I recently heard another Christian making a statement about government policy towards the poor that began with “I'd really like to help the poor,” but abruptly terminated with a qualification that brushed away any real obligation to provide assistance for the poor. It struck me that I have heard the words “I'd really like to help the poor” come from the mouths of Christians many times before, but almost always that phrase prefaces a rant about people taking advantage of the government, perverse economic incentives, the destruction of the family, etc. I have rarely heard many Christians start a sentence with “I'd like to help the poor” and have anything constructive to say after it. Therefore, I would like to challenge a few of the arguments that Christians often use to assuage our buring consciences in regard to the poor, especially those that deal with the role of the government.
1. I only want to help those who deserve to be helped, not those who exploit the system.
This statement presupposes an erroneous distinction between so-called “deserving poor” and those who, for one reason or another, should not be helped. The general definition for the undeserving poor is those who sit at home and watch TV while drawing support from welfare programs. And, granted, there are those who do take advantage of the system. (Although I think their numbers are probably very low compared to those of single mothers working two jobs and trying to raise fatherless children.) However, there is no biblical grounds for letting some “undeserving” poor live in squalor while the “deserving” poor are helped. This idea seems more akin to Social Darwinism, or Benthamite utilitarian social theory, or some perversion of the Puritan work ethic than to a Christian conception of grace. The Bible demands that we help all the poor, without an expectation of a response on their part. Grace does not, thankfully, differentiate between those who deserve it and those who do not.
2. The government should not help poor people, Christians should do it themselves.
This argument is, first of all, impractical. We know very well that Christians do not have the will to help the poor as much as they should, to begin with, and we also know that Christians do not have the resources, or the centralized authority, to effectively fight poverty. Secondly, it ignores the fact that the government is an agent of God, deputized to carry out his will. Paul calls the government God's servant in Romans 13. So it is not somehow “secular” or “non-Christian” for the government to work toward Christian social goals. That is, in fact, what the government is there for.
Objections to the expanded role of the government usually come from a libertarian impulse, very strong in America, that stems from the Enlightenment obsession with individualism and liberty, or from a strong suspicion of government that comes from Anabaptist tradition. The kind of freedom that libertarians advocate is one that must be rejected by Christians, who know that freedom does not come from a mere absence of coercion from outside sources. Christian freedom is direction and purpose and a correct ordering of our desires. And the Anabaptist suspicion of government, while at times valuable in defeating Constantinian alliances between Church and State, can overlook the possibility that government, like the rest of Creation, must be redeemed and utilized by Christians.
There is much more that could be said, but I think I have stirred enough controversy already. There are very many people who will not agree with anything that I wrote here, but I think we must think hard about the kinds of ideas that Christians have bought into when it comes to social policy. Do they come from scripture and an ardent and honest desire to help the poor, or from myths that superficially jive with Christian culture, but do nothing to bring about the social goals of the God who “has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly...filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty”?
