Unless our lord’s words in the Sermon on the Mount are no longer valid, the present emphasis of the Church on poverty is a contradiction to his teachings. The problem is just that simple, and just that complicated.
World poverty and hunger are tragedies beyond description. In Biafra and India lives are wasting away through starvation and malnutrition; we all have seen on our TV screens the shriveled limbs and bloated bellies of their victims.
Poverty in America is a stark reality for many, but now that it has become a political issue there is grave danger that its alleviation will become motivated by other than compassion, and its victims will be pawns in a sociological experiment that can cost billions in waste and bureaucratic management while it destroys initiative and breeds dependence on others.
No one questions the compassionate motive that has prompted many Christians to go “all out” to abolish poverty. But one can seriously question the wisdom of the Church in aligning itself with the government in programs aimed solely at giving material aid.
A physician will use all speed to give an injection of Demerol or some other pain-relieving medicine to a patient in the throes of kidney colic. But he does not stop there; X-rays confirm the diagnosis; rest, relaxants, heat are used; and often there must be surgery and removal of the stone.
If the Church concurs with the findings of experts that poverty can be eradicated by education, better housing, jobs, and a guaranteed minimum income, it has surely turned its back on the solution God offers to all men, and in so doing is compounding rather than solving the problem.
I do not question the responsibility of the government to face up to the fact of poverty and its relief. And I would take my place at the forefront in saying that Christians have a responsibility laid on their hearts to do everything they can to help those in need. There is an immediate responsibility (like the physician’s use of a pain-relieving drug) to show our love and compassion for the poor with the food and clothing at our disposal. But to the Church and the Christian there is responsibility that is theirs alone—the message that when first things are put first in our lives, God has promised to solve the poverty problem in a clear and definite way.
Our Lord laid down a principle in economics that is infallible. It consists of a cause-and-effect relation in which God, not man, determines the outcome. Jesus, having warned his hearers against anxiety over the necessities of life—food, clothing, and a place to live—said, “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well” (Matt. 6:33). And down through the centuries millions have testified to the truth of this promise.
David wrote: “I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging bread.” On the contrary, he says, “he [the righteous] is ever giving liberally and lending, and his children become a blessing” (Ps. 37:25, 26).
Where but in the promises of God can man find this assurance? “The LORD God is a sun and shield; he bestows favor and honor. No good things does the LORD withhold from those who walk uprightly. O LORD of hosts, blessed is the man who trusts in thee!” (Ps. 84:11, 12).
To whom has this message of God’s loving provision been committed? To the Church. Shall the Church set aside the certainties of God’s promises for the inevitable failures of man-made schemes that seek solutions without reference to the God of solutions? Shall the Church be content with secular means when God offers a solution based on a spiritual reality? To put it bluntly, shall the Church sell its birthright—the promise that God “will never fail you nor forsake you” (Heb. 13:5), and that he “will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:19)—for socio-economic solutions that do not go to the heart of the matter?
If any one thinks I am criticizing the steps being taken to meet the problem of poverty with true compassion and common sense, he has missed my point. The government should meet genuine poverty with genuine aid, but it should not accept poverty as a necessarily permanent condition, nor welfare as an unending way of life.
Furthermore, the Christian whose heart is not moved by immediate need, and who does not respond to that need with a compassion proven by deeds, is unworthy of the name he bears.
But the point I want to stress is that the Church has a message of ultimate solution. If it becomes so involved in the immediate need without facing up to God’s cure, the Church fails to honor its own message.
Only the Christian can understand that above and beyond human need, as we see it with our limited vision, there is a divine concern and a supernatural solution. If the Church ignores the supernatural nature of its message, it is missing the basic reason for its existence.
This year the major denominations are stressing “poverty” and its alleviation, using a sociological approach very similar to that of the government. In fact, year after year some new slogan and some new interest occupies the Church’s program—peace, race, reconciliation (man with man, often with little reference to man with God), and, at the moment, poverty. In a year or two it will be something else.
Who does not want peace? Christian race relations are, or should be, the outward evidence of the indwelling Christ; reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ is the foundation of man’s reconciliation with his fellow man; and helping the poor is a fruit of the Christian faith. But none of these is Christianity. To be a Christian means to have a vital, personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and until that is established all other concerns are secondary. We have been busy trying to produce fruit where there are no roots, make non-Christians act like Christians.
Christ came into the world, died, and arose again to enable men to become new creatures. Are we honestly trying so to preach and to live Christ that men may be born again by the Spirit, through faith in him?
How much do many of the programs and emphases of the Church differ from secular approaches to human problems? We may be trying to steal God’s glory for ourselves by seeing how loving and kind we can be while we ignore the love of God for lost sinners.
Are there poor and needy around you? Then, for God’s sake and for his glory, do what you can to help. To the hungry, give food. For the poorly clad, make clothing available.
But above and beyond all this, give them the Bread of Life and tell them of the One who longs to clothe us in his own righteousness.
L. NELSON BELL
