Compassion for the Poor through the State?

A friend recently asked, “Why do so many of my Christian friends assume that compassion for the poor must mean the state should play saviour?” I empathise with the questioner. I don’t like the idea of our lives becoming more and more state-controlled. But I am also uneasy about the assumptions that often underlie questions like this.

In all likelihood there is here, e.g., an implied dichotomy between compassion and justice which is not evident in the Bible where justice is about a right ordering of relationships which includes compassion.

But maybe the controlling assumption is the belief that there is such a thing as an ideal political system and that this ideal political system gives maximum role to individuals and maybe families. “I’m trying to love my neighbour. If everyone did it, the state wouldn't have to intervene.”

But when God said, "If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you” (Leviticus 25:35), he did not add “make sure that this is not done in an orderly way which draws on the resources of the community.”

Let’s take a specific example. In a democracy, citizens may vote for a government that increases taxes in order to distribute a disability allowance – or they may vote for politicians who dismiss such a policy as “state interference.” If the citizens favoured politicians who support a disability allowance, they can then refer to this system of taxation and stipends either along the lines of “this is how we look after the more vulnerable members of our community” or in words which refer to “the state” and “handouts” and maybe even with a hint of “dependency culture,” as if there was less of a dependency culture in the good, old biblical days when the blind and lame sat alongside major roads and worship centres, begging for handouts from individuals.

Language about “the state” is not always innocent, especially where it reflects a dislike for the first person plural or for the idea of a polity doing more together than the bare essentials. If the complaint that “the state” does so much more than it used to do is made with little or no regard for the complexities of modern life, it makes about as much sense as the complaint about the greater number of rules and regulations in our world.

I suspect the Romans did not have aviation laws. If so, I believe the reason would be that there was not much aviation in those days. I also suspect that their laws about food additives were fewer than ours, likely because there were fewer ways of manipulating food in those days.

Those who vote for policies such as a disability living allowance do not thereby necessarily look to “the state” as the “saviour” of the disabled any more than those who prefer the proliferation of food banks to the provision of “government handouts” thereby worship food banks as the “saviour” of the poor. People on both sides are usually just saying, “we think this is the best way of organising our common life and concern for each other.”

Maybe it is true to say that “the state” (as an abstract entity) does not have compassion but compassion need not be something exercised by individuals only. It is possible for a community to be compassionate and even for a polity to institutionalise such compassion to some extent. Indeed, biblical law seems to be an example of this and it is assumed in the Scriptures that love is something that can be commanded. 

It is of course possible for individuals to feel resentful about taxes. They speak of “my money” which “the state” is taking away from me to give to "others". It could be argued that therefore such compassion has become a mere outward act (forced upon me by the wider community) rather than an inward reality. But laws reflect and express values and true leaders do not merely collect taxes and hand out allowances, they also nourish our identity and envisage a common future.

God certainly did not seem to have any qualms about embodying justice and compassion in law, enforced by the governing authorities. Nor will it do to dismiss this as law uniquely given for God’s people - other nations were meant to be awed by the wisdom of biblical statutes (Deuteronomy 4:6) and learn from God’s instruction (Isaiah 2:3).

Some may prefer the state to do less so that the church can do more. But if, as seems to be the case, the Christian response to pestilence was a factor in the growth of the church in the past, this should hardly lead us to wish away the NHS.

Some fear that organising our care for the poor and disadvantaged through the mechanism of government and taxation makes state oppression more likely but governments have proved perfectly able to be oppressive and tyrannical, while also being “small” when it comes to things like disability allowance and medical care.

Some seem to believe that administering retribution on wrongdoers is the only role given to governing authorities, as if Romans 13:4 provided an exhaustive list and we could firmly state that God wants governing authorities to spend tax money on the police and the military but not on roadwork and rubbish collection or care for the poor. 

PS: I might not agree with everything on http://www.governmentisgood.com/ but some fair points are made there.