The usual response from those on the Left when you start talking about capitalism (which I did yesterday) is that it leaves the poor out to dry…Obama has repeatedly called those who believe in capitalism social Darwinists invoking a survival of the fittest type picture for those emotional types. In a way it is true because it is a risk/reward type of system. A more relevant term to describe it though would be a system that requires work and one that requires personal responsibility. The left also ignores the factual data that shows a capitalist system such as the one that made our country a superpower produces a better standard of living for the lower classes than any other system. If you want some data to back that claim up it is out there and I can provide it if you find yourself in disbelief, but that is not the point of my post today. My point is about welfare. Should the government provide welfare?
My answer is both yes and no. Yes that the government should provide some type of welfare system for those truly in need, but certainly a no to how it is administered today. The Left will invoke the Bible’s teachings of helping those in need and I agree with them on this point. I think you will find most on the Right in agreement as well. There are numerous verses that talk about helping the poor such as 1 John 3:17 which says “But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him”. What the Left ignores about this passage and those like it is that the command to help the poor is always directed towards the Christian and not the civil government. But I still agree that the government should provide some type of welfare for those most in need. My reasoning for this comes from another verse.
“Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked” (Ps 82:4)
It is a verse that tells us to protect the weakest among us…a verse that can be used as a Biblical rationale for government’s protecting the unborn because who is weaker among us than them. Many who invoke the Bible for welfare seem to forget to apply it elsewhere. But I digress. I think it is safe to say that most would agree that society needs some type of way to care for those truly in need. To say otherwise (as often occurs) is just political posturing that is careless and uncalled for. The real argument is how this should be done. The progressive viewpoint is that society should provide for these people through redistribution of wealth. This can be seen by their policies over the last few decades. The “war on poverty” was started by a progressive President, Lyndon B. Johnson. Since this time, the government has spent almost $16 Trillion on welfare programs that have done little if anything to help poverty levels in America. This is because these programs do not address the root causes of the problem, only the symptoms. What these policies have done is created a segment of society that is completely dependent on the government for survival. The conservative viewpoint attacks the problem in a different manner. It aims to improve the economic conditions that will create jobs that will in turn bring people out of poverty. So which is Biblical and which is not.
First and foremost, the Bible teaches that Christians should help those in need. Numerous passages such as Rom 15:25-26, 2 Cor 8-9, Gal 2:10 and the previously mentioned 1 John 3:17 give us this instruction. Since the Bible gives this responsibility to the Church I think the government should leave as much of the welfare system as they can to the private sector. One, it is something the Bible teaches, and second, private entities are always more efficient than the government and can help meet people’s needs better.
But the government has some responsibility so how should that be handled? In this case I think it is important to remember that nowhere in the Bible does it support handouts from a civil government. God put us here to work.
“The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” Gen 2:15)
“and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.” (1 Thess 4:11-12)
“For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” (2 Thess 3:10)
Keeping this in mind, the government’s first priority should be to promote a good economic climate for business to create jobs that will be beneficial to society. Because someone is more likely to get out of the vicious poverty cycle if they can find a job. In this way when progressives try to overtax the wealthy and corporations (who create jobs) in order to help the poor, they are actually hurting them. Remember the goal is not to just provide for the poor, but to actually help them. Making them dependent is not helping them. Along these same lines, reforming the welfare system with ideas such as making people either work or prepare for work at least 30 hours a week in order to receive benefits would be a Biblical approach to welfare.
Another way for government to attack poverty from a Biblical perspective is to support traditional family structure and general moral values taught in the Bible. There is no argument that there has been a moral decline in this country and the government has had some responsibility in this. Progressives in government have removed Christian teaching from the schools and the public sector in general. They have also promoted homosexual marriage. These removed values have a correlation to poverty rates so this is something that is very important. Also important is to ensure that any welfare program in place does not discourage these values by how they award benefits.
So in a nutshell, Biblically a government should push as much of the welfare system as they can to the private sector (which would include churches and faith based organizations), promote a good business climate for job creation, have policies that support traditional Christian values, and reform welfare programs to make them work based. Right now the welfare system is based more on progressive ideology, but as you can see the conservative viewpoint has more Biblical support. I choose the Bible’s way.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 3 comments }
The only problem with the Government safety net to “help those truly in need” is the inevitable misuse and corruption that follows. Social Security and Medicare are prime examples. These were well-intentioned programs that have become nothing more than welfare, many of the beneficiaries are not deserving or are flat-out abusing the system. I don’t know if it’s possible for any government to administer a true social program that helps those in “true” need.
I’d take a different approach. How about any American who donates 20% of their income to a charity for the sick, infirm, impoverished, disabled and afflicted will be exempt from federal income taxes. You will immediately transfer care of these individuals to the private sector. Private charities are much easier to police and government corruption drops. Just a thought.
John,
I agree…power corrupts and you will always have those who will try to take advantage of any welfare system but the Bible says what the Bible says so I think there should be something. That being said Social Security and Medicare are not exactly Biblically supported programs so maybe I will write on those sometime. I like your line of thought on tax advantages based upon charity contributions…not sure if we could go totally exempt though will other obligations like defense. Interested if anyone has done an economic study on that.
I’d like to believe I take a middle of the road view to politics. I am a devout Christian who is extremely concerned by the polarization of our nation’s politics. The nature of Democracy is finding a resolution that appeals to a majority, despite our strong beliefs in one side of the argument.
Todays’s entitlements programs are obviously the big elephant in the room with regard to our economic credibility, but it would be short-sighted to claim that social security or medicare are simply failed programs. Yes, there is corruption that needs to be better handled (though I’d like to see analysis of how big an impact these numbers are), but the biggest reason for the shortcomings are the influx of baby-boomer retirees. I know countless people, family members or not, who have worked entire lives, saved as much as possible, but still live out their last years dependent on these programs. I fear to call these programs welfare because all Americans pay into these programs and all Americans eventually benefit, if only minimally. How do we restructure these programs to minimize their dependencies on both current economic conditions and a growing future population?
The other concern I have is with the promotion of marriage as an answer to poverty. The first few slides of the referenced presentation show two correlations to poverty. One is education, and the second is marriage. As a believer in free market capitalism, I am concerned by the current radical viewpoint that much of science is incompatible with religion. I was lucky enough to receive an excellent education in engineering and know first-hand the benefits science has provided for our society. I have no doubt that the Lord has created this great world we live in, but, for example, why is evolution not acceptable as the intelligent design our Lord put in place?
Second, I would argue that lack of education is more responsible for poverty than lack of married parents. To argue otherwise would be doing a disservice to the single mothers working their behinds off to provide for their children. That said, much of the problem with our current education system is that it is reliant on a strong family to support a child’s curiosity and promote education. Perhaps a lack of marriage led to a lack of education and in turn growing poverty, but it seems to me the more effective intervention in this cycle would be to reform education with the understanding that impoverished families are less able to support their children’s education (I look to endeavors such as http://www.khanacademy.org/ for hope here.) If we improve education, we can improve our economic competitiveness (through higher value jobs), decrease poverty (through better employment prospects,) promote stronger families (through increased stability from better education and financial security,) and provide for stronger generations to come (through these stronger families.) (Though I don’t have the statistics to support it, I also strongly believe abortion is a problem caused by poverty and lack of education we can mitigate)
I pray our country can come together to find common ground to take care of our elderly and our children. They are the weak and needy we can rescue. Rescuing them can in turn rescue our economy and great nation from this turmoil.
Comments on this entry are closed.