Posted on 06/08/2008 1:27:45 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
"You will always have the poor among you..." In those words Jesus stated a simple fact that has held true through the centuries. In every society, no matter how rich and bountiful, there have always been impoverished people. These people evoke our concern and sympathy. We want to help them, but how?
No society has ever overcome poverty. In the US today, the question of how to help the poor is particularly controversial, with two partisan sides struggling vigorously to promote their own answers. The liberal camp argues that government is the best entity to help the poor at home and abroad. They think that it is the responsibility of the nation, through the mechanism of government, to care for its people and to help the poor in other countries. Libertarian conservatives, on the other hand, believe that government has no place in helping the poor and needy. They think that the responsibility to care for the poor rests on the shoulders of individuals. The two camps are dramatically opposed. Both think that the other's solution cannot work.
Christians have an obligation to serve the poor and needy. Indeed, their service to the poor is a reflection of their respect for God. Proverbs 14:31 (NIV) declares, "He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." The question is, "How should they help?" Which of the two competing political solutions is the most "Christian"?
Michael Gerson recently wrote a column denouncing the idea of "The Libertarian Jesus." While he admits that government can be a flawed instrument for helping the poor, he goes on to declare that "the scale of these needs is sometimes overwhelming." He argues, "Private compassion cannot replace Medicaid or provide AIDS drugs to millions of people in Africa for the rest of their lives. In these cases, a role for government is necessary and compassionate..."
Gerson is trying to strike a balance between the liberal and libertarian solutions. His effort to induce compassion into the sometimes cold-hearted conservatism is to be commended, but he overreaches a bit in his assumptions.
Private citizens, churches and charities have more capacity to provide for the poor and needy, both at home and abroad, than is currently being utilized. Sadly, too many Christians have neglected their personal and corporate obligations to help the poor. They have not heeded the admonitions of Scripture to help the poor and they have lost sight of the implications of their failure to do so. There is no ambiguity in the Scripture about these matters: "He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward him for what he has done." (Prov.19:17 NIV) "If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." (Prov. 21:13 NIV) "A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor." (Prov. 22:9 NIV) "He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses." (Prov. 28:27 NIV)
Many Christians fear their resources will be diminished by giving some of them away. God's economy, however, does not operate on a zero-sum principle, but rather on the principle of sowing and reaping (i.e., you reap what you sow). Furthermore, the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that our service to the poor is service to God himself ("… whatever you do for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." Matt. 25:40 NIV). The converse is also true ("… whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." Matt. 25:45).
Christians need to be reminded of their responsibility to help the poor. Too often in America, Christians view private charity as an optional use of their money. As a result, many members of the Body of Christ choose not to give. Consequently, government steps in and coerces charity by levying taxes to help the poor. The government, of course, is notorious for its inefficiency. Government charity programs are scarcely ever as effective as well-run private charities or church programs. Moreover, all too often, government uses charity as a political device to "buy" constituencies for politicians or their parties.
Marvin Olasky examines the contrast between private and government aid in his book, "The Tragedy of American Compassion." Olasky identifies seven principles which undergird any successful charity: charity should encourage affiliation with the needy person's local community, church and family; it should form a bond between the needy and the charitable; it should organize the needy into different groups depending on their type of need; it should seek to establish the needy person in a long-term job; it should emphasize the freedom of being able to provide for oneself; and it should recognize the spiritual and not just material needs of the poor. These principles require the kind of personalized, individual, local and spiritual care which the government simply cannot provide.
Gerson admits that private charity is often superior to government charity, but he still maintains that government is necessary. While there is merit to what he says, Gerson misses the immense potential of private giving to meet the needs of the poor. Government has had to step into the role of provider because private citizens, and particularly the church, have failed to help the needy. Instead of passively accepting expanded government to fulfill charitable needs, we ought to aggressively encourage private giving and call ourselves, our churches and our neighbors to account for our lack of charity to the poor and needy.
Make no mistake about it, however: government does have an obligation to the poor. There are poor people in our midst and a government of the people, by the people and for the people should not ignore their needs. Government should not be merely an instrument for the rich and powerful. The tension is finding the right balance between public and private charity. That tension will be more easily resolved if Christians will step up and meet their obligation to help the poor.
“Yet this gentleman obviously doesn’t think that’s enough, or doesn’t realize how much we contribute.”
Yep.
Let's get right on that slope.
1. Is it an obligation because they are poor?
2. Is it an obligation to alleviate their poverty?
3. By how much? How much poverty is acceptable?
4. Why is any level of poverty acceptable, if it's such a bad thing it justifies the seizure of wealth from those who produce it?
5, etc. How much wealth is permissable? Does it depend on how much poverty there is? Who will decide these things? Don't we ever learn?
Private Americans are indeed very generous. Government has no obligation towards the poor. Well, ok, government is supposed to be obligated provide for our common defense.
I really hate it when people use religion to agitate for expanding the size and scope of government. It sounds like a play for funneling more money into government funded "faith-based" programs.
The trouble, it's become the expectation now: the government as a charity, even among those who regard themselves as conservative. Bush's "faith based initiative" was a just another push toward socialism under a different name.
No one really wins as church and government programs become intertwined; churches lose their autonomy and become more secularized and political (and in many cases, radical in their agitation for the poor), and government gains yet more power over the lives of its citizens.
The folks like PJ O’Rourke and the radi guy from Atlanta have it right. It isn’t like the libs say, they are poor because they have no money, they are poor because they make bad decisions. Giving them more money won’t fix it.
That's an oversimplification, to say the least. Lots of people are now threatened with starvation in Zimbabwe because they made the right decision--to oppose Mugabe. People are banned from decent employment in many nations simply because they converted to Christianity. In this country, some are poor because they weren't endowed well mentally, or got caught up in bad habits (e.g. drugs) from which some of them can be rescued. Christians are obligated to help the unfortunate, but voluntary charity is sabotaged by the Left through excessive taxation and endless intellectual subversion of Christian values by the media and educational system.
Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2008 4:27:45 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
“You will always have the poor among you...” In those words Jesus stated a simple fact that has held true through the centuries. In every society, no matter how rich and bountiful, there have always been impoverished people. These people evoke our concern and sympathy. We want to help them, but how?
No society has ever overcome poverty. In the US today, the question of how to help the poor is particularly controversial, with two partisan sides struggling vigorously to promote their own answers. The liberal camp argues that government is the best entity to help the poor at home and abroad. They think that it is the responsibility of the nation, through the mechanism of government, to care for its people and to help the poor in other countries. Libertarian conservatives, on the other hand, believe that government has no place in helping the poor and needy. They think that the responsibility to care for the poor rests on the shoulders of individuals. The two camps are dramatically opposed. Both think that the other's solution cannot work.
Christians have an obligation to serve the poor and needy. Indeed, their service to the poor is a reflection of their respect for God. Proverbs 14:31 (NIV) declares, “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.” The question is, “How should they help?” Which of the two competing political solutions is the most “Christian”?
Neither.
Christ was not a Politician and did not do his work through Politicians. Christianity is not a Poltical Ideal. While the second political methods seems the closest. It is still a Political Ideal Christ did not walk the earth forming Governments.
He did not form the Select Committee on Abolishing Poverty.
He simply did acts that directly helped the poor. He showed his Disciples and the people that it was in them to do this.
He did not asked the Government that existed to tell people it was up to them to do these things. That is what Christianity is about. Being like Christ. Walking the Walk. If you are a Christian or want to be a Christian then YOU, not some elected Politician a thousand miles away is going to do acts that help the poor. But even in Christ time there remained poor. There will never be a time when there are not poor. While in many cases being poor is a direct reflection on a specific illness or physhical condition that in many ways can be corrected or assisted, in many other case the poorness is a direct reflection on the CHOICES that the periosn makes. While you can show them the error in their choices you can not force then to accept it. Only if their hearts become open to God will their mionds then follow and enable them to make the right choices.
By the standards of 100 years ago, we no longer have any poor. All have access to shelter, clothes, and food to eat. What we do have are income disparities, and the only way to ‘fix’ that ‘problem’ is to lower the haves by taxation until they reach the level of the have nots.
Olasky identifies seven principles which undergird any successful charity:
charity should encourage affiliation with the needy person’s local community,
church and family;
it should form a bond between the needy and the charitable;
it should organize the needy into different groups depending on their type of need;
it should seek to establish the needy person in a long-term job;
it should emphasize the freedom of being able to provide for oneself;
and it should recognize the spiritual and not just material needs of the poor.
These principles require the kind of personalized, individual, local and spiritual care which the government simply cannot provide.
What gov't has done is create several generations of "poor" ...who now feel entitled to our pocketbooks.
This article reminds me of a time when I caught a co-worker stealing. The company had allowed her to come to work and bring her child (she couldn't afford daycare)...sent her to school for 3 years... then gave her a position which would normally require more experience than she had.
What she stole was a few sodas from the employee fridge.....and when I confronted her... she haughtily replied, "She'll never miss it.....besides, she can afford to replace them". Nevermind that she now made the same salary as the gal she stole from.
The attitude of entitlement is mind-boggling.
I strongly disagree. If they see the need in their own community, they give generously. If they can give directly to the people who need help, they are extremely generous. We recently had severe tornado damage in my county. The outpouring of help was huge.
But giving to "charities" and government is another story. Who knows if the money actually gets to the people who need it?
A few points:
First, the extreme poverty that was prevalent in Christ’s time was completely different than what we call “poverty” in the industrialized world today. In Christ’s time, poverty meant starvation, no clothing to wear, and extreme privation. While that kind of extreme poverty still exists in some countries, it has been largely wiped out in the industrialized world. What is meant by “poverty” in the west has been redefined as those who earn X% less than the average. We’re talking the inability to afford a second car, not starvation.
Second, there is a direct relationship between taxation and charitable giving. Countries with high tax rates have low rates of charitable giving. I’ve heard that explained from the point of view that people expect the government to take care of the “poor” through their taxes so they don’t need to give. I’d explain it a little differently and perhaps a little less nicely. I think that people view charitable giving in addition to taxation and there is a certain level beyond which they’re not willing to give. When 40% or more of your income is already confiscated before you see it, that doesn’t put you in a mindset of generosity when it comes to the rest.
While we are called upon to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” (and should do so), the confiscatory levels of taxation we see now were not generally seen in Christ’s time.
Third and finally, the author is plainly an apologist for socialism. While he notes that government should take care of the poor, he is apparently not at all concerned about the already confiscatory levels of taxation and simply wants churches (or more accurately, those who attend churches) to contribute more. Said another way, he wants Christians to dig a little deeper relative to the rest of the population so that the secularists won’t have to.
For your consideration as a “moral absolute.”
Over a billion people have no safe water, and two billion have no electricity. Here, both are essentially guaranteed. Here, you have to be Amish or hippie not to have both.
This country has no starving citizens (versus Zimbabwe or Burma). The biggest problem our poor have is being fat - because they reputedly cannot afford healthy food. But they can afford cars and TVs, so there’s no need to walk for daily needs or even information.
Poor is a relative term.
IMHO, we, as Christians, should be helping those around us.
Instead we have allowed the government, local, state and federal, to tax us us and try to mete out funds to those who appear to be needy.
Taxes have taken the place of tithes, and tithes are used for bigger, newer, better church buildings and furnishings, instead of caring for those who are really in need. Churches have become an overt display of humanity, not a living family of Christ.
Caring requires heart and the ability to discern who is needy, and who just takes. We don’t need an unending agenda of rules and regulations to dole out funds.
soap box/off
There was a university study a decade or so ago that found church ministries to the poor trumped all over charities combined.
...they are poor because they make bad decisions. Giving them more money won’t fix it.
&&
I suspect that wastoute was speaking of the American poor, for which his statement is correct for probably 99% of them. In this country, there are many opportunities to rise out of poverty. And most Americans are more than happy to help if they believe that their money and efforts are properly utilized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.