WHAT RIGHTS?

We are not talking here about whether the EBT cardholders had a right to plunder the Louisiana WalMart during that recent glitch.

It's pretty obvious that opportunity became license to steal from WalMart.  To their credit, the much-maligned corporation allowed the "purchases", knowing what was afoot in the frenzy.

Instead, let's talk about citizen's RIGHTS.  What are those rights?

The Declaration of Independence guarantees some rights based on the whole unwieldy/diverse bunch of us submitting to the common good.  Out of the many comes one, glued together by our common purpose.

Government is an administrator of that purpose; citizens have to understand government's purpose.  Part of the purpose is to protect us from enemies and promote the general welfare (such as our interstate highway system, monetary system, etc.).

Within that fence of promoting, what is government's obligation to her people?  How far does "promote" go?

Should government buy me a house?  A car?  Should government provide my healthcare?  My education?  

Do we go by the "deserving" sliding scale?  Isn't everyone "deserving" of a roof over their head...proper healthcare... and an education?  What IS a sensible expectation of our benevolent Uncle Sam?  

Surely it would be nice for us all to have an all-expense-paid ride, but is that reasonable?

I can remember during the election cycle of 2008 when I first heard a lady say what seemed to me as far-fetched.  She said "Barack Obama is getting elected and I won't have to worry about my mortgage or my groceries or anything."  LINK  That woman clearly wanted a provider, but is it government's role to underwrite her?  

There has always been a sliver of society who are unable to provide for themselves because of circumstances beyond their control.  Part of our sense of decency and compassion is that we would underwrite such individuals.  But I have been in a housing project when "crazy checks" (their definition) came in.  That is just one example of how people claimed ADD or other issues which allowed them to file for disability benefits for themselves and for each of their children. Voila!  Income.

And within the last five years, the welfare rolls have soared with just such recipients.  Now what?  Already there are more in the wagon than are pulling the wagon.  Will this end well?

Government largess has taken dignity, personal integrity, and a sense of worth from many of her recipients.  Some at the housing project might laugh about how easy it is to just get money in the mail, but that laughter will fade and be replaced by anger and then bitterness.

Scripture says if a man will not work, then he should not eat.  That means God takes our productivity seriously; He loves us unconditionally, but He does expect us to cooperate with our best interests.  We are here to work for God's glory wherever that work takes us.  It doesn't end well when government operates contrary to Scripture.

Here's another way government has slapped Scripture in the face.  The Book calls for men to be the provider for his family.  Can a family be built in alternate ways?  Of course.  As well?  No.  God's principles are like the law of gravity.  You can come up with an alternate plan, but it is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Are there many women who through no fault of their own have been left with children to raise?  Yes!  In that case, God grieves with them.  That's why He promises to be their husband...and instructs the church to step up to be male role models for the children, as well as helpers for her.  We were in a church that had a Community Group formed around one purpose: to help single mothers.  They had Saturday morning car clinics once a month to change the oil and do small (but large to the Moms) maintenance.  But shall the government set out to be the husband/provider?  That has destroyed the family unit in some communities...as evidenced in 75% of black babies born out of wedlock. Such destruction could have been prevented had our idea of compassion not superseded what God set out.

What other way is government running contrary to Scripture?  God said the poor we would have with us forever.  Does that mean we quit helping the poor?  Of course not.  It means our ministry to the poor will never end.  That's why thirty years of the War on Poverty has not moved the needle.

I heard something neat the other day.  NAMES NOWHERE BUT FOOTPRINTS EVERYWHERE.  Isn't that the way giving should be?  That philosophy has feet engaged in an outreach to the homeless here in Fayetteville.  With winter coming on, sleeping bags and tents are provided while other ministries provide food and clothing.  Local people know the needs of their community.  And in those communities are churches (structures already in place) to match up needs and providers.

Government is not the only answer for the poor.  I would argue that when we stand before the throne to answer for our deeds, one piece of that stewardship will be how we have provided for the poor.  Will that include any God-credit for contributing to the government?  I'm not sure.  Government now is waging war against the church, so we pay taxes to Caesar and try to restore our government with new leadership.  But in the end, when the wood, hay, and stubble is burned off...I'll be surprised to get credit for programs that proved contrary to Scripture or demonstrated such poor stewardship that it was money thrown down a hole.

Local activism on behalf of the poor is more effective than a one-size-fits-all approach from the top.  People on the ground locally can more likely tailor help to the needs and locals are more likely to be careful with the funds.

But to assume the poor won't get help apart from government..is a judgment that assumes the worst in individuals.