In New Testament times, a widow was basically facing a death sentence. With no husband to support her, and with no means of supporting herself, she would have to rely on her sons to provide her with daily sustenance. If she had no sons, she was basically facing a slow death by starvation unless charitable people stepped in to help. Thus, the Disciples stepped up to make sure that widows were being fed.
Unfortunately, if they were to do that today, at least in Philadelphia, they'd be facing hefty fines. Apparently in Philadelphia (the "City of Brotherly Love," ironically enough), one must get government permission in order to feed the poor.
As a Christian, and as a libertarian, I believe that the needs of the poor are best served by private charities. This concept is lost on far too many statists; many choose to believe that those who want to cut government welfare programs are quite happy to let the poor starve, be homeless, and go without medical care. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Once government is out of the charity business, real charities can step in to fill the void, and do it more efficiently than government.
The larger issue is that decades of welfare, food stamps, rent assistance, and related government programs have created a class of people totally dependent upon the government for most, if not all, of their needs. Legitimate charities are not only marginalized, but are limited in what they can do because of government regulation upon government regulation.
The first-century Disciples made it clear, however: feeding the poor is our duty, and we can not, and must not, give that duty over to the government. Nor do we require government permission to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment