Michael Bray

Author of A Time To Kill

By What Standard, Feldmeyer?

10   Nov., 2016

I was glad to see Mr. Steed returned to service as a County Commissioner.  He knows something about running a business and maintaining services within a budget.  Politicians would do well to learn that skill prior to running for office. But more important even than such budgetary wisdom, perhaps, is the embrace of a  fundamental principle of limitation on the scope of government.  Its role is not that of  nanny, caretaker, or administrator of our personal and particular welfare.

That latter – and errant – view is the one represented best by Steed’s defeated opponent, Dean Feldmeyer, who has been the pastor of the United Methodist Church for a few decades and an advocate of state-sponsored personal welfare.  When he was featured with a an essay in the paper opposite Mr. Steed just prior to the election in the Wilmington News Journal (9 Nov., 2016), he stated his goal to “see to it that our senior citizens and our children are cared for with the very best we have to offer.”

It seems a harmless statement with good wishes for all our people.  Just like one happy family with obligations to each of us.  And My! can those obligations be burdensome with they are administered by a government which coerces the citizens to pay for “services” however ill-delivered or misappropriated.

Not the job or the right of government to take from the people money they have no business misspending.

We all have disadvantages and disabilities in life for which remedy the government is not obliged to assist us.  We are welcome, each, to pursue his own personal welfare and career and life goal.  We are free to accept the kindnesses and charity of friends and churches when times are difficult.  When friends come to our need, we are blessed and perhaps obliged.  But our government (taxes levied upon the citizenry) ought not be expropriated for the special and personal welfare.  Peter ought not be robbed to pay Paul.   Let Peter help Paul freely –  or not. Let those who are charitable freely bestow their gifts as they choose.

That is freedom.  There is something I have noticed about folks who favor higher taxes for the purposes of  helping others.  They are generous with taxing and spending the money of others, but they are rarely so generous with their own money.  They advocate for personal services to be paid for by the taxing of their neighbors even while those same neighbors are voluntarily giving their time – and could be giving more of it, were the strain of taxes not so heavy – to help those in need.

Let there be freedom for people to serve and to keep more of their own money and give it where they choose – freely.  Let the people support their own charities and churches and let those organizations serve as they are motivated.   Our anti-abortion, women-serving, New Life Center, for example, did not come to Wilmington via the government.  It came to us via the motivation of Christian people and their generosity as they followed principles of charity written in their Book, freely giving of their own time and talents for others.

Strangely, it might seem to some, Pastor Dean Feldmeyer and his Church have nothing to do with the New Life Center.  Other churches in town and persons contribute to the multi-thousand dollar annual budget.  Not the United Methodists.  What is the problem?  How does that political goal apply?  (Remember it?)  “See to it that our senior citizens and our children are cared for with the very best we have to offer.”

Feldmeyer has a fundamental doctrinal problem.  He wants to obligate the community to apply tax money for the welfare of “our children” but he wants folks to have freedom to kill “our children” as long as they are inside the womb.  So, naturally, he has no interest in working with those who want to save those children whom he does not consider part of the class of “our children.”

Sounds classicist to me – rather than racist or jingoist – as he is okay with killing folks of any color who are in temporary exile in their mother’s wombs.

The basic problem he has in a doctrinal one: “theological liberalism,” as it is sometimes called.  “Apostasy” is another name. Others might prefer “heresy.”  The summary problem is that he doesn’t really believe the very Scriptures that he is presumed – by some folks- to be guided by as the very Word of God.  No.  Like many-a modernist among the formerly faithful denominations, he doesn’t believe the Scriptures.  He doesn’t believe in the sanctify of human life as created in the image of God and therefore inviolable from its beginning (conception) as has been taught through the ages by the churches of God.  He, blowing in the wind as many-a fool, is not the man to be leading a city if it wants to excel in promoting justice and the true general welfare.

Press on Mr. Steed

Comments are currently closed.