressing the poor. And that we should understand that would be the case because, after all, those systems deny and move away from the understanding of God’s compassion for the poor rooted in his mercy and in his justice. Those are the elements that want to have to bound our understanding of how we relate to the poor and how we’re to help the poor as we meet them in our society.

We have to correctly identify the poor and the basis of God’s compassion shown to us. True poor. And then use his resources in a just way and in a righteous way and in a compassionate way to show them the basis for true renewal and revival, which is the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the application of his covenant-keeping in all areas of life.

They reject that, and as a result of rejecting that central message of God’s concern for the poor being bounded by his mercy on the one hand and on his justice on the other, they create more and more slaves out of the poor. They oppress the poor and they don’t help them. Or they’ll raise the poor up to an act of rebellion against authority, and that also leads to oppression and sin and slavery.

We’ve been given a different message by God. We’re commanded to help the poor on the basis of understanding of his compassion and concern shown to us in the covenant. We’re to have that compassion and concern for the poor. We’re commanded to have. We’re commanded to see it in context of justice and the covenant. Let’s pray.

**Questioner:** Roy drove. He said I was no better navigator than his wife normally is. I’m sorry.

**Pastor Tuuri:** No, I did want to mention though that how thankful I am for the group that we have here. You have no idea till you go to something like that and you talk to people who are like-minded, and they’re all very unhappy with the church situations they’re in. Or one lady said she was on a church fast, hadn’t been to church for quite a long time. Now we really have a unique situation here, and it’s by no means perfect, but it is unique, and it’s a real blessing to me to be here in the midst—in the midst of this congregation. And I hope it’s a blessing to you as we grow together.

I think you, it’s easy to take what we’re doing here for granted, but when you go to a conference like that, you see so many people are having real troubles in their churches, and who would give their eye teeth to have what we have here—and to recognize too that many of them have tried to start small groups or small fellowships, run into big trouble. I don’t know; it just seems that I’m sure that Judge Beers’s influence the first three years is really important for us, and God, part of God’s provision, I think for us was him. And I really feel that God’s hand of blessing has been upon us and protecting us from some of those things we wouldn’t have been able to deal with very well over the last three or four years.

Anyway, I really appreciate what’s here. The conference itself was good. I went to just one workshop Friday night, taught by Doug Alexander, head of the Montana chapter, I believe, of the Rutherford Institute on law. It was very interesting. Went into the case method—how they teach lawyers these days—the history of English common law. Had some interesting things to say about Blackstone’s commentary on the law that caused some people to get a little upset. They weren’t perfect; that there were elements of natural law as well. Very interesting. I ordered the tapes and we’ll probably have them in about four weeks and make them available through the church tape library. That was very good.

I hear the workshop on art and architecture—architecture rather—and Christianity was very good, as well as the apologetics one. They all sound—the workshops are very good. Yesterday during the session there were four speakers, all of which I tried to make reference to this morning during my talk—successfully.

Reverend Rushdoony’s talks were more generalist in nature, which is good. There’s a lot of, you know, first-timers at each of these conferences. Otto Scott’s talks were just, I thought, the best ones as far as my own particular—where I’m at and what I wanted to get out of the conference. His talks were excellent on the arts and media and Christianity and the history of the film industry and the theological or Christian implications to that. Excellent tape. Excellent tapes that we’ll all go through later on.

I hope Howard Phillips, from sort of caucus, was there. Spoke well dealing with political matters, political involvement, and the importance of giving a clear standard in terms of the political arena taken from God’s word, stressing the responsibility of Christians to give the standard and then also to give the warning what will happen if we don’t abide by that standard. And the idea of judgment was repeated throughout the conference: that God’s judgment will come upon it—it’s unavoidable. And yet also a lot of optimism of course was shown through application of correct principles in these things.

McMaster was a little bit different than the other three speakers. Economist of course, and his—look, these economists, they must be trained by the same school or something. They have a lot of charts and kind of snappy phrases and kind of funny stuff. A lot of good material, but the presentation was totally different. But it was a very enjoyable conference for me.

One of the neat things about the conference was seeing people year after year who have been there for the last two, three, four, or five years. You see them once a year, yet because of our shared theological foundations, there’s a real comradeship there. There’s a sense of fellowship even though you only see them once a year. And I had some very excellent talks with many people there, and we do every year. So it was really a good time.

**Q1**

**Questioner:** Yes. Oh yes. Yes. Clint got up at the beginning of the conference and dedicated to Judge Beers and talked about the importance of Judge Beers’s work up here, and so they dedicated this year’s conference to Judge Beers.

**Pastor Tuuri:** Thank you for reminding me.

**Questioner:** Any other questions?

**Q2**

**Questioner:** Yes, Denny.

**Pastor Tuuri:** I knew you were going to ask me that, Denny. I don’t really remember a lot. He went pretty fast. At the end of his talk, he had thirty points of application. I think literally sixteen, seventeen, eighteen…

**Denny:** Do you remember anything specific about that tax plan, Roy?

**Questioner:** I thought he said that he had studied…

**Pastor Tuuri:** Yeah, I talked about the—yeah. That’s right. That was a big element as well. The IRS’s budget to collect taxes is going to be greatly increased through the whole thing. And it sounded too like—what I get the drift and they’d actually say this directly, but I think the drift of what I caught was this is a way for them to try to manipulate things, make it a little more palatable, and yet maintain the same onerous level of taxation and not do anything really to deal with the deficit or anything like that. It was just kind of a—I think it’s a way to sort of shift it around, make it look somewhat more attractive and yet actually increase the power of the government to collect the revenue.

**Q3**

**Questioner:** Thinking as they do that they can create, make alive and destroy.

**Questioner:** Excuse me. Was there—I doubt it—but was there any talking about the issues on primary?

**Pastor Tuuri:** No. No. And also for those of you who have heard about Dominion Political Action Committee—DOMAC—I talked to him about that apart from his talks, and he said that it’s all—it’s been filed and everything. The political action committee that him and Gary North and others are working on. They’re trying to have a fundraiser, I think the end of this month, with Pat Robertson speaking. I don’t know if that’s going to happen or not. So they’re actually now putting funding into place for it, but it’s actually been filed as a political action committee now.

**Q4**

**Questioner:** Any other questions? Yes. I understand that. I don’t justice.

**Pastor Tuuri:** That’s right. That’s the implication. That’s right. You’re giving life to them.

**Questioner:** Dick, what aspect of that you want to look at the essential element created human being power this state my array of alternative yeah I’m giving a pro I’m unus my life and that is that title the first person ever, you know, because it’s just where the Westminster Catechism puts it, and it’s been since the 1600s it was written. And yet I guess nobody reads it anymore.

**Q5**

**Questioner:** Any other questions or comments?

**Pastor Tuuri:** One final, maybe just announcement: you know, obviously Tuesday is election day. And as I said earlier, it’s important. I was might have sounded a little funny about a snowstorm, but I’m not funny. I’m not making jokes about that. We should pray earnestly for a portion of this day for the elections to occur on Tuesday. These things are important, and God’s hand is involved in them. And it’s important to recognize, at the end of a hard campaign, I know many of you have worked very hard in your precincts for various candidates—particularly for Joe, of course, and what he’s doing, which is a real good thing. We talked about that last week.

It’s important to recognize that one of the teachings of the Sabbath—and observing the Sabbath weekly—is a resting in God’s finished work. You’ve done well. You’ve worked your six days, as it were, and this day you should rest in God’s sovereignty and his providence and pray that he would be actively involved in the decision-making on Tuesday.

And if it takes a snowstorm, you know, obviously Joe Lutz’s supporters—his commitment level is deep. The people who are going to vote for Joe are going to vote for him no matter what happens on Tuesday, relying upon, you know, a big turnout. And though his support is very thin, so if something like that happened—I’m not saying necessarily it will—like that happened, it would make a big impact on that election.

**Q6**

**Questioner:** Gordon—then I started asking him about who he worked for, and I got a true independent, holding agent—before I respect M. Yeah. Are there any other comments before we go downstairs and eat?

**Pastor Tuuri:** Yeah. Yeah. I the point I was trying to make is that I think that if you take a position—if you believe that abortion is murder, which I do—then the parent who turns their child over to an abortionist to be murdered has done a very grievous thing in the sight of God.

Now, if they’re brought to repentance for that, and when they acknowledge their poverty in spirit that led to that action, then I think God’s compassion will flow to them. But God’s compassion doesn’t flow to people who murder or who turn their children over to be murdered and aren’t repentant for it. That’s what I was trying to make.

It’s good to broaden the definition of understanding of who the poor are based upon the poor in spirit. But, you know, if you start walking—if you broaden it too much, you end up with everybody in the world is the poor in spirit, which is true, but they don’t acknowledge it. That’s what my point was.

**Questioner:** Any other comments? Yeah.