Religious Leaders Explain How NOT To Help The Poor
Rev. John Nunes, president and CEO of Lutheran World Relief, and others (me included) attempt to explain how well-intended government programs developed during the “war on poverty” initiatives help to destroy the urban black family, community, and especially low-income black men. Nunes also explains from the New York Times Magazine how there is no evidence that any government program made any improvement in any urban area anywhere. As a matter of fact, the welfare programs of the 1960s made matters worse in the black community.
Pope John Paul II explains how the intervention of the state can be a detriment of both economic and civil freedom when it assumes too much responsibility beyond the capabilities that are proper to it. The intervention of the state, as Rev. Nunes explains, should give us pause because government is ill-equipped to deal with the holistic needs of the human person which are spiritual, emotional, and material. Human beings in need require more than material assistance via wealth redistribution or patriarchal programs that undermine the dignity of the poor. State intervention provides the platform for us to personally live in solidarity with the poor because we easily abdicate our responsibility to move toward the poor holistically in love.
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.
Anthony Bradley, 36, is assistant professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary (Creve Coeur) and Research Fellow at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. He holds a PhD in Historical and Theological Studies from Westminster Theological Seminary and is frequently called upon by members of the broadcast media for comment on current issues and has appeared on NPR, CNN/Headline News, and Fox News, among others. 
Wow, this is a fascinating topic. On the one hand, the economic conditions of blacks as a group have been adversely affected over the years through opppression (yes, the Man has held them down in the past). This is a factual statement backed up by numbers. On the other hand, as Anthony has pointed out, the solution of welfare has failed to do what it was supposed to do. It was meant well, but executed poorly. The result was not to fix the wrongs of the past but to further strip some of the dignity away from a people that needed to have more.
I am very interested in the responses to this topic. EXCELLENT post Anthony, very though provoking indeed.
Anthony-
Another great post! You have consistently provided thought-provoking material for this blog.
I was discussing this very topic recently. I work at a local non-profit and it is my opinion that we do a much better job of empowering the poor and disenfranchised than the government could ever do. I definitely appreciate the government’s financial assistance, but programs like LBJ’s Great Society have contributed to the breakdown of the family and of society. The government does have a role in fighting poverty and injustice, but the current system is broken and promotes multi-generational poverty and a lack of personal responsibility. Perhaps programs that would provide REAL job training and subsidized daycare for the working poor would help, but that is just a thought.
Thank you for sharing this video. It is so heartwarming to see your efforts and to know that many people care about lifting the poor in ways that can truely benefit them and society.
My husband is a bishop for our church in the Central West End area. Our church congregations are organzied by geographic location and our CWE church unit takes in a great part of St. Louis with many poor among us. We have a welfare program that promotes self-reliance and restores dignity, at least we try. Learn more here: http://www.providentliving.org/
I am sure my husband, Bishop Dan King, would be willing to join your efforts. Please let us know how we can best support you.
Love your posts!
Dana King
Great post. All manner of things can become institutionalized. Keeping those that work, and discarding those that don’t seems a good measuremnt to me. Habitat for Humanity is a good example of an affordable housing program. Education, responsibility, and a personal accountability comes with the home, all within personal relationships.
The pendulum has swung to far in one direction, returning social services to the people could be a very powerful role for government.
We often collapse doing with leadership.
I think the most important statement in the whole video was in the first minute or so…when one of the speakers was talking about the need for one on one contact over long periods of time as being the only thing that really changes lives.
That is so very true. And THAT is the real indictment of society. How many of US, in our comfortable homes are willing to take that level of action?
One of our rich Presidential candidates promotes the welfare state and will not spend his own time and money to help his relatives.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5042571.ece
No good samaritan story for Barack Obama.
You eliminate poverty by offering people an EDUCATION that’s not ‘value-free,’ teaching them the stark differences between RIGHT AND WRONG. They then become employable, you offer them JOBS - and they become contributing members of society.
Instead, we offer them a miserable education - long on liberal orthodoxy, teaching them that it’s THEY who should discover the differences between RIGHT AND WRONG (if, indeed, they feel there are any) and have these destructive philosophies reinforced by the cultural poison of MTV/BET/popular music….and the multi-generational dysfunction continues…
A ’secular saviour’ like Barack Obama comes along and promises people the world…and, sadly, a high percentage of people believe him…
Sad…
Great post. I think this really articulates the reason I am troubled by government programs while I have concern for those who struggle and am anxious to help. Government programs too often miss the bigger root problems, ignore the component of compassion and relationships, and ultimately robs those in a position to help from meaningful opportunities to do so.