Is Government Responsible for the Poor?

Is Government Responsible for the Poor?
by Motte Brown on 07/06/2007 at 4:40 PM

Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family's Public Policy Senior Vice President, commented this week on a speech Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) gave at a church conference calling for more value-based decision making in government. Of course, as Minnery points out, Obama's prescription for solving the moral dilemmas of poverty and the uninsured essentially means ... bigger government.

Tom says of Obama,

He'd rather put his hand in someone else's pocket. Here's what he was saying, in essence: "You are hurting, and that makes me feel bad. I will raise his taxes to help you, and then I will feel better (– and I will have your vote)."

In this complex age, that's certainly the easiest way to do it, and it's politically popular. But it's not what Jesus taught. More conservatives than liberals seem to get this. Arthur Brooks, the government professor at Syracuse, pointed this out in his book Who Really Cares, which compares charitable contributions and reveals that conservatives out-give liberals by 30 percent, and on 6 percent less income.

So what did Jesus teach? Tom asks us to contrast the "more government" mentality with the parable of the good Samaritan.

The Samaritan put the injured man on his own donkey, and he dipped into his own pocket to procure the man's care. It's important to note Jesus did not blame the government for failing to put police patrols on the road to Jericho. Neither did He blame the government for failing to pay for the man's health care. His answer to the question that provoked the story — "Who is my neighbor" — is to point out the Samaritan's personal, voluntary sacrifice to help a stranger who probably hated him in the first place.

The question of who's responsible for helping the poor is one of the most divisive in politics. It seems that liberals like Obama believe that the government should do so in an almost unlimited capacity. But despite his faith talk, he'll have a hard time making that case from Scripture.

Politics | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Jethro said the following at 4:48 PM on Jul 6:

Maybe when the church actually starts doing this in a way that shows they really care the government can get out of the business of helping the poor. In the meantime, the government is a much better option.

On top of this, there are major problems with church based charity. For instance, I can imagine alot of church groups wouldn't help homosexuals with medical care. That would be a disgrace, but it would happen. Alot of churches wouldn't help people unless they agreed to come to church services as well. Also a disgrace. Charity is not a quid pro quo, it is an act of selfless giving. I don't think many Christians really understand that.

2. Joshua Stevenson said the following at 4:55 PM on Jul 6:

It's easy to be generous with other people's money.

3. b. said the following at 6:18 PM on Jul 6:

Star Parker has an interesting perspective on government-run welfare; she was in the system, under it's "care". I think she makes some very compelling arguments. She's got two interesting books out:

Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It by Star Parker

Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats: From Welfare Cheat to Conservative Messenger by Star Parker

4. Ariana said the following at 6:56 PM on Jul 6:

It's not necessary to assume that if you say, "the government should create the best living situation for its citizens" that somehow that means that Christians aren't called to be charitable. Even having libertarian tendencies myself, I would say that the issue of Christian charity and the issue of government responsibility are separate things.

It's also important to note that liberals want to address the systematic ways in which people fall through the cracks. Liberals are saying that society has disadvantaged some and benefitted others, and thus should try and change that.

As for Jesus' teachings, no, he didn't speak out against government crimes. His purpose wasn't to reform the government. It was to draw people to Himself. What is Caesar's is Caesar's, and what is God's is God's. His silence on issue of public safety and social welfare, however, cannot at all be assumed to translate to an acceptance of the status quo, or to a conservative political philosophy.

Jesus wasn't just silent on issues that are now important to liberals, but as far as government responsibility is concerned, He was also silent on issues that dominate the agendas of conservative Evangelical activists and commentators. There seemed to be no expectation on His part whatsover that the government ought to or was ever going to favor what is good or right or true, nor did He tell His disciples to invest their time and energy in ensuring that it does. And He certainly didn't seem to do much flag waving. That cuts deeply at conservatives as well as liberals.

Again, Stringfellow's An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land is very appropriate here.

5. Tom said the following at 8:13 PM on Jul 6:

Ariana makes a very good point. It's hard to justify from scripture Christian's current obsession regarding government with a lot of things (gay marriage being one that pops in my head).

The key question is in my opinion do we WANT government to represent our own beliefs? It seems for many things the answer is an unequivocal yes, but then when it comes to taking care of the poor (something Christ emphasized big time, about 100000x more than abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, combined), many of you it seems thinks the government should totally get out of the way.

Anyway I can agree with arguments that say 'yeah government doesn't have a role' but I can also agree with arguments that it does. I think that to argue for the liberal approach is not going against scripture, just like arguing for the conservative approach isn't going against scripture. In my opinion, it's one of those things that Christians of all stripes can fundamentally disagree on and still be in tune with God's will.

6. Jethro said the following at 9:21 PM on Jul 6:

Great post Tom.

I can't wait to see what answers you get.

7. Peter Wells said the following at 9:38 PM on Jul 6:

I notice that Boundless really loves to point out the hypocrisies of the "Liberals" and justify support for the "Conservative" viewpoint. Now I'm not going to condemn that in itself, I think politics are important and all, but lets be honest...

Those two words - "liberal" and "conservative". Do they actually mean anything anymore? They get bandied about so much that they don't seem to have any relevance to me other than as terms of disdain used in reference to each other.

I.E. He/she is a dirty liberal/conservative, etc etc.

Using either word is basically just stereotyping your audience, guys, and all it does is alienate your readers. There is more to what a person believes than which party they vote for. And neither party is perfect...

Besides, us as your readers pick up on worldview through all your other articles. Pointing out stuff like this is basically saying in simple language "don't analyze this situation for youself, we know what's right" and comes across as condescending.

Thats just my view, anyway.

8. nikki said the following at 10:24 PM on Jul 6:

I don't really have a seasoned view on this, so maybe someone can help me with what Scripture actually says. Doesn't it say that the church is supposed to help the poor and the widows? If so, why aren't we doing that enough? ("Enough" meaning government doesn't have anything left to do.) If it's the church's job, then we have failed pathetically and should be held to account! And if care of the poor is not the church's charge, why are we concerned that the government will become too large? If that is one of government's responsibilities, then why does it matter how much effort it takes to accomplish it?

Like I said, I don't have much of an opinion. Some input will be greatly appreciated!

9. Joshua Stevenson said the following at 11:00 PM on Jul 6:

Wanting the government to align with our values about gay marriage is not the same as with charity to the poor. One involves pure legislation that sets a standard that to conforms values (which uses only the salaries and administrative costs that every law involves). The other in most cases involves taking more money from those who are wealthy and labeling it government assistance.

The key issue with governmental "charity" is not a moral or biblical one for me, its a fiscal one. We should be convicted to influence our leaders to legislate a moral ideal as well as live it, which includes being wise and generous with our resources. There is no need to bring an extra step into the picture by including the government.

Our government has proved many times that it is much much less efficient with taxpayer's money than the free market.

If we really believed that we should take care of the poor there should be no need for us to include the government. Individuals have better judgment about where their money should be spent.

10. Joshua Stevenson said the following at 11:10 PM on Jul 6:

There is a ministry here in Nashville that requires folks who want to stay at their homeless shelter to listen to a sermon.

What pride that would keep someone from lending their ear to a message that cost them nothing to obtain a basic necessity of life.

The government is by no means a better option. In Nashville, the only successful initiatives to relieve and recuperate the homeless and poor are faith based. I would be extremely surprised to find any government program outperform a nonprofit organization in these realms.

11. Lisa said the following at 1:36 AM on Jul 7:

Its interesting we are discussing this on the blow the whistle halfway day of the 'Micah Challenge' (google that if you are unsure) to help half global poverty by 2015

I personally think the Government is responsible to some extent to help the poor so I give my support to whatever party has the most consistent policies that support this.

Noticeably the Sermon on the Mount was a public, political and given to a COMMUNITY of believers. That tells me that we as a church have to act too towards the poor and that the responsibility for the poor does not rest with just the government.

How do the poor know the kingdom has come? When they see Christians working together to show and bring about justice, mercy and love (this can obviously only be perfected in heaven, but doing nothing is not what Jesus calls us to do)

12. mindlab said the following at 9:15 AM on Jul 7:

While we're here trying to justify taxation (or simply assuming it's justifiable), I'd like to point something out. Although the Bible clearly and unequivocally defines the Christian response to taxation, I have yet to see a solid argument for the Bible's justification of taxation itself.

I understand that I must pay taxes, but I see no reason to define taxation as anything but theft. The Bible explains 'why' taxes are levied, and goes to some length to reassure us that God is indeed sovereign over political rulers, but never excuses a ruler's use of deadly force in extracting money from his subjects. It seems to me that taxation is a special case of theft; a case that we as Christians are to submit to so that the gospel is not hindered, but theft nonetheless. So, should a Christian advocate taxation (theft) to help the poor? I think not.

Now on the economics: America was historically the richest nation in the history of the world. America was the place that poor people came to get a shot at success, and most succeeded. Perhaps if we do the same things now that we did during our best years (relatively small government, almost no regulation, very low taxes) we would again be successful. It's always amazed me that the rise in poverty is directly correlated to the size and involvement of government, and yet so many people seem to think that more government is the solution.

13. Paul said the following at 9:37 AM on Jul 7:

G K Chesterton once said about the whole liberal vs conservative issue somthing to the effect that: "Liberals exist to make mistakes. Conservatives exist to stop them from being corrected." That being said, we must remember that these labels are not what define us as Christians or non-Christians. We also need to make sure that we work in ways that bring about God's purposes in the earth. This means that politics ought not to be considered a no-go area for Christians. There must always be a balalnced and principled approach to our dealing with political issues.

14. Jeremy said the following at 10:31 AM on Jul 7:

"Maybe when the church actually starts doing this in a way that shows they really care the government can get out of the business of helping the poor. In the meantime, the government is a much better option."

This is what I see as the fundamental difference of opinion between conservative Christians and liberal Christians. Both first note that the church is not doing nearly as much as it should to help the disadvantaged in society. The difference then arises that liberals are willing to accept that and encourage government to pick up the slack, while conservatives rightly (in my view) note that this is still the church's responsibility, and wholly abdicating that responsibility to the government is no less heinous than ignoring it entirely. The fact that the government can more effectively steal unlimited funds from its citizens and redistribute it among the less fortunate is not justification for letting them do so and feeling self-satisfied that the problem is taken care of.

That being said, I very intentionally used the words "liberal" and "conversative" because this is no longer a party issue -- neither Democrats nor Republicans are fiscally conservative in the US. In fact, with recent Democrat-led cutback initiatives and the slew of spending measures created by a Republican-controlled congress and presidency, the argument can be made that the Democratic party has surpassed the Republican party in fiscal conservatism. I find the financial policies of both of the major parties disgusting, and I don't think I can in good conscience vote for a candidate from either any longer (LP, here I come).

15. Melody said the following at 10:53 AM on Jul 7:

Of course Jesus didn't tell blame the government for lack of health care and police patrols. It was not even on the radar in those days.

-If- governments tax their people, in this day and age, -then- I believe they should be providing for their people the basics: health care and education.

I would be ashamed to live in the USA where people go bankrupt by the minute because they can't afford their medical bills. ... And yet, the government has a budget of trillions, is waging unwise wars around the world and not even using the taxed money wisely (ie, apparently spending people's pension funds money instead of investing it so it grows)

In other words, if the government has the ability and takes the money, they should help their people.

That given, we must never rely soley on the government to do what we also must do. We must do what we can with the resources we have to help others.
This is obviously not happening enough and for that ... perhaps I am more ashamed of myself.

16. JB said the following at 11:01 AM on Jul 7:

This bothers me a lot. I'm working for the summer with a community AIDS organization funded in large part through government grants. We help a lot of clients obtain medical care they couldn't otherwise afford through Ryan White funding - the government's biggest health care package after Medicare/Medicaid. This is a rural area and we have a lot of patients who need a lot of money. So either (a) find me a charity in my region that can afford to provide a lifetime of expensive medication to more than 800 people, (b) let us discharge our biblical obligation to love one another in part through collective democratic action, or (c) tell these people you'd rather watch them slowly die because Jesus didn't mention antiretroviral drugs in his parable of the Good Samaritan. I don't see another way out here, and, frankly, (a) isn't going to happen. What is a good Christian to do?

17. Anne said the following at 12:09 PM on Jul 7:

Tom:

Thoughts on Gods will: He has only one. Yes Christians come from different cultures, and have different political philosophies, however I'd bet that the Holy Spirit would be more than willing to show truth and wisdom to those who ask.

Jethro and all:

Were people any better at caring for the poor when Jesus walked among men? Why do you suppose that Jesus didn't petition governement to care for the poor with money? What does it truely mean to care for the poor?
What could we be doing to better emulate Jesus and glorify God in this matter?

18. Lynne said the following at 12:35 PM on Jul 7:

To Jethro and others who have alluded to the fact that until the church does a variety of "things" the "government is the best option." I have to respectfully disagree. I have worked in healthcare and mental health and my exposure to the government programs (Medicare and Medcaid) has led me to believe that if this is the best option, we're in pretty bad shape.

If you want to see ministries where health care is provided to people without requiring they come to church or "clean up," I can name two: The Church Health Center in Memphis, TN and Good Samaritan Healthcare in Atlanta, GA. Both of the ministries work to provide care to poor and underserved populations in their areas. In Memphis, the Church Health Center even went to the legislature to obtain special approval for a program called "The Memphis Plan." This is not insurance, but something similar that allows small, local businesses to provide health benefits to their employees. My husband ran into a guy who works with hospitals to donate unused surgical equipment to health services with budgetary constraints, both national and international.

The opportunities to care for the poor are all around us. Where we, as the church, often run into trouble is giving with strings attahched....or with time constraints attached. I'll be happy to help this gentleman with AIDs, but I've done this for 6 months now and he doesn't seem any closer to God now then when I started.....

So, I think we, the church should help/minister to the poor in a variety of ways because we can do it so much better than the government could ever hope to.

19. P&P said the following at 1:26 PM on Jul 7:

Interesting point, Tom. I'm always amused at how Boundless writers laud the efforts of the government to follow a "Christian World View," yet complain bitterly at government efforts to perform a true Christian act; helping the poor.

I've always felt that if we as a nation and as individual citizens focused on eradicating hunger and providing quality education and healthcare for all (no questions asked), many of the ancillary social problems like drug abuse, teen pregnancy, etc. would disappear.

I'm also intrigued by the statistics of giving between conservative vs. liberal. One of the biggest drivers in charitable giving is age. The older one is, the more disposable income they have to give. Many older people also identify as conservative. Just a thought.

20. Joseph said the following at 3:47 PM on Jul 7:

RE: Jethro

Are you talking about the church, such as Southern Baptist Organization, Presbyterian Church USA, or insert your denominational organization here, or the Church, the body of believers living Christ's teachings? I tend to think by the parable of the Good Samaritan it is directed to the Church (notice the differences in the capitalized "C" vs the lower case "c". Replacing church organized compassion funds can become just as bureaucratic as government assistance has become. Being that the relationship we have is on the personal level I think the compassion, love, and mercy we share on others ought to be on the personal level as well.

RE:Tom

Having a budget that reflects Christian compassion verses policies that may or may not support Christian culture I believe to be two different ideas of Uncle Sam's job. Whereas I see that providing assistance to people should be done by the local Church, the governmental authority ought not pass policies that endorse opposing worldviews. Then again that is my biased worldview against the opposing worldviews of other people. I do not wish for a theocracy, but I do want a moral climate (see Legislating Morality by Normal Giesler) that promotes a relativist worldview.

21. BDB said the following at 3:58 PM on Jul 7:

Jethro wrote:

>>Alot of churches wouldn't help people unless they agreed to come to church services as well. Also a disgrace. Charity is not a quid pro quo, it is an act of selfless giving. I don't think many Christians really understand that.<<

Just because it is "charity" it does not absolve us of the requirement to be good stewards. There is no requirement to give resources to people who are clearly wasting them. But to know if people are wasting resources requires getting pretty close to the situation.

When my grandfather's job with the school districts required home visits for truant students, and I noticed that certain "poor" households on welfare had a nicer car than he did. There are definitely people receiving government assistance who could get their daily needs met just fine without any government or church assistance. From what I've read, this kind of fraud is bringing down the European social-service programs, too. The conservatives just won in France, of all places, on a pledge to end the 35-hour work week.

See James 2:14-17 for some ideas on the "floor" for providing aid, and then 1 Timothy 5:3-16 for a discussion on providing support for "true" widows.

Back to Obama. I read his book, "The Audacity of Hope." He's actually thought through the issue quite a bit more than Minnery suggests. I've heard the same argument about liberals and the poor for 20 years - it's not specific to Obama. Ponder the reality that liberals are still upset that Clinton and the conservatives in the House pushed through the last round of welfare reform.

22. Abby said the following at 9:07 PM on Jul 7:

Hmmm...I think that this article puts WAY too much of a modern spin on scripture. Of course Jesus did not blame the government for this man's downfall - The government did NOT work in Roman times the way it works today. No government anywhere in the world cared about heath care in 30 A.D. You can not just throw modern terms like that into scripture to question their absence. Put everything into context. I think there are a LOT more appropriate Biblical examples for why the church and other private organizations should be helping the poor and not a bigger government. When you tack on political messages to scripture where they are just not meant to be not only does it not prove a point but it hurts the platform of those legitimately working for your cause.

23. Danny said the following at 12:08 AM on Jul 8:

Well, conservative or liberal, I believe the issue of helping the poor is more of an internal issue. As Christians, are we going to help out the "poor"? When the government raises taxes and takes hard working people's money, they are getting away from the heart of the matter.

The issue lies within each and every one of our hearts. When the government does it for us, we accept that they're taking our money, but we don't feel as if we're helping the "poor" by paying taxes. The choice should be for the people. The issue is at our hearts, and how do we correct our own hearts if the government is trying to do it for us? Helping people out is essential as Christians, but how does raising taxes help the fundamental issue here, which is our hearts towards giving?

24. Ben said the following at 6:09 AM on Jul 8:

The example of the Samaritan parable seems a bit silly to me. Parables have express purposes; however you interpret the context of this parable, it's obvious that the purpose was not to make a statement on government welfare.

Trying to find support for your view on big government in the Gospels is a futile effort; they record a historical milieu far removed from our present debates. The idea of "government welfare" could not be found in the Gospels, because such an idea did not exist that that time. While I don't think Jesus was as un-interested in politics as some would claim, he was certainly uninterested in many of the issues pressing on us today: big government, "family values," etc--mainly by virtue of the fact that those issues did not yet exist. Trying to plumb Jesus' parables--and the Good Samaritan story in particular--for direct statements on government welfare is doing injustice to the Gospels.

25. Ellie said the following at 11:51 AM on Jul 8:

Well, as soon as I read this I knew what I was going to say, but somebody else got there first with a lot of it. : )

Jethro makes a great point - which is better, the government helping or nobody helping? Yes, the Church does help the poor, to some extent, but not nearly enough. And if the government is helping the poor, and then the Church jumps in full-force....so much the better! And he's also right in mentioning that the Church doesn't always have a great track record of helping those who fall outside their own boundaries, unless conversion is imminent.

I had a disagreement with someone over this not long ago, on my support for certain political candidates (because of their care for the poor, here and abroad - and who, by the way, are somewhat "liberal"!). He, a Christian attorney, said that it wasn't the government's responsibility; it was ours, as individuals and as the Church. Sure, I said, but are we doing it? He basically argued that low government involvement=Christian model of government. What does it say about government in the Bible? Render unto Caesar, and obey the governing authorities. That doesn't seem to be a mandate against government.

(By the way, our context for this conversation? A free legal aid clinic at a Christian mission downtown that we both volunteer at - an example of one Christian place that actually does reach out to everyone. They do exist....just not enough.)

I agree that the Church should care for the poor, and that is one of our highest callings. But should we shut out the "heathen" from doing it? ; ) If we say no to the government, because it's "our" responsibility, does that mean we turn away any nonChristian who wants to give food to a soup kitchen, too? Hmmm....

And regarding liberals vs. conservatives....

There is such a thing as a Christian Democrat, and there is such a thing as an atheist Republican. Please don't make snap judgments on all of us. I'm extremely pro-life (which this debate comes down to so often), but I'm also a left-leaning moderate, sometimes swinging Democrat, sometimes Republican. And it's okay. Just wanted to share that....

26. Ellie said the following at 11:59 AM on Jul 8:

P.S. My mom was ready to leave the Church when I was young, because of its lack of concern for even its own "weaker" members, let alone anyone from the outside. A divorced single mom who could barely keep food in the house couldn't count on anyone in her "Christian" circle, even just to talk with for a couple hours while she dealt with all this. Even worse was when a man at church started harassing her and turned violent. They did nothing - the pastor wouldn't even speak to him. (The cops sure did, though.)

My mom is extremely strong, and never wanted handouts. But no one extended a helping hand when she was struggling hardest, except her (nonChristian) landlady, who became like a grandmother to me. Regarding welfare? We had a bit of government assistance for a while. My mom didn't like it - she felt there were others who would always need it more, and she worked her tail off to provide for us (4 jobs at once, while managing to spend time with me, too). We got off of assistance, and eventually things got better. Hard work paid off. But without the reaching out of our landlady, or the government giving a few breaks, it would've been a lot harder.

My mom is well-educated and a hard worker, but life still beat her down, and the Church did nothing. Since then, we've seen other Christian bodies behave differently, and have come to have trust for fellow believers again, but those memories will always be there.

27. Sara said the following at 3:27 PM on Jul 8:

Conservatives would tend more to support welfare if they understood how it's in their best interest that at least the basic needs of all citizens are met (even 'lazy' or deviant citizens): people whose basic needs aren't being met are far more likely to disrespect the personal and property rights of others, that is, more likely to steal, commit violent crimes, and otherwise disturb the peace and tax our legal system and police force, and harm businesses.

28. Matt said the following at 7:11 PM on Jul 8:

Saying that the Jesus didn't support welfare in the story of the good Samaritan is reaching. We're arguing from silence if we try to infer that He was condoning personal action only in dealing with the poor, and saying the government should stay out of the way.

The sad thing is this: if we as the church had done what we were called to do, the government wouldn't have to be called upon to do it. Until we start acting like the church, and reaching out in love to ALL who are hurting and underpriviledged in this society, the government is forced to step in.

We tend to take the pious view of this parable and see ourselves as the "good Samaritan," but we are ALL, as Christians, the Body of Christ, and we, as a whole, are not doing enough. Again, if we were, the government would not have to worry about stepping in.

I point the finger at myself first.

29. Sam Steele said the following at 8:13 AM on Jul 9:

So exactly why is the government being criticised for wanting to do more to help people? Perhaps because the rest of the country, the Church included, is not doing enough already that forces the government to go in. Limited government intervention is not such a bad thing when one looks at it.

30. Mrs. B said the following at 12:31 PM on Jul 9:

we wouldn't have to have this debate if the Church took care of the poor like we're supposed to! but, unfortunately, we aren't (and, as Jethro said, many times when we do it is highly conditional), so who else is going to?

call me an idealist, but rather than whine about how the government does too much/too little, why don't WE take some of the responsibility so that hopefully one day this can be a non-issue? if we are as concerned for the poor here in America and elsewhere as we say we are, why don't we reevlatuate our wants and "needs" so that we are more able to give to our neighbors? (like the Bible says to!)

1 John 3:17: “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”

31. xeres said the following at 6:04 PM on Jul 9:

wow this is interesting. This discussion comfirms that not a lot of church actually have sermon on the giving to the poor. In fact, my church is one of few churches that actually had a sermon on giving to the poor specifically. The pastor leading the Church I attend to admits that he hardly recalls even one time where his own church growing up actually have a sermon on the giving of the poor. The primary verse for the sermon is Matt 6:1-4.

32. Ted Slater said the following at 6:15 PM on Jul 9:

Joshua's comment pretty much says it all: "It's easy to be generous with other people's money."

I'm surprised nobody else has explored this aspect of the conversation -- that "government" is taking money from my family and yours and "giving" it to others. Though Jesus affirmed paying taxes, taking money from people against their will at the threat of punishment doesn't strike me as all that virtuous; such pseudo-generosity is not something to be celebrated....

I'm not against our government helping its citizens out financially. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that we should be mindful that the money is coming from somewhere -- from our paychecks. And just as we should be wise stewards of how we spend our money, we should advocate wise stewardship of the money our governments takes from us.

33. xeres said the following at 6:19 PM on Jul 9:

Another thing is that part of the reason why Christians in America don't seem to do much for the poor is because we have a unfortunately warped view of what it really mean for Christians to be holy and gracious people. Much of the idea of holiness is negatively influenced by entitlement, western individualism, moral relativism and so on. Also, people's lives are either so public to the point being the source of gossip and ridicule or so privatized that having personal relationship with someone is abnormal. Plus, many of us tend to go to the extreme on everything in U.S. I hate to say it but many people view human life as commodity and a stepping for personal ambitions as well as establish total control of their lives.

34. k. said the following at 7:06 PM on Jul 9:

Somehow, the title reminds me of, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

35. Kristina said the following at 7:30 PM on Jul 9:

A very large number of my extended family lives off of government help to "the poor" and let me tell you, I'm not impressed. Welfare, while it can be used for good, creates resentment, bitterness, helplessness, and just bad quality. Yes, the government hands out checks to the poor, and the church does little but is that the way it should be? I've seen little to no good come from welfare. Christ called US, the church, to help the poor, not Caesar, not Uncle Sam, not the UN, but us.

36. P&P said the following at 7:39 PM on Jul 9:

"...we should advocate wise stewardship of the money our governments takes from us."

I totally agree. If I could ensure that every penny I paid in taxes went to things like public schools, elder care, health care and public infrastructure (roads, bridges, ports, etc), I'd be a lot happier on April 15. I have no problem with my tax dollars helping people instead of going to defense contractors.

37. Ted Slater said the following at 7:54 PM on Jul 9:

K. -- You may very well be your brother's keeper. Not sure it's right for the government to legislate that you be your brother's keeper, though.

P&P -- I personally don't mind paying for security. It is, after all, something provided for by our Constitution.

38. k. said the following at 8:00 PM on Jul 9:

While I see what you're saying, that's not quite what I meant. I was thinking more that "Is Government Responsible for the Poor?" and "Am I my brother's keeper?" both have the same sort of rhetorical (and somehow whiny) flourish.

39. Sara said the following at 8:23 PM on Jul 9:

This conversation is terribly shortsighted. For poor relief to be lastingly effective at all, it has to be an economic and a legislative issue.

It's morally right to give to the poor, but without systemic redistribution of wealth from taxation, the moral people who give to charity will be penalized by the ungenerous who 'ride on their coat-tails' by benefiting from others' generosity without giving anything themselves (the benefits being, among other things, increased security in the absence of so many poor people whose neediness and lack of personal property lead them to disrespect the property and welfare of others)

Small one-to-one good deeds in the manner of the Good Samaritan are good, but they do nothing to effect large-scale systematic changes and legislation.

40. Sara said the following at 8:36 PM on Jul 9:

Ted, I think it's in the government's (and our) best interest that, to a point, it be legislated that we are out brother's keepers: as I said a few comments back, making sure that at least everyone's most basic needs are met IS a matter of your own personal security.

Mindlab, "taxation is theft"?
So I take it that you never drive on public roads or highways, and would be content to have all criminals loosed, and no laws enforced, ever; and to have no health and safety regulations (you're fine with lead in the drinking water and CO2 in the air) and on and on because these things are accomplished using "dirty money" by your standards.

41. BDB said the following at 9:54 PM on Jul 9:

Sara wrote:

>>but without systemic redistribution of wealth from taxation,<<

Um...what on earth makes you think that redistribution of wealth via taxation does anything but let the powerful use government to reward "winners" and punish "losers?" I'm well aware that it's tempting to use power to take things away from other people. But that's still a misuse of power. Companies do it to each other all the time - powerful, huge companies create regulatory schemes that burden their competitors. All redistribution does is set up a cycle of different factions trying to get one another. It ALWAYS corrupts the recipient who gets something for nothing.

42. mindlab said the following at 5:55 AM on Jul 10:

Sara,
I was interested to notice that in replying to my comment you didn’t reply to my thesis: that the Bible explains but never justifies taxation. You replied to argument that I didn’t make: that government is unnecessary. I could have said that, but I didn’t. I would be interested to know how/where you find a biblical justification for taxation. A conversation on the necessity of government will have to wait for a blog post on economic theory, not government responsibility.

43. ejp said the following at 10:56 AM on Jul 10:

When I saw the title of this post, my first thought was that we were going to be talking about the idea that government causes (is responsible for) poverty. One of the major flaws of the current welfare system is that it rewards the single-parent, absentee father demographic. According to the system, a single mom with multiple children should get more money than one with fewer, so there is little motivation to avoid pregnancies or get married. I know the statistics about most people getting off welfare at some point (but often sliding back into it with the next child), and I've seen the generations of poverty and broken homes. I grew up in one of the poorest counties in NY, and went to school with classmates who were raised on welfare, and are now still living on it. Was poor education to blame? Maybe, but we went to the same school. I think the culture that they were raised in that didn't value family strength has more to do with it. And the understanding that if they got a job and didn't like it, or if they got pregnant, then the government would support them. I don't always like my job, but I stick it out because I know public assistance is not an option for me.
My parents instilled these values in me- to work hard to support myself, to live within my means, to pay my own way (we didn't have healthcare when I was growing up- we paid cash or bartered, so I'm finally looking at getting braces at 25- paid for by myself). These used to be the values of Americans, independence and self- sufficiency, being willing to sacrifice and go without if we can't afford something. If the government takes care of everything now, then I guess we call all expect to have our satellite TV and fast food dinners paid for by someone else's hard work. Maybe the government isn't to blame for all poverty, but the programs are not doing much besides continuing the cycle.

44. Oxanna said the following at 1:45 PM on Jul 10:

If the government pays for something, it usually costs them much more to deal with it than it would otherwise. :P I support taxation for things such as roads, etc., but the current level is utterly ridiculous. The government wastes money right and left, and then claims that it will do a better job than individuals at "helping" people. Give me a break.

*Good reading: "Not Yours To Give", which recounts a speech that David Crockett (yes, *that* David Crockett!) gave in the House of Representatives, and the experience that led to the speech.*

Throwing out some bait: Joseph in Egypt collected a "tax" of food, IIRC, in order to prepare for the upcoming famine. It's an interesting passage. However, Joseph evidently had God's foreknowledge of the famine given to him. (Unlike many of our leaders.) And I don't remember, off the top of my head, any taxes mentioned in the Old Testament, beyond giving for the temple. (Correct me if I'm wrong, there may indeed be instances that I don't know of.)

45. Sara said the following at 4:18 PM on Jul 10:

BDB wrote,
'Um...what on earth makes you think that redistribution of wealth via taxation does anything but let the powerful use government to reward "winners" and punish "losers?"'

The redistribution isn't just rich-to-poor, it's rich and poor to government back to rich and poor in the form of services that often can only be effectively delivered through a central government--security provided by police forces, for example.

Did you switch around the 'reward' and 'punish' in your post? Or what kinds of rewards are you talking about? Do you mean that there are problems with taxation that need to be dealt with, or that the whole thing should be done away with?

Mindlab - Personally I never would look to the Bible for a justification of taxes because I think that's outside of the Bible's scope, and time period. If the Bible was more explicit on how governments should operate, there's no guarantee it would be any less outdated than it is on astronomy.

I don't know where you get the idea that the more government there is, the more poverty. Just for one example, here in Canada we have more government but less poverty than the States.

46. Sara said the following at 4:28 PM on Jul 10:

EJP, do you think everyone has the mental resources to be as self-sufficient and disciplined as you are? Some people are just very, very stupid whether because of genes or home environment or both and should be protected and looked after the same way we look after extremely physically handicapped people.

47. BDB said the following at 4:46 PM on Jul 10:

Sara wrote:

>>services that often can only be effectively delivered through a central government--security provided by police forces, for example. <<

And that, right there - is the flaw in the thinking. Government has proven to be an extremely inefficient manager of resources. For most things, for-profit businesses are much more efficient - they provide much more for less cost. For dealing with people, non-profit or social-sector organizations are vastly superior to government. They waste a lot less money.

>>or that the whole thing should be done away with? <<

More than half the Federal Government could be done away with - cutting both taxes and "services" - and no one would notice. It was very amusing when the government was "shut down" a few times several years ago. About the only thing anyone noticed was that the National Parks were closed.

48. Carrie Lea said the following at 4:49 PM on Jul 10:

Why not go back to the original (Constitutional) model of restricting federal government to a few specific tasks (such as defense), and leaving the states to decide individually how to handle other issues such as welfare? Then, people could "vote with their feet" on these issues. Who knows? Some state may come up with a great welfare system that satisfies the concerns of both conservatives and liberals. Then the other states could follow suit if they chose.

By the way, there was a Boundless article on this issue: "Compassion: True and False." It was pretty thought-provoking.

49. Paul said the following at 5:36 PM on Jul 10:

Perhaps a little history from outside of the North American worldview might be helpful.

Here in the UK, we have national state-run education, healthcare, social security and pension services. All of these can trace their history back to the work of philanthropists and charities, which were often motivated by principles of Christian service. Their development into government bodies has generally come from a desire (often on the part of Christian citizens and politicians) to transform an ad-hoc collection of smaller projects that varied vastly in terms of quality, funding and availability into something that would provide a high-quality, efficient service to the whole nation, irrespective of the ability or motivation of local people to meet the needs of their own communities. To attempt to brand these services as purely secular ventures would be quite wrong, and everything else aside, would be to deny the genuine vocations of a disproportionate number of Christian teachers, doctors, nurses and social workers that serve within them.

Often our public services do attract criticism for examples of inefficiency, but largely that is a result of a far greater degree of scrutiny than would ever be possible with private companies, and the inefficiencies tend to be far outweighed by economies of scale. Generally, I believe our public services to be the most efficient way of providing a basic standard of care to all, that happen to be rooted in the vision of great Christian leaders of the past and maintained by many Christians in the present.

As for biblical justification of welfare, how about Isaiah 1:21-23, where rulers are criticized for not ensuring that the poor and needy are taken care of.

And just out of interest. Are those people who believe taxes to be theft able to take a couple of steps back and think for a few moments? If your government stopped taking taxes from you tomorrow, would you see that money as yours to spend how you see fit or God's to be spent by you in serving the local poor? I'm sure I would find the latter quite a struggle, but can we really complain about our governments stealing God's money if we have every intention of doing likewise?

50. Oxanna said the following at 5:38 PM on Jul 10:

Sara - I speak as an undisciplined individual with a lazy streak, so don't assume that I'm an overachiever in the discipline arena when you read this. :)

Some people are indeed physically and mentally handicapped and need care more than healthy people who can work for a living. We should care for these. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "stupid"...do you mean ignorant of self-sufficiency and lacking education that would enable them to work? Most people are quite capable of working if they want to (need to) and have the right attitude, whether it's a high paying, illustrious job or not. And if they are ignorant and *willing to learn*, shouldn't our job be to help them learn, vs. letting them sit around and collect welfare? Of course, if they're not willing to learn (think of Robert Lee Ewell in To Kill A Mockingbird), then...

1 Timothy discusses the church's role in helping widows, and lays out some guidelines. For example, if a widow has children or relatives, they should be helping her and not dropping her off for the church to deal with. 2 Timothy 3 also:

" 2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
2Th 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. "

Also, there are people willing to work but who are just poor - take persecuted African Christians, for instance. We can see elsewhere in the Bible that we need to help brothers and sisters in need - but not when it's due to laziness.

I read in an article once (L.A. Times, I think) where a woman insisted upon living in her car, with her dog, despite the fact that her daughter offered her the ability to live in her own home. And the whole gist of the article was how this poor, poor woman was being denied housing funds by the government, and they didn't have something set up for people like her, etc. *That*, I think, is what Paul was talking about.

51. Mandi said the following at 9:20 PM on Jul 10:

Jethro,

I noticed a "GO OBAMA" comment somewhere a while back.

Interesting that you would say that and then pontificate about the poor. It seems to me that the Scriptures don't make caring for the poor mutually exclusive with respect for human life at all stages, respect for the right and blessing that children have in being raised by their married parents, chastity, and rulers not using their power to do evil.

Care for the poor, Jethro, but you should not leave the one done, with the other undone.

And how can I ever actually *obey* God to share my goods if I don't feel the "pinch" myself, if you will? Automatically taxing me doesn't inspire me to actually make a conscientious effort to think about the poor, have compassion on them, be more responsible and modest in my own consumption, be less choosy in my tastes. This is something I learned first-hand when I was at a job in my field after graduation from college where I was making well below the North American poverty line. But still setting aside from the money I got was an act that helped me grow, and blessed me, as a person -- something that the government taking loads of my hard-earned money (so much that it has to spare for countless negligible programs) can do.

Besides the Church and the individual member of that Church, what about the poor person him- or herself? Why aren't you quoting the Scriptures about sloth or the natural consequences of sin (yes, childbearing outside of wedlock and/or family breakdown is the *chief* instigator of poverty on this side of the ocean anyway). I'm *not* saying that all poor people are lazy or even sexually promiscuous. What I *am* saying is that some are -- and their poverty is a direct result of their own choices. That doesn't mean there's no hope for them, or that they don't deserve second chances. There is hope, and they do deserve to get out of their ruts. And if I can help to do go, I should or it will be counted for me as sin.

52. BDB said the following at 11:50 PM on Jul 10:

Paul wrote:

>>All of these can trace their history back to the work of philanthropists and charities, <<

A lot of them started that way in North America, too.

>>If your government stopped taking taxes from you tomorrow, would you see that money as yours to spend how you see fit or God's to be spent by you in serving the local poor?<<

You can build a pretty complicated economic model to puzzle over that one. The reality is that money from both ends up back in the economy somehow. For government jobs, that usually means creating jobs for people with master's degrees, all their paperwork, administering to ensure "accountability," etc.

But if you give most American's more of their tax money back, they buy "stuff." If you give rich people money back, they buy big stuff, like boats and cars, that create jobs for people. That's why luxury taxes tend to get repealed a year or two after they are enacted: the new tax wipes out the jobs of the craftsmen who make whatever the luxury item is. Like a yacht. Cut taxes, give money back to people, they buy more stuff - and create more jobs for regular folks.

53. mindlab said the following at 5:50 AM on Jul 11:

Paul,
You have cited Isaiah 1:21-23 as a justification for taxation, but I think you've entirely missed the point. This passage has nothing to do with what we now call 'welfare' (wealth redistribution). This passage, like many others, condemns the perversion of justice (ie. when powerful persons use bribes to withhold justice from the poor). I see no way to apply this passage to wealth redistribution (welfare) or taxation in general.

If anyone out there is still reading, I'll be interested to hear your biblical justification of taxation.

54. Paul said the following at 6:09 AM on Jul 11:

I know this is going to sound like I'm being a bit fussy with semantics, but shouldn't Motte's question be "Does Government have an obligation to help the Poor?". The answer to which is prabably "only so much as is required to fulfil their election pledges", or more specifically, the answer might be "no".

On the other hand, if a government does voluntarily choose to show initiative, and act responsibility in its treatment of the poor, then that can only be a good thing.

As Christians however, it is not a case of being responsible, we actually do have a definite obligation to serve the poor, for faith without works is dead. We are not called to help those who deserve our help, we are simply called to help. If government welfare programmes ensure that our money is used to help people, then surely we should support them as a means of enabling us to flee some of the temptation to the sin of greed.

55. JB said the following at 8:37 AM on Jul 11:

Mindlab,

I should think the justification is straightforward, but maybe I don't understand your argument. When Jesus was challenged on whether one should pay taxes, he pointed out that the coinage was incribed with the emperor's name and said, "Render unto Caesar the things which which are Caesar's..."

I suppose that's somewhat ambiguous, but this suggests to me that (a) Jesus said we should submit to government authority to tax and (b) there is a rightful government authority to tax. If he didn't mean (b), why point to Caesar's face on the coin? I don't see how this passage could make sense if Jesus doesn't believe anything really belongs to Caesar, i.e. all taxes are illegitimate.

Of course, this is all beside the point because surely the moral status of taxation varies with the moral status of the government doing the taxing. It is one thing to demand tribute from a conquered people, say, and another to democratically vote for taxes on tobacco products. The Biblical question, it seems to me, is to ask what belongs to us and what belongs to Caesar (leaving what belongs to God out of it for the moment since there probably wouldn't be a lot left to debate about). My standard liberal line on that would be to point out that our ecomonic activity takes place within a framework of security, education, infrastructure, etc. which is made possible by our society and therefore a portion of our economic gains rightfully ought to be given back to that society. Perhaps Jesus was pointing out something similar with the coin and making the argument that since economic activity is possible only with government coinage, Caesar has a right to request what is his.

56. BDB said the following at 10:56 AM on Jul 11:

mindlab wrote:

>>If anyone out there is still reading, I'll be interested to hear your biblical justification of taxation.<<

In the U.S., we elect our kings, which is different than the Bible. So, aside from what JB wrote about respecting government, we have the option of voting out the representatives that can't figure out how to control spending.

Incidentally, that happened this past November...

57. Oxanna said the following at 11:03 AM on Jul 11:

JB - Strictly speaking, humans at the lowest level can barter with whatever they can agree on, be it shells or gold, no "government" needed, so economic activity *is* possible without government as we see it today.

I think that taxation *is* justifiable, as it does help provide for the good of the people and continuation of a governing body(ies). Someone I think mentioned highways, roads, etc., and others mentioned education and security. Taxes, in my own opinion, should be enough to just cover what is absolutely necessary for a government to fulfill its responsibilities. And there's the rub - what *are* its responsibilites? What, for that matter, is government?

I think the dichotomy with a lot of us here is a very basic one - we all differ on WHAT, exactly, is the government's role, and what it should be doing. Some of us would argue that it's probably best for the government to *not* be involved in education, religion, charitable work, or certain types of "security". (Social Security, for instance!) The reason is that government when left to itself tends to get pretty greedy and controlling, thus doing away with many freedoms and the ability of individuals to live as they see fit. Others believe that the government should be an encompassing body that governs all aspects of safety, education, economic infrastructure, etc. I see too much gov. interference as being detrimental to economic health and religious freedom.

58. Patricia said the following at 11:09 AM on Jul 11:

While I do agree that one can oppose government aid programs as a Christian, I don't think it's fair to blame the poor for their poverty. Even when it seems like the poor are "lazy" or undeserving of aid, it is important to remember that in the Bible, Jesus would often heal the sick who were blamed for their condition because it was thought their sin caused their illness. I don't think it's our position to blame people for being poor-we are simply called to heal them from sins and care for their physical needs. How we can best do that is questionable but I think it's clear that the Bible commands use to look after the people least valued by society. One of the first things Jesus said in public was to read from the scroll of Isaiah, saying that "the spirit of the Lord is upon me to good news to the poor." Instead of being condescending towards the poor, we should love and learn from them. Indeed, not to belabor the point but often the rich and mighty were unable to accept Jesus' message because of their wealth while the poor could.

59. Paul said the following at 11:49 AM on Jul 11:

Patricia gets a standing ovation from me.

Yes, Jesus helped sinners, *then* told them to go and sin no more. He got a lot of complaints for associating with and healing sinners. If we are going to begrudge people who are "lazy" or undeserving of our help until they first repent, then we haven't even started to understand the gospel.

60. Don said the following at 1:00 PM on Jul 11:

My pastor does not voice his political opinions from the pulpit very often, but the one time he did he said that you cannot legislate poverty away. I tend to agree with that. When the government gets more involved nothing really gets done. Raise minimum wage and the prices on everything else have to go up. Increase taxes, and you're just taking money from somebody else, big government doesn't actually do anything, they just seem to take what they want from everyone else.

61. Mandi said the following at 3:14 PM on Jul 11:

Paul and Patricia,

Why do you think it's either/or? (At least that's what it seems to me by reading your posts.) Why can't the more fortunate have compassion and share with those less fortunate AND less fortunate do all they can in their own power to climb out of poverty themselves, if in fact their poverty has come as the result of poor choices that they have made? I cannot decide for someone not to fornicate, or get involved with drugs, or finish high school (in a country where we have FREE high schools...some don't!). I cannot make someone make the very difficult choice to give up a baby for adoption by a married couple so that the baby has a much higher chance of developing to their full potential under the care of both parents. These are all choices people have to make themselves. Not me. Certainly not the government. The government can do its part to enact laws that confer benefits for responsible, self-respecting, good behavior. Of course we all make mistakes, and many of us come from tortured histories (or cultures that are still enduring persecution), but we do not have to be slaves to our mistakes, or those of others. We do not have to be victims. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have mercy; we should. After all, we're ALL sinners, and some sins just don't have the poverty-inducing consequences that others do.

None of this is to say that our Lord is the Lord of one or the other, or that the rich somehow will have an easier time getting to Heaven. In fact the Gospels say they'll have a harder time, since often those with much rely on their riches.

And another thing we might all do well to consider: what we consider "poverty" on this side of the ocean is much, much richer than what we can find in other places around the world. Ever been somewhere and been taken aback by a sight in a North American cemetery...of people living there? I'd be very surprised if you did.

62. Sara said the following at 3:55 PM on Jul 11:

BDB wrote: "For dealing with people, non-profit or social-sector organizations are vastly superior to government. They waste a lot less money."

And "More than half the Federal Government could be done away with - cutting both taxes and "services" - and no one would notice."

Where do you get that from? Just last year the Ontario government stopped paying for eye exams (which is just a small part of their budget) and now far fewer low-income families are getting their eyes checked, which will no doubt lead to more expensive eye health troubles down the road. Would you recommend a bunch of non-government, non-private volunteer travelling opthamologist units? Good luck organizing and recruiting for that. Just a small change in the health insurance policy would save everyone money in the long run.

As for the private sector being more efficient, Canada spends less money per capita on health care, but delivers more services compared to the States. With healthcare, at least, the government is more efficient.

63. BDB said the following at 4:13 PM on Jul 11:

Sara wrote:

>>Would you recommend a bunch of non-government, non-private volunteer travelling opthamologist units? <<

Oohh...you actually prove my point. My sister is an audiologist. In the state where she started her career, they passed a law requiring hearing tests for all infants. This forced all new parents to pay an audiologist for a hearing test while the baby was in the hospital. Not exactly a time when the new mom & dad have the energy and resources to "shop around" for a better provider. This professional group guaranteed themselves a job through legislation - even though more than 95% of babies are fine and the remaining parents could probably figure out there was a problem quickly enough on their own when the baby failed to respond to them verbally.

>>As for the private sector being more efficient, Canada spends less money per capita on health care, but delivers more services compared to the States.<<

No, Canada just rations differently than through price. This is why Americans go to Canada to get prescription drugs at below-market prices...and why Canadians who have the money take a bus to the U.S. for chemotherapy that is denied by the Canadian system.

My personal experience does affect my policy choices. A good friend of mine has metastic breast cancer. She was given a 6-month prognosis. Five years ago. Under the Canadian system, she would have been sent to hospice to die. In the U.S. system, aggressive treatment prolonged her life and she's still ambulatory, able to volunteer in ministry, etc. So, yes, I do interpret every proposal for Canadian-style universal health care as someone saying, "We should kill off your friend for the greater good."

64. Oxanna said the following at 6:20 PM on Jul 11:

Just wanted to clarify: I don't think that all poor individuals are lazy or undeserving of help! I guess what I was trying to convey is that if someone is willing to work, and is working (if possible) to better their situation, and really needs help, there's no problem with helping them. If, however, they refuse any small job or do things that are detrimental to themselves, they don't need money thrown at them. They need either help to overcome their problems if possible, or, if they're unwilling...well, at that point, it's their own fault.

65. John said the following at 9:38 PM on Jul 11:

What about rich people that have all of their material needs met? What makes poor people more special than rich people concerning the gospel? Plenty of people (rich, middle class, basically have their needs met) don't know the gospel. In fact many here in America in the middle class are brain washed by secular government indoctrination institutions (public schools) to believe there is no God and all religion, except atheism, is foolish or dangerous.

I check in on this blog every few days, and the irony I see (read hypocracy) is that those who condemn the writers for boundless and true christians for not doing "enough" (read acting like stupid enviro sheeple concerning global whining) spend entirely too much time here to be doing the "enough" that they accuse christians of not doing.

66. John said the following at 10:01 PM on Jul 11:

What liberals miss (not the sneaky ones like Hillary, who is really a socialist) is that for a while now, since the 1930's the government has been making dumb economic decisions and writing legislation that grows government. This increased size brings more power. It pushes traditional charity to the side to gain more power from dependent stooges who think government checks are a birth right. (One person, one vote. Man how stupid were the founding fathers for thinking that the poor would be manipulated by elites) I hope the sarcasm comes through the post.

Big government also, obviously, (but apparently not to most liberals) squeezes traditional charity because those who give now have less of it to give. Wow, I know, take a deep breath, read it again, if necessary. I'm sure it's a shocker to some.

I'd draw a diagram but that might be too confusing for the church bashers. It's easier for the simple to bash the church than connect the dots. It's pretty easy, first 1, then 2, then 3, etc.

Obamas almost as slick as Hillary. I can't say for sure he's sold his soul yet, but I know she has. I've looked into her eyes, face to face, and saw only cold hallowness.

(BTW, I don't like any of the top tier republican candidates)

67. Paul said the following at 7:17 AM on Jul 12:

Mandi,

I don't think it is either/or. Jesus took the initiative in helping people, some of whom were guilty of creating their own bad circumstances. That help was (and is) instrumental in people gaining hope and self-repect, and starting to rebuild their lives.

What I was saying is that we should do the same as Jesus, and not wait for or insist that people make a change in their lives before we offer them help.

68. Mandi said the following at 11:05 AM on Jul 12:

Paul,

OK, now I understand more clearly what you're saying. We don't disagree. And I certainly wasn't intending to promote the ideas of a "prosperity" Gospel, since God's intent is for all of us to be holy, and with Him on this earth and afterwards, not to be the richest in material, passing measures.

I do think part of the compassion we can show those poor (not all!) who are poor because of their choices as discussed earlier, is to tell them the truth about their behavior and how it's hurting them. Not for the gov't to increase my taxes with a "just trust us" attitude, that doesn't address the destructive behavior, and can leave scores of people in unhealthy lifestyles feeling sorry for themselves and passing their self-defeating attitudes to their kids.

69. Patricia said the following at 12:27 PM on Jul 12:

Mandi-
I agree with your comments, too. I'm just leary of the idea that there are "deserving" and "undserving poor." I don't think we should judge who is in which category-just that we should keep to meet people where they are and provide for both their spiritual and physical needs.

70. Mandi said the following at 3:23 PM on Jul 12:

Patricia -- agreed, but we shouldn't leave people where they are either.

71. Mandi said the following at 12:05 AM on Jul 13:

Sara -- the gov't stopped paying for eye exams, but last I checked, it still pays for abortions and sex changes. This, in a system that is supposed to cover all "medically necessary" health care. Shows sick priorities. And even the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League has admitted that abortion is not medically necessary.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post