Welfare falls short of Christian charity
The favorite example of Democratic righteousness is the party’s support of the welfare system. They claim that if conservatives really cared about Christian values and helping fellow Americans in need, then the Republican Party would favor policies that tax the rich and redistribute wealth to the poor. Liberal Democrats point to government assistance and the welfare state as a model of Christian charity in action. In reality government welfare is at best a pale reflection of true Christian giving.
Admittedly, the welfare system was designed for a noble purpose – to assist the less fortunate either financially or through other means including food, housing, and work programs. Certainly this type of assistance benefits many people. And those who work for or support government sponsored welfare programs generally have the best intentions at heart. They genuinely want to make a positive difference in the lives of those who receive these services. I do not doubt the honesty of their convictions, nor should we discredit the good they do accomplish. But in the end government bureaucracy does not fulfill the demands of Christian love of neighbor.
Liberals correctly point out that Jesus commanded his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick. The Sermon on the Mount and the command to love our neighbor form the basis for the liberal argument in favor of the “Christian” welfare state. Liberals argue that Christian Conservatives neglect this key element of their faith when applying Christian principles to their own version of public policy. Supposedly conservatives have no heart when it comes to the down-trodden and do not heed the words of Jesus about those in need. In truth, conservatives are not heartless or dismissive of human suffering or ignorant of basic Christian ethics. Conservatives know that the poor suffer and need our help. But they also know that making charitable work an integral function of the government actually diminishes the goodness of charity and reduces its spiritual impact.
Charitable acts, when they are truly “Christian,” not only alleviate the suffering of those in need, which is a great good in itself, but goodness is also found in the giver who makes a willing sacrifice. Jesus tells Christians to help the poor because in doing so we not only help our neighbor, but we too benefit spiritually by strengthening our own faith and by building communal bonds with others. Government welfare on the other hand creates a barrier between the giver (the taxpayer) and the receiver (those in need) that filters out any spiritual context. The poor receive benefits from a faceless and faithless bureaucracy; and taxpayers pay taxes, not out of charitable goodwill or faith in God, but because the force of law compels them to do so under strict penalties. That is not Christian charity; it is simply doing your duty to Uncle Sam.
This is not to say that the government should never play a role in assisting the poor. The government has an obligation to regulate certain variables within the economy to prevent or correct social injustices including poverty. But the primary responsibility for ensuring basic human rights and assisting economically oppressed rests with individuals and private organizations such as churches and civic groups which meet the spiritual and emotional as well as the physical needs of those they serve. A partnership with government that allows faith-based organizations to do the job that government is not equipped to do would be in the best interest of all involved.
Making “charity” a function of the secular bureaucracy, rather than a genuine outpouring of love between individuals, contradicts the true spirit of the Christian message. Authentic Christian charity is given out of compassion and love for humanity, and as an act of obedience to God. From a Christian perspective, our charitable good works belong to God. If we make government the primary facilitator of charity, in effect forfeiting our Christian duty to love our neighbor, is this not in effect giving to Caesar what is rightfully God’s? That is a concept no “party of Christian values” should ever proclaim.
Popularity: 8% [?]
We would like to know more about your purpose and plan to help our charity ministry.
Rev. Roy Sebastian
Uh, I’m a little confused, here. I didn’t know we had any purpose or plan to help your ministry, Roy.
I agree…but how do i “feel” like loving my neighbor. How do I reach people? Should I go into the poor neighborhoods door to door to find people? People are so distant and hard to reach it seems. Maybe it is just me being unwilling to be led where God would take me.
Hey Jayme,
Glad to have you here. I hope you stick around for some intellectual stimulation
Your response was very thoughtful and self-reflective. In a way, we all struggle with submitting to God, you know? We either want to do what we want to do, or we sometimes, like Paul, think we know what’s best and fail to heed the calling of the Lord.
I agree, people are very distant these days. For instance, as much as I enjoy Facebook, I was just thinking yesterday that I can look at pics and read about people, and I never have to go visit them, or even leave my house for that matter. Electronic communication is great, especially for distant friends and family, but nothing can compare to good ole friendly fellowship.
Sorry, but your point is weak. Conservatives oppose having government programs in place to help the poor because such programs rob them of the opportunity to reap a spiritual benefit from freely giving??? How ridiculously selfish. Are the poor here merely as opportunities for you to score brownie points in heaven? No. Absolutely not. The poor, as human beings, have worth in and of themselves. To oppose government programs designed to help them simply on the basis that doing so would rob you of the opportunity to exercise charitable giving is to deny that the poor have any inherent worth. Christians, who should be the most civil towards the poor, by doing so would be advocating an entirely uncivil society, devoid of sympathy for the less fortunate. Such hypocrisy would be laughable were it not so demoniacal.
I have to respectfully disagree with you, Aaron. While your assertion that the poor have intrinsic worth is certainly worthy of merit; your logic that the poor exist solely as a means of "brownie points in heaven" doesn't follow from the writer's premise. You're putting words in his mouth. Spiritual benefit doesn't necessarily derive as some kind of treasure in heaven reward. There is such a thing as spiritual growth, which is played out in how we treat one another as individuals. This can only come through love expressed as an act of the will. This never happens by way of coercion, as you're advocating here.
I do believe that the sentiment you express is noble, but ultimately bankrupt, because it robs people of their autonomy, and their personal responsibility. What follows from that is a situation where people are made to support the poor (and anything else Uncle Sugar deems appropriate) on the basis of coercion. Such a system never produces the humanity we want.
Your assertion also assumes that it's the place of the state to provide this support for the poor a priori, and that the state is capable of being the best arbiter of truth when dealing with the poor. As such, your conclusion is erroneous. It was never the government's job to make love compulsory through the legislative power of the state. Moreover, the government has shown over and over again that is it utterly inept at providing this support in an effective manner.
It doesn't take much digging to see how this view of mandated charity has impacted our culture. Has it produced a heart change in those participating in this system? Are things much better in terms of the spiritual condition of the nation and thus our ability to help our fellow man? Are those who "benefit" from this system finding a way out of it or are they hopelessly dependent on it? The answers to these questions show us that such a philosophy doesn't work.
Good intentions aside, your view actually makes matters worse, because it robs people of their autonomy in the area of giving and replaces that autonomy with the weakest form of "charity" imaginable–one where man-made government is God, and Jesus is relegated to the philosophical scrap heap. Ironically, it is the latter who is the only one capable of producing the kind of world you and I both want.
"Conservatives" ……well, I'll just say……….are not opposed to charity, but the abuse of the government mandated charitable legal structure. Most of said opposition comes from charity being a form of helping the "needy" get back on their feet, instead of it becoming a lifelong source of income or resources so one does not have to make an existence for oneself in and for society.
The "welfare" system did not even come into existence until the last 60 or so years…….we have been a nation since at least 1776 ? Go figure. Up to then, it was every man for himself ? Or was it the Christian charity that got those less fortunate to make it thru each day ?
When the welfare system was established, it was intended to be only a temporary system. That did not occur as the world has continued to progress in economic fashion, which leads to duress for the lower sections of society on the tails of the higher classes of society's failures/setbacks in economic progress. Do you see, it is just a confusing and agitating mess we live in ? Yet, the point is that the governments of our society can easily and readily take tax-dollars from us, but never have they shown the ability to responsibly spend those dollars.
That is the "Conservative" gripe. It is not to prevent the ability to help those in need, but the "needy" also must use given resources to get back into society as a positive functioning person…….this agenda is never on the "so-called" government-party's mind. Certain government peoples wish welfare to be a permanent fixture, with no recourse to the recipients. It's like establishing birth control instead of teaching responsibility……which is far more important than abstinence. Easy solution : let teens be sexually active, thus result in more need for "welfare-type" programs.
My personal opinion is that it all leads to a 2-class system, with the so-called "middle" becoming a nonentity except for the provider in tax funds to the State/Feds.
We mostly have no quarrel with paying taxes, just the abuse of said funds given. They always want more.
Look at us now and the debt this nation is in……….when we Christians just wish our Government to be as responsible with OUR money as we are with what they let us keep at home. !!!!!
Christian ethics teach responsibility. Christian charity gives out of love. Christian desire is for the recipient to receive and learn to be fruitful……….not maintain a "needy" status. The "needy" status is the government-run program set up to continual tax the "not"-needy progressive. Christianity has no merit system for heavenly blessings……..save those psycho-church peoples……..Government funded welfare takes dollars and has no self-preservation beyond taxation and political motivation.
Chad is right, for the world we wish, our G'ment cannot get the job done. Christian peoples can, by their merit and value. (oops, must say that is the prob with the political peoples).
But regardless…….in a nutshell, quit frieking taxing us so damn much for more programs for the poor when their should be programs to help them but MORESO to make them (help them) get off their azz and become a productive citizen instead of a welfare-bum lifer. Most "real" Christian peoples are not bums : from that sentiment, I rest my case. Some have no choice, I understand, but the entirety of the situation is not the minority.
For those who wish Christianity to have nothing to do with the problems in the world………no wonder your world is so troubled as to need such help. If you "need" welfare for yourself or your friend or whoever, maybe try Christianity instead.
If everyone was out here giving………..their'd be none in need. Government needs those "needy" to sell a vote to. That is why the Dems push for all kinds of social reforms………..they reform nothing, just add a taxable program to deal with it. Keep the needy needy and they are in business. If they cured every illness there'd be no need for a health-care reform.
The problem with assigning works of charity to the Christian churches is that so many churches are too busy building up their membership, erecting attractive buildings and updating their multi-media equipment. They don’t have time or desire to reach out and help the poor and starving.
Christianity has become more of a social club than a charitable organization. Jesus’ commandment to feed and cloth the poor has fallen of deaf ears.
Indeed, many Christians today believe that the poor are poor because have made bad choices.
So Government has had to step in where the Churches have failed.
Wow, Norris… this post is like 2 years old… but thnks for commenting…
I think your comment should have read “…too many churches are too busy building…” Because even one church more interested in expansion over charity is one too many.
And I agree with you (and Jesse Ventura) about Church being more social club- far too many people robotically go to church without really thinking about why they should be going.
But as for Government stepping in… it’s not charity if it’s not voluntary. And it’s not chairty of you’re giving away someone else’s money. If it is, then I’d be inclined to stop giving to anything- even the girl scouts cookie drives. I gave at the W-2.
It would be nice if Churches would voluntarily fill the needs of the many homeless, hungry, and needy in America.
But they aren’t doing their jobs. If you added up all the tax free church owned cathedrals and properties in the US and sold them to feed the poor I’m sure there would be no need for government to step in.
Problem is Churches are very possessive of their property and have no intentions of trading them in for food to feed the hungry.
And people who are living in cars or under bridges really could care less if the church or the government gives them something to eat and even less if it was a voluntary donation or someone else’s money.
My take is, if it OK to force people to pay for war…I’m not going to get all upset when the government forces me to pay to help a starving family living out of their car in the middle of winter.
Excellent takeon things, Norris Hall. But I think you missed the main point… Democrats like to pretend they’re doing charitable works with welfare. They aren’t. Charity is a choice one makes to help the less fortunate. Paying toaxes that then are distributed to the poor is NOT charity.
I’ts great that any government wants to help the poor, but let’s not be dishonest and claim it’s charity to try and make oneself look good. Especially since so many politicians are giving away other peoples’ money, but still drive around in cadillacs, go on lavish vacations and wear designer clothes.
Then there’s the issue of which is better- welfare or charity? Morally, charity is better. Someone helping others less fortunate, through personal sacrifice. Welfare on the otherhand, pays people to do nothing, and is handed out with little oversight and lots of fraud.
Overall you’re correct- as a nation, we should be more charitable. But we should also not be communist and redistribute wealth and create a class of lazy tax sponges.
If our government can force redistribute billions of US taxpayer dollars to help Iraqis build new schools, hospitals , roads and bridges, retrain and equip their entire army and police force, give cash grants to small shopkeepers and provide temporary housing and clean drinking water for people who have lost their homes …then it should be able to spend a couple of hundred dollars helping a 13 year old mother living in a Detroit housing project who doesn’t have money for baby formula…without being accused of forced distribution of wealth.
Especially since the Christian churches have pretty much ignored Christ’s many commandments to feed the hungry and cloth the poor
and have abdicated that job to the government
“Especially since the Christian churches have pretty much ignored Christ’s many commandments to feed the hungry and cloth the poor and have abdicated that job to the government”
I think Mother Teresa (were she still alive) might disagree with you.
Yes, too many Churches have turned into a comfortable sunday ritual for their members, but there are still a lot of Christians doing charitable works; e.g. The Salvation Army, The Gideons, countless missionaries…
A 13 yr old with a baby? I suppose she does need help- but remember it’s better to teach a man to fish, than to just give him one. Welfare sucks. Charity is good.
Oh, and I’m with you- I’m tired of my damn tax money going overseas to help a bunch of ingrates that will be bad-talking us in a couple of years anyways. Let’s fix America first.