Dear Readers,

I exited 285 onto Kipling today and halted my car’s descent at the red light, flipped on my turn signal, waited. As I waited, I heard the playing of a saxophone, and noticed with some surprise a young man underneath the intersection’s stop sign. He was playing his instrument and had taped to the sign a board reading: “HELP pay for my COLLEGE.” He was dressed nicely in khakis and a tucked-in blue button-down shirt. Apparently he was good-looking too, because my ex-girlfriend, who was sitting shotgun at the time and enjoying the music, announced: “He’s good! Ooh, and he’s hot, too! Here, give him this!”

She thrust two dollars into my hand. I obediently rolled down the window and gave him his pay for the entertainment. He took the money with a polite thanks and moved on to the next proffered hand. Soon after that the light was green.

As we sped away I told my ex-girlfriend: “You know, that really was pretty cool. Smart guy. Has a unique, pleasing selling angle. He’s probably making more than he would working at McDonald’s. My kinda beggar.”

To which my ex said: “You wouldn’t rather he work for it?”

(My ex hasn’t read my article here on Theocrats.com entitled “My Parents”, Dear Reader, but she knows me and my attitudes very well.)

And I answer to her and you: No, not really. Yes, I believe the employer-employee relationship is superior to charity, but that doesn’t mean I consider all charity worthy of condemnation. Indeed, if you’re capable of honestly convincing anyone to bequeath you funds without a string attached, I congratulate you, and if you have further managed to do so in a clever fashion, I commend you (and clever that saxophone player was! He parlayed his pleasant personality, pleasing appearance, sympathetic goal, and musical talent into money for his education).

Also: While I consider it preferrable, from an almsgiver’s perspective, that a receiver work for his reward, from the receiver’s perspective the reverse is true: it is only logical that to receive, free of any strings, is far better than to work. After all, all actions are performed as means to ends, and if the goal of receiving is obtainable without the means of working, then no reason exists to do work. In other words: It is right for a person not to work to receive if such is unnecessary, just as it is right for you to accept free food a restaurant offers you.

Which leads me to answer the apparent: Am I a total hypocrite? After railing on about how Self-esteem is derived from one’s own labor, a reader could be excused for thinking I now justify Laziness and Beggardom. Let me have your ear (or rather, eye) a little longer. Hopefully I may reconcile my statements to your satisfaction.

If a person is godless, no more explanation is necessary. The cold logic I’ve just given is enough: All work is done for a goal and should work not be necessary to achieve that goal, that person is fortunate. But if you are Theocrat, my friends, you know that God calls us not to live idle lives. What you may not remember is that He also does not call us to earn all that we obtain. Indeed, the relationship of God and Man is that of Donor and Receiver, and we are frequently called by God’s Word to give freely to others. If accepting charity is a sin, it would be absurd to give, because the result would be more sin on the part of the receiver.

That is, of course, not the case. If we are freely supported by others, God finds no fault in our acceptance of that support in order to free our own productivity for other endeavors. Examples of such worthy charity-taking range from accepting a dollar from a stranger, just in order to eat for a day while you labor to end your homelessness, to accepting the full payment of your college tuition and living expenses from your parents, in order that you might pay full attention to your procurement of a degree, the better with which to serve your Lord.

In the case of the saxophone player on 285 & Kipling, it was a mix of these two examples: He was accepting money from total strangers in order to procure a degree. His self-worth will thus come from labors made by possible by others. How perfectly satisfactory, I say.

AN UPDATE FOR READERS: AMADEUS ABSENT

Dear Readers,

Amadeus, webmaster and owner of Theocrats.com, will be absent for a short time due to his attendance of the “Creation East” Christian conference and series of concerts. He will continue the penning and publishing of his just-begun “Platform Planks” treatises upon his return. In the meantime, the $ stands alone. Tremble.

AND ON A LIGHTER NOTE

(Source: “Out There” as featured on Foxnews.com 6-25-04)

A priest of St. Agnes’ Church in Chicago recently attacked two robbers who were attempting to steal $300 from the church’s collection box. Despite one of the thieves being armed with a knife, Father Matt Foley pinned the criminal in a headlock and kept him there until the police arrived.

Father Foley said to WBBM-TV, who first reported the story: “He had threatened me that he had a knife. I had to physically keep his hand away from the knife so I wouldn’t be harmed. So I put him basically in a half-nelson and held him to the ground.”

Father Foley’s explained his combat prowess as the end result of a childhood plagued by four brothers and two sisters.

Now that is how we like our servants of God here at Theocrats.com: ready for some Wrestlemania action anytime the Forces of Darkness wanna step into the ring.

I think that’s definitely enough for tonight, Friends. God loves you. Take care.

Your Theocrat,

$