Conservatives regularly oppose state-supported social programs for the poor, arguing that they interfere with market principles and diminish incentive for individuals to achieve. In rare moments of compassion (or cold calculation), when they consider how the catastrophic failure of the proletariat will affect the ruling class, they will say any relief should come from private rather than public sources.Politically conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists will continue this argument by suggesting that such relief is the responsibility of the churches, not the state.
Fine.
Where are they?
Let me say that I have read about and witnessed extravagant and impressive acts of giving from faith communities, and there is no doubt in my mind that well-intentioned and well-motivated believers are far more capable of addressing the needs of the poor than most agencies, public or private.
However a new book, Passing the Plate: Why American Christians Don't Give Away More Money, delivers some sobering news about the reluctance of believers to part with their cash. In his review, Ron Sider (author of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger), lays out some of the disturbing data:
- 20% of Christians give nothing.
- Those who do give average 2.9% of their income.
- 20% of Christians give 86.4% of the total.
- 5% give 59.6%.
- As our income has quadrupled, our giving has declined.
- The facts suggest that as we get wealthier, we get stingier.
- If Christians who attend church regularly would tithe (presumably the standard 10%), there would $46 billion extra available for serving the poor.
For the record, I happen to believe that relieving the suffering of the "poor" (in all manifest meanings of the word) should be the prime objective of our churches. Above mall-like worship centers, gymnasiums, and Starbucks, we should be serving "the least of these." And, it appears that as hard as it is to get believers to give, when they do we are more likely to fund our edifice complex than the poor.
A couple of disclosures: My wife and I used to give over $500 a month to an organization that serves the poor in Central America--we quit giving to churches years ago (see edifice complex comment above)--until things came to light about how the funds were not being used honestly. Now, we will only give to actual people in actual need. But, it is terribly inefficient and ad hoc.
Also, it appears from Sider's review that while evangelicals still have nothing to brag about, they give better percentages than other Christian groups.
So, I cannot take conservative Christian's arguments seriously when they protest loudly about "socialism" and "redistributing the wealth," while they are actively keeping more for themselves than even their doctrines demand.
We must be a culture that takes care of those who can't take care of themselves. If we aren't, we embrace a form of social Darwinism where the weak are trampled underfoot, and civilization as we know it deteriorates. Public means of support are terribly inefficient and often not the most effective, but until "believers" step up and get as aggressive in living out the gospel as they are preaching it, I cannot support a political ideology that would benefit the powerful over the weak.
12 comments:
Well-said and duly noted.
However, I have a lot of trouble with the perspective that money=relief. If you have money, you can give that to the poor, and voila! you've made a positive difference in the world.
If you give it directly a poor person, they may buy booze with it. Or they may buy food with it. But there is little likelihood that it will improve their lives long-temr.
If you give it to an agency, they may squander it, too. Or they may use it to help people in a temporary way, or in a negative, "enabling" way.
If you give it to the government in the form of taxes, again, I have little faith that it will actually be effective in "making poverty history".
I don't mean to be a wet blanket. But what, reach, do you suggest is the right way to use that money to relieve poverty, should that money actually be available?
This continuously bugs me. My friend and colleague wrote a column stating that when folks say it is the church's job, he responds "great! let me see your church budget." The truth is, our churches DON'T give a significant amount -- the ones that do tend not to be the ones saying "it's the church's job!" Not that they are liberal social voters, necessarily, but because they are out doing rather than passing the torch.
I tend to give to organizations that are open and transparent about their finances and budgets. WaterPartners and World Vision are two of my favorites. There are also some sites offering opportunities to give loans to those in developing countries so they can start businesses. Money given can then be recycled to help more people.
And honestly, knowing what to do with finances is TOUGH. How should one live in one of the richest countries while so many are dying for lack of basic resources?
If you can't support a political idealogy that benefits the powerful over the weak, how could you then support Joe Biden? What did he manage to give away, something like $3,000 on a few million dollars in income? Seems to me like you have to try very hard to give away that little...
Hey, had to get the dig in. And while my church gives much more than the figures you cite, I realize it's unusual and I cannot disagree w/the premise of the column. Still, $3,000?
Reacher,
I echo your sentiments, though I sympathize with Coreman's concerns.
I think it's oversimplifying matters to say that Republican economic policy characteristically opposes government social support for the financially impoverished. I admit that many conservatives have made arguments such as the ones you are refuting here, but actual Republican politicians surely do not believe that all government financial aid of all kinds is equivalent to "socialism".
But your points about greed and uncharity are well-warranted and demand serious attention.
Thanks,
matt
I think there is a problem with the way churches budget their money. In one small Missouri town a pastor that I know kept buying land and starting construction projects. I asked him privately why he did this, and he said that people in the church tend to stop giving unless they see that it is going toward some big project.
If you want to truly make your argument biblical, you would note that most of the support should go to the truly down and out: the widows, the orphans, and the prisoners. Unfortunately, even if the government expands the welfare state, most of the support won't go to those people, but it will go to the uneducated that have a hard time finding work. Why is this? This particular demographic votes from time to time and the others can't.
You can't forget the supply side either. Sometimes, the government implementing a policy that lowers food prices or property taxes ten to twenty percent, helps more members of society than increasing welfare checks ten to twenty percent.
Democrats that want to prioritize welfare should also remember that raising taxes isn't really the best solution to raise money. Getting rid of a bureaucracy or downsizing an obscure or redundant section of the military is also an option.
Right after the word military, there could be a huge ellipsis . . .
Thanks for articulating so well. Your thoughts consistently provide the perspective I need to step back and consider. And usually change. I so appreciate that. Life has been insane since I'm back from China, but I wanted to say thanks, too for your wisdom on so many issues while I was there. Also on the same line, a note you wrote in the margin once, reads "What about grace?" and though I'm sure you don't remember the situation, that question is always at the front of my mind. I'm so grateful.
Welcome back, JMT. And, xie xie.
Christian and I were having a very similar discussion this weekend. Ours was focused more on how our families are judging us for not being "religious" by their standards, but are they really more righteous than we are? We were discussing how churches spend money on mission trips, on their own congregation, mega church buildings, spreading their gospel, but we seldomly hear of a church (or individual christian, for that matter) who does good just for the sake of helping others. It seems there are always salvation strings attached. It is making me increasingly disenchanted with all organized religion. Oh, I better stop ...
minor correction, heather. it's not "our gospel". the message was entrusted to the followers of Jesus, and he sent us out to proclaim it to all the people of the world, as a message of hope and redemption--the only hope of redemption. so to not center our lives and ministries around spreading that message would be (a) to ignore our Lord's command and spurn the purpose for which he gave us life, and (b) unloving to all those who, apart from the gospel message, will spend eternity in a "place" called hell (eternal, conscious torment).
but you do have a good point about the "strings attached". it's a fine line to walk. on the one hand, bait and switch is wrong. on that same hand, it would be self-defeating if people pledged allegiance to Christianity either out of obligation to us for meeting their material needs, or out of manipulation to get more aid from us. on the other hand, Christ commands us not only to proclaim the gospel, but to demonstrate it by loving others tangibly. indeed, the demonstration lends credibility to the proclamation. so we've just gotta go about doing both faithfully, and try to keep the "string" from being too attached, while neglecting neither. like i said, it's hard. but we gotta do it.
as far as righteousness goes, you're right. the Bible says, "There is none righteous, not even one." the ground's level at the foot of the cross. we all need the grace of Jesus equally.
God bless you. i mean that.
Beloved,I appreciate the statement made in the first paragraph.
I, in no way, mean that you should ignore those commands. Although, I have always been more impressed with those who live a good example vs. those who "preach" to me (but that is just me). I also have a bit of a problem with spreading the gospel to those cultures that have a different social and spiritual structure than found in the western culture. Why are they wrong just because they are different? (again, just me).
I appreciate your sentiments, but I feel extremely blessed and at peace without a god in my life. I think it is difficult for those who believe in God to understand that one can have peace, love, and blessings without following the dogma of a religion.
I don't know if there is a God. I don't condemn those who believe, because in the end they very well could be right, and I could be wrong. However, I do not feel I need to live my life based on one specific set of dogma. I find there are many good examples of how to live a good life found in the bible, but the teachings of Buddha, Aesops fables, Greek mythology, etc. also provide excellent rules for treating fellow man and living a good life on this earth.
In the end, I wish all of the Christians would be as open and understanding to my beliefs as I try to be to theirs. I find the comments on The Reach's blog to be very open (more so than our family and those in the region we live). I do miss our liberal Springfield neighborhood ... I also appreciate hearing and seeing a wider view on issues. I understand that when I make generalized statements, I am opening myself up to criticizim by those who do not fit into those categories. I seek the knowledge that there is the exceptions to all the assumptions I may have, and it gives me renewed hope every time I am proven wrong. Thank you.
one of the greatest, and yet most complicated, things about this nation of ours is the freedom to believe what we want to believe, and express what we want to about those beliefs. i definitely respect your right to believe what you want to believe, and to share that with others. forcing religion down people's throats is not only wrong--it doesn't work. but i have to be honest--i'm concerned for you. and i don't mean that in a condescending way whatsoever. i would just like to challenge you to think hard about what you're saying. couple of concerns:
a) religions and beliefs aren't wrong because they're different. their wrongness or rightness is based on reality, whether they are actually true.
b) if a particular religious 'dogma' is actually true, then its claims have to be taken seriously. Christianity, for example, teaches that apart from exclusive belief and trust in Jesus Christ as the only savior from sin, we all are destined for 'hell'. again, i respect your decision not to believe that. but what if it's actually true?
i would encourage you to take more seriously the actual claims of specific religions, and i hope, of Christianity in particular. while religions do have a lot of overlap in moral teaching, etc., what's most important to come to terms with are the differences, b/c they do not all teach the same basic, i.e. essential/fundamental, thing. it's vital to get to the heart, or basic premise, of each religion in order to truly evaluate them and make an informed decision.
as regards Christianity, i believe it's the most defensible of all faiths, makes the best sense of history, of philosophy, and of the moral problems that plague the world. if you're interested in exploring it, i'd be more than happy to point you in a good direction for good reading materials.
grace and peace,
matt
Post a Comment