Welfare is One of the Great Divides
New Zealand is a nation which officially represents the Great Lie—that Man is the measure and master of all things. In its national life it is a working example of Athens, the City of Unbelief.
As such it provides an excellent case study with which to compare and contrast with the City of God. As we draw the contrasts and comparisons, certain issues emerge which become deep rift valleys between the City of Man and the City of God. These are the defining, Rubicon-like issues which betray whether we are in the broad, tree lined boulevards of Jerusalem, or the dusty dessicated ditches of Athens.
Welfare is such a defining issue. Welfare is one of the issues that tell us that Jerusalem is Jerusalem, and Athens is Athens and ne'er the twain shall meet. For Athens, welfare is a human right, and is therefore a matter of justice. The government, as the minister of justice, must therefore be involved in ensuring that all its citizens are treated with justice—which means that all its citizens are provided with welfare. In Athens, welfare is an involuntary matter. Wealth and capital must be redistributed to the poor as a matter of justice.
For Jerusalem, however, welfare is a matter of charity—that is, it is a matter of grace, not justice. Grace is always free; it cannot be compelled. In Jerusalem no-one therefore has a title, or a right in law, to welfare. In fact, as we shall see in future posts, Jerusalem's constitution prohibits the state from any involvement in welfare whatsoever. Therefore, welfare in Jerusalem is always the duty and responsibility of the voluntary, non-state sector.
The phrase “duty and responsibility” is deliberately chosen. Jerusalem abhors the “devil take the hindmost” ideology of those humanists who argue that the amassing of wealth does not bring responsibilities to others. The constitutional documents of the City make it very clear that the Lord Himself is the defender of the poor, the defenceless, the orphan and the widow. (Psalm 146:9; Proverbs 15:25; Malachi 3:5) Anyone, therefore, who does not take up his duties and responsibilities to the needy will face the Lord Himself: He provides the sanctions and executes the judgements upon those who harden their heart against the poor.
As we have noted before, the City of Jerusalem is a voluntary City, insofar as its citizens enter its gates freely, out of a free-will love of God. No-one can compel such love; no-one can order the will of another to believe and obey. God alone is the compeller of men's hearts. It is He Who draws men to the love of Himself. He does so by the power of His Spirit, as He opens eyes and grants the gift of faith to His elect. Thus the most important form of government in the City is self-government: the government which arises from men and women obeying God from the heart, having His Law inscribed within by a miraculous work of His Spirit.
In this light, welfare is truly a matter of charity, of voluntary actions which citizens of the City undertake as part of their duty and responsibility to God Himself. The blessings and the benefits of this estate are considerable.
Firstly, welfare is personal. It is heart to heart, person to person. Therefore it is a true expression and outworking of love from one or more people to others.Consequently , charity and welfare is uplifting both to the giver (for the one who gives is more blessed than the one who receives) and the recipient. To the giver, the blessedness of generosity leads to even greater giving. The Scripture says that the Lord loves a cheerful giver. The generous soul, experiencing the love of God, becomes even more generous as the years pass. Generosity multiplies.
To the recipient, experiencing the love and kindness of another human being is immensely encouraging and uplifting (unless the heart has been taken captive by a spirit of pride). It affirms the dignity and worth of the needy. Within Jerusalem, when gifts are given to the poor, it is universally true that the poor represent the Lord Himself. To give to the needy is to give to Christ Himself. Such doctrines mean that the recipient is honoured indeed.
The personalistic nature of welfare in the City means that it is almost always a helping hand upwards. It is restorative and redemptive. It is not demeaning and demoralising. By contrast, welfare in Athens is always impersonal. It is not an expression of love at all. It carries with it the cold, impersonal demeanour of a judge. There used to be an expression “cold as charity,” which captured the demoralising and destructive effect of impersonal charity being dispensed by Unbelievers. Colder still is state welfare. Much colder. It rewards neither the “giver” who has had his property taken under compulsion through taxation and distributed to others, nor the recipient—for there is no love or compassion towards the needy from the giver in state welfare. There is only the impersonal “system.”
State welfare grinds the faces of those who live off it. It destroys them from the inside out. That is why in Athens you find intergenerational welfare slaves—up to four generations of people who have known nothing but living all their lives dependant upon state welfare. They are entrapped. They are the permanent underclass. They are the walking dead. This is the inevitable fruit of impersonal state welfare: it is neither loving nor just. It is one of the great evils of the modern world—despite the fact that it is one of Athens's proudest boasts. In the different estates of welfare, we see displayed the glory of the City of our Lord Jesus, on the one hand, and the shame and degradation of the City of Unbelief, on the other. Welfare truly is one of the great divides.
Secondly, in Jerusalem the estate of welfare emphasizes the duty and responsibility of both giver and recipient. We have spoken of the duty upon everyone to extend love and gifts to others in need. But duty does not stop there. The Scriptures also speak of the duties that are upon those who receive welfare. In Jerusalem, when one receives, one accepts the attendant obligations. The first obligation is thankfulness to God—and only then thankfulness to His servants. We are all commanded to give thanks, in all circumstances, because this is God's directive to us. (I Thessalonians 5:18)
When Paul was raising money amongst the Gentile churches for the poor in the churches of Judea, due to famine in that region, he says, “For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God. Because of the proof given by this ministry they will glorify God for your obedience to the confession of the gospel of Christ, and for the liberality of your contribution tot hem and to all, while they also, by prayer on your behalf, yearn for you because of the surpassing grace of God in you. Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!” (II Corinthians 9: 12—15) Both the givers and the recipients are overtaken with thankfulness.
Another responsibility upon the welfare recipients in Jerusalem is to do what they can to strive to cease being needful of support and better themselves so that they can in turn support others. This continues a basic ethic of the City: those who have received must stand ready to give to others. The Apostle lays down the law of the City as follows: “We urge you, brethren, . . . to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your own hands, just as we commanded you; so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” (I Thessalonians 4: 11) Every citizen has a duty to work so that they may not be in any need—so that they may not rely upon nor require welfare assistance from others. This is the duty of every welfare recipient—to do what they can to get themselves in a position where they are in need no longer.
As we have seen previously, if any welfare recipient disregards this duty, and will not strive and labour to place themselves in a position where they no longer need any help, let them starve. In other words, if any refuse to take up their responsibilities to move off welfare, the constitutional documents of the City require that we cease supporting them. They have become thieves, not truly needy.
The fundamental obligation of all such is that they steal no longer, but that they are to labour, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need. (Ephesians 4: 28). Thus, the duty of all recipients of welfare is to get themselves (that is, by their own hand) to the point where they no longer need support, but are able, instead, to support others.
This means that in Jerusalem, when one gives to the needy, the gift will just keep on giving, as that person eventually re-establishes himself and in turn commences giving to others. Once again, charity in Jerusalem is redemptive, uplifting, restorative, and multiplying.
The contrast with how welfare works in Athens could not be more stark. Under “welfare as human right” administered by the state's compulsion there is no obligation or moral imperative whatsoever for the recipient to be thankful. In Athens, the recipient of welfare is owed the money. It is what is due him. That is what is means for welfare to be considered a human right. Moreover, there is no obligation to get off welfare and to get oneself in a position of supporting others.
From time to time, Athens tries to introduce “work for the dole” schemes, or variants thereof. The idea is that a duty or obligation of some sort be placed upon the welfare recipient so that they get themselves off welfare dependance. Such ideas always fail: they are dashed upon the impregnable rocky cliffs of “welfare as a right” ideology. They are a fundamental contradiction in terms with state or governmental welfare, based on purported human rights. For this reason, Athens cannot sustain a doctrine or concept of the undeserving poor, who are really thieves, and from whom all welfare should be withheld. The end result is that a growing swathe of the community in Athens are lifelong thieves, who have stolen all their lives without risk of arrest or prosecution. In fact the rulers of the City has told them incessantly that they are right to be this way.
From time to time the ludicrous folly and intrinsic evil of this ideology frustrates even die-hard Athenians. They turn upon their rulers and find themselves asking a rather trenchant question: “Is it right”, they ask, “for an able bodied person to live his whole life supported by the public welfare system while he has chosen never to work a single day?” The rulers of the City shuffle their feet, stare into the middle distance, and mumble, “Yes.” They always answer, yes. The alternative is that the whole house of cards—which is Athens—will fall.
The estate of welfare and how to take care of the needy is a defining issue. It one of the issues which brings the irreconcilable difference between the Cities of Jerusalem and Athens into sharp focus.
No comments:
Post a Comment