Tuesday, March 16, 2010

How would you respond?

Recently, a blog asked the question: Should the government get out of the business of charity and leave that work solely to faith groups?

The conversation was civil. Some answered that government help should be avoided because it's inherently immoral to give people goods they have not worked for. One line of thought went as follows: it damages the recipient to receive something for nothing. We are helping people more to insist they pull themselves up by their own efforts.

As humans, I think we're expected to do many things simultaneously, rather than either/or, so I support both private charity and government help. I also believe that as a civilized country, we're morally obligated to establish an economic baseline so that people don't have to go hungry, naked or homeless. I understand that some will cheat the system, but I accept that as the price of doing the right thing.

On the blog, I asked whether there were not two sets of standards, one for the rich and one for the poor. If receiving money you haven't worked for is morally destructive, what of inheritance? Should young people --or any people--become fabulously wealthy from money they didn't earn? Should we block (tax) inheritance to encourage people to work?

I received this response, which was a polite attempt at discourse.

"Thank you for your comments. I do think it is different when money is passed down from one family member to another. We can hope that there was some teaching/training/modeling about charity and sacrifice going on before the money was passed down. The teaching the government is doing is that there is no accountability to use the help offered and get back on your feet- thus allowing people to become more and more dependant [sic] on the government funds."

What would be a helpful response?

9 comments:

Hystery said...

Oh, dear. I don't think I would want to be in your position. Lately, I've been so deeply angry with the gross and cruel inequalities in our country that I might not be able to respond with civility. I would point out that when wealthy people pass wealth on to their wealthy offspring, they have indeed shaped their children. They have taught them that greed is acceptable and that privilege is their right. This is a kind of social Darwinism that legitimates rapacious avarice and inhumane social systems. It demonizes the poor as it institutionalizes social, political, and economic structures that undermine equal access to education, resources, and opportunities. Additionally, any argument against giving assistance to the needy (even if we could agree to the characterization of such folks as undeserving, lazy, or manipulative) ignores the fact that a significant portion of those in great need are children with immediate and critical need for housing, food, education, and medical care. What kind of society denies assistance to a child just to teach his/her parent a lesson?

AbiSomeone said...

...never is simple, eh?

It reminds me of my recent post on two sides of a coin. There is always tension in the paradoxes where we are called to live as Kingdom ambassadors.

Entitlement, in all its forms, is something that must be resisted. The entitlements of the rich to being self-centered are destructive to the individual and the society. But the entitlements of the poor to be dependent is equally destructive to the individual and society.

And while it might seem right on one hand to serve the children who have the misfortune to be born to parents who feel entitled to being cared for by the government without regard for how that impacts the family and the community ... I wonder.

Like we are seeing in Haiti, there are levels of caring that must be taken into account. There is emergency help in the face of disaster. Yes, help with food and clothing and housing and medical supplies. But then there are issues is development -- and systemic poverty is an issue of development, not disaster. Finally, there is the issue of production -- where there is involvement in production that provides for development that results in movement from poverty.

We have to respond thoughtfully and with great sensitivity to the Spirit and with discernment as to what God is doing already in each specific situation in order to join in what he is doing at each level, I believe.

This require relationship ... and the government is not especially suited to this. Unfortunately, too often the church is not much better at this either.

The gospel is not about dispersing material goods to meet people's needs. It is about receiving God's love, living in that love moment by moment, and sharing that love with those whom God puts in your path.

And it is a real challenge to get anyone else in the world to step up to this when so many in the church are woefully ignorant of the gospel....

Diane said...

--rich or poor--the chance to become creative and engaged members of the human community. Even in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were given work to do. Only after the fall did the work become burdensome and cruel--and the flip side of that were the few lolling around in comfort doing nothing, which is another form of deprivation. Perhaps the answer is to advocate for work that is not too heavy a burden for anyone and that offers dignity and self worth. I do know I worry about how people are suffering in this economy. I do tend to want government (which, in this country, is we the people) to provide for basic human needs and to give people a hand up. I do also grieve for children whose parents are unable to provide for them--and history has shown that private charity is usually inadequate. Do you have any ideas about how to break the cycle of poverty so that gov't help--for rich or poor-- doesn't have to become systemic and multi-generational?

Diane said...

--rich or poor--the chance to become creative and engaged members of the human community. Even in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were given work to do. Only after the fall did the work become burdensome and cruel--and the flip side of that were the few lolling around in comfort doing nothing, which is another form of deprivation. Perhaps the answer is to advocate for work that is not too heavy a burden for anyone and that offers dignity and self worth. I do know I worry about how people are suffering in this economy. I do tend to want government (which, in this country, is we the people) to provide for basic human needs and to give people a hand up. I do also grieve for children whose parents are unable to provide for them--and history has shown that private charity is usually inadequate. Do you have any ideas about how to break the cycle of poverty so that gov't help--for rich or poor-- doesn't have to become systemic and multi-generational?

Hystery said...

Diane,
"...the chance to become creative and engaged..." What a great way to describe our relationship to work in its ideal and most productive form.

As a person of very limited income who teaches people of low income, I would like to point out that the characterization of poor people as lazy and unproductive is far, far, far from accurate. Nevertheless, I would agree that mindless charity can be destructive. It is a given that care is required in our giving. To that end, it makes sense to understand what leads to want and poverty. In what ways do our educational and social systems (including our charitable organizations and government agencies) get in the way of maximizing people's potentials? In what ways do entrenched sexism, racism, and classism stymie our efforts toward economic equality? I believe that social activism for equality is as important as charity.

It would also seem that addressing immediate needs (housing, food, medical care)increases a child's ability to perform well educationally. Such may be seen as a "hand-out" but when a child is well-fed, healthy, and enrolled in a well-funded school, they are more likely to be able to engage in meaningful work as they mature.

AbiSomeone said...

My long involvement in PTSA has increased my awareness of the impact support at school has in the lives of at-risk students. We are involved in many significant programs that help keep these students from falling between the cracks.

It is not an easy issue. I just tend to believe that engaging with people rather than institutions is more critical in the long run.

When our at-risk students' parent or guardian moves, we lose the ability to support those students. It is heartbreaking, indeed.

In the end I believe that there are many ways to impact the needs of people in poverty -- and finding one-size-fits all is just not realistic.

This is the biggest reason I resist the move toward a bigger welfare state mentality.

AbiSomeone said...

...and stereotypes are unhelpful is all conversations.

That said, there are people who are willing to work hard and engage in do what they can to provide for their families in all socioeconomic strata ... and there are people who are looking for an angle, too. It is a function of the grace of God toward all cracked eikons that there are those who make it from the very worst of circumstances.

Having lived and worked with poor tribal children in Thailand, I have a very tender heart for this issue, but even there we had kids who worked hard to get ahead and kids who looked for short cuts and easy ways to beat the system.

I also believe that there are significant discrepancies in perceptions concerning needs and wants ... another lesson from Thailand that I will never forget, even after 30+ years!

But don't start me on that ;^)

I guess, in the end, we do need to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves, eh?

Marshall Massey (Iowa YM [C]) said...

I am mindful of Christ’s comment that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Why is that, I wonder? My best answer is that heaven, unlike earth, is not partitioned: it has no fences, no walls, no property lines; it is one unbounded thing. Possession of wealth is “I, me, mine” — one division after another between me and the rest of the world.

In such a context, to say “I am different because I was raised better than most people” is merely to add a new division between “me” and others to the divisions that wealth has already created. One step further from heaven, not one step closer to it!

You may ask, how could I say such things to the person who raised this argument? The answer, obviously, is that you can’t. Jesus himself couldn’t. His comment about the camel and rich man came after he had already alienated the young rich man, who “went away sorrowing” because he couldn’t bear the idea of parting with his wealth. And that, alas, is just how it is.

Ted M. Gossard said...

Interesting, and a huge subject.Many complexities, I'm sure.

I don't think it's either/or, but and/both. All societies are accountable to God for how they treat each other. And all justice is social. We should show the better way, the Jesus way, and this can influence societies. And yes, the church should be at the forefront and cutting edge of this in Jesus. But I think it's a moral tragedy in our society how billions are poured into the military, and yet we can't help those in need of medical care. I find that unjust.

My two cents on this for now.