Caring for the Poor... Again

[go4tli]

What I hear on the radio from Evangelicals is that it is the church's
job, not government's, to care for the poor. I would dispute that
either/or proposition -- after all, the laws God gave Israel included
government-mandated redistribution of wealth -- but for our purposes,
let's accept the premise. It is the church's job, period.

Here's the shameful thing: Many of our Evangelical churches don't
*like* poor people. We look down on them. We assume irresponsible
behavior is the cause of their condition. We stand in judgment,
determining who is and who is not a member of the "deserving poor".
We get excited when political candidates demonize poor people --
especially those with darker skin -- as the cause of many of our
problems. Worthy poor people live in places like Bangladesh and
Mozambique. Here in America, we just have lazy people.

We say it's the church's job to care for the poor, and simultaneously
attend churches that don't help people pay rent or buy groceries.
It's the church's job, we say, and yet the pastoral leadership has not
asked the business leaders in the congregation to prioritize the
hiring of ex-felons. It's the church's job, we cry, and we don't
offer affordable child care during the week so single moms can earn a
living. It's the church's job, we scream, but the kids at poorly-
performing public schools will have to go elsewhere to find tutors and
mentors. It's the church's job, we whine, but you can't expect us to
take care of *all* the medical bills you can't afford. It's the
church's job, we gripe, but if you have an addiction, you're on your
own -- especially since you might be dangerous and steal from us.

It's the church's job to care for the poor -- but that does *not*
imply that a church, or any of its members, should actually live
anywhere enar a neighborhood with lots of poor people. It's the
church's job to care for the poor, but willingly exposing ourselves to
the same challenges the poor face is completely intolerable. It's the
church's job to care for the poor, but the safety and comfort of the
middle-class church members must naturally take precedence.

It's obvious, then. There's so much pain and suffering and unmet need
in spite of billions of dollars of government funds. If only those
governmental efforts were stopped, then the church would be able to
step in, and things would immediately get so much better.

"But," you may protest, "*my* church isn't like that!" Fair enough.
I don't think mine is, either. :) But here's the rub: Given what I
hear Evangelicalism's appointed leadership saying, and given what I
think I understand about the human propensity to follow rather than to
carve out one's own path (especially since Evangelicals can be *mean*
when you don't agree with them in every detail), I don't think there
are enough decent churches out there to make switching care for the
poor completely over to the churches a net good. This is partly
because the ones who want to do something *are doing it already*;
taking away governmental support would simply seem to generate an
*enormous* net loss, and nothing about the greedy rhetoric I've been
hearing from vocal Evangelical leadership causes me to believe that
there will be a magical and massive upswell of compassion in the
American Christian church.

The sad thing is that I don't even think many of them *realize*
they're worshipping Mammon. It's simply become part of the backdrop
for what Christians say on certain hot-button issues for them,
regardless of anything Christ Himself might have had to say.