Blog
Part 3 in a series on A Biblical Answer to Poverty

SUNSHINE BLOG 2-01Editor’s Note: Today we continue our series of excerpts from IFWE’s forthcoming book, For the Least of These: A Biblical Answer to Poverty, due to be released in early 2014. In this post Dr. Glenn Sunshine continues his discussion of poverty by examining the role of government in addressing poverty relief. 

In my last post exploring “who are the poor?”, I discussed biblical definitions of the poor and the rich. Let’s take this analysis further. What responsibilities does the state have to the poor? There are several biblical and historical underpinnings that can help us answer this question.

The Bible teaches that those who are better off have positive responsibilities to those who are poor. We are to see to it that their needs are met, and we are to do it in such a way that we preserve their dignity (e.g. Deuteronomy 24:10). The emphasis on work as an essential part of human dignity was a unique contribution of Judaism and Christianity to world culture, but its implications for helping the poor have often been forgotten.

Scripture is clear that when we are confronted with immediate, emergency needs, we meet them (James 1:27). It is important, however, not to create situations that force the poor into dependency.

What are the Responsibilities of the State to the Poor?

In considering poverty relief, it is important to discuss the responsibilities of the state to the poor. The Bible was written in an era in which state-run social welfare programs simply did not exist. Biblical instructions concerning the poor were thus written with the assumption that any aid given to the poor would come directly from members of the community.

Biblical teaching suggests the principle function of the government is to administer justice impartially (Leviticus 19:15). The second key point about government is that Jesus is Lord, and Caesar is not. As Jesus taught, Christians were prepared to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” – they refused to render to Caesar the things that were God’s (Matthew 22:20-22). This amounts to a de facto insistence on limited government.

Christianity is unique among the world’s major religions in that it established itself in society without support of the state. Social welfare was handled through families, private individuals, benevolent organizations, and churches all the way into the early twentieth century. There was an emphasis on local solutions rather than the top-down approach of the government.

Unintended Consequences

The New Deal was the force that changed the biblical and limited role of government to a more hands-on approach to social welfare. This process was accelerated in the 1960s by the Great Society and the War on Poverty. These efforts yielded some positive results, but also created a number of serious, negative side effects.

For example, in the 1960s, my mom taught in inner-city Newark where most of her students were on welfare. In an effort to prevent cheating the system, welfare laws stipulated that families would receive reduced benefits if the father lived at home because he presumably would be working and thus be ineligible for the program. But there were no jobs. To make ends meet, fathers had to leave their households. The net result is that the Great Society drove fathers out of their homes, destroying the fabric of many impoverished African-American families. The result has been in effect a permanent underclass, locked in a cycle of dependency on government—exactly the opposite of the kind of true aid advocated in Scripture.

Further Issues with Public Welfare

Federalizing social welfare leads to two other consequences. First, it is inefficient and generally ineffective because it requires an ever-expanding bureaucracy to write regulations and administer programs. This results in skyrocketing costs that drive governments to bankruptcy. When this happens, the truly poor and needy end up worse off than they started.

Second, dependency on government decreases liberty. Those dependent on the government have disincentives to try to find a way out of their situation. I have personally had numerous people decline work with me in a business I own because they were afraid of losing government benefits.

Further, government-run welfare is also a disincentive for churches and citizens to get involved in taking care of the poor. The new mentality is “we pay taxes for other people to do that for us.” This is not the biblical view of helping your neighbor.

None of this implies that government, even at the federal level, should not be involved in welfare. Scripture may assign other roles to the government as its primary function, but it does not forbid government involvement in caring for the poor. What it does mean is that government, especially the federal government, should not have the central responsibility to care for the needy. That responsibility properly belongs to more local agencies, especially the Church—as we’ll see next week.

What do you think is the role of the state in dealing with poverty? Leave your comments here.

Dr. Glenn Sunshine

About Dr. Glenn Sunshine

Dr. Glenn Sunshine is Professor of History and Department Chair at Central Connecticut State University, a Research Fellow at the Acton Institute, and a faculty member for the Centurions Program. Dr. Sunshine holds a B.A. in Linguistics from Michigan State University, an M.A. in Church History from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Renaissance-Reformation History from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of Why You Think the Way You Do. He and his wife, Lynn, have two children.

Please read our comment policy.
  • Peter TeWinkle

    Can you tell me how God’s commands to store grain in a central setting (Deut. 14:28) is practically different from the collection and disbursement of taxes by a city or state? Both are social safety nets and both are comprised of resources drawn from the community on a regular basis.

    Also, can you say a little more on how the Matthew 22 passage is a de facto INSISTENCE on limited government? I’ve always understood it to mean that since the coin was made in the likeness of Caesar, it belongs to Caesar. Since I am made in the likeness of God, I belong to God. I’m not sure how you insist on a limited government from that.

    Finally, I would like to challenge your notion that Christianity was established without the support of the state and that the New Deal changed the “Biblical” role of government. Didn’t Constantine, the emperor, do a lot to establish a system of Christianity throughout the world at that time?

    By the way, I’m against dependency and for dignity, but I think this site and others go too far when they imply that the Bible advocates for some form of government or another.

    • Glenn Sunshine

      The collection of grain in the Old Testament era was under
      the auspices of the Levites, not the state—in fact, the Law is given well
      before there was a unified government. It’s tricky when dealing with theocracies,
      but I would argue that the storage of grain was a function of the Temple (or Tabernacle),
      not the Palace.

      As for Matt. 22, it seems to me the clear implication is that there are some things that are not under Caesar’s authority—we cannot give to Caesar the things that are God’s. Your idea about images is interesting, but given that the most fundamental Christian confession is “Jesus is Lord,” meaning Caesar isn’t, and that Christians were willing to die for this point, it seems to me absurd to argue that either Scripture or church history argues for unlimited government. And you will find if you do an exegetical history of this passage that this has been the consensus across the centuries.

      As for Constantine, you seem to forget that he came after 300 years of church history, give or take a few decades. In the face of this, it is patently absurd to argue that Christianity did not establish itself without state support. (And this doesn’t include the church in the Persian Empire, in India, and in Ethiopia, none of which had state support in their inception or in some cases in any period of their history.)

Subscribe to receive more content like
"What Does It Mean to Help the Poor?"

CLOSE