Standing up to the common U.S.-evangelical philosophy of government

A couple of days ago, influential pastor Rick Warren sent the following tweet, which he later deleted:

 
At first I felt bad criticizing Warren, because it does seem like he genuinely cares about the poor.  Also, no one is perfect, and I've tweeted or said things that I certainly regret.  However, because Warren has a powerful platform known even in the non-evangelical world, I find it extremely important to counter his damaging view on taxes and government.  It represents a common view among American evangelicals, and I've decided I'm going to stand up to it more often.

Even if it adversely affects the poor, many Christians have no qualms with reducing or even eliminating what are commonly known as "entitlement benefits."  These benefits are funded by federal tax dollars and include programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, veterans' benefits, unemployment, and food stamps.  These Christians' philosophy is that it's not the government's job to care for the poor; rather, it's the church's job.  

Warren himself countered with this argument on Twitter, when faced with criticism of his incorrect and, I would say, malicious statement.  He said, "Mt.25 It's the church's job to care for the poor,sick,hungry &in prison.It's why 30,000+ of our members serve thru P.E.A.C.E."  Many Christians who share Warren's view also find the government to be wasteful and ineffective in truly assisting those in need.

While concerns about inefficiency and waste are completely valid and understandable, these Christians' philosophy assumes that caring for the least of these is a zero-sum game.  It's not either/or.  We don't have to choose between the U.S. government and the church to help the poor.  Goodness, both systems are able to help, at the same time!  And while the American church is doing a great job at feeding some of the hungry and clothing some of the naked, overall we have dropped the ball when it comes to addressing the structural, systemic problems that cause poverty in the first place.  The church is simply not equipped to fill the enormous, vicious, probably lethal vacuum that would result if entitlement benefits were reducted or eliminated.  

The philosophy that only the church should have the responsibility to care for the poor reflects a naive and sheltered view of the least of these, as well.  I would assume that most of the folks who further this view, while well-intentioned, happen to be middle-class and personally know very few people who are struggling to feed, shelter, and provide adequate healthcare for their families.  The idea that we can pull the entitlement-benefits rug out from under millions of people, simply because it's the church's job, completely ignores reality.  Many people with full-time jobs are literally subsisting--teetering--day to day.  

I suppose it's because I live in a lower-income neighborhood and see, every single day, the effects of SCHIP and Headstart and the free breakfast/lunch program and...the list goes on...  These are people I know and love, and cannot imagine what would happen if they didn't have access to food and healthcare. To have a theory that it's the church's job to care for people in need is perfectly acceptable.  But this theory comes crashing down and ends up cruel in the face of reality, when the church hasn't stepped up and your loved ones have nowhere else to go.  

My hope is that this naivete can be avoided simply by surrounding ourselves with the least of these more often.  Considering how much time Jesus spent with the poor, I think that the church should follow suit so that we can gain a more realistic and compassionate perspective.

And another, more sinister, line of thinking also crops up in these discussions.  In spite of the fact that the church and the government can co-exist and work toward the same goal, and in spite of the reality of poor elderly and children, many Christians see poverty as a moral problem.  The assumption is that folks place themselves in these situations because of their own bad choices and laziness.  And these bums are happy that the government would raise others' taxes...

Again, these assumptions will quickly come crashing down if American middle-class Christians would simply take the time to get to know others and hear their stories.  The idea that "I have mine, who cares if you have yours" would quickly vanish.  Perhaps more will start directing their outrage at those who really don't pay taxes, or at least income taxes.  General Electric paid no taxes in 2010, yet earned $5.1 billion in the U.S.  In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

While I'm disappointed that Warren expressed this misguided sentiment, I hope that it will open up a conversation about the role of government.  I have to speak up more often when I hear my fellow Christians refer to this philosophy of government, because its effects on the poor are too heartbreaking.

Comments

[Streaksblog.blogspot.com]

Great post, and a theme I have explored as well. To great silence, I once challenged the conservative right to guarantee to help all of those people who genuinely need assistance. If they did, I said, we could scrap the entitlement programs. But, I noted, they didn't get to pick and choose. Couldn't deny people on the basis of race or sexual orientation. Couldn't deny treatment to someone who's illness was even self-inflicted. I have heard nothing back.

I am absolutely convinced that the bulk of people approach this in two complimentary ways: 1) that they assume they get no benefit from the government, and 2) that those who do are the "welfare dependents" who are too lazy or immoral to get off welfare without a shove.

[Natalie]

Very good point about picking and choosing. It seems so haughty and invasive (invasive when it comes to things like mandatory drug testing).

You've done a way better job on your blog at pointing out the cruel baselessness of conservative policies supported by Christians and non-Christians alike. I just couldn't resist adding my voice to the mix!