Many people, especially in the church, labor under the false assumption that all of the issues associated with poverty could be solved if those of us with money were more charitable and if those without money exercised more personal responsibility.
This notion is rooted in a worldview that unduly elevates the importance of individualism while under-valuing the role of collective or community solutions and responsibility. Further, this perspective underestimates the power of systemic forces undergirding and guaranteeing poverty's perpetuation.
Most of the root causes of poverty cannot be overcome by well-intentioned, charitable people.
For example, the housing policy of the federal government affects millions of people. If funding is eliminated, curtailed or frozen for, say, the Section 8 voucher program, the sheer scale of the result would overwhelm any charitable response.
Issues of this magnitude require sound, fair and just public policy responses.
In the case of the Section 8 housing program, cutbacks actually affect affordable housing developers, as well as tenants. If development is not incentivised by initiatives like Section 8, market forces tend to take over, driving developers out of the business of creating this much needed housing stock.
It is curious to watch church folk organize, rally and lobby for pro-life issues related to abortion. It is clear pro-life advocates want a systemic, public solution to protect unborn children.
Many of these same people are quick to criticize government intervention to assure legal and systemic protection from the devastation of extreme poverty for the poor and their children who survive birth.
The problems associated with poverty and inner city communities cannot be adequately addressed without public sector involvement. Charity does not establish justice. Often charity turns out to be a rather sophisticated way for people with most of the power to maintain it while being congratulated for their community service.
Sorry to be so harsh, but I've been watching this awhile now.
At best charity provides a short-term, temporary response to the wounds of injustice.
Church people would do well to read again the book of Nehemiah in the Hebrew Bible. Here we observe a classic public, private partnership resulting in the renewal of an entire city.
Charity, no matter how well-intentioned, is never enough.
Announcement from Duke Memorial UMC
1 week ago
9 comments:
Another fine example of why Larry has been named the 2004-5 Agency Director of the Year for the United Way of Metropolitan Dallas!
Thank you for your leadership of our community and of our world, Larry. May God continue to bless CDM, and may His love continue to guide your work in our community.
you contrast between the church's response to what it clearly considers evil in abortion and what it apparently thinks is regrettable in poverty rings true. Thanks!
Your comments on Abortion and Poverty are so true. It should be on the front page of every paper in the nation and on every newscast on every channel. Christianity has been given a very bad name of late. Shame on all of us for not standing up and being counted for Jesus. Keep us the great work and get the Word out.
Judy
SLC
So true! I hadn't thought about the hypocrisy of church folk--especially these days--being so adamant about saying the government shouldn't be involved in our lives and shouldn't be responsible for people's survival while at the same time using and depending on the government to legislate their own moralities and agenda. I have, however, often thought about the hypocrisy of being pro-life only until the child is born.
My request is not for individual OR government charity for these children and adults...simply justice--in resources for inner-city schools, in adequate wages for under-educated workers, in affordable access to higher education, in adequate healthcare for hard working people, in respect and dignity for all citizens. Where are the church folk in advocating for those things?!
I don't question that more Christians should be involved in helping craft political solutions for those who are in need, but I'm not sure the comparison between abortion support and other areas of public policy isn't an oversimplification. It's easy to advocate justice for unborn babies--the problem and the solution are clear. I can also easily raise my voice for justice in tax laws and other areas of public policy, but what does that mean in terms of application? I think a lot of people don't enter that arena for that reason--the complexities are enormous, and if it's a science, we don't understand it. There are enormous variables in tax policy alone. There is no question that taxes at some level restrict economic growth, which reduces job creation, which in turn has an impact at every level of the economy. Taxes that are too low don't allow for adequate funding of necessary programs. What's the proper balance? I think you can have two individuals with equally strong motivations for a tax policy that is just, but very different ideas what that policy should look like. That's generally not so with abortion policy.
Same thing with social policy. Noble intentions do not necessarily make good policy. It is clear that policies with compassionate designs often have had negative long-term effects. I think to some extent the long list of programs that had very high-minded goals but that ended up being run very poorly or having long-term negative impacts that no one could have imagined has made people either wary of government solutions or confused enough about what to advocate for to generate a certain paralysis.
In sum, I know we're called to advocate justice for all and I don't quarrel with that. We do fall short as a body in making things happen, and we probably always will. I don't think it's entirely fair, though, to draw a comparison between an issue that is relatively simple and clear-cut with issues that are incredibly complex and often have no definitive answers. The church's response on the latter issues may be a sinful attitude of ignoring the problem or unenlightened self-interest, or it may also be simply bafflement or paralysis in the face of choices with poorly defined possible results.
Actually, Scott, much of the current justice conversation is extremely simple and when it comes to economic policy from a biblical perspective the abortion matter is more complex than the poverty issue. History shows us that tax policy that benefits a larger range of laborers and wage-earners is more just and creates more jobs than the current policy that allows the mega-rich to walk while the poor suffer more and more. Nothing complex about that. The Hebrew bible makes it clear that God had in mind a systemic approach to economic justice--see DEut. 15 as just one example. The Bible is full of teaching about justice, poverty and oppression. There is not one verse on any issue related to abortion as such. There have been problems with some programs--humans tend to create such situations. There have been abuses, just as with market solutions and relationships (Enron comes to mind!). But there have been great successes and much progress. But we are now in a period of amazing regression. And most of it is the result of failed and flawed public policy.
My argument is that abortion is simple: you either consider it taking a life or you don't. I'm not talking about the theology of the issue. I'm also not arguing the theology of seeking a tax policy that is just or social policies that alleviate poverty. My only real point is that you and I can agree on a goal: a just tax policy, as an example. Building that structure is very complex, because there are an almost infinite number of taxes that affect people, at virtually every level of government. That alone adds a couple of layers of difficulty. Then there's the fact that tax policy at any level (but especially federal)ripples throughout the economy. If you're designing a policy, you want it to be just (to be fair) but I would also want it to balance needs against economic growth, because I think any policy that ultimately destroys jobs is counter-productive in trying to help the poor. You may disagree, and probably do--but that would be exactly my point. Which is that we can share a common belief in economic justice from a Christian perspective, but because of the complexity of the issues involved (and the difficulty in understanding the long-term impact of virtually any given solution) we may have a large disagreement on what the best solution is. We may have different time horizons--long-term impacts versus short term effects. These differences make it more difficult for us to speak in a common voice as Christians.
I'm not trying to start a discussion about what policy works or whether any given policy is just. We probably agree on some and disagree on others. All I'm trying to say is that part of the reason, in my opinion, that the Christian community doesn't speak with one voice on tax or economic policy is that the issues (in terms of viable solutions) are more complex and more difficult to grasp than the perceived issues on abortion. In other words, reasonable people can agree on the ends but have minor to major differences on what the most effective means are. Some people don't address the issues because their focus is on their own self-interest. I won't argue that point. I think others don't address the issues because they're genuinely uncertain what the right answer is and how to solve the problem. For that reason, I'm saying you have to consider also the perceived complexity of the issues when comparing people's reactions to abortion and social policy. Again, I'm not saying that's the only reason it isn't addressed or isn't more adequately addressed. I am saying it is one of the reasons.
One last attempt to be clear: I'm not trying to enter into a discussion about policy. I am not arguing theology. I am simply saying that the more complex the answer to a given problem is, the less likely it is that we will speak with one voice, and the lack of unity can be attributed to many things, but it can't universally be attributed to apathy about social justice.
I should have also stated, I recognize I'm arguing a narrow point. I agree with most of what you're saying. Your blog today (Wed.) says things I've thought about our churches and that I wrestle with in my own life. The issues you point out are very real and I would never disagree with you on that. I sometimes enjoy a discussion on esoteric issues; you're spending your time wrestling with real problems. Keep your focus there; my apologies for wasting your time on a minor issue. But then, we both grew up in a background where we were expected to major in minors, so I guess I'm just carrying on the tradition!
No, no, Scott! I appreciate all that you have written! This is EXACTLY the sort of conversation that is needed. I understand your point and agree with most of what you said. It is just that I lay your words alongside what I know and see in churches in regard to poeverty, justice and even the simplest, most elementary understanding and concern for the poor and I get pretty cynical fast! Stay with me and keep talking! Love you heart and your head! Larry
Post a Comment