Sophia and Susan
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
Many Christians who dislike Welfare (and when they say “welfare,” they’re talking about “the gov’t redistribution of wealth towards the poor,” moreso than gov’t redistribution of wealth towards the wealthy, which is where most of our tax dollars go) like to say that gov’t providing for the poor is like stealing, which is clearly a sin. They say nowhere in the Bible can one find support for such actions.
As our church has been studying in Ruth here lately, I’m reminded of how wrong that statement is.
Ruth is a poor young widow in Israel – and a foreigner from a hated nation, to boot! But Ruth does not starve because God implemented in Israel a means of taking care of the poor. In Leviticus 19, God commands:
When you reap the harvest of your land, you are not to reap to the very edge of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You must not strip your vineyard bare or gather its fallen grapes. Leave them for the poor and the foreign resident; I am the Lord your God.
This is just one of many rules (including the Jubilee Laws) that God implements in the gov’t of Israel to make sure that the poor don’t go untended and that wealth does not accumulate in too few hands. It is a constant theme of the Old Testament, along with many rebukes when the poor go untended and oppressed and when wealth accumulates in too few hands, as seen in Jeremiah 5:
They have become fat and sleek. They have also excelled in evil matters. They have not taken up cases, such as the case of orphans, so they might prosper, and they have not defended the rights of the needy. Should I not punish them for these things? This is the Lord's declaration. Should I not avenge Myself on such a nation as this?
Yowch! God’s in the business of avenging God’s Self against nations who don’t have a plan for taking care of the poor.
Now, we can disagree as to the helpfulness or hindrance of TANF or Medicare or other programs, but for Christians concerned with God’s Word, we clearly have excellent models in the Bible of gov’t assistance. And we can see that it was this very gov’t assistance that kept Ruth from starving and dying.
Ruth, who was the great-great-great-etc-grandmother of Jesus - whose birthday we are preparing to celebrate, but who may not have been born if his ancestors had been allowed to die because a nation refused to act in solidarity with the poor.
18 comments:
dan, i just wanted to let you know how thankful i am for you and your voice.
you are always eloquently speaking out for justice in this world and working to truly show us the kingdom of God in our midst.
you have been a wonderful minister to me! thank you!
So, when are you moving to the farm, Dan? ;-)
I don't have a cat to kick either way in the "welfare" debate, but this system of allocation would only work when you have very large amounts of fertile land, which would produce enough for everyone. If the people began to outgrow their space, then they'd have to look further afield (so to speak) for more fertile land. And what if someone else was already inhabiting it? Then God tells them to invade, I guess.
So I think the lesson of Ruth amounts to a call to agrarianism and serious birth control. Or invasion.
The other thing that struck me about this example is that it requires the gleaners to glean, to be proactive. The command wasn't to harvest it for them and deliver it to their homes. In a non-agrarian society, that component isn't possible. And thus, it doesn't translate into a working monetary model.
Solution? None from this corner. Once again, a monetary system is the root of many evils. More gardens, more clotheslines, more chickens, more birth control. Curious how Ruth didn't put out a bud until she was pretty sure where her next meal was coming from!
Dan:"... but who may not have been born if his ancestors had been allowed to die because a nation refused to act in solidarity with the poor."
We need welfare because if Israel several centuries BCE didn't have welfare, we might not have had Jesus and where would we be then???
Soooo ... had Boaz not let Ruth glean in his fields, the first centruy would have come around and God would have said, "Damn, I really screwed up, I meant to have a Savior in this century but Ruth starved to death so all My plans are in the toilet!"
And I though my theology was creative.
Yes the Bible does speak clearly against the wealthy who do not help ... no wait, it isn't so much 'don't help' the poor as it is oppress the poor to be wealthy and idle. The best image of this is in Amos 4:1
Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy,
'Kine of Bashan', in KJV speak 'fat cows.' How are we to recognize the wealthy who are being condemned? They are idle and obese, they don't do any real work and expect the poor to do it for them. In modern times they are the pontificators, coordinators, facilitators, advocates, etc.
As MadCap pointed out, you cannot compare the OT's advocacy to allow the poor to gather the overripe fallen grapes and corners of the barley fields to handing out food stamps (or the plastic card with the American flag now of days).
Within my lifetime we had a commodities program where the government bought up and processed agricultural surplus (to keep the prices at a certain level) and distributed the food to the poor in the form of flour, dried milk, cheese, beans, and canned meats. That program was very close to the OT plan and it worked.
What we have today is an abomination and to compare it to the OT plan is close to blasphemy, at least that's what God said to me after He had the third beer last night.
The 'Kine of Bashan' are not Bill Gates and wealthy oil men, it's the idle fat people who very often are the very ones advocating for the "poor", that is, advocating for yet more idleness for everyone.
In the OT, God dealt with Israel. But in the NT, God deals with the church and the indivual. And thus, the church and believers have been given the mandate of caring for the poor.
Wouldn't you agree that churches need to first sell all their properties, get rid of salaries to ministers and use the tithes and offering money for the poor, needy, widows and orphans?
After all, we shouldn't look to government to take our place on the front lines fighting poverty, should we?
One thing may be worth noting about Leviticus. Yes, in Leviticus 19:9-10, God commands that fields do not be stripped clean so that the poor and the foreigner might have something to eat. It's also the case that 17 short verses prior, in 18:22, God condemns homosexual intercourse as an abomination; and 18 verses later, in 19:28, God prohibits tattoos and lacerations for the dead.
(Similarly, rebellion against charity and rebellion against chastity are both found in Jeremiah 5: in verse 8, the sinful were criticized for lustful thoughts, "They were well-fed, lusty stallions, each neighing for his neighbor's wife.")
Now, I'm not at all suggesting that we ought to conform our government to the laws regulating the nation of ancient Israel: they had their covenant, we have ours.
What I want to point out is that it is that it is all God's word. Care may be needed to understand how to apply all these passages to our circumstances, but we ought not simply pick and choose which passages not to ignore.
Instead, you seem intent to see the Old Testament as not only teaching us to care for the poor (and it surely does) but also to require us to do so through government programs, protestations about theocracy not entering your mind. But when the same book preaches about sexual immorality, you can hardly be bothered.
Some quick responses.
Hipchick: Thanks you kindly.
Madcap:
" So, when are you moving to the farm, Dan?"
I was actually looking at some land today...
Eleutheros:
"And I though my theology was creative."
So, I used some creative license. Sue me.
Larry:
"we shouldn't look to government to take our place on the front lines fighting poverty, should we?"
My point wasn't that the church ought not be taking actions, just that there's nothing biblically wrong with nations also taking actions and quite a bit of rebuke for nations that didn't.
Bubba:
"you seem intent to see the Old Testament as not only teaching us to care for the poor...but also to require us to do so through government programs"
I nowhere said that the Bible requires us to use the gov't only. I did point out the biblical record of condemnation of nations that didn't.
My not having a problem as a citizen with gov't assistance does not preclude private assistance. In fact, I think private assistance is often if not always better, if insufficient.
Thanks everyone.
Yay! I hope you find the perfect parcel!
How do you know that Jeremiah 5, to pick a passage you quoted, is particular in denouncing a lack of public assistance?
Individuals in ancient times -- wealthy landowners and businessmen -- were utterly incapable of taking up the cases of orphans and defending the rights of the needy? Really?
A rhetorical question, perhaps. Have a good Thanksgiving.
Dan doesn't use the gleaning laws or other agrarian measures as exact rules, but as analogies for the kinds structural supports needed. Not everything needs to be a handout, either,--neither from church nor govt. I was listening today to an interview on NPR with Mohammed Yanus, this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner, who, as founder of Grameen Bank, pioneered in micro-credit loans to the poor: $200 or less, no collateral, 99% repayment rate. It is one of the ways that Yanus is working from grassroots up to wipe out poverty in his native Bangladesh and inspiring similar projects globally.
Injustice to the poor, along with idolatry (and the two are often linked) are the two major reasons the Bible gives for the Exile. God takes this treatment of the poor--by individuals, churches, and national governments, seriously.
I add: Dan is absolutely right that the VAST MAJORITY of U.S. welfare is to rich corporations, not to the poor. Also, the vast majority of our foreign aid is not development aid, but military aid--and most of that to Israel. Per capita, the U.S., contrary to popular opinion, is one of the most miserly in development aid.
Thanks for the addition, Michael. I'm stepping away from the computer for a bit, feel free to carry on in my absence.
Michael:"Dan doesn't use the gleaning laws or other agrarian measures as exact rules, but as analogies for the kinds structural supports needed."
Ah. I see. Not cheesemakers specifically but diary workers in general.
"Wouldn't you agree that churches need to first sell all their properties, get rid of salaries to ministers and use the tithes and offering money for the poor, needy, widows and orphans?"
Sarcasm, I hope. For while I'm all for helping the genuinely needy, Paul, writing to the Galatians, says "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith...."
Especially... Let's care for the household of faith first and foremost and all other needs secondly. How would it look to those who aren't Christian if we ignored the needs of our own? Jesus said that this is how the world would know we are his followers... if we have love for one another.
And allow me to echo Madcap.... "this example is that it requires the gleaners to glean, to be proactive. The command wasn't to harvest it for them and deliver it to their homes..." Much like our current welfare system.
elashley,
What I wrote was not intended to be sarcastic. Though upon rereading it, it may appear that way. Forgive me.
The NT examples of giving to the poor, the needy, the widows, orphans and church planters (missionaries) includes helping the saints in Jerusalem, the widows of believers, Paul etc.
Judaism needs a temple and paid clergy but Christianity does not. So, by selling all church property and cutting back on paid clergy, Christianity will be able to achieve its purposes in a faster manner.
I know it is a radical idea, but it is scriptural.
Larry, one of my heroes, Roger Williams, also wrote against paid clergy. It's an idea that has repeatedly surfaced in church history by thoughtful people. But there is also the ancient view that the pastor needs to be able to devote all of her or his time to care of the flock which bi-vocational ministers cannot do. I am not of one mind on the matter.
I also agree with the point about encouraging work, too. The best anti-poverty programs create jobs, not handouts. But scripture also commands almsgiving, handouts, because it recognizes people falling through the cracks and needing assistance, now.
"But there is also the ancient view that the pastor needs to be able to devote all of her or his time to care of the flock which bi-vocational ministers cannot do."
Perhaps, but would it not be a better situation if all contributed to the body in the ways in which they were gifted, thereby allowing the "pastor" to work a regular job & contribute in the way he is gifted ... just like everyone else? Should we all not lead in the areas where we are gifted rather than depending on one "professional" religious person to do the work of the entire body. Michael, I know that that is not what you were saying, but we might have a body that performed all of it's functions more efficiently if we considered modifing our current model ... which looks a lot like corporate America to me! Peace ... Frankie.
Happy thanksgiving
When that gov't assistance breeds, nurtures and insures those who have no intention of doing anything but taking advantage of that assistance, it goes WAY beyond the biblical model.
Get a little perspective on life, Dan.
I mean...c'mon!
Post a Comment