As I mentioned in my response to Jorob's comment on the first entry, I think that an examination of the role of government in scripture could be used to justify either a conservative or liberal approach. Since scripture covers many years and many different circumstances, that is not particularly surprising. Therefore, the task becomes determining how to apply the underlying Biblical principles to my country and my generation. I don't think this can be done without looking at individual issues.
Take poverty, for example. If addressing poverty means providing financial assistance, the church is certainly better equipped to do that, as experience has shown. On the other hand, I don't think the church has a lot of ability to create jobs.
Another aspect of poverty relates to generational poverty. Generational poverty refers to multiple generations living in poverty. There was a time in Brett's and my life when our earnings were below the poverty level, but neither of us grew up in poor homes. While we can certainly relate to the challenges of surviving with scarce resources, our experience can't compare to someone who has only experienced poverty.
First, there is the psychological impact. It is difficult to know how to get ahead in a free market society, if you've never had role models to demonstrate the skills needed. There is also a despair that is difficult to overcome when there is no clear path out of the situation. Brett and I never had to deal with that; we always knew that our situation was temporary and that if disaster struck, our family would be there to rescue us. Those whose families are unable to provide that safety net have a hard time taking necessary risks.
Secondly, there is the problem of access to the assets necessary to get ahead. Families pass on acquired assets with each generation benefiting from the assets of the previous generation. This provides a "leg up," that is not available to families locked in generational poverty. Racial considerations come to play in this issue. White Americans benefited for multiple generations from the labor of slaves, who themselves received no economic compensation. Each generation of white Americans was able to climb the economic ladder a little higher, yet at emancipation, efforts to provide released slaves with a small plot of land were defeated. This failure, combined with years of Jim Crow laws, significantly disadvantaged African Americans and is largely responsible for the current racial disparity in income in America.
The church certainly has an important role in addressing the psychological and spiritual components of poverty, and its role in meeting urgent needs is critical. However, I question whether the church has the resources to address problems as complex as generational poverty. While the church may not have the resources to adequately address poverty, we still have to figure out if government is able to do any better. I want to address that next time, but for now I've concluded that poverty has to be addressed by both the church and government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Poverty can be a disease. It can swiftly infect intire neighborhoods,citys, and country's and it should be treated like one. unfortunetly too often the church and government try to sweep it away instead of treating it at its source.
You mentenioned generational poverty and that is a very good point. While America provides the best chance of maybe any country to rise from poverty, and assisting those with the desire to improve thier lifes is crucial to that endeavor. However, where does assistance stop and apathy start? I have known families that will do almost the impossible requested of them in order to recieve benifits from the government, but they are working much harder at getting government assistance than they are working to assist them selves and make that effort to get the education, job expierience and find opportunities to improve thier lives.
I agree the church is much better equiped to give financial assistance. The church had more time to be involved with those who need help, and can make better judgements on who is trying to improve thier life or trying to get a free hand out.
I totally support government programs intended to EQUIP the poor with the tools to succeed. Education. Job opportunities, public transportation to enable those with out vehicles to get to work. But the government must be cautious with its financial support because it is too easy for people to get lost in the beauracracy.
Let the people and the church work with the poor in a more intimate individual basis, and have the governement provide programs and benifits intended to break that generational poverty.
"A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." James Madison.
Hi Kay! This is Amy. Google is not recognizing me so I'm posting anonymously.
The responsibility of caring for the widow and the orphan clearly falls upon the king in OT scriptures. These are the people who have no resources to care for themselves. Kings are also charged with enforcing laws that prevent generational poverty - guaranteeing rights to ancestral lands, ensuring slaves are restored to freedom at the Jubilee, etc. These laws are not exactly applicable today, but the intent is clear and relevant.
We have done away with kings, but cannot live without government. In effect democracy requires that we all take seriously the charge of the king. We Christians are, of course, the church. We also act as kings and priests This may not make the nitty-gritty decisions of how to form government policy clear, but it should remind us that the separation of church and state does not entitle us to slough of responsibility for the duties of the state.
Amy & Travis,
Thanks for jumping in. Let me mention a few facts just to keep the discussion moving. First, there is no more "welfare" in the the U.S. When Bill Clinton was in office the program was changed to "Temporary Aid for Needy Families," with the emphasis on "temporary." People receiving this assistance are now subject to numerous requirements and no one is able to live on it forever. Sometimes in the U.S. discussions about poverty and governments role become arguments based on the false understanding of welfare as it used to be, where people could live their entire lives without working and receiving public assistance. The discussion changes as more people become aware that this situation no longer exists... at least not like it did. I'm sure that some have figured out how to work the system; some always do. But, in general the US has largely pulled out of the poverty problem.
Post a Comment