Maybe no other issue divides the Christian left and right more than the care of the poor and downtrodden. I suppose it is true that some on the right who are more adept at generating heat than light caricature the more liberal views as coddling the lazy or something like that. I know it is true that the secular left has for decades repeated the same phrase election cycle after election cycle "tax breaks for the rich" while accusing conservatives of being heartless and greedy.
In the end, both sides agree there needs to be a safety net. People lose jobs through no fault of their own. Illness and misfortune can happen. And yes, people make bad choices leaving spouses and children in difficult circumstances. A safety net is needed and that includes some provision for job loss, for income loss and for catastrophic medical needs. (More)
The only real questions are - who provides the safety net and how efficient is their provision? How big is that net? Do those who benefit from that safety net have any responsibility to get out of it and return to self reliance? Is there abuse of the system - fraud and gaming of the system that discredits and wastes the goodwill of others?
I could add more questions, but at bottom it comes down to one: Which policies work best?
The Christian left loves to cite Bible verses to support their contention that because Jesus cares for the poor we should support federal government programs that provide for the poor. (Of course, when conservatives cite Bible verses promoting a different view they are accused of politicizing the gospel).
There is no question Jesus cared for the poor. There is no question the Old Testament and New chided those who hoarded money and ignored the plight of the poor. But for a Christian conservative, the story is not one dimensional.
Take the Old Testament regulations applied to "gleaning". In the book of Ruth, Boaz obeyed this principle and made sure his workers did not gather every last bit of grain so that destitute Ruth (and others) could come along behind and gather the remnants. So Boaz showed kindness and compassion. But a conservative would point out that Ruth had to come and get the grain. Boaz did not deliver a portion to her on a daily basis while she idly contemplated her misfortune. I know a lot of guys who have lost jobs who would work for a lower salary than the unemployment check the government hands out. There is a bit of dignity and at least some sense of usefulness that goes with doing something that results in a meal or a paycheck.
And conservatives would also point out that Boaz was not a government agent living far away in a government capital unconnected to those who had a need. Whatever lessons we learn from the Old Testament about care for the poor, those lessons do not necessarily point to any particular federal program. Even if a federal program has the best of intentions, the fact that it is a federal program almost guarantees that at least it will be inefficient.
A similar case can be made in the New Testament. The same Paul who gathered a collection for the church in Macedonia (2 Cor 8-9) bluntly stated that "he who does not work shall not eat." (2 Thess 3:10) That is not an accusation that all poor people are lazy. It is an acknowledgment that some are. We've heard some of the stories about abuse of the system. More local accountability can curtail some of the abuse, but there has to be an expectation that dependence on a safety net is intended to be temporary - that self-reliance is expected. We should not have several generations still receiving aid. That is evidence of a broken system.
No, the local agencies, churches and municipalities cannot care for all of the needs of the poor. But the more local the solution the better. Effeciency, accountability, a connection between the person showing generosity and the person receiving it are all needed. Removing the impersonal "victim of the system" status and breaking the cycle of dependence requires a more direct and personal connection.
No one argues that there should be no safety net, no state or federal programs at all. But in the end, scripture and common sense both suggest that those on the receiving end of charity should be thankful, gracious and should not take advantage of the kindness of others any longer than is necessary. And public policies need to reflect balance, not only for the benefit of those providing kindness, but for the well being of those trying to move beyond their unfortunate circumstances. It is legitimate to debate where that point of balance should be. But I tend to think that when half of the country no longer pays any taxes at all and 1 in six receive government aid, it is rather empty to say that our national debt is somehow placed on the backs of the poor. Ultimately what is needed are jobs, not a larger safety net. That means reducing debt without suppressing business with ever increasing taxes and imprisoning more in a cycle of dependency. That means bloated inefficient government needs a diet and business and industry need a favorable climate.
No comments:
Post a Comment