Connections…. 

 

Evangelical Attitudes Toward Welfare

 

My whole country has pretty much given up on welfare.  Even the Democrats have admitted the “helping hand” they intended to offer didn’t turn out so well.  After all, the leadership to “change welfare was we know it” came from Bill Clinton, commander-in-chief of the Democrats in the 90’s.  Evangelicals have generally thought for a long time that the welfare program in this country was generally a waste of money that would be better left in the pockets of the taxpayers than given to the so-called poor.  Evangelicals want to help the poor—it is a biblical command.  But they generally don’t think welfare programs do the trick.  Over the past 25 years several “doctrines” have emerged on welfare that are generally accepted in most evangelical churches.  By “doctrine” I mean these views are widely accepted as the core presuppositions when dealing with this issue—thus they are “doctrines.” Do these doctrines reflect the generally accepted beliefs in your ownchurch:

 

1. “Most welfare money goes to the bureaucracy, not the poor.”

Evangelicals don’t like squandering money on government workers who they consider to be low-productivity employees pushing paper and managing regulations. Evangelicals suspect welfare money is just another way to support people who “wouldn’t make it in the real world” and the money doesn’t get to the people who really need it—the poor.   Evangelicals would more likely support a program that got the money right into the hands of needy people without middle class government employees scooping off a bunch of it on the way.

 

 

2. “Helping the poor creates the “client poor” who will become continually dependant” 

Most evangelicals are amateur economists and sociologists enough to theorize that helping people in the short haul can hurt them in the long run.  That is, giving handouts can simply reduce motivation for the poor to get a job and permanent aid merely may turn these people into the “client poor” who forever need aid.  Thus evangelicals like “welfare to work” efforts or even some educational programs that enable the poor to climb up the ladder out of poverty and be able to support themselves.  Many evangelicals are willing to help people in poverty for a while—but not for 20 years or more.  They think that if you’ve been pouring money for twenty years or more into a poor family and they’re not “getting on their feet and taking care of themselves” you are now “spending good money after bad.”

 

 

3. “The money is better left in the pockets of the people to help the poor personally.”

Perhaps this is the #1 doctrine of all among evangelicals.  They believe that if all government welfare programs were discontinued, welfare social workers were laid off and the equivalent amount of money was given back to the people in reduced taxes the Christians could then personally have enough money to help the poor as individuals and as a church.  Evangelicals who believe deeply in personal devotions, Taking Jesus as a personal savior that results in a personal relationship with Christ also believe in personal welfare—they’d like to give this money individually, or at most through their own local church.  The assumption is the closer to the local level—even individual level—you get the “better bang for the buck” we’d get.

 

 

Am I right? Have I summarized the general doctrine of welfare among evangelicals?  I’m not saying this is my doctrine—it isn’t—but is it generally most evangelical’s doctrine?  Is it?

 

 

___________________________________

 

 

 

So what does all this have to do with religion? 

 

Here it is.  Over the last 20 years evangelicals are adopting similar attitudes toward missions.  It is hard to hold one set of values for your politics and switch to the opposite values when you deal with spiritual and physical poverty in the church.  I dare you—go back and re-read the three welfare doctrines again—and this time think of the emerging view of missions.

 

If you need hints check my notes below—but it is better to think for yourself.

 

 

 

 

Interesting, huh?

 

 

Keith Drury

Thanksgiving day,  November 25, 2004 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions and hints:

 

1. “Most welfare money goes to the bureaucracy, not the poor.”

 

Concerning missions….

-Is our money going mostly to white middle class missionaries and not the needy?

-How much of a “cut” does the missions headquarters “government workers”  take?

-How much of this money actually gets into the hands of the church or needy people?

 

 

2. “Helping the poor creates the “client poor” who will become continually dependant” 

 

Concerning missions….

-Do my denominational structures create dependency or turn churches loose after several years?

-Are we still sending missionaries to countries even after 20 years?  After 100 years?

-Can we help people get on their feet better by money than missionaries—like giving through World Hope or World Vision?

 

 

3. “The money is better left in the pockets of the people to help the poor personally.”

 

Concerning missions….

-Should we be equally concerned about missions “across the street” than “around the world?”

-Should we put into our “missions budget” local and regional needs, maybe even local church needs?

-Should we send more money where we can see it—on our own missions trips or sending our own short-termers?

 

 

Do you see any connections with what has been happening in missions over the last 20 years between the welfare doctrines and the emerging Missions doctrine? 

 

Are they related at all? 

 

Interesting huh?