Friday, September 16, 2005

Proverbs 27:17

"As iron sharpens iron,so one man sharpens another."~Prov 27:17


Below is a response from Michael Cross to my post entitled "Poverty Was The Ruin of Poor in New Orleans".

It's obvious that Michael and I don't agree on everything. But I have been impressed with his style of writing and obvious good heart that shows through in his writing. In the interest of fair play, and showing another side to the Christian view of what to do about poverty, I wanted to share this excellent response.

As a matter of intoduction, I found your blog as a link at Alison's Live Creative blog.

I'm not sure I follow you on this essay. I don't know anyone who blames the poor for being poor. People like myself may blame it on various government programs that enable, and encourage, the poor to remain poor, but not on the poor themselves. I know from experience that none of the government programs that exist are designed to help people to do better. They are designed to keep people in whatever condition they are in. That is a simple, sad fact.

Caring for the poor is a matter that is best left to the Church, because the Church has a vested interest in the well-being of our fellow man. Likewise, the Church, as an outreach within each of our own communities, is meant to deal with people on an individual level (as in, "personal relationship"). Which means that the Church, when it is acting as it was meant to, will be able to identify the individual needs of the people within their community, and address them in the most efficient way possible.

Unfortunately, the Church has abdicated it's responsibility in this matter in lieu of taxpayer funded welfare programs which are nothing more than "throwing money" at our problems. It is a shame that as Christians we have opted to allow some government agency to take our place in society as a provider for peoples needs. As a result of the Church's retreat from the public square, the government has also taken God's position as the arbiter of morality as well. Look around and tell me that isn't so, but I'll never believe you.

However, if giving money (or more money) to the poor were the answer to poverty, then why is it that over forty years, and trillions of dollars, haven't solved the problem yet? By the same token, raising the minimum wage doesn't really help the poor to do better. Instead, it leads to price increases across the board for nearly all goods and services. It also increases the amount of taxes that are paid by the poor. Meaning that while the paycheck may be slightly larger, it doesn't really stretch any further than the previous pay level. Besides, when one considers that a minimum wage job is meant to be something along the lines of an "entry level position", why should any business be forced to pay more for entry level experience.
And as for a "living wage", doesn't that depend upon how we choose to live? If you're willing to make sacrifices in order to make your money go further you can do just fine. For several years I supported a family of 4 on a little over $6 an hour. It's a matter of stewardship, being faithful with what God has blessed you with, and personal responsibility.

But, again, the programs which are in place, and our very culture, are at odds with the idea of personal responsibility. What we saw in New Orleans was not a result of race or social status. It was the mindset of people who had been told, perhaps for generations, that "The government will take care of "it".". So, when the governemnt failed to "take care of "it".", the people who were expecting help were left on their own. And we all saw the results of that.

Nobody faults the poor for being poor, or even for remaining poor, if they are making an attempt to do better. People like myself blame those who don't bother to try to do better because it requires greater effort than accepting monthly assistance. And we blame people for believing that they are owed something simply by virtue of the fact that they want it. And even more distasteful is the notion that people believe that it is morally superior to ask government to force businesses to pay more. Whether it be in the form of a forced "living wage" or through higher taxes. Nobody has that right.

But just so you don't think I'm some cruel, heartless, jerk...
Should companies pay more to their loyal employees? Yes. Should the wealthiest members of our society be willing to help the poorest? Yes. But should this be an operation of our government? No.

Jesus did not tell us to "render unto Caesar" so that Caesar could feed the poor. He told us, as individual disciples, to do His work on earth, and not to leave it up to others. Our calling is to interact with individuals, to change peoples hearts on a personal level. Not to ask our government to take the hard-earned wealth of our fellow citizens.

Consider Christ's teaching on "The sheep and the goats" (Matt 25:31-46). If the only charity that someone is giving comes from their tax withholdings, how is this seeing Jesus in need? Does this type of giving come from the heart?
You and I may very well agree that the poor and downtrodden ought to be helped. Where we differ is on who ought to provide that help and how.
Sorry about making this such a long reply, but you might never read it if I just posted it at my own blog.

M+




Thanks for reading,

AC

4 Comments:

At 5:03 PM, Blogger TLG said...

I'm with Michael on this one :) I think we subconsciously do less for the poor (and do less effective things for the poor) because we figure we pay taxes and there're "government programs" to do that stuff. But government's just not effective. I read that around 22 cents of every tax dollar earmarked for welfare actually makes it to a recipient. The rest is eaten up by bureaucracy and the endless chains of command and paper pushers. Six old ladies at a community or church foodbank run the place for free, and get most of the food they give to those in real need in donations, versus actual purchases. We've had 60 years for these social p rogram thingies to solve poverty in the US, and it hasn't done it. Usually it takes one or two fiscal years of failed planning before a CEO is replaced and a new direction taken.

 
At 6:30 AM, Blogger AnonymousCog said...

Tom, don't waste your time.

I visited your website, it's a commercial pretending to be a blog. Please don't post here, I consider your type of responses as spam!

AC

 
At 3:27 PM, Blogger AnonymousCog said...

Gordon, you need to get a life and stop going around leaving spam messages just to get traffic. Your site is lame, and you are lame.
Your type of get-rich-quick mentality does nothing but annoy the rest of us. You need to be stopped. Do you really think we will buy something by people like you?

Please don't visit my site again unless you have a real blog or have something real to say.

AC

 
At 7:09 PM, Blogger M+ said...

dtsmith2001,
I think you're reaching with your explainations.
You're right about the Bible not saying anything about government helping/not helping the poor. But that doesn't imply a consent to such things either. Also, nowhere does Christ tell us that we are to deal with people as groups. Which seems to be the direction you're coming from. His reference to the "nations" is meant to address the fact that salvation was not to the Jews alone, but to every tribe, tongue and peoples. Christ's heart was for the individual. He cared less for the fact that there were poor (or which ever of the plights He named) among us than He did about His followers attending to the various needs of their own accord. It's not compassion if an impersonal government agency is doing what we ought to be doing out of our own desire to be a witness in this world.
Likewise, just because Solomon was writing to his son does not imply anything more than a personal attention to the plight of the needy. If you look at Proverbs you'll see that while Solomon does address some matters of state, his primary concern is with imparting wisdom to the reader (his son), who will presumably be king one day. One cannot impart wisdom to government, only to individuals. If Solomon really believed that the state was responsible for the needy, he would've emptied his coffers and seen to it. But as history stands, he did not.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home