Words'nTone

Yesterday, I had the privilege of sitting with nine other agency colleagues where we spent seven hours outlining a timeline and strategy to help our agency answer two questions:

What will we do to end poverty in America?

and

What will our agency contribute to Connecticut’s Legislature’s commitment to reduce child poverty by 50% in ten years?

Strangely we didn’t ask, where can we get more money?  Or, how can we keep people poor?  (The most common criticism from my more conservative friends.) Nor did we ask, how we can be a more effective government sponsored entity who partners with government to perform tasks on behalf of the poor?

No, we asked, how can we create a mindset among our staff that helps every person who comes to us for assistance answer, “How can I get out of poverty?” Lengthy discussion began on our need to include the whole staff in designing and implementing a ten-year Strategic Plan (with three year goals) to move low-income people out of poverty.  I wished my church friends, especially my conservative, evangelical church community, could have been there to see and hear this.  As an agency we are seeking to be leaders in ending poverty—in most cases one family at a time, but also addressing the causes of poverty in our community.  We discussed a timeline, so by December 2007 we’d have a strategy with High Impact areas that will include outcomes and activities that will 1) end poverty for individuals, 2) help Connecticut realize its goal of reducing child poverty by 50% in ten years, and 3) to end the causes of poverty in America (in our community and service delivery area).  Yes, that would put us out of business.  But why wouldn’t that be okay?  We’re innovative, passionate, smart, and skilled people in this business—we’d all figure out something to do after poverty is ended.

I told one of the facilitators that this is a question I’d like to present to churches—how will your congregation help to end poverty in America?  And then, I would like to help them develop strategies that add meat and substance (goals, outcomes, and activities) to their answer.  With all the talk among Christians that it’s not the government’s job to give to the poor (or even to end poverty), but the Church’s, I would think both Christians and churches would want to answer that question—how can I/we end poverty in America?  Just imagine a church making the willful decision to have as one of its aims, one of its reason’s for existence, the strategy for ending poverty.  Isn’t it in everyone’s interest to end poverty?  That sounds to me like a very conservative idea.  And—it sounds, even, biblical.

I’m glad you are asking this question because the Church in Acts had pretty much eliminated poverty without any help from government. It just goes to show how much the Church can do to address this issue, and I am looking forward to seeing ways that churches have gotten involved in fighting poverty.

Good try Julie.  Again, that’s not the point in Acts, and obviously poverty wasn’t eliminated because Paul even had to bring offering to the church in Jerusalem for the poor...but anyway...I know that’s not government....the text in Acts which talk about the community had no need because everyone was sharing has nothing to do with the government (Jeiwsh or Roman) and its God-given responsiblity to take care of the poor.  We’ve gone over texts on that matter and Irefer you back to the Daniel 4 passage as well.

Nonetheless, we do agree that the church needs to be asking questions about poverty.  Hopefully to that end, we’ll continue to have common ground.

I applaud your efforts to erradicate poverty, but I want to challenge your thoughts about poverty.  In reality there are very few people in the united states who are truly poor.  Consider these facts about the poor:
The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

There are some who are truly poor.  That is to say they don’t have shelter or food because of finances.  I am not suggesting we should do nothing, but I am suggesting that this problem is not nearly as large as many make it out to be.  This is where I got my info:  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Yes, I have the same report.  Obviously you speak as one not in poverty, nor as one who has multiple barriers to employment, self-sufficiency, etc.  I actually agree--in some strange conservative sense; but, I hvae direct experience with those who are in poverty and despite the listing you gace above, there are still, for example over 95,000 children in CT alone who are living at or below the poverty line.  I also agree that the poor in this country is unlike the poor in many countries and are indeed “better off” in many ways.  Nonetheless, lack of adequate housing, healthcare, resources for daycare...the list goes on, presents those in poverty many challenges.  Just because someone has a toaster or a VCR doesn’t exclude them from being in poverty or being subject to the effects of poverty.  I am wondering however--so you don’t think we really have a problem with poverty and since there are really very few in poverty we don’t really need to do anything about poverty.  Did I get that right?  Please don’t mind the sarcasm, but it is a good vehicle for making a point, I guess.  I guess in Jesus’ day we can also say that, “well, even the poor had a cloak to keep warm, so they are really in poverty.”

I realized after I posted that I used the wrong phrase when I said poverty was eliminated; what I meant to point out was that in the community of believers in the first chapters of Acts, there were no needy persons because the Church at that time was rightly taking responsibility for the poor. I do believe that if the Church were more proactive (and obedient) on this issue, there wouldn’t be a need for secular government involvement. I have heard it said that when we see government involved in an area that was assigned to the Church, it means that believers are shirking their responsibility in that area (on a related note, it is sad that some cults, such as the Mormons, have put Christians to shame in this area). Ultimately, systemic problems such as poverty can only be eliminated through the transformation of communities and nations through the life-giving power of the gospel. Historically, anytime there was an attempt to eliminate poverty through the power of the state, it failed miserably. 

I just reread the Daniel 4 passage, and it is interesting to note what the text says and does not say regarding the king’s responsibility to the poor. The text does state that the king is to be kind to the poor and oppressed, but it doesn’t specify precisely what that entails. Neither does it mention anything about taxing the king’s subjects for the benefit of the poor. Throughout Scripture, kindness to the poor covers a broad range of responsibilities and is not limited to simply spending public funds on their behalf. In the Old Testament, kindness to the poor was demonstrated through the forgiveness of debts and lending to them freely, among other things. As a contemporary example, micro-enterprise loans come to mind, which is definitely something that churches can do. In fact, the C&MA’s relief and development arm (CAMA) provides this service to the poor in many developing countries, and it has been very effective in lifting people out of poverty. Along similar lines, it is instructive to see that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it was the Church that was credited with helping many communities with relief efforts when government efforts were inadequate. In fact, some communities were completely neglected by government while church volunteers have been committed to helping for the long haul and are still there two years later. Perhaps you could discuss some of these efforts on your blog sometime; Christianity Today has written a number of articles on the Church’s ministry to Katrina survivors.

In terms of the Daniel 4 passage, I would imagine that the king had his own personal wealth from which to give to the poor, so there was probably no need for him to confiscate his subject’s property in order to do so. Whether the king was charged with using the power of his office to force his subjects to care for the poor is a matter of interpretation and not something that is actually stated in the text. As I said before, I don’t necessarily have a problem with small-scale publicly funded programs that help the poor get out of poverty provided that they are done on the local level and are limited in scope. But to say that the Bible mandates that such programs be established by civil governments is stating something that is not actually found in Scripture.

Again--we are in more agreement than what appears in this debate. And I especially like your comments about services like that of CAMA, and regarding the church’s response (which has been so underdiscussed in popular media) in the aftermath of Kartina. However, my only real issue continues to actually be that you berak up God’s world into two catagories...the church and the secular...as if God is more or less not over the secular...it is in this I believe your paradigm for discussing poverty and responsibility is faulty.  My understanding of Scripture allows my view of poverty and the poor and who is responsible to care for them works no matter what kind of government or soverignty is in place.

You obviously didn’t read my post completely nor the report which I linked to.  I my first comment I said, “There are some who are truly poor.  That is to say they don’t have shelter or food because of finances.  I am not suggesting we should do nothing, but I am suggesting that this problem is not nearly as large as many make it out to be.” The church do have a responsibility to minister to the poor.  That said it is certainly not a severe problem in the United States as a whole. 

It is also false that they can’t get medical care.  In reality, they can and most often do recieve care.  Not having medical insurance and not being able to get medical care are two very different things.  Also the “poverty level” is ambiguous.  What is the poverty line?  Contrary to your assumptions about my living conditions, I am below the poverty line according to the government (as I sit and type this on my laptop).  Still I do not consider myself to be poor.  The problem is not whether there are poor people, but peoples perception of what poor is.  It is not that I think nothing should be done. Actually I think the church should be involved in helping the poor.

you did write, “In reality there are very few people in the united states who are truly poor.”

I appreciate the clarification…

And I did read the heritage report; in fact, contrary to the perception often assumed here in my blog/website, I am the “conservative” among my professional peers and I brought the Heritage report into the discussion we have on planning and poverty, etc.

Yes, I think we are more in agreement on this issue overall. I would like to address your following statement: “However, my only real issue continues to actually be that you berak up God’s world into two catagories...the church and the secular...as if God is more or less not over the secular...it is in this I believe your paradigm for discussing poverty and responsibility is faulty.”

I don’t think it’s a matter of “breaking up the church and the secular” as it is of identifying the different roles that God assigned to various institutions of society. In Scripture God established three primary social instutitions: the church (the forerunner of which was Israel of the Old Testament), the family, and the civil government. Each of these has distinct roles and was ordained to do different things. For instance, the church was not given responsibility for bringing criminals to justice and for maintaining order in society; this is the role of the civil government. Do you agree? Or do you really believe that there is no distinction between what the church was assigned to do and what civil/political magistrates were assigned to do? 

Saying that the church and state have different roles and responsibilities is not denying that God is Lord over the secular world.

Great points and comments all.  One quick question--okay, two: Does or should the church have a voice regarding the welfare of the poor within the public square?  Any place for the church in the public square to call our collective selves to action on behalf of the poor?

Some overnight thoughts--mostly to Julie’s comments.

I agree (there I go again, agreeing with you) that there are God-given institutions and you are (somewhat correct--an argument for later) that they each have their own sphere of responsibilities.  But I do think you still draw the lines too rigidly between them as if there is no or little overlapping of responsibilities.  I am plowing through all the OT texts right now related to the poor (I am researching for a paper on eschatology, evangelism, and social action (imagine that!), and I can’t help but think you miss the corporateness of the commands to be mindful of the poor, helpful to the poor, provide for the poor, and even do justice for the poor.  These overwhelming texts in almost every book of the OT seem to indicate that God intended society and communities and states and countries to be mindful of the poor, assist the poor, and defend the poor.  How can you read the Leviticus and Deut texts or even the reprimands in the prophets that indicate what the whole of the people were to do on behalf of the poor without seeing that it’s not just individuals called to do this work on their own time, with their own voluntary funds, and with their one individual willingness to be kind.  All of which are true, but limiting and really not the intention of all of these texts.  Certainly some are given to the individual who is to make personal decisions to help the poor, but most are corporate texts.  Given that--how would a society “enforce” God’s intentions or carryout them out?  Telling me that’s the priests responsibility...is also limiting and makes the religious sector responsible for “governing” the laws.  In Israel, even under the monarchy, it is difficult to split the governing and the temple (religious) as if they are two distinct entities.  I think, bottom-line, is that you overlook that God has given government (whatever form, whether it be elected, military, or monarchy) to carryout social order which includes working on behalf of the poor.  Within world history, countries and eras vacillate back and forth on how this is done--swinging from private to public to healthy and unhealthy combinations of both.  I am arguing that God intents His word on the poor to be a corporate concern for ALL--private, community, government, and religious.

An aside:  Just because we don’t like to be taxed, or that we don’t like government intrusion, that does not, so it seems to me, to eliminate the government’s responsibility (don’t just read republican form of government like the one we have here in the US) for carrying out through whatever means social action that assists the poor.

Finally, it also seems to me that not only are you still segregating too much the entities, as well as the religious vs. the secular, but you seem to also divide the categories of justice and assistance to the poor as if they are totally separate things not to be confused.  I do not think the biblical text makes that strong of a distinction.  (I will address this in the regular blog here soon.)

I do appreciate your input...perhaps as I writemy paper, I’ll share with you ideas and draft—that would make me more accountable and sharper I am sure.

Chip,
When you are considering God’s commands to Israel regarding the poor I would like to suggest you take two things into consideration:

1.  Many of the commands (like Gleaning)though commanded to the nation are executed in smaller communities.  In other words there are likely relationships between those helping and those being helped.  this is not true with many (if not most) governement programs.

2.  These commands were also given to a theocracy.  The United states is not a theocracy nor do I believe it should try to be.  That means we should be careful about how we transfer OT principals to our current day government.  It may be more appropriate to transfer those principals to the church. 

I am glad you brought the heritage report to light with your peers.

Very good points, PJ! Pretty much what I have been trying to say but in a much more concise way. Another thing I would like to add is that the United States is a constitutional republic with delegated powers, and redistributing wealth for the benefit of others is not one of those powers. If local communities decide that they want to share their wealth with the poor, they are free to do so as long as their municipal laws allow this (and they can work to change those laws if they don’t). But such programs on the federal level are unconstitutional and thus a violation of the law of the land.

So its okay for a monarchy then to require its citizens to care for the poor (where do you get I am saying redistribute wealth?) or it’s okay for a theocracy to require that producers of crops to not glean to the ends of their fields so that the poor can eat and fine basic needs?  No, wait.  That’s our God I am talking about--and he did require, amind other sundry laws that we all seem to like...anyone ever read all of Dt 24...anyway--I think there is much to support the notion that God requires societies (which means some form of governing entity) to care for the poor.

PS: “But such programs on the federal level are unconstitutional and thus a violation of the law of the land.”

Frankly, it won’t matter if its unconstitutional or not if the constitution actually implied that it is against the law to have a federally funded and enforced civil plan to take care of the poor.

If it was against the law, and God required society to be compassionate and the federal government (or monoarch or State government) to development policies and practises whereby the poor were cared for...then the law is wrong.

I don’t agree with your premise anyway about the federal government and the unconstitutionality you mentioned above.  ...so it would be okay for a citizens of a state or municipality to “vote” (decide) to help the poor, but not the federal government.  Strange.  Here..as with much of your foundation, is an example that you are thinking through the lense of anti-federalist understanding of the American way of life--not Scripture’s worldview.

I think Julies frustration (and mine as well) is the idea that government can end poverty.  Actually poverty will never end (Jesus said this himself).  The government has succeded in creating a welfare dependant group of people.  It’s that whole give a man a fish or teach them how to fish thing. 

I think it is essential for organizations other than the government to take care of the poor.  Our government has not done a good job of helping the poor overall.  Instead we have created a class of people who are dependant on the governement for everything instead of helping them learn how to support themselves.  This problem is complicated and is part of our culture and family structures as well.

God’s word is very relevant in this area both OT and NT, but we need to be carefull how and where we apply those principals.  Perhaps the best thing we can do for the poor (overall) is make our economy better by lowering taxes especially on things like gas (In Minnesota they are about to raise taxes in several areas including gas.  All of the tax raises will hurt those who are poor more than they will hurt anyone else).

I didn’t mean to turn this into a political argument, but I think Julie and I both get frustrated when conservatives are said to be the ones hurting the poor.  More often than not we just need to understand that poverty is not a severe problem and that the best thing we can do for people who are poor is help them personally and voluntarily as apposed to impersonal and involuntarily (taxes).

Thanks again, P.J., for doing such a good job in clarifying my position and the frustration I have felt in trying to explain that the government really can’t end poverty and has not been charged with doing so.

Chip, your most recent comments about the U.S. constitution and federally delegated powers indicate that you really don’t understand why our government was set up the way it was. Because of their experience with British tyranny, our founders believed that the best kind of government was that which governs least, leaving individuals free to govern themselves as much as possible. That is why they established a government that has delegated powers. This means that some powers are delegated to the federal government, with the rest being reserved to the states or to the people, as stated in the 10th Amendment. This is also known as federalism, so I’m not sure why you implied that I’m an anti-federalist. According to Wikipedia.com, “The term federalism is used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.”

The fact that our founders believed that states and local communities would be more efficient at some things (such as programs to help the poor) does not mean the law (i.e., the 10th Amendment/U.S. Constitution) is wrong. While nations are responsible for their treatment of the poor, there is no Scriptural formula that states precisely what this is to entail, other than the OT tithe (which obviously would not be binding on nations other than Israel, since the main reason for the tithe was to support the Israelite priesthood).

“I don’t agree with your premise anyway about the federal government and the unconstitutionality you mentioned above.  ...so it would be okay for a citizens of a state or municipality to “vote” (decide) to help the poor, but not the federal government.  Strange.”

You may not agree with it, but you haven’t proven the premise to be wrong. Read the Constitution and tell me what amendment specifically authorizes the federal government to esablish programs that assist the poor. And yes, it would be okay for citizens of a state or munipality to vote to create such programs because the 10th amendment says that any power not delegated to the U.S. government is reserved to the states or to the people, respectively. Since you have claimed to be a conservative, I’m not sure why you find this concept strange. In fact, I would think you would embrace it because it would allow for local government involvement in helping the poor while avoiding the inefficiency/bureaucracy that often accompanies federally funded programs.

Julie, I am refraining from comments regarding my understanding or knowledge of the constitution, only to say, you should do a little more reading on the two sides of the debate regarding the finished product...the federalist and anti-federalist positions, that is.  Or, even the actual debates over the articles/ammendments which took place, not in 1776, but in the summer of 1787--twelve years later!  I have indeed dont a little reading on the subject.  However, can you show me where in the constitution, or bill of rights, that it says the federal government will not establish such programs to help the poor?  I havhe read it many times and have not come across anything that would lead me to say they shouldn’t.  (And as I have pointed out above--it wouldn’t matter if it did say it was unconstitutional, because then it would be contrary to God’s law and Word on the responsiblities of governing authorities.

But, be of good cheer.  I am actually not in favor of the government doing all the work, nor even most of the work.  As my paper on the Widow in Mark 12 pointed out, we are shifting back toward less government (which should please you) and more private-public sphere roles in dealing with the poor.  And as I have argued here in this blog/site, and elsewhere, I am more concerned that the church raise to its responsiblity regarding the poor.  I’ll somewhat agree on lessening or eliminating so-called poverty related “entitlements,” but as with the “gleaning laws” there is a place for utilizing the “taxes” (under any form of government) for showing mercy and care to the poor.  Just because some of the system is corrupt or poorly excerised, doesn’t mean that the governing entity isn’t responsible for developing policies and practises that aid the poor.  (The OT is full of such....we’ve been through this before.) You should read up on how poverty has been dealth with over the last 2000 years, especially throughout western civilization.  It is only recently that we have moved to the “parent-government” approach (which I don’t agree with by the way), where the emphasis has been on government as the provider of social services.  Before say the 1940’s, there was little to no system to help the poor.  Obviously the church wasn’t rising to the occasion, and there was a strong calvinist/reformed view of charity that laid the foundation for the church allowing the government to take over as it were.

I can sense your frustration--with me and the subject.  But my central issue with your thoughts are more with the idea that the government has no role and you believing the Bible teaches that the government should not do anything for the poor (except provide justice, but there too your definition of justice is somewhat limiting and not biblical, I believe.)

I have appreciated the interplay here.  Your patience (all of you) has been gracious to say the least.  I hope to do some work on some OT texts soon...especially the “gleaning” passages.  We’ll take up this conversation further I am sure.

I would like to take a moment to address the following comment you previously made:

“Just because we don’t like to be taxed… that does not … eliminate the government’s responsibility … for carrying out through whatever means social action that assists the poor.”

First, not everyone who objects to publicly funded programs that assist the poor do so because they don’t like to be taxed. For instance, my mother-in-law, a devout believer, objects to such programs even though she doesn’t pay much in the way of taxes (she has no income other than a very meager Social Security check).Although she would actually benefit from such programs if she chose to take advantage of them, she does not agree with them on moral grounds. She objects to the idea of others being taxed for her benefit. She doesn’t want to use the power of the state to force others to meet her financial needs. This hasn’t been easy for her, especially with no husband to support her, and I admire her for sticking to her principles. In keeping with biblical principles, she relies on her grown children to support her in her old age (my husband and I, along his brother and sister, have helped my mother-in-law in a variety of ways over the years, including chipping in to pay rent on the small apartment where she used to live before she moved in with her daughter).

Many fiscal conservatives object to centrally funded welfare programs for the following reasons:

1.  They tend to produce a mentality of entitlement.
2.  Taxing some people for the benefit of others promotes envy and covetousness in society. We covet our neighbor’s wages, and therefore we vote for the politician who promises us the biggest chunk of it.
3.  Historically, they have been very ineffective in actually combating poverty.
4.  Funding such programs leaves God’s people with fewer financial resources with which to help the poor in the name of Jesus.
5.  Such programs encourage the needy to look to government, rather than God, to supply their needs.

I find it ironic that when beginning these posts on eliminating poverty, you claim that your intention is to encourage the church to be more proactive in helping the poor, yet the bulk of what you have written has been devoted to advocating government involvement in this area. To be clear, there are many ways that national governments can fulfill their biblical mandate to be kind to the poor other than centrally funded welfare programs. These include but are not limited to the following: providing tax credits for charitable giving, thereby encouraging generosity to the poor; making it easier for low-income people to borrow money to start small businesses; and eliminating sales taxes on necessities like food, clothing, and gasoline (which P.J. alluded to in his last post). Another way government can help the poor is by creating a level playing field where the poor are not penalized through tax increases if their income happens to increase (a major problem of the progressive, graduated income tax is that it punishes productivity because you are taxed more as your income increases).

"the bulk of what you have written has been devoted to advocating government involvement in this area.”

That’s because of the direction of this thread...we don’t disagree on the church’s responsiblity.

I’d entertain a society where the church DOES rise to its responsiblity to care for the poor...but research is now showing that faith-based programs are not as effective or long lasting as once imagined.  And yes, I have done my homework on this.

And saying that the church (or inividuals) can’t care for the poor because the government takes too much of their money is not a good excuse.  The church is tax exempt and their budgets can be 100% given over to working with the poor.

Additionally, no-where here have I advocated for just hand-outs and keeping people poor.  Government policies that enable this to happen are sinful.  But so are many soup kitchen type ministrys, or food pantries in that there is little to no mechenism to make those or help those who receive the “help” to become self-sufficient.  They too can become dependent on the church...but like the programs I run, much of government policy is demanding outcomes whereby those who receive help are moved toward self-sufficiency..  Where is that unconstitutional?

And when will this church you describe that is the ONE you think is solely responsible for helping the poor take on the job?

I just want to make one more comment regarding taxes.  When the government taxes someone they take money that was earned by the person being taxed.  In other words the government does not have a “right” to it.  Just because they can take it doesn’t mean it is good for them to do so.  This is true even if they do good things with the money.

It would be easier for the church to “rise to the occasion” if people were not taxed so much and the poor people themselves had fewer options from the government.

Chip,
I just read your comments about the extensive studying you have done on the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers, and I confess I am confused. Since you have done so much reading on this subject, I don’t understand why you apparently deny that the Constitution is based on the concept of delegated (or enumerated) powers. At some point in your study, you must have come across this idea, because it is at the heart of our system of federalism. In addition, you probably read that some of our founders objected to adding a separate bill of rights because the Constitution already listed exactly what the federal government could do, and therefore a bill rights was considered by some to be unnecessary.

The U.S. Supreme Court in M’CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 ruled, “This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it…is now universally admitted.” (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=17&invol=316). Since this is the case, I found it odd that you would ask me to cite where the Constitution specifically says that the federal government is not authorized to establish social welfare programs, because this is not how the Constitution works.

In addition, you must have read Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which enumerates the specific legislative powers given to Congress. There are 16 of these, and they include the power to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to establish laws on naturalization; to coin money and regulate its value; to establish post offices and post roads; to secure copyrights and patents for authors and inventors; to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; to punish piracy and felonies committed on the high seas; to declare war; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to regulate land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the militia; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any district that may become the seat of government of the United States. Section 8 concludes by giving Congress power to make all laws which shall be necessary for carrying out the foregoing powers (i.e., those just listed).

My confusion and frustration stems from the fact that I do not see any power listed in Article 1, Section 8, which authorizes Congress to provide financial assistance for the poor. If I have missed this somehow in all my years of studying the Constitution and constitutional law, could you please tell me the Article and Section where this power is enumerated? Also, if the federal government via Congress has the power to provide aid for the needy, why did James Madison, the father of the Constitution, make the following statement in his January 10, 1794 speech in the House of Representatives: “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government”?

As an aside, I am not sure why you felt the need to tell me what year the Constitution was written in, since I never claimed it was written in 1776.

Finally, you stated that if the Constitution did not delegate to the Congress the power to provide aid for the poor, then the Constitution is in violation of God’s Word. Could you please explain to me how it is a violation of God’s Word to allow states, provinces, or local governments to establish programs that assist the poor? Scripturally, why is it wrong to delegate such a responsibility to local governments? Where in God’s Word does it say that the central government MUST be in charge of this and that local communities or provinces may not carry out such programs?

I am looking forward to your response and to resolving my confusion.

"And when will this church you describe that is the ONE you think is solely responsible for helping the poor take on the job?”

This question confuses me. I never said that one particular church is solely responsible for helping the poor; all churches are. But I can say that The Christian and Missionary Alliance has truly stepped up to the plate in taking on this job through its many holistic ministries such as CAMA (Compassion and Mercy Associates) and U.S. ministries such as Acts 29 in Hamtramck, Michigan and Camp Katrina, which minister to the poor in word and deed. Since you are posting to an Alliance blog forum, it would be neat if you were to writeabout some of these ministries in your own blog; you can always check out the C&MA Web site to learn about them.

Of course, the C&MA is not the only Christian fellowship which has honored its God-given mandate to help the poor. Many non-Alliance churches in my hometown of Colorado Springs have ministries to the poor and homeless, including food pantries. There are also many para-church ministries in my town that do a great deal for the poor, including providing transitional housing to people who have been evicted or are facing eviction (this service is provided by Faith Partners, Interfaith Hospitality Network, and Partners in Housing) and paying for utilities for needy people (a church-based ministry called Westside Cares does this, along with several others; just yesterday my husband took our neighbor to Westside Cares and her utility bill was taken care of). There are many more such ministries that I could writeabout, but these were the main ones that came to mind.