It’s the one question that dominates the debate over Medicare, Social Security and pensions: Who is responsible for fixing the problems in society?
In the United Kingdom, the question has been on people’s minds all the more recently, given Prime Minister David Cameron’s commitment to creating a “Big Society.” At a time when government spending is shrinking due to massive debt, he feels that ordinary people, community groups and churches are best placed to pick up the slack.
The negative reaction to this idea seems to illustrate yet another place where the United Kingdom and United States are different. In the U.S., there seems to be a consistent fear of “Big Government.” In the United Kingdom, we protest if the government stops interfering. Privatization, not nationalization, seems to be the big green monster here.
So, who is responsible for fixing our society: us or the government?
I would venture to say that by even asking that question we have probably made a mistake. By asking whose job it is, we are really saying that it has nothing to do with us. What if the question became: How can the government, local communities and the church work hand in hand? What if we became more concerned with working in partnership than marking our territories?
Take alcoholism, for instance. Perhaps if we all worked together, we could not only treat the symptoms - domestic abuse, petty crime, broken families, poverty, liver disease and so on - but also the causes: loneliness, hopelessness, lack of purpose, psychiatric issues, abuse, shame, guilt. We might all agree that better policing, more effective social services and better medical treatment might deal with the symptoms, but they cannot even begin to deal with the causes. In short, there is simply no way that one person, one organization or even a government could deal with all of those areas on its own.
Similar points could be made about poverty, drug abuse, suicide, hunger, disease or human trafficking. We can all agree that these are real issues in society. We might even agree that it will take hard work to solve them. It is time we all agreed that it will take all of us working together to get the job done.
Both the church and the government have been put in their position by God. As Paul the Apostle said, “Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.”
A Biblical perspective, then, would realize that if God appointed both the church leadership and the governmental leadership, it makes sense for the two to work together. Yes, their authority may cover different fields, but they are there for the same purpose: to bring order and restoration to our fallen world. We need to recognize the strengths that local and national governments, NGOs and churches bring to the table and discover how to serve each other.
Doing any of this will require large amounts of humility and creativity. These really should not be a problem for any believer in Christ. After all, we serve the ultimate authority who also learned to humble himself, lay down his rights and work to save a suffering world.
(Image courtesy of Cartoosh/Wikimedia Commons.)
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (23)
But then, with government more of that money is syphoned off to pay people to make sure I paid my share in the first place, to pay the people who to decide who gets the money, how much and to make sure recipients use it the way other people, who also had to be paid, have decided is appropriate use. And, a good portion of my $40 is used to fund projects and programs I don't have a choice about funding decided by people who are also being paid by my taxes.
I submit to government authority, but I'm going to have to pray about my cynical attitude.
Government social programs are making a different point, I think. The person on food stamps is not a beneficiary of another person, reliable on his charity. Rather this is a recognition by society that through no fault of their own this person cannot live as a human being ought. If the economy actually worked to distribute resources so that everyone's needs were met, there would be no need for government programs to meet those needs. But if the well-off are profiting too much and the poor's needs aren't being provided for through wages (or if institutions like education are not preparing them for jobs, or if the jobs just don't exist), there's a since in which that person doesn't need "charity." They need justice - as a member of society they are entitled to the food, clothes, housing, etc. they need to provide their basic needs. Somewhere along the line, society has failed them.
Of course, not all poverty is like this. Some poverty is due to bad decisions, and in those case the poor are morally culpable. Society does not owe them; those people should be asking for charity. But if you are making the right kind of choices and society is making it impossible to provide for your needs - if the resources are going to other people for reasons not in your control - then I tend to view those resources as not the other person's to begin with. And in that case, government should compel everyone who can afford it to meet the need.
Of course, not all poverty is like this. Some poverty is due to bad decisions, and in those case the poor are morally culpable.
It's true that many who are poor are in their current circumstances because of choices they've made—but I would add two major caveats to that which, I think, make it impossible for us mortals to assign any kind of "moral culpability" for poverty.
My first caveat would be to problematize notions of "decisions" and "choice." I think we've got blinders on when it comes to the extent to which the things we ourselves do are choices—and even more so when it comes to determining whether others chose to do what they've done.
Is it a "choice" for a person living in Ward 4 of DC to eat mostly fried foods from restaurants or processed "foods" bought from bodegas? Ward 4 is what anti-poverty activists call a "food desert"—a place where there aren't any grocery stores or other sources for fresh food. If this person develops diabetes or has any of a number of other health problems that can stem from obesity or bad eating habits—which can, of course, lead to poverty and debt, particularly given our nation's rather abysmal attitude toward the notion of health care for all—is it a result of the choices they made, or choices that were made for them?
Similarly, things like staying out of debt, holding down a job, getting educated—on one level, these are choices, yes, but I'd caution you not to look at it through the eyes of a middle-class person* who's been told that you could do just about anything you wanted to do from day one, and taught how to live the middle-class lifestyle from the earliest moments in your life. Middle-class folks are also steeped in a culture where they see that all those things they're told about what they can be are truly possible—they see people they know taking advantage of thrift and education and hard work and making a good life for themselves by doing that. For someone who doesn't get those lessons in the home or at school—or who might even get them at school, but who looks around themselves and sees those messages undercut by people who've tried to do the right thing and been stuck right where they are—to what extent can we say it's a "choice" when they follow the unspoken messages they've been receiving all their lives?
My second caveat would be to problematize the assumption that bad decisions lead to poverty; even if we take as a given that these are choices for which one can be morally culpable, there's still a huge element of privilege and inequality involved that I think we overlook at our peril. That's another advantage of having wealth or privilege—in that there's a direct correlation between the amount of wealth and/or privilege one has and their margin for error.
If I quit my job, went out to Atlantic City, and gambled away every penny in my bank account, I have a network of people—including family, college friends, business connections, etc.—who would be able to help me out, either by putting me up (I could always move back in with the folks or couch-surf with friends for a while) or connecting me to resources and/or jobs that could help me get back on my feet. I'd also still have my college and graduate degrees—which would open a lot of doors for me that might not be open to others—and the knowledge that's come out of them, including critical thinking and writing skills that could come in useful in any number of jobs. In short, I'd be more equipped to get back on my feet and out of poverty than someone who doesn't have a financially-stable family to lean on for help, family and friends who could connect me to jobs or resources, or an education that opens doors.
Similarly, those who have a great deal of wealth can make much more significant mistakes and not end up in poverty. Is the alcoholic or drug-addicted homeless man on the street any more "morally culpable" for what he's done than an alcoholic or drug addict who's pulling in seven figures working on Wall Street? A poor man robs a bodega for the $150 in the cash register and he's looking at 15 years in the slammer and ex-con wages for life if he can even get a job at all, because that was the best deal the overworked and underpaid public defender could get; Wall Street executives bilk all of us out of billions if not trillions of dollars through credit default swaps, false foreclosures, or fraud, and if anyone's charged or convicted at all they pay pricy lawyers to "settle" for a hefty fine or probation and keep on doing what they were doing before. If we judge those who are poor because of bad decisions as "morally culpable" because their choices have led them into to poverty, how do we judge those whose wealth means they can make bad decisions and remain wealthy?
In summary, I think there's a serious problem with suggesting that those who are poor because of their "bad decisions" are morally culpable for their poverty; just as Jesus loved and served even the worst of "sinners" in his society, so we too should endeavor to love and serve everyone by doing what we can to help them into sustainable and secure lifestyles.
* Please do excuse the assumption here about your background, particularly if it isn't accurate. However, in my defense, even if I'm wrong about your background, I think that "growing up middle class" describes most people who post to this board.
Please excuse any readability issues - Disqus has a habit of randomly removing line breaks from my posts.
Either way, it is other people's money. Government gets money by taking it from other people. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't help the poor, but rather than we should do it on an individual basis. Acting like Robin Hood isn't noble. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn't noble. The rich giving to the poor is real charity.
Also, just because you are rich doesn't mean you are at an advantage, perhaps materially, but that isn't everything. They have to fight materialism and other vices that could keep them from knowing God, which is far more important than material wealth. Although, at the same time this could happen to poor people who envy what the rich have.
Not everyone is like this, but you can't deny that there are people that are.
Except that they're not; advertising companies, which are hardly bastions of leftism, are suggesting that people market only to the top 10% because they dominate in purchasing power. Real income for the US middle and working classes has decreased, even if the dollar-sign numbers are getting marginally bigger. Even given the trickery of the banking industry in making numbers get bigger and be worth less, our society still has only so many resources and so much wealth; if more of that is in the hands of the rich, it must follow that less of it is in the hands of everyone else.
Either way, it is other people's money. Government gets money by taking it from other people.
As I demonstrate above and below, that perspective on money runs pretty well counter to the Biblical witness and to the historical Christian witness—which both state that money, like everything else in our world, belongs to God. We are tenants, not owners. And God makes it pretty clear in the Law, which the Prophets call us back to and Jesus proclaims a reality, how God intends for God's wealth and resources to be handled: Every seven years, all debts are forgiven; every fifty years, a Year of Jubilee, and even redistribution of all the nation's wealth.
Even if one doesn't hold to that view, I'm forced to wonder exactly who got to decide that the coal underneath the West Virginia mountains or the sunlight hitting the Mojave Desert should be owned by a single entity for their own private gain, rather than by the nation as a whole for the good of us all. Again, in what sense does one have a "right" to ownership of such things in perpetuity? From where does that "right" derive?
And finally, you still seem to be holding to the assumption that the laissez-faire consumer capitalist market is some kind of preexisting, a priori entity that exists in the natural world, and that government is an imposition on that natural order—rather than understanding that both market and government are human constructions. I will ask you one question: Do you think the market should serve all of the people, or just the wealthy? Answer that question, and the scales will fall off your eyes.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't help the poor, but rather than we should do it on an individual basis. Acting like Robin Hood isn't noble. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn't noble. The rich giving to the poor is real charity.
And if the rich took their wealth from the poor, or from the nation as a whole? If the wealth of the rich derives from their taking perpetual private ownership of what should be considered the nation's assets and resources? Returning the wealth to the people, when the rich have been greedily hoarding it for themselves, is an act of justice—not charity.
Also, just because you are rich doesn't mean you are at an advantage, perhaps materially, but that isn't everything. They have to fight materialism and other vices that could keep them from knowing God, which is far more important than material wealth.
You know, I'd be willing to wager that if I asked one of the less-fortunate people in my neighborhood if they'd rather be rich and be tempted toward "materialism and other vices," or where they are right now where they're worried about where their next paycheck is going to come from or what's going to happen if their little boy gets sick, I've got a pretty good idea what their answer would be.
When you're worried that your lack of material advantages might mean you can't pay the heating bill over the winter, can't take care of your parents as they age, or can't get your child the medicine they need, that material advantage sure does seem like everything. When being born into a position of less privilege means that you're not qualified to apply for most of the want-ads because they require a college degree, or that you're one paycheck away from being evicted, or that you're passed over for the job when the employer goes with someone who networked with them a few weeks back at a private party, that material advantage can mean the difference between living and dying.
But you're right, in a way—wealth makes it all but certain that a person won't know God. Jesus made that all too clear when He told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give the money to the poor, saying that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom; it's a miracle akin to shrinking a camel down to a millimeter if a rich person is capable of knowing God and entering the Kingdom, something extraordinary and noticeable. So why is the church not prophetically telling the wealthy that no matter what government does or doesn't do, the wealthy are called by God to sell all of their possessions, live modestly, and give the rest to the poor, for the sake of their immortal souls?
Wealth is not a constant.
As I demonstrate above and below, that perspective on money runs pretty well counter to the Biblical witness...like everything else in our world, belongs to God. We are tenants, not owners.
Not really, the Bible also says thou shall not steal, that implies ownership. How can someone steal something from me if it isn't mine? Of course everything belongs to God, but God entrusts the resources to certain people. To envy those resources is sin. To lobby the government to take more money from people and give it to others is stealing, if only in your heart.
Do you think the market should serve all of the people, or just the wealthy?
The market does serve all of the people. Everyone interacts according to mutual consent. You don't want to pay that much, you don't buy the product. You charge too much for your product, no one buys it. You don't like the price you buy something else. The market is impartial. You think someone is making too much profit then stop buying their products.
The market as it currently exists cannot serve all the people because of government regulation and protectionism. The government protects big businesses and keeps them from competition. If anything government is guilty of serving only the special interests. Then they create welfare programs to "help" the poor. When you pick and choose who you help when it comes to economics you end up hurting someone else. The market is impartial.
And if the rich took their wealth from the poor, or from the nation as a whole? If the wealth of the rich derives from their taking perpetual private ownership of what should be considered the nation's assets and resources? Returning the wealth to the people, when the rich have been greedily hoarding it for themselves, is an act of justice—not charity.
In some cases the rich do take money from the rest of the nation when they are in collusion with the government. That however is not always the case. If I decide to create a product and sell it to millions of people and become rich I have not stolen anything from "the people", they have freely given it to me in exchange for my product. They paid what I asked, they agreed to it.
"The nation" and "the people" are just arbitrary constructions, as if rich people don't fit into those categories.
You know, I'd be willing to wager that if I asked one of the less-fortunate people in my neighborhood if they'd rather be rich and be tempted toward "materialism and other vices," or where they are right now where they're worried about where their next paycheck is going to come from or what's going to happen if their little boy gets sick, I've got a pretty good idea what their answer would be.
It is sad that people don't have things that many of us take for granted. But, does being poor justify envy?
The US Government has shown itself to be one of the most fiscally irresponsible and wasteful organizations in the country. The stunning amount of debt that is carried and pure repetitive waste in its bureaucracy is astounding.
The traditional Church, depending on which ministry we are looking at, has its share of excess and waste. While there are tremendous churches doing fantastic amounts of work and distribution of resources, there are also many churches where much of the money goes back into the church, rather than addressing the needy.
Individual ministries based in the Gospel and with proper accountability have a much better chance of success. They are able to tackle a specific need, direct resources to those in need with as few administrative stops as possible, and have a larger and more immediate impact than a large organization.
I would also question whether the role of government is to address all of society's ills. The true purpose of government is to establish legal order, judicial structure, legislative representation, protect basic freedoms and provide for the common defense. If the government stuck to these purposes alone, there would be countless more money available to fund the individual ministries that can do the most good.