"The point here is not to commend starvation for the unemployed or to put a scriptural kibosh on government-sponsored welfare programs. In fact, these words may have been intended as a condemnation of the idle rich: well-to-do persons who have no need to work for a living will not be welcome at the church's community meals unless they start devoting themselves to some sort of worthwhile labor. Work is good, the Bible maintains, and even people who don't need to work for a paycheck ought to take jobs that will allow them to contribute to society and prevent them from turning into "mere busybodies" (2 Thes 3:11)."The second point was Matthew 26:11, "You will always have the poor among you, but I will not be here with you much longer." I am not sure what the point of this verse was, however here is what I think is a different interpretation.
I of course see things a little differently. If everyone tithed to a collection of charities, not only churches, we may not need all this Government support. Unfortunately the folks that tithe are very much so in the minority and they seem to give mostly to their own, therefore the money has to come from somewhere. (G2A God Works in Mysterious Ways) Thoughts or other relevant sources?
Open Bible Verses about Welfare
Steady Conservative The Bible and Welfare
27 comments:
"therefore the money has to come from somewhere"
Why?
J. Ewing
Alternatives?
If there is not enough charity / welfare, what would be the consequences? Would Jesus be alright with them?
I don't think Jesus said, "let government take care of the poor." I think it is the responsibility of individuals, or individuals joined together as churches and charities. Forced charity-- i.e. forcibly extracting through taxes to fund welfare-- is not charity at all. It's robbery on the one end and forced idleness on the other. The problem with government welfare is that it is an impersonal check, with no expectations and no compassion.
When Wisconsin added a work requirement, 20% immediately gave up their welfare check rather than seek work. Private charity promotes personal responsibility, on both ends of the transaction and is the only truly compassionate approach to the problem of the poor. "let he who will not work, not eat" is exactly right. No one has the rights to the fruits of your labor except you, and only you can choose to share. That's WWJD.
J. Ewing
I didn't konow there were so many cool acronyms. Wiki WWJD
I agree with you in that I dislike welfare and believe it is a poor, inefficient and ineffective system. However, I tend to agree with the ELCA interpretation. Jesus would not have wanted his children starving and shelterless because there was not enough freely given charity.
He definitely would have supported a system that ensured his children and our neighbors had a base level of food and shelter. And with folks only giving ~3% to the needy and worshipping their net worths, he wouldn't have hesitated to give the "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" speech.
Some more thoughts from the ELCA...
ELCA Welfare Reform
They seem to be well thought out.
When I think of what Jesus taught in regards to caring for the poor Mathew 25:40 comes to mind as most clear and relevant.
I mostly support proving food, healthcare and housing assistance to those in need through govt programs, although there are problems within this system that bother me.
Mostly I support more and better paying jobs as the best solution. How to best create a better and more inclusive economy is beyond the scope of this comment.
Good thought, Laurie, and I see it as entirely consistent with my view. If we as individual Christians do not care for the poor then WE are the ones who bear the consequences (the eternal and, if you're truly Christian, temporal as well). Those who sit back and take that which they have not earned and refuse to work LIKEWISE are to be scorned, and that's the problem: Government doesn't distinguish between the freeloader and the truly needy, nor does it actually help the needy, but rather the opposite. Rather than rehabilitating them to become independent and making their own way, it snares them in a cycle of dependence on government handouts, and that's the opposite of compassion. I hate it. Not only that, but if the Lord loves a cheerful giver, He is out of luck finding one under the government system of taxation and redistribution. States that have voluntary taxes typically find next to nothing in that category. So, robbery on one end and soul-crushing on the other. Such a deal.
J. Ewing
J,
I agree that everything will be worked out in the LONG RUN... Per your comment. "If we as individual Christians do not care for the poor then WE are the ones who bear the consequences (the eternal and, if you're truly Christian, temporal as well)."
However, your answer is incorrect in the SHORT TERM. Because WE will not go hungry and homeless, the POOR will bear these SHORT TERM consequences.
Granted, they may be rewarded in heaven, however I don't think Jesus expects them to wait that long.
Laurie,
I interpretted your comment differently than J. I'll be interested to see if you refine it.
As a post Christian Unitarian, my religion teacher me of the inherent worth and dignity of every person. I view few, if any, people as freeloaders and believe nearly all people want the dignity of providing for themselves and their families through a job. The Universalist side of UU teaches that salvation is for everyone, with emphasis on the healing and wholeness that can be achieved in this life. We tend to have very little concern for consequences in the afterlife, especially the many in my religion who are atheist.
While I thought my comment was clear enough I will add to it slightly. I fully support govt assistance programs and believe a fair amount of of support goes to low income working people. It seems that a downside to these programs is dependency for some and the best remedy is good schools, job training, and an inclusive economy that offers full employment.
Put me in charge and taxes will go up slightly on the middle class and significantly on those with high incomes. I would spend the $ putting people to work on repairing roads and bridges etc., as well as on police officers, teachers, teaching assistants. I am sure there are worthwhile ways to put people to work in conservation and renewable energy production as well through the tax code and budget process.
So, J, it seems once again our area of agreement is actually quite small. Finally, I consider myself a cheerful taxpayer, as I have no objection to the taxes I pay, (which makes me a bit inconsistent or irrational as I do grumble about my income.)
That seemed closer to how I read it.
John, the only difference here is our definitions of "long term" versus "short term." The problem of freeloaders can be addressed pretty quickly. Require work, or progress towards work, just like the welfare reform law signed by Bill Clinton, and place a hard limit of 5 years in a lifetime for cash welfare benefits. As I've noted, Wisconsin pioneered the requirement and the rolls dropped 20% immediately. Since then another 60% have made some progress-- either leaving the rolls altogether, escaping for a time but falling back in (especially with this economy) or still going to school, perhaps with high aspirations and there's nothing wrong with that. These folks would be helped by a "system" that was a blend of public assistance (because of the high cost) and private charity (because these individuals need to be treated as individual human beings-- of sacred worth, as Laurie remind)-- with compassion, because they are all different in their needs and abilities). Their path "out" of dependence is necessarily unique. Those who remain, the 20% and I've met a number of them in my charitable work, are the ones needing a "long term" solution. Yes, you have to require work, but extreme tolerance is going to be needed because these people have become dependent on handouts and consider themselves "entitled" to them. They have been cheated by the education system and have no marketable skills. Worst is that they have no work ethic, no idea of how to dress or talk or act with or for an employer, and seemingly no desire to learn. Why should they? These are the people that make me angry at the government which has made them this way-- wasting that "sacred worth" as well as the tax money to do it with.
Already most state governments are making exceptions to the 5-year federal limitation, and if was to solve the problem of the deprived 20% that wouldn't be bad but as usual the government has no discernment in these matters, imposing a one-size-fits-all solution, and it doesn't work. These are PEOPLE, not widgets.
What really galls me about your statement is the assumption that allowing us to keep the money we now pay in taxes to "support the poor" that we would NOT choose to voluntarily support the truly poor with that money. Sure, there might need to be a transition period, but I don't think that letting people keep 100% of the money now spent would make them unable to support 20% of current recipients. Considering that the US government ALONE spends some $700 billion per year on means-tested entitlements-- $16,000 each or $48,000 for a family of three-- there should be NOBODY in poverty. It is absolutely certain to be more efficacious to let individuals and private charities handle this person-to-person compassion-based enterprise. At least some charities I have worked with have almost a 100% success rate in getting people out of the welfare trap.
J. Ewing
Assuming you are correct that people will give willingly and happily enough time and money to support the needy.. Why were poverty and the related consequences bad enough to incent the tax payers, society & citizens to start these programs in the first place?
My belief is that people weren't happily fulfilling this religious and social obligation, therefore the majority agreed that the government needed to enforce it. Thus our combined greed and selfishness brought this inefficient and sometimes destructive system upon ourselves.
Bummer...
I have no faith that the giving rate of Americans would increase if taxes for social programs were reduced. There is always a bigger home, nicer car, better vacation, etc that will trump giving for many Americans. In the LONG term they will pay for this at the Pearly Gates, however until then they will live the dream while others live the nightmare.
Laurie,
Regarding this comment...
"I view few, if any, people as freeloaders and believe nearly all people want the dignity of providing for themselves and their families through a job."
I am not even sure these folks are aware that they are Free Loaders. Often humans have an incredible ability to rationalize their behaviors. Especially when faced with the consequences of bad decisions. (ie single mom with kids, undereducated non-conformist who doesn't to be like the man, drug addicted, etc)
I believe after listening to some of their stories that their compass has gotten screwed up so badly that the think they have somehow earned the support. Thoughts?
John,
Perhaps you would consider me a free loader as we have accepted financial aid for part of my older son's college expenses rather than work second jobs or borrow more money.
Your comment does connect with the part of me that wants to limit assistance to those that make bad choices and not make their lives too comfortable.
To Beat Odds, Poor Single Moms Need Wide Safety Net
Even though I work in a school with 95% low income families, I was struck once again by the graphics related to all the kids living in poverty.
Speaking for the Conservatives in the room, I say that Jennifer really needs to learn to keep her pants on and legs together... 3 kids by 3 fathers in 9 years... 2 of the fathers are in prison...
Now what does society owe Jennifer and her kids after she did something that was so stupid???
If we don't step up and help, what will happen to the kids??? And their kids???
I agree. Jennifer has obviously made some exceedingly poor choices in her life. Multiple times. That she is now trying to correct those mistakes and not have them negatively affect the consequences of those choices-- her children-- is a noble endeavor and "we" should be helping her [ONLY!] so long as she continues to improve her lot. The fact that government programs do NOT make that all-important distinction is what allows the problem to continue.
J. Ewing
Welfare was originally created by the grand socialist FDR, and targeted at "widows and orphans." Great idea, and responding to the notion that private charity was inadequate (which, because everybody needed it during the depression, was true). The biggest problem was that well-intentioned but nonetheless leftist LBJ. To form the "Great Society" it became necessary to eliminate the "home visits" by welfare workers that were made principally to find if there was a man in the house. If there was AFDC was cut off and the man could pay. Now, when a woman with "no man in the house" becomes pregnant, we assume a miracle and the government pays more. AND, since you get more of what you pay for, unwed motherhood has exploded, creating the social problems and government spending problems that attend it. The cycle needs to be broken, and then we somehow need to start repairing the damage already done. Private charity can undo what welfare caused.
Would private charity be adequate? Yes, because the true need-- those truly needing help to make progress towards self-sufficiency plus those few who may never be self-sufficient (but not worthless), through no fault of their own-- are a small fraction of current recipients.
J. Ewing
Source check... "government programs do NOT make that all-important distinction " & "are a small fraction of current recipients." These sound like beliefs, not facts. What are your sources?
Also, what do you want to do with the children of the true dead beats? Let them starve also because their Parents won't work? Or maybe make the 3 yr old get a job...
I don't think I need sources, just a little common sense. If you check the requirements for receiving a welfare check you will find they are one-size-fits-all and that meeting those requirements, whatever they are, ENTITLES you to the check. As I've said before, if I would just [deliberately] make a few really bad decisions in my life, I could probably get some kind of welfare, too.
As for the numbers, federal figures following 1996 welfare reform say 80% found work or simply left the rolls. Now it's back up because the work rules were eased. They would go down further than 80% if we actively pushed some of them off and/or started discriminating based on whether people were making an effort or not.
The children of TWO "true deadbeats" would be removed from the home, just as they would be now. The difference would be that the option for said deadbeats to draw off the public dole and still starve the kids would be off the table. Any starving would at least include the deadbeats themselves, and hunger is a great motivator. It's simple human nature that people tend to work only to the degree necessary to give themselves what they need and want. You have to dump some folks out of the hammock.
J. Ewing
Of course you don't NEED sources, however we are unlikely to sanction your statements as facts without them. They will just be statements of belief to us.
And they do not take kids from their homes unless there is severe neglect or abuse. Remember the Conservatives work to prevent that because the "Parents know best" and "We can cut those social services case workers", and the Liberals believe "Staying with the family is better for the kids in most cases".
Here is an interesting article that I found while trying to find facts to support J's opinions.
NYT Welfare Article I'll keep looking...
An interesting site for my academic readers.National Poverty Center Research NPC Working Papers
My other impression from my NPR link is that it is much easier to have empathy for a person when you know their story, even someone like Jennifer who clearly made bad choices. To me most real people are doing the best they can and don't fit the stereotype of free loader or dead beat
I have a niece who is a single mother living and working in small town WI with help from a variety of programs, which she seems to take for granted. Why aren't she and her child deserving of decent, affordable housing, healthcare, child care, and food?
You are saying two things, in these last two posts, which are completely at odds with one another, I think. First you suggest that most people are making an effort. I believe that is true, but I have met some of the 20% who are not. Your young mother in Wisconsin, if she is in that 20%, does NOT deserve to be maintained on the public dole, and we can't save her kids without giving her the money. That, of course, relieves HER of the responsibility that is naturally hers. As I told another concerned liberal welfaremonger a while back, "Look, there is no such thing as 'our' children. You and I have no children. You have children; I have children. I am responsible for mine and you are responsible for yours. If you expect me to be responsible for your children, they are going to come live with me."
The other thing I will concede to you is that people can be making an effort but not escaping poverty, and a good portion of that is the well-known "welfare trap," where people can start down the road to self-sufficiency only to lose all of their welfare benefits that make ends meet. I have long advocated a "negative income tax" that gave people added income on a sliding scale, so it always profited you to work more and harder, up to the point where you actually started to pay taxes. With everybody filing a return and getting their benefits that way, all of the ridiculous "overhead" of redundant and wasteful welfare programs would disappear, the money could go straight to the poor, and our remaining welfare workers could actually start helping people to find self-sufficiency or quit making poor decisions in the first place.
J. Ewing
OK, still not an official citation, but somebody apparently has access to the numbers on welfare reform.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/07/17/charen-has-obama-made-a-fatal-misstep/?subscriber=1
GOP USA Commentary
An interesting read, however I wish they had cited their sources. The search for data will need to continue. Isn't there a relatively unbiased think tank out...
What does unbiased have to do with it? Facts are where you find them.
J.
Post a Comment