The Lord’s Way vs. The Government’s Way

For those of you new to Free Money Finance, I post on The Bible and Money every Sunday. Here's why.

The following is an excerpt from the book DoesYour Bag Have Holes.

The Lord and the government both have an approach to care for the poor and the needy but the approaches are complete opposites (see below).

Caring for the Poor and Needy

• Voluntary (The Lord's Way) versus Force (The Government's Way)
• Work/Industry (The Lord's Way) versus Idleness (The Government's Way)
• Personal Responsibility (The Lord's Way) versus Government Responsibility (The Government's Way)
• Self-Reliance (The Lord's Way) versus Dependence (The Government's Way)

Voluntary vs. Force

Under the Lord’s way, the poor and needy will be taken care of by individual action and charity. It is done voluntarily. The history of America is one of individuals, churches, and other organizations voluntarily taking care of the lame, sick, and destitute. Under the Lord’s way, government plays no part in caring for the poor and those in need. When a person is unable to provide for themselves, the family should assist. When the family is unable to meet the needs, fellow citizens ought to stand ready to help and support.

Many countries have attempted to use the power of government to care for the poor and needy by force, but in every case the improvements have been marginal at best. In the long run they have created more poverty. Government welfare rewards negative and undesirable behaviors such as idleness and thus produces more of it. What would happen if every time a child hit his sibling, you paid him a dollar to stop? Would the child hit his sibling more or less?

Henry Grady Weaver, author of The Mainspring of Human, wrote,  “Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind in the mass through some pet formula of their own. . . The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional ‘do gooders,’ who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others—with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.”

Work/Industry vs. Idleness

Speaking to Adam, the Lord emphasized the need for work saying, “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground.” (Genesis 3:19, New King James Version) With government welfare, initiative and work are replaced with handouts. If someone gets “something for nothing” that means some else gets “nothing for something.” When you accept an unearned handout from the government, you are taking something that does not belong to you. That is the definition of stealing. This is clearly not the Lord’s way. The Lord has commanded, “Thou shalt not steal.” (Exodus 20:15, King James Version) Some may rationalize the acceptance of government handouts by saying, “It is legal, and I didn’t take the money from anyone.” What is right and what is legal are two different things. Prostitution is legal in the state of Nevada, but still clearly violates the laws of God. By accepting government handouts, you contribute to the problem and willingly participate in a program based on theft by force.

Government welfare creates and promotes a class of people who can get “wealth without work,” one of Mahatma Gandhi’s seven social sins that will destroy a society. One who gets wealth without work through government welfare is a societal parasite. History proves that once implemented government welfare grows. If it is not stopped, eventually the parasites will kill the host and the economy will collapse.

Personal Responsibility vs. Government Responsibility

The Lord’s plan for caring for the poor is based on the principle of individual responsibility. As taught the apostle Paul, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8, King James Version) In most instances, government welfare dismisses the principles of work and responsibility and promotes the idea that “the government will take care of you.” No able Christian will shift the burden of his own or his family’s well being to someone else.

Self-Reliance vs. Dependence

The following story from the Reader’s Digest illustrates the dangers of dependence. “In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine, great flocks of seagulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. . . The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the . . . seagulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves, and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets. Now the seagulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a hand-out. A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet’ . . . Let’s not be gullible gulls. We . . . must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence.” The Lord’s way works to restore those in need to a state of self-reliance, while government welfare creates an ever-growing number who are dependant on the government.

In an attempt to eliminate classes, government welfare programs create two classes: slaves and dependants. Government welfare supports idleness through theft and removes the responsibility from the people to care for themselves. These programs violate the U.S. constitution and the Lord’s way of caring for those in need. The government’s approach to taking care of those in need is a counterfeit alternative to the Lord’s way and is wrong and immoral.

Comments

[dogatemyfinances]

I don't understand why government charity is "something for nothing" but private charity is not. Wouldn't free money, regardless of the source, encourage idleness?

[Ski Daddy]

I liked this article. Another big problem with creating well fare programs is the difficulty to remove those programs later - just like the seagulls.

Anyways on another note - Can you add the facebook function to the blog? I would link things to my facebook profile.

[StLPastor]

I was struck by how far from any biblical principles this article is-the division between God's way and the Government's way reflect neither the Biblical principles of Government or of private charity.
There is nothing in the Bible that would lead someone to believe that the government is not a useful tool to help the poor and needy. The religious government set up in the Old Testament included rules for the care of widows and orphans, as well as foreigners who might be in need, and the tax of the day (the tithe) was used in part to care for the poor.
Equally, Jesus supported private giving to the poor regardless of whether the poor deserved the assistance, such as his command to the rich young ruler to give all he had to the poor and follow Jesus. This was not a command to give only to industrious poor people.

Next, there is significant evidence that providing support to the poor does not actually increase idleness. I grant that communism is a failed experiment, but the social safety net in Europe has drastically reduced the level of poverty, chronic homelessness, and violent crime in comparison to America, and improved life expectancy and health care outcomes. Equally, American society is much better for the vast majority of people because of the social safety net, most obviously public education, social security and medicare. My personal opinion is that the American social safety net falls below the level suggested by the Biblical model of care for neighbor and the needy.

Finally, I do not think social safety nets qualify as stealing. Private property, money, and the like are social constructs-the notion that you morally deserve what you can tear out of the market is not a Christian ideal, it is greed idolized as a virtue. Just because greed is one of the more powerful forces in the human heart, and social systems that recognize that humans are essentially fallen creatures motivated by evil are most effective (e.g. capitalism), does not mean that we have to worship the free market. The kingdom of God is one where the last shall be first and the first shall be last, not one where the free market reigns unchecked.

[Ben]

Voluntary has nothing to do with the "Lord's Way". Many people and organizations believe in helping their own and not others, Religious organizations offering help to members of their same religion or using peoples times of need to proselytize to them about the benefits of "the one True Way". Organizations like The United Way and the Red Cross (Crescent) provide charity for many people in times of need without the urge to spread the word.

The government doesn't force anyone to provide charity others. People contribute to live in a society (via taxes). In return they gain access to benefits, such as clean water, police protection, and, yes, charity in times of need, but you could easily opt out of it all and not pay taxes by moving to the middle of a forest and living off the land.

As for the Gullible Gull. Why is it I always hear that parable, but almost in always the exact same way, including formatting (missing text, use of spacers, etc.)? In any case, the proposition of self-reliance is a stange one. How many people are truly self reliant? How many people could hunt a deer without a gun, build a fire without matches, or set a broken bone? Society formed in order to minimize the need for self-reliance. We came together because we were more likely to survive as a group then by ourselves. And as our groups became larger, it became necessary to form governments, otherwise there was no focus. If you look around the world it was government bodies (some better, some worse, some with religion, others without) that were able to build some of the most amazing things like the Hover Dam. They also provided the interstate highways that connected the U.S., the Bridges that would otherwise isolated one side of water from another, the massive airports and air infrastructure, not to mention the predecessor of the Internet. I don't see the churches providing access to information outside of their dogma.

Other then that, love the blog :-).

Ben

[Curt]

I love the post. It opens up a conversation about whether government handouts are helpful or not. I have had many discussions about this very thing. The government does have a valid role in helping the poor and needed, but sometimes they go too far and create more social problems. It takes constant adjustment and their are always examples on both sides.

In the end, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. What matters is if people trust in God as their provider or if they put their trust in something else - like the government. When people put their trust in something other then God (like the government), they turn away from Gods ways of loving each other. That is the problem. Government handouts are dangerous because they can tempt us to put our trust in something other than God. But putting your trust in the government instead of God is just as much our fault as the govenments. Some people happily collect government handouts while maintaining their faith in God as their provider, realizing that God has blessed their government with the resources to support them.

[Ben E.]

I disagree with Ben and StLPastor. The government's duty is not the administration of social welfare programs, it is the duty of the church and the family.

Unfortunately, the government has stepped into this role because the church has abdicated its duty to provide for the impoverished.

This giving toward charitable organizations is "voluntary" in the sense that God commands us to care for the needy.

StLPastor remarks that "American society is much better for the vast majority of people because of the social safety net, most obviously public education, social security, and Medicare." These programs are illuminate the problem with government control.

Public education (I refer to K-12) is yet another role the has been abdicated - not by the church, but by the parents. It is the mother's duty to raise, nurture and educate the children - not the state's. We are indoctrinated, however, that the prevalent norm now is to relinquish that education so that (oftentimes) the mother can pursue her career. A sad commentary on the moral failings of the family unit.

Social security. I need not mention what will happen a few decades down the road. Again, it is not the government's role to step in and provide financial support. The church (alms) has the duty to care for the poor. Many times this problem is caused my families inadequately planning and providing for their own. Social security is destined to fail, but with all that it has done, society is harmed more than it is helped with the implementation of this government planning.

Medicare too has its share of problems with funding. The government simply cannot account for the baby boomers which are beginning to flood into the system. The long term costs are saddled with the younger generations and their offspring.

The government does have obligations, just not the ones - social programs, medical, future financial planning - ascribed to it.

[SAHM]

This is a great post. Unfortunately, I think too many people are reading that we should do away with government. As has been pointed out, the government does have its place. There are places in scripture that tells us we are to submit to the authority of the government and to pay our taxes. The scripture also tells us that we are to take care of the poor. The big difference between government welfare program and charity programs is that the charities usually screen their clients. They offer ways to help- not just a handout. They "teach a man to fish" and not just "give the man a fish".

I agree with Ben E about public education and the fact so many parents have abdicated their responsibilities to their children. Do I believe that every parent should homeschool? No, but I believe that every parent needs to consider it an option and take the responsibility of their children's education upon themselves- whether they choose a public, private, or homeschool.

Thank you FMF for posting this great article.

[Richard Miller]

I am fine with the government forcing us to follow the Biblical principles of caring for the poor, etc.

I only have one requirement. If we are going to do that, then we are going to be consistent. From now on, the government will enforce other Biblical mandates.

No sex outside of a marriage relationship.

No gay sex.

Lust after a woman? Get caught and we will prosecute you. Yes, you will go to jail for trying to sneak that down blouse of the cute chick with the low neckline.

And that's only the beginning. And all enforced with the full force of government.

Absurd you say? No more absurd than anyone else picking out some other Biblical mandate for government enforcement.

Folks, you cannot have it both ways. Either the government's job is to enforce Biblical mandates or it is not. It cannot be both.

BTW, Ski Daddy, your comment is so sickeningly devoid of factual basis, and so full of unsupportable left wing pablum, that it isn't even worth refuting. The absurdity of it is it's own best rebuttal.

[StLPastor]

Richard, you agree with Ski Daddy's comment, it is mine you take issue with. Just thought I'd take the blame for my own left wing pablum. I'd suggest that the idea that private individuals can provide a level of social support close to that of the government has been pretty roundly discredited by history, since the increase in the social safety net has corresponded to an improvement of every metric we might use to measure quality of life in North America and Europe.

I actually agree that there is a good discussion to have about what role the government has in terms of providing a social safety net, obviously the government can go too far, but to abandon all social safety net does reduce the social mobility of the poor.
Anyway, my main reason for wanting a social safety net is more based on a desire for a functioning society and a good social contract. Gross poverty and vast gaps in the distribution of wealth leads to nasty results in a country (increased crime, threat of the breakdown of social order, oligarchies, etc.), so I vote in such a way to avoid these dangers in the country I love. Physical health is not something that we 'deserve' or can predict, so I vote to share the burden of medical care as broadly over the society as possible.

While social security risks insolvency in 50 years or so, and Medicare somewhat sooner, this seems a minor concern compared to other crises our nation faces in terms of global warming and the need to shift away from a petroleum dependent economy.

Finally, while home education makes sense for people who can afford to have one spouse at home, the number of single parent households in this country and of course the number of lower educated families who would lack the skills to educate as well as upper income families seems ample justification for a public system. I'm not interested in punishing or rewarding children more than they already are for the status of their parents.

Grace and peace

[rwh]

The problem I have with the post and with a few of the comments is the absolutist nature of it all. I could not begin to respond with the eloquence of StL Pastor but I find his/her view to be much more reasonable, well thought out and respectful of divergent views.

And Ben E: I couldn't disagree more with your comment on education. If your wife is in agreement then it works for you. But don't make absolute statements that it's the woman's place to (insert dogmatic belief here)...I know a whole lot of women who would let you know in no small measure what they think of your views on what women should and shouldn't do.

[tim]

Good article.
Makes you think.

We all need help at some time but if people would do their best to be self reliant, it would definitelty improve the world.

A wise man once said "If everyone swept in front of their own house, how much cleaner would the world be?

TA Smith

[Jim]

The article is much too absolutist.

Charitable aid from religious groups and government social services can both greatly benefit society and neither is immune negative impacts or from abuses.

I don't see any reason why aid given by a church somehow makes you industrious but aid from the government automatically makes you lazy.

Jim

[John]

Great post. Another post that's got me excited about reading "Does Your Bag Have Holes".

I do believe the excerpt is largely biblical. The early church *was* used to take care of the needy. Look at Acts 6 and Acts 2:44 to read how they took care of those in need. It's still the case in many countries. The missionaries we support in Western Europe get the call from the government when children or families are in need.

Not to add another dimension to the discussion, but don't confuse the Lord's Way with the (current) Church's Way. Unfortunately they're often not the same. The American church has dropped the ball. Greed as a (American) virtue does not stop at the church door. What brought about the American welfare system....the Great Depression where people were not willing to sell their possessions and divide it "as anyone had need" (from the aforementioned Acts reference). Once that was over, why worry about it when the government's taking care of it.

There should be a social net; it's called the church. Not the Catholics, not the Methodists, not the Assembly of God, but Christ's church. The church where I can see a need as a church leader and send a needy person to Father Henry, Reverend Jones, or Pastor Hernandez, knowing that church will meet the need. To say it can't happen is to say God's arm *is* too short which is another issue in the American church. Plus we are seeing it in our city. The churches are finally coming together to meet the needs of the "least of these".

[Tim]

this post is way off. how did govt become mutually exclusive of god? govt's are the only entities which can harness sufficient resources and act quickly in times of need, whereas individual volunteerism won't have much affect. aren't there all those sayings about one we are weak united we are strong, etc, etc? the problem isn't govt per se the will to do it. ok, i agree that there will be a certain amount of entitlement under a governmental system, but god's way as you've written depends on the free will of people to help other people and there isn't much of that going on. and who can blame them for not wanting to help since you have so many people who aren't willing to help themselves? not to mention that god's way also ignores the fact that the vast majority of the human population doesn't believe in a christian god.

[laura.s.d.]

I like your blog for the most part, the ideas I get from it are pretty basic, though often overlooked because of the way we live.

I understand where you are coming from with this entry. But I believe "The Lord's Way" probably has a lot more to do with close knit groups of people, in smaller towns than in larger cities. It's hard to care about people you hardly know.

Without the government there to help people, the often overlooked, or those not part of a group, may not get the help they need. And while there are plenty anecdotal stories about idleness and government handouts, it just may be one of the side effects of doing mostly good.

[Ellen]

I'm very grateful that we do not live in a theocracy, and that each religious group in the US has the freedom to pursue its ideals of charity however it prefers.

I'm also glad that the majority of voters in this country believe that taking care of the poor and disadvantaged is a societal value, not merely a religious one.