Welfare Church or Welfare State?
Among the more continuous themes throughout Scripture is a passionate concern for the poor. The Old Testament is replete with ethical and legal mandates that benefit the poor and Jesus himself preaches justice for the poor in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the vast majority of prophetic indictments against ancient Israelite society included indifference toward the poor or, often, gross perpetration of injustice. It seems patently obvious, from the unified whole of Scripture that the Church is to take up the cause of justice and care for the poor among it. Indeed, Scripture prescribes a definite responsibility for the people of God to be advocates for the poor and care for them, spiritually and materially.
Though this definite responsibility is clearly emphasized throughout Scripture, the western Church has been unwilling to make good on its obligations. Specifically, it has been increasingly willing to voluntarily abrogate its God-given responsibility and allow the modern state to fill its void and care for the poor, especially since the twentieth century. Social welfare measures – some good, most bad – have grown increasingly popular in western countries in tandem with a decreasing sense of the Church’s responsibility to the poor. Today’s American churches are spending truckloads of money on fancy sanctuaries, family life centers (which, significantly, are usually “members only” and require a fee to join), ostentatious praise and worship productions, and other needless tidbits all the while relegating one of its most fundamental responsibilities to an entity (the state) not designed to care holistically for its members. On their face, these things are certainly not bad in and of themselves. But, when they are furthered in place of the Church’s fundamental mission, they are downright sinful.
A common argument in favor of the status quo posits that the Church is not living up to its obligations so “someone’s got to do it.” While this argument certainly has much merit, its flippancy represents part of the problem. In fact, this argument is a telling summary of the basic problem: since the Church is failing to care for the poor, the state, an entity not designed or equipped to best handle the task, has become the poor’s “advocate of last resort.” By going with the flow and arguing for maintenance of the status quo, we are perpetuating the problem, continually ignoring our Scriptural obligations, and, I would argue, falling into sin. Instead of shirking our God-given responsibility, Christians ought to passionately argue for the church to stop wasting its resources and put them to use more pragmatically, to care for the poor, and further the kingdom of God.
Does this mean Christians should advocate the immediate dismantling of the welfare state? Probably not. But, it does mean that the Church should work tirelessly to make the welfare state a needless institution. While the precise role of the state will always be a source of debate and contention, Christians of all stripes must agree that primary care for the poor belongs to the Church and we must embrace that fundamental responsibility with all of our hearts. Perhaps when the Church begins doing what it ought to do, then we can rightfully talk about the state picking up its slack.
“O God, to those who have hunger give bread; and to those who have bread, [give] the hunger for justice.”