But is it really right to leap from defending the poor to what Ron Sider in the article calls " both procedural and distributive" justice? How does one get from defending the cause of the poor to "distributive" justice? What exactly does "distributive" justice mean? (More)
Wallis correctly echoes conservative concerns in stating "the historical attempts by many Marxist governments to create equal outcomes have dramatically shown the great dangers of how the concentration of power in a few government hands has led to totalitarian results. The theological reason for that is the presence and power of sin, and the inability of such fallible human creatures to create social utopias on earth." I've blogged about that specific point here and here.
But he really misses it when he opens the article with "I want to suggest that what size the government should be is the wrong question. A more useful discussion would be about the purposes of government and whether ours is fulfilling them." Sorry, but with a debt of 16 Trillion dollars and an ever increasing percent of the federal budget going to unsustainable entitlements, the size of government at the moment is THE question, else there will be no safety net for any of the poor, and no workable government at all.
But the Christian left still seems out of balance in its use of biblical proof texts. Concern for the poor is not a one-dimensional slogan in scripture. I suspect conservative views on the subject owe something to Paul's instructions about widows to Timothy. I'll quote from a paraphrase in this case...
Take care of any widow who has no one else to care for her. 4 But
if she has children or grandchildren, their first responsibility is to
show godliness at home and repay their parents by taking care of them.
This is something that pleases God.
5 Now
a true widow, a woman who is truly alone in this world, has placed her
hope in God. She prays night and day, asking God for his help. 6 But the widow who lives only for pleasure is spiritually dead even while she lives. 7 Give these instructions to the church so that no one will be open to criticism.
8 But
those who won’t care for their relatives, especially those in their own
household, have denied the true faith. Such people are worse than
unbelievers.
9 A widow who is put on the list for support must be a woman who is at least sixty years old and was faithful to her husband. 10 She
must be well respected by everyone because of the good she has done.
Has she brought up her children well? Has she been kind to strangers and
served other believers humbly? Has she helped those who are in trouble? Has she always been ready to do good?
11 The
younger widows should not be on the list, because their physical
desires will overpower their devotion to Christ and they will want to
remarry. 12 Then they would be guilty of breaking their previous pledge. 13 And
if they are on the list, they will learn to be lazy and will spend
their time gossiping from house to house, meddling in other people’s
business and talking about things they shouldn’t. 14 So
I advise these younger widows to marry again, have children, and take
care of their own homes. Then the enemy will not be able to say anything
against them. 15 For I am afraid that some of them have already gone astray and now follow Satan.
16 If
a woman who is a believer has relatives who are widows, she must take
care of them and not put the responsibility on the church. Then the
church can care for the widows who are truly alone. (I Timothy 5:3-16 NLT)
I see several ideas expressed here.
First, no one may be needier than an elderly widow who has no other family, so Paul's instructions are clear: The church, in a first century context should care for her, and one would be hard pressed to suggest that is not an applicable principal today. Women in Paul's time had no other means of support but family. Not so today, but there is still wisdom here that can be applied.
But second, the primary line of defense for the widow is her own family, not the "collective" or the larger community. In fact, a family that fails to care for a widow has "denied the faith". Does the call of the left for more and more government "distributive" justice account for this Biblical instruction? Or does it bury it in calls for redistributive "justice"?
Third, not all widows are to come under the care of the community, but only those who are truly in need. There is a means test. If a widow has other family she is not enrolled under the church's safety net. If she is young enough to remarry, she is not to be enrolled. The reasons may seem clunky and gruff in Paul's expression, but it is fairly simple: a younger widow probably won't want to remain a widow, in which case she will have other means of support.
Fourth, the needy person has responsibilities. To be enrolled in the church's charitable safety net does not allow a recipient of charity to be idle, to waste time meddling in the business of others. And idleness can lead to other sins for those who still have natural desires for sexual fulfillment. So not putting some on the list of charitable recipients protects not only the limited resources of the church, but also protects the moral integrity of the recipient.
Finally, Paul makes no statement whatsoever about the role of the secular government in the care of this particular class of needy individuals. One may assume the state is not forbidden from providing a safety net, but one cannot insist the secular State is required to provide such a net from this passage. Wise application would suggest the state should enable the family, churches and charities as much as possible so no other net is needed.
It would be false to draw a direct line from Paul's statements to an application regarding our particular context, but a few broad ideas do come out. Wise application would suggest the state should enable the family, churches and charities as much as possible so not other net is needed.
The conservative view of a government safety net would suggest that it should be limited and not grow beyond its means. A conservative view does tend to include means testing to determine who is truly in need to promote the wise use of limited resources. The conservative view assumes that the poor have responsibilities and should not take advantage of charity. The conservative view notes that dependence on charity can actually be harmful to the recipient and can lead to behaviors that are at the very least, wasteful and non-productive.
The conservative view says that the first line of defense is the family and policies that strengthen the family rather than weaken it are wise, and that the second line of defense is the church and community, not necessarily the government. And the conservative view says nothing about forcible "redistribution" of wealth by the state. There seems to be an assumption that charity is an expected voluntary exercise of moral principle, as opposed to a government program.
Proof-texting generalized verses about the need to care for the poor do nothing to develop a sane public policy and do nothing to advance a reasonable debate. How do we care for the poor? What is effective? What is sustainable? A wise Christian balances compassion with wisdom, a healthy understanding of human nature, a healthy understanding of human sin and its affects on both the individual and on those who ride on the power of constituencies.
Today, there is a desperate need to reign in spending at local, state and federal levels, and false charges of not being "for" the poor will not help the poor when the government becomes insolvent. The best cure for poverty is fixing the economy so there are jobs available and restoring the place of the family to American society. Then the government safety net can shrink on its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment