Regarding Mark Willard's comment: I agree that Christians need to ensure more that we don't equate political conservative [sic] with Christianity. However, in a “trade publication” for already-Christians like Boundless, it seems fine to discuss political issues, as they come up frequently in college and post-college settings.

Also, no matter how careful we are, it is inevitable that some Liberals will rush to portray all Christians as “just in it for the power,” “using religion for political gains,” etc.

Meanwhile, the Biblical Jesus is of course quite charitable — and one could argue, as many conservatives do, that He wouldn't support moral relativism, abortion, Godless socialism philosophies and “charity” by means of paperwork-intensive wealth redistribution by government. (The latter, of course, tends to negate the Biblical commandment to give cheerfully, but that would apply only to true Christ-followers, would it not?)

In pointing all this out to “Jesus is a liberal” drivers, it's helpful to question their definition of “Jesus” — just as it's helpful to question their definition of just about anything. One drawback to the whole “WWJD?” fad of last decade is the assumption that we must Live as Jesus Did ... possibly, without looking backward to ask the question, as does Ray Comfort, “What Did Jesus Do?”

And there we find again that He certainly did not support liberal ideas like pseudo-“charity” by means of government welfare systems (as John M. noted above), and He was quite clear in His directly expressed views about marriage, Law and Grace and other truths. And of course we need not limit His words to those of the four Gospels, of course. Jesus, as God, had a lot more to say about many other issues by inspiring writers of the rest of the New Testament, and the Old.

Do political Liberals adhere to these truths? and expanded Biblical understanding? Likely not. Instead, many Liberals preach a “different Jesus,” redefining the Name to suit their own agendas — just as, unfortunately, some “Churchian” conservatives do to support their agendas.

The true Jesus has His own platform: the Gospel, and redeeming those whom He will. However, at least at present, the platform of Western political conservatism contains more planks similar to that of Christ's than does the platform of Liberalism.

Who's this “we”? Is it “we” as individuals, or “we” as represented by our respective governments?

I don't know about your country, Gilliel, but there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution about helping people in financial need. There is only one type of government which attempts to provide every essential item to everyone, and that is a socialist government. Sadly, that is what our country has become (okay ... becoming, maybe).

Charity is the province of individuals, not the corporate leadership (government) of men. Basically, it shouldn't be the government's job to ensure that everyone gets three square meals a day, a roof over their head, and clothes to put upon their body. Those sort of essential needs should be handled on a community level, where there is accurate knowledge of the poor person(s') position/need.

I've had recent experience with this, working as a cashier at a local store.

A couple weeks ago, I had a woman whiz up in a sporty little car, and came bouncing in the store with a smile that said, “life is beautiful.” Okay, I like cheerful people, and this woman had seemed to have had a very good day ... good for her.

She picked out a soda, and came bouncing to the counter, and said: “Do you take Food Stamp cards?”

Now, for those that aren't in “the know,” Food Stamps (which are now tracked by a credit-type card) can be used in place of money, to buy certain approved grocery items. Unfortunately, not all stores are setup to take food stamp cards, and mine is one of them.

I informed the woman that we did not accept food stamp cards, at which she replied, “Oh, well, I won't get this soda then. I'll just buy some lottery tickets instead.” Since she couldn't spend her charity-money on liquid sugar, she decided not to purchase the soda with her money. Not only this, but she simultaneously decided (with real money-management skill ...) to use her money to purchase tickets for the state-run lottery (which is, essentially, a voluntary tax).

I actually felt physically ill after she left. She didn't even take the time to return the soda, but left it on the counter for me to replace.

This is the type of undeserving poor we Americans see everyday. And it doesn't matter whether someone “deserves” poverty, but rather whether or not they “deserve” help. Some people don't, but they get it anyway, from an undiscerning governmental system.