It would seem that more than one person has misunderstood what I wrote regarding the biblical requirements of Christians toward the poor. While I would like to think that I'm an able communicator and that this is possibly because I'm perceived as a "right wing Republican", I have to be honest and admit that it could simply be that I didn't express myself well. This one accused me of copping out. A pastor responded to tell me how wrong I was. It's a good idea, then, that I clear up some misunderstandings.
A couple things I said made people think that I was against working against poverty. I said, "Some well-meaning Christians believe that it is our duty to work at stamping out poverty in the world. I think it's a nice idea ... but impractical. And if the task is impractical and impossible, is it really our job to pursue it?" By that I did not mean "Don't work against poverty." I meant, "Understand that the poor you will always have with you. Understand that working against poverty is done by meeting the needs of people, because poverty itself will never end." Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that what I meant wasn't well expressed by what I said.
I said, "Notice that nothing is said about 'food banks', taking care of people we don't know, fighting poverty, or any such thing. All of the commands in Scripture for Christians to take care of the poor are for Christians to take care of the poor with whom they come in contact, not the poor 'in general'." That was perceived as me saying that I'm against these things. It's an obvious conclusion from what I said, but it's not what I meant. And since it was so broadly misunderstood, I think it's important that I state it more clearly.
Here's what I was trying to get across in that post. Some Christians are led to work against poverty in general. Those who are ... must. It's a command from God to them, an individual calling, a requirement. And they should be passionate about it and work hard at it. And it's a good thing. The problem I was addressing was not fighting poverty, but the command of Scripture to all believers that they meet the needs of the poor with whom they come in contact. I wasn't looking for a "way out", an escape, an "I don't have to deal with the poor". I was trying to say that Christians are not doing what we are specifically commanded.
We are not, each and every one, specifically commanded to fight world poverty. It's a fine and noble calling for those who have it. But we don't all have that calling. We do, however, all have the command to care for those with whom we have contact. And, listen folks, we all have contact with needy people. I wasn't calling for a step-down; I was asking Christians to stand up. Maybe you are called to work in large ways against poverty. Maybe. But you are certainly commanded to work in your little corner of the world against poverty. We have (as I said in the post) failed at this, at least in the American Church.
Maybe you're not called to work in an organization that will meet the needs of the hungry people you will never know or see. Fine. You are commanded to reach out to those in your community, your circle of influence. We dare not neglect that command.
I hope that clears up some of the misunderstanding. Ah, well, hope springs eternal.
8 comments:
Stan, from the bottom of my heart I say thank you - it clears it up nicely for me.
That is all I (and I think the majority of "fight poverty Christians") could hope for from the Church. If each and every one of us who call ourselves followers of Christ tried to make an impact on those in need (even small things can make a big difference) - the world would truly be impacted and I believe in one measure the world would see the love of Christ in us.
I do have a follow up question if you would like to continue the discussion (no hard feelings if you do not care to)... I realize you are not making a connection between taxes and poverty assistance but the irritation for many does exist. As this serves as one issue I don't apparently agree with a lot of politically conservative Christians about (not pigeon holing you into that label - I just get the sense you have a better feel for their position than I do), I am curious what the answer is - from a Christian response point of view.
Do you feel there is some benefit in the current social safety nets?
If not, how would you fix the rather large hole that would exist if they were not in existence.
If so, should the tax dollars spent be increased or decreased?
(I assume we both would agree that abuses in the system are bad and should continue to be improved)
In your opinion, what message does it send to an unsaved world that many Christians stand in public opposition to government welfare assistance without really having a clear solution for how to fix? Do you see this as a dilemma for Christians trying to evangelize an unsaved world?
Once again, don't feel like you have to defend the conservative position... I presume you have a more conservative bent than I do and you have been willing to discuss the difference in approach so I thought it might be a worthwhile discussion.
Another disconnect, I guess, between me and "conservative Christians". I don't think outlawing abortion will fix the abortion problem. I don't know how I stand on the illegal immigration issue. I don't see "gay marriage" as the "end all issue" (because the problem starts a lot farther back than that ... in our own back yard). And this one. I wasn't even aware that they thought we should terminate the current social safety nets. So I can't offer any defense of a position I didn't know they had.
I would argue that we need to take over those items, but since we are not, they're better than the alternative (nothing). On the spending of tax dollars, it's not a question of "increased or decreased". I don't know, for instance, why it is that the government is required to support the arts, so I'd decrease that and put it elsewhere. I know that statistics indicate that when people have more disposable income, their charitable giving increases, so I don't think I'd favor increasing taxation. So if I were king, I'd likely shift some priorities (a lot of priorities if I were king) and put more toward a safety net without adding to the public burden.
You see, as a Christian I think the Lord loves a cheerful giver, so codifying it in tax code to give to the poor seems a lot like the Robin Hood syndrome.
Christians stand guilty, at the core -- particularly American Christians. The singular thing that Jesus said would identify His disciples was love. If that love were in evidence, there wouldn't be this discussion. Love seeks the best for those around it, and we're not doing it. If there are some standing up and saying, "Take away any help for those in need", it's bad for the perceptions about Christians. (I haven't heard it, so I can't comment further.) But we cannot afford to neglect love for one another, for God, for our neighbor and keep wondering, "Why don't they like us?"
I think it was Phil Gramm, R-Senator TX that once said something like, "welfare was intended as a safety net, it has become a hammock." I'm surely misquoting, but this is close enough.
As a Christian (even as a human being), I see value in a safety net, but a hammock is in my view even more destructive than our attempts to help.
Hammock is far too ambiguous - what statistical evidence can Mr. Gramm use to support his general feeling that they are not safety nets but rather hammocks?
Some would rather generalize and "believe" welfare is failed and broken without spending an ounce of time studying the issue. Why would this be? It is obvious what Mr. Gramm has to gain from slashing welfare spending, what does his opposition have to gain from paying for it?
No doubt the system is not as efficient as it could be - no doubt there is fraud and complacency - no doubt it needs further reform. Still there are those who do need the net who represent the larger % than those who choose to use it as a hammock. Lumping the two together and generalizing that we are doing more harm than good is not particularly compassionate in my humble opinion. To the smaller % who use it as a hammock, I agree that we are doing more harm than good. My concern is not that I might be wasting a couple of hundred of my tax dollars on these deadbeats - my concern is helping the larger % who truly need help. I would love to be able to do this in person but am happy that some of my tax money can be used for those I am not directly able to help.
If I were King I would invest more in the infastructure of the system to ensure those who actually need assistance receive it while those who have no business receiving it don't. I believe in the end, we would save considerable money while achieving the same end goal liberals claim they want and conservatives pretend they are willing to support.
With all due respect, one of the last people I am going to listen to welfare advice from is Phil Gramm.
Let’s take a brief look at Phil Gramm’s “self-made” life - (pull up a hammock anyone). He was born in a military hospital, the government paid for him to attend Georgia Military Academy, it paid for him to get a degree at the University of Georgia, and it paid for his graduate work. It paid for him to be a consultant to the US Bureau of Mines and Department of Health, Education and Welfare, it paid his salary when he was teaching economics, and it paid his salary in Congress for more years that I can bear to think about. Best anyone can tell, he has never worked in the private sector. One estimate put the amount American tax payers have spent on Phil at $3.5 million.
Have we really gotten a return on our investment with Mr. Gramm? As quaint as the hammock remark is, I don't really think so. Did he work to get where he is, certainly... but clearly he has absolutely no issue using government funds to get where he wants to get.
My problem with generalizing and lumping everyone into the hammock view is most of us rational people know there are geninue people in need along with the deadbeats. Making across the board cuts without addressing reforming the system doesn't make any more sense than simply handing out money without knowing who we are giving it to and why we are giving it to them.
Statistically speaking it is more likely that those who genuinely need the help will be hurt by the blind cuts (simply because there are more of them).
Ah, excellent, a teaching opportunity! Since most of those who read this quaint little blog are Christians, I wanted to take this moment to assist you in your future discussions with folks with whom you disagree. When you make an argument (I am using that word like two lawyers who make their arguments in court, not in the sense of two people in a fight) using these forms, you weaken your position, even if you are right. There is very little as damaging as a bad argument in defense of a good position.
In Brian's comments above, there are two. (I only mention Brian to direct you to the comments and not to diminish in any way Brian or his views.) First, there is this: "It is obvious what Mr. Gramm has to gain from slashing welfare spending." This is what is known as a Circumstantial Ad Hominem argument. The idea is one attacks the person's argument by suggesting that the motivation is self-interest. It is a common logical fallacy. Whether or not the person is motivated by self-interest, the claim that he/she is doesn't address the argument they made.
Then there was the paragraph that started with this: "Let’s take a brief look at Phil Gramm’s 'self-made' life ..." This one is the classic Ad Hominem. Demean the character of the one making the argument, and you have attacked his argument. Well, no, you haven't. You've simply demeaned his character.
I use these two simply as examples of how we, as Christians, too often conduct our discussions. These are extremely common tools we use that are standard, logical fallacies and do damage to our credibility rather than support our positions. We ought to be aware of these types of things and avoid them.
Well, I brought up issues in another comment section with Brian about the abuse of the system. I have now lived in California, Oklahoma, and Texas. In all three states I have seen the MAJORITY abusing the system. I have several extended family members on "disability," yet they could work if they wanted to. So far the majority of people on disability I have met could work, but it is easier to seek pity and free money, instead of rising above the situation. In generations past when a man was injured, he still had to find a way to make a living for his family. If a person was in pain, they still worked. We have made a bunch of wimps in our country.
My doctor made me permanently disabled, yet I have NEVER used that to make my living. The truth is almost every person can work, they just don't want to. Some need to be retrained for jobs they can do, but they can work.
I wonder if these surveys actually followed around the people collecting assistance and found out what they can do and what they do with the money. How can you know if people are abusing a situation if you are not around them? None of the addicts I know were ever in trouble for abusing the system, so I guess they deserved the money.
Look at how many people are in online chat rooms for hours on end that are collecting disability. They feel good enough to sit at a computer and type for hours and hours, but there is NO work they can do?
The government agencies have completely failed in my opinion. Yes, many of the churches have come up short as well. I do know churches the give free job training, food, shelter, and clothing to people who are willing to go through discipleship as well. I have seen many more people helped by them than the hand-outs from our government with no strings attached.
We can either turn them into responsible citizens or immature whiners with their hands and mouths wide open.
Mind you, I acknowledge we truly have people in this country who NEED help forever, they are truly in a bad situation. That is different.
I am a mom of many children. I have a very difficult son with autism. I homeschool my children and work a couple of jobs from home. My children and I get NO public or church assistance. It is often a choice in this country.
I fully agree we made the safety net for the few into a hammock for many. Let's help those who truly NEED help. Let's be good stewards with God's money.
There is a difficulty here, in my opinion. There are certainly those who need a "safety net". There are those who find themselves in dire straits due to difficult circumstances in life, and it is incumbent on Christians in particular and society in general to help them out. But, there is a basic human problem that doesn't get addressed.
In the years following World War II, the U.S. found an island in the Pacific with a small group of inhabitants. These people were hardworking farmers, taking care of themselves and their families without outside intervention or input. The government moved them to a safe place, and then proceeded to use their island for testing weapons. When the weapons testing program was complete, they built the islanders new homes and moved them back to the island with an ongoing payment for their troubles. Because the islanders were human, the result was an island full of unemployed, lazy people who didn't bother to go back to their farming because they had free checks delivered to them. The same problem can be seen in Native American nations where the government pays ongoing reparations, so many don't go to work because they don't have to. Humanly speaking, in many cases "If I don't have to work for an income, I won't."
It's the old, "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for life." The "safety net" gives fish, more often than not, and doesn't give incentive to work. So people, having that fundamental flaw we call "human", tend to take advantage of the free "fish" rather than working to get out from the handouts and into self-sufficiency.
So we have a dilemma. People need a safety net, but they also need to take care of themselves. How do we provide a net for those who need it without snaring those who don't?
First, I never claimed Mr. Gramm was incorrect, I was asking for Mr. Gramm or someone using his quote in this instance to actually support the generalization.
Second, and I learned this lesson from you well, I wasn't making an arguement, I was asking a question. Do I question Mr. Gramm's motivation, yes I do. Does that mean I am asserting (making an arguement) that his statement is incorrect? No, I am simply saying I will need more evidence to accept his generalization. The fallacy does not exist because I was not making an assertion that his statement was incorrect.
With regards to Ad Hominem - "The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."
Once again, I wasn't trying to make an arguement (assertion) that Mr. Gramm's generalization was incorrect. I was simply requesting that it be supported. A fallacy cannot exist until a counter arguement is made (which I did not do).
The trivia regarding Mr. Gramm's life was simply interesting to me in light of the feeling that government money helping individuals might be a bad thing. A fallacy is a fallacy if used as a basis for an arguemnt - a fallacy doesn't exist every time one wants to interject trivia. If he believes in it, great, if he doesn't - he doesn't. I don't see how relating facts about his life impugns his character. Is there something in the facts of his life that point to his character?
Thank you for the "teaching" lesson although I think you misapplied the two fallacies in that I made no claim to refute Mr. Gramm's completely unsupported generalization. To be clear... Mr. Gramm may absolutely be correct but I have seen absolutely no evidence to date to support it.
Mr. Gramm's self interest in the issue does not make his position incorrect but it does make his statements more easily dismissed if he is not able to provide adequate support for his claims.
All the best to you Stan, this is not the site for me... God Bless and Good luck.
Post a Comment