Churchians (and our current society in general) like to argue for “social justice,” wherein the government, or other “approved” organization, provides the needy with financial support. This system is theological poppycock and should be disbanded immediately.
Understand that Christians are always able to provide support to those in true need. This is a biblical mandate, and we all agree in its efficacy. The story of the Good Samaritan provides a great example, where a wounded man is given aid, restored to health, and granted provisions to survive. This is good and proper, and we support such actions.
However, there is absolutely no reason for the government, church, or any other organization to financially and materially support anyone that is capable of caring for himself, nor anyone that has family that can provide such care. Note the words of the Apostle Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:4 – “But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.”
In context, Paul speaks of widows who have lost their means of support (their dead husbands) and are in need. Rather than leaving these needy widows to live off the church, or anyone else, he argues that their families should care for them. What a heartless jerk! God forbid that one’s family takes responsibility for its own.
Of course, Paul is absolutely correct. In fact, he goes further, arguing in verse 8 that “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
That’s right. If you have a family member that needs support and you pawn them off on someone else, whether a government, organization, or other person, then you have denied your Christian faith and are worse than an unbeliever. WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER. If you don’t like that, tough. You are an infidel.
Yet that is not all Paul says here. He includes the directions for younger widows to get married, bear children, and manage their household (v. 14). So those who are capable of living out a normal life should do so, rather than living upon the largesse of others.
Of course, inherent in these instructions is the idea that if a particular widow is aged, without family, then certainly they should be cared for. No one should be cast out, as all are worthy of love and respect.
But it is anti-Christian to pass on the duty that family members have, and relegate one’s relatives onto someone else, rather than stepping up and taking responsibility.
Men of the West understand this. They do not live on Welfare, as our current system is ungodly and unchristian. We reject this system. We take responsibility for our own.
It is a waste of resources to force the church to care for those who have family available, as Paul points out in verse 16. Those who rely on government or others to do their job for them are wastrels and sinners.
At the root of this issue is the concept of family. Nothing is more central to a robust Western Culture than the existence of strong families. Strong families are grounded in Christianity, tempered with love and devotion to one another.
In times past, it was common for families to care for their own. Most of us can look back to our forebears who did this very thing. I know of a family in particular where one man supported his wife and five children, two of his grandchildren (after the death of their father), one of his widowed sisters and her two children, and numerous other young people that had no one else. He did this with a third grade education. This is the example of a Godly man, a true Man of the West.
God give us the strength to live up to such examples.
Welfare is Wrong
Support Men Of The West
Latest from Culture
Thanksgiving 2024
We have much to be grateful for this year.
Livy, A Narrator of History
"Even in his own time he was known as the greatest of Roman historians."
“The Castle of Time” by Lord Dunsany
Presently there was a stir in one of the houses, and a bat flew out of the door into the daylight, and three mice came running out of the doorway down the
A Compact Renewed
It was the fourth of July, 1809, and thunderous, close evening. In Lobau, the largest of the five islands on the Danube, where were the imperial headquarters, the huge machinery of war,
A Memory of Robert E. Lee
"Everyone obeyed him, not because they feared but because they loved him."
“A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
The fruit of State Welfare speaks for itself whether it is a good or a corrupt tree.
Welfare is indeed a symptom of the breakdown of everything we believe in. So is “Obamacare” – but I suspect you mean welfare in the general sense of government social programs.
Don’t feed the bears.
Factual and theologically clear. Well done.
I don’t think I quite agree with the premise of this article. Then again, the argument seems to be a bit muddled.
Welfare, in and of itself, dates back to (in Europe ate least) to the 12th and 13th century, when those in need, usually orphans and widows, were supported by allowances payed by congregations or neighborhood committees. A form of private welfare, if you will.
Your beef is with the welfare state. And rightfully so. Von Mises, in “On Human Action” (heartily recommended, btw. Easy read with a ton of thought food) lays out the disfunction of a welfare state quite clearly.
Bit of an aspie post. But I think making the distinction is important.
The point is that if there is a person is fit to work, then he should work. If he is not competent or able, then his family should care for him. If there is no family, then the church or community can do so.
Welfare, as in helping those who truly needs help, dates to far earlier than the 12th Century, as the very verses I quoted from St. Paul refer to it.
Agreed.
how is it… that we’ve come to a place where wet-behind the ears pups are siting Mises at us… as if we haven’t been discussing his works for 20 years?
Social programs like welfare IS family caring for family…if the country is a homogeneous group of related people, a nation. This is a smart way of sharing the burden and advancing the nation–smart species survival tactic. When the nation opens its doors to the alien (in the legal sense), it is no longer to the nation’s best interest to continue such programs. It is like if you were forced to house every Juan, Mohammed and Ping-ping that came to your door along with their extended families. It is unsustainable.
“Social programs like welfare IS family caring for family…if the country is a homogeneous group of related people, a nation”
Not even then. Social welfare, as run by the government, is always a perversion of family welfare, because government programs are dictated by adherence to policy, not to giving the help that is truly needed.
No, it is an extension of family welfare. What we have now is a perversion of it. Government of a homogeneous society should be the parents of that society, the very best that society has to offer…George Washington, Jefferson, etc. I am ignoring the fact that most societies can’t carry this off for long in reality because they get infiltrated by parasites.
Of course immediate family should step in and take care of family first. Immediate, then extended, then the church, then the town, then the state, then the country would be the preferable order of help.
Instead, the government (at least in the US) takes care of foreigners first—even in other countries people are kicked out of their homes so the government can house “migrants”. The church spends tithes on their narcissism–mission trips to Kenya, help for “refugees”–when their own congregation has pensioners struggling to buy groceries, let alone fix their roof.
“Government of a homogeneous society should be the parents of that society,”
No.
Social welfare programs in a homogenous society create generations of eloi, as you can see in Europe and the SWPL enclaves of the USA.
You mean, creating a dependent underclass, not Eloi?
I mean generations of people who are soft, clueless and unable to chase risk, reward, struggle and victory. The Eloi in HG Wells Time Machine were soft and weak against the Morlocks. As an analogy, consider Swedes to be Eloi and Muslims to be Morlocks.
5
4.5