Using the military as an illustration is just fine. It’s an extreme example, and also one in which I believe I can convey my argument to people who might not otherwise hear it. Obviously this didn’t work with you. I don’t expect it’s going to be 100% effective. In fact (article forthcoming *hopefully*), I am shifting my arguments to left-wing examples as I believe that liberty may now have more sympathy in the left-wing.

I want to add a little bit to Atanamis’ excellent comment. The NT frequently indicates that God primarily wants us to give to other Christians. Charitable giving to secular organizations or lost people has some Scriptural basis, but God clearly wants us to spend our resources on our Christian brothers and sisters first. And since we are all part of one Body, one can easily see that our resources are never “lost” since they are being spent on our own well-being (that of the Body). Just like with our own physical bodies, if Christians don’t take care of the Body of Christ (the Church), then we will be diseased and have ill health (spiritually speaking). So, to tie back into the above quote, the “reward” is not just an eternal treasure to be had in the afterlife, it is also the ability to function as a healthy Body of believers.

It’s time to end the myth that soldiers are paragons of virtue and that their job is unquestionably righteous. They aren’t, and it isn’t.

If this was the intent of the article, it was poorly communicated. That said, I absolutely agree that being a soldier in a force being unjustly used is to be deluded, victimized, or a collaborator in the injustice, and that soldiers are not exempt for responsibility for their actions because they are taking orders. The soldiers executing civilians in Nazi concentration camps don’t get a pass because they are taking orders, any injustices in Iraq aren’t negated based on orders provided, and soldiers aren’t inherently better people than anyone else. (That said, soldiers and police officers do need more support than most careers, due to the far more traumatic jobs they perform even when their work is entirely just.)

The problem I have with the article remains that it assumes its conclusion, chose an ambiguous example for a generic point with no real clarification that the example might as well have been school teachers, and raised elements of a “just war” doctrine in an article that was predicated on the assumption that no war waged by a government CAN be just. When pushed to determine whether specific wars WOULD have been just had they NOT been conducted by government, Colin refused to clarify. This was an unclear article which the author continues to refuse to clarify, and as such is fully deserving of all the criticism it has generated (even if as you suggest its intent was legitimate). When the words chosen to express an idea cause more controversy than the idea being expressed, those words are poorly chosen.

Now before I attempt to explain this verse, let me ask a question: What is the subject under discussion her? The obvious answer is money, right? I mean we are talking about the grace of God that enables people to give of their substance to the work of God. Yet so many people will, because of their religious programming, read this verse and conclude that it means something far different than the context makes clear.

The simplest refutation of prosperity gospel is the example of Biblical saints. How many of the prophets were financially wealthy? How many of the apostles were? Why did Paul need to gather offerings on his journeys for the saints of Jerusalem? Was this a “church tax”, or because the Jerusalem church was desperately poor and needed these donations? The answer is the latter, that good, faithful Christians CAN be financially destitute, and that God NEVER promises financial wealth as a reward for faith. Even if one can find a verse that seems to imply such (which is why people make so much of the story of Jabez, since there are so few other supports for prosperity gospel), the need to ignore the vast majority of Scripture makes this teaching heretical.

He said that it was advantageous for the Corinthians to give. Most people do not think this way. They think that once something is given, it is gone; therefore, how could there be any advantage to give? Such thinking is very contrary to the concept of giving as it is outlined in the scriptures.

This viewpoint’s failing is not in regard to Scriptural interpretation, but rather a failure to understand basic economics. Resources are never truly “lost” unless they are taken by force. In all other cases, a voluntary trade of time, resources, or promises of future time or resources is made in such a way that both parties prefer the final condition to the initial condition. This being the case, why would someone give money for no financial return? The answer is that the return for donating is not financial in nature. Even non-believers understand this, and people like Bill Gates will donate hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to fight malaria in Africa. This is done because man is made in God’s image, and recognizes that selfless giving has a reward.

Unbelievers may view this reward as simply the warm feeling it gives them, but Christians know that to say we love God when we don’t love our neighbors is to lie. By giving, we emulate God’s love for others. Further, we remind ourselves that all we have is truly the property of the Father, and that we have a responsibility to maximize His returns. Again though, this doesn’t mean financially since God doesn’t care how many paper dollars or gold coins you have, but in how you have utilized them to achieve His goals in this world. Specifically, what he cares about is how you have impacted others and how you have drawn others closer to Him though your life.

There is no question that giving is a way for us to draw closer to God, and the more sacrificial that giving is the more God values it. “Everyone else gave what they didn’t need. But she is very poor and gave everything she had. Now she doesn’t have a cent to live on.” (Mark 12:44)

Our obligation to give based on the needs of others is also clear. ‘Then the people will ask, “Lord, when did we fail to help you when you were hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in jail?” The king will say to them, “Whenever you failed to help any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do it for me.”‘ (Mark 25:44-45)

Regarding reward, we have:
“So Jesus told them this story: A rich man’s farm produced a big crop, 17and he said to himself, “What can I do? I don’t have a place large enough to store everything.” Later, he said, “Now I know what I’ll do. I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger ones, where I can store all my grain and other goods. Then I’ll say to myself, `You have stored up enough good things to last for years to come. Live it up! Eat, drink, and enjoy yourself.’ ” But God said to him, “You fool! Tonight you will die. Then who will get what you have stored up?”
….
Sell what you have and give the money to the poor. Make yourselves moneybags that never wear out. Make sure your treasure is safe in heaven, where thieves cannot steal it and moths cannot destroy it.
(a href=”http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 12:16-20,33;&version=46;”>Luke 12:16-20,33

Jesus is clearly teaching that we should NOT look for our reward on earth, but that our reward will come in the life to come. The skipped passages talk about those who fail to maximize their return, and how the master will be unhappy with those who do so. In an economic sense, maximizing monetary return is like the banks who maximized profits while undermining the companies solvency. God isn’t looking for short term looters of His resources, but for eternal returns on His investment in the shape of changed lives.

I think it’s OK to ask whether Paul is speaking about material blessings or spiritual blessings, but to say “the concept of immaterial blessing has not once entered the conversation” is wrong. It’s a misreading of Scripture.

This is some serious error (though I had been wondering when the financial side of your prosperity gospel would come out :)). Let’s look at the whole verse. “Though He was rich…” Was Jesus financially wealthy before coming to earth? Or was He spiritually rich? Wasn’t He rich in power, glory, omnipresence, etc.? And if you look at the previous three verses, Paul is clearly talking about spiritual fruit or riches (such as faith, love, giving, etc.) So when he says that “though [Jesus] was rich, yet for [our] sake He became poor, so that [we] through His poverty might become rich,” Paul is discussing the fact that Jesus scorned His rightful throne and spiritual riches to be killed and forsaken by His Father and instead of being worshipped by people, He would be scorned and murdered by them (i.e. spiritual poverty). He did just that so that we who were impoverished in our souls, cut off from God, could find the SPIRITUAL riches of His glorious grace.

Let’s look at the New Testament as a whole… whenever the word “riches” (or plousios in the Greek) is used as possession of God’s, it is clearly referring to spiritual wealth.

“I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being…”

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace…”

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!”

I agree with the first part of your statement but not the second. It isn’t confusing, it’s timely. Armistice Day was a perfect opportunity for Colin to point out that this truth applies even to soldiers. There is a feeling among some–I’ve experienced it in people I know–that soldiers are somehow a cut above the rest of us, that they are super-men who have selflessly devoted themselves to public service, and that their job is a holy mission. Poppycock. I know some soldiers. They’re no better than you or me–stronger perhaps, and better trained, but morally just as sinful and selfish as you and me. It’s time to end the myth that soldiers are paragons of virtue and that their job is unquestionably righteous. They aren’t, and it isn’t.

I understand that you believe most wars are preceded by lies. I fully agree that lying to get into a war is wrong, and that those deceived by those lies have been victimized. Do you believe that Jesus opposes shooting someone who invades your home? You mention that you likely would do so, but then suggest we shouldn’t assume the status quo since Jesus didn’t. Do you believe that self defense is wrong? If not, why would corporate self defense be wrong? If 5 guys are trying to break into your home, are you wrong to oppose them? What if they aren’t on your property, but shooting at you from across the street. Is it wrong to attack them then? What if they shot you from across the street, but are now re-loading the gun. Is it wrong to attack them because they aren’t CURRENTLY shooting?

Congratulations, if you agree with all these you have just validated voluntary participation of a privately funded US army attacking Japan and Germany, since Japan had attacked and would likely have done so again and Germany had declared war along with Japan. The US didn’t get involved in WW2 until we were physically attacked. It was an act of self defense.