In a civil society there has always been a debate as to whether meeting the needs of the poor among us (welfare) should be a function of the church or the state (government). From a Christian doctrine standpoint, assisting the poor should be a function of the church. However, the church has no way of forcing members to pay in order to support church welfare programs. Christian doctrine calls for a tithing (10% of increase) of the faithful. If members of the various Christian sects did, in fact, pay tithing, as called for in the Book of Malachi, there would be more than sufficient funds to provide for the poor and the needy. However, most congregations still pass around a collection plate, which may provide only enough to support the needs of the Pastor.
As far as I am aware, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church which tithes its members and also provides a means of collecting what is referred to as a Fast Offering. A Fast Offering is defined as fasting for two meals on the first Sunday of each month with the equivalent in money going into a fund to assist the poor. The Bishop of each ward (who serves without pay) then determines how and where the money can best aid the needy in the ward and community. Those who are assisted are expected to work for what they receive. They may clean the church or work at the local Bishop’s Store House, etc. LDS families are taught to be self sufficient: putting funds away for difficult times, staying out of debt and to have a year’s supply of food in storage. Naturally, there are those who cannot do that, i.e., families who have serious health problems or who are handicapped to some degree, and it takes everything they have to survive.
But because most Christian congregations do not have a system to provide for their poor, the needs of their poor must default to the state. At first glance, philosophically, liberal people, who are often Socialists by nature, ‘appear’ to be more Christlike in their attitude toward providing for the poor. They believe in the distribution of wealth, taking from those that have, via taxation, and distributing that wealth to those who claim they have a need. Most current government welfare programs are very liberal by nature, and there is no expectation that those who have made a claim, will have to do anything to earn what they have been given. Nor is there any deadline established requiring that they become trained and/or educated, so that eventually they will become self sufficient and end their need for welfare. Socialistic welfare is badly managed and tends to make people lifelong dependents and wards of the state.
Years ago we had a woman from Lithuania living with us for a few months while she was learning how students are registered at our local university. She was an employee of a university in Lithuania. One weekend she went with a few friends to a nearby city where she volunteered to serve the needy in a food line. As she served a person who looked perfectly healthy and relatively young, she asked him why he didn’t get a job and be self supporting. His answer was clear and simple: “Why? When I can get free food and help from people without having to work for it.” Not all welfare recipients would be that honest and forthcoming. John D. Rockefeller said that: “Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.” That is a different way of putting the old saying, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish and you feed him for life.” There is some evidence that those who are wards of the state, long term welfare recipients, will always vote for the liberal candidates, because they believe it will more than likely assure them of continued welfare and the leisure life.
As mentioned above liberal legislators ‘appear’ to be more charitable because of their willingness and quickness to legislate a variety of welfare programs designed to assist the poor. However, studies have shown that liberals who are most supportive of welfare programs personally contribute significantly less of their income to charity than those who are politically conservative. Liberals are also more likely than conservatives to take advantage of tax loopholes, so they can pay less than a fair income tax. There is a related story about a local Charity Organization who, after reviewing their donations, realized that a wealthy, liberal lawyer had never donated to charity. The executive decided that he would pay the lawyer a visit to see if he could solicit a donation from him. After introductions, the lawyer said, “Do you realize that my mother is 85 years old and very sickly; why her medications cost more per month than she makes as income.” The executive said, “No! I didn’t.” The lawyer went on, “And did you know that my brother came home from the war badly wounded and is in a wheelchair for life and unable to work?” “No. I didn’t know that either.” On a roll, the lawyer cut him off and said, “And did you know that my sister’s husband just left her and their three little children for another woman and that she is penniless?” The executive said; “No, I had no idea.” Then the lawyer said, “And if I refuse to give them anything, what makes you think I would give you anything?”
The conservative view is that welfare assistance is important and even a good thing, as long as the recipient is going to school or in some way trying to train himself to qualify for and be willing to take a job as soon as one is available. People should view welfare as a temporary support system for only a limited period of time. There is a legitimate need for a welfare program, just as there are legitimate welfare recipients, but welfare programs should be closely yoked with job training programs.
Blaise Pascal commented that “Christianity is strange. It bids man recognize that he is vile, even abominable, and bids him desire to be like God. Without such a counterpoise, this dignity would make him horribly vain, or this humiliation would make him terribly abject (bad).” Pascal stated the truth, the scriptures remind us that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. We are also reminded, therein, that we are His children—precious to Him, and that we have the potential for greatness. Yes! Greatness, if we work, always, at becoming more Christlike in nature and in behavior.
As individual Christians, what is our obligation to those who need our assistance? A Christian should love his fellow men and therefore want to do unto them as he would have them do also to him. Mosiah said: “That ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.” (Mosiah 4:26) If this is the commandment how do we elect to abide by it? C.S. Lewis described the dilemma best, “I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard, common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charitable expenditures exclude them.” If we would follow or abide by C.S. Lewis’ suggestion, we would probably be fulfilling our Christian obligation financially.
Now, how about the charitable giving of one’s time and energy? We have an obligation to paint the widow’s house, repair the leak in a handicapped person’s roof and visit the sick and the downcast, etc. These are things that may not cost us money, or very little, and yet they may be as important or more important than giving of our income. May Heavenly Father bless us to know in our hearts when and how much to give of our income and to be guided by the spirit to know who and when another has need of our hearts and our hands.