In part 1 I explained why State sponsored charity did not fulfill Christ's mandate to "feed the hungry", because it removed two necessary ingredients to charity, mainly free-will and self-sacrifice. It is still important, I think, to take a look at the results of our theories, see where they lead and find out the practical consequences of our theories. Therefore let's take a look at what happens when Charity is replaced by State aid.
First of all, from the perspective of the recipient, true charity is a gift. It is something you appreciate and are grateful for. If you know that a gift was a sacrifice, that you don't deserve it and very possibly would have had to go without, then you are thankful and appreciative and cherish the charity that has been bestowed upon you. There is little chance to take such a thing for granted and a sense of responsibility to make the most of what has been given.
Contrast that with State aid which turns 'charity' into an entitlement rather than a gift. An entitlement is something that you deserve, not something you appreciate. Its something to get angry about if you don't receive it, not something your thankful for. The recipient has a right to that aid, why else would they be getting it from the government unless they deserved it? The recipient of such 'charity' feels no responsibility to care for what they are given, because it's theirs, completely, as much as if they had earned it themselves. There is no higher meaning.
Secondly, State Aid tends to turn recipients into dependents. This is a result of the lack of responsibility associated with the gift. If the gift comes with a sense of responsibility then the recipient sees the need to do something to better themselves. This may or may not eventually eliminate their need for further charity depending on their abilities and circumstances, but it will almost always lead them to be stronger, better and in turn lend help to others.
If the gift comes from the State, the recipient can complacently become dependent on the Aid and there is no need to make any improvements to themselves or to help others, as they can simply get the Aid from the State as well.
Thirdly, as Christians if we turn over our 'charity' to the state we loose any ability to proselytize to those in need. Christians serving the poor and needy is the absolute best way in the history of Christendom there is to bring people to Christ. In Mat 28 Christ states
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
How can we as Christians claim to do this while at the same time relinquishing the most prosperous way of doing so to the cold, unfeeling hand of the state?
Lastly from the perspective of the giver. State Aid turns 'Charity' from a desire to help the poor to an understanding that its not our problem. Once society as relinquished charity to the state, we no longer have a need to be charitable, because it is now the states responsibility. Charitable donations go down and narcissism goes up, why worry about others when it's the government's problem. And the final result is people don't need each other.
Christians need to take back our mandate from Christ to be charitable. It can be seen that Christ's mandate has more to do than just making sure that the hungry are fed and the naked are clothed. It has to do with the very nature of what it means to be human and Christian. Christians need to keep this in mind when determining what we are doing to fulfill Christ mandate and just as importantly when we are electing our leaders so that we can remove aid from our government.
Comming Next:
or:
Things will get sticky
---
