Does Jesus’s Compassion For the Poor Mean We Should Support the Welfare State?
Absolutely not. First, while we ought to acknowledge that Jesus surely had compassion for some poor, and in turn that this same compassion is part and parcel of the whole of the Old Testament as well, we also have to acknowledge that there are some poor who receive rebuke rather than compassion. The poor, in short, are not a monolithic group. Some are poor because of calamity. Some are poor by choice. Some are poor through oppression. And some are poor due to their own moral failures. It is cold hearted to assume all the poor are lazy. It is foolhardy to assume all the poor are virtuous.
Second, compassion means “to suffer with.” It is neither compassion nor charity to take from one person to give to another. The Welfare State operates on other people’s money. We tax Peter to pay Paul, while Philip gets credit. When Jesus commands us, “Give to the poor” the last thing He is saying is, “Take from others to give to the poor.” I am to give out of what He has entrusted to me. I am more than willing to give away every cent Bill Gates has earned to those I choose. But He hasn’t given me every cent Bill Gates has. I can’t give away what isn’t mine. The notion that the wealth of the citizens of the nation belong to the government of that nation is idolatrous evil, no matter where the government spends the money.
Third, the Welfare State is harmful, not helpful to the poor. It creates disincentives to work and incentives to take from Peter to give to Paul. Both Peter and Paul are disincentivized to work, Peter because he isn’t able to enjoy the fruits of his labor, Paul because he is able to enjoy Peter’s fruit without any labor. Because of sin we are prone to laziness. Work, however, is essential to what we are. Welfare dehumanizes its recipients.
When God established a system of care for the poor of Israel He maintained the dignity of the poor. First, no individual person was entitled to the wealth of another. In order to be able to glean a given field, one first had to get permission from the owner. The owner had a moral obligation, though no legal obligation, to allow gleaning. He was free, however, to choose the participant. Second, gleaning was both hard work for the gleaner and a blessing to the owner. Work, even for the poor, was connected to daily bread.
The notion that the state embraced caring for the poor because the church was falling down on the job is historically inaccurate. The state took over for its own nefarious, political reasons. To encourage the state to step out of its God-appointed calling, the punishment of evil-doers, is not to be more like Jesus but less like Him. That state, in doing so, is in rebellion against the reign of Christ, not a manifestation of that reign. To support it is to support that rebellion.
Yep!
Thanks