It hit me the other day when I heard someone saying that 30 percent of her earnings were being snatched by the government. Of course, the obligatory protests were voiced about how poorly the money was being spent and whether it was going to deserving causes and people.
What if the amount of our salary that went to church and government were flip-flopped? What if my church received 30 percent and the government got 2, 5, or even the church-desired “tithe” — 10 percent?
What kind of world we have then? Certainly, big government opponents would applaud. We wouldn’t have any more big government, that’s for sure. In fact, we’d be lucky to maintain national defense with only 2 to 5 percent of paychecks going to the Treasury. Moreover, the power of the purse would finally be at the grassroots level, not housed in some distant, uncaring, unknowing bureaucracy.
Churches and communities would establish and enforce social policies and programs. Welfare cases would be handled the way the churches decided — either individually or as an ecumenical consortium.
How compassionately would willingly nonworking residents be treated? How many times would churches forgive and accommodate the laggard?
This is a touch call. One side of me (hard, practical, self-reliant) says the church would best know the needs and intentions of its flock. If some ne’er-do-well was trying to stiff them and the community, then woe be unto him or her.
There’s been talk of reforming welfare and returning it to the states. Well, as you know, that’s happened and depending upon whom to listen to it’s either the greatest or worst thing we’ve done in decades. Why not keep moving it down the line to churches, which know intimately the problems of their communities?
The other side of me (soft, compassionate, enlightened?) screams “foul!” Only some secular governmental hierarchy can fairly and dispassionately dispense social justice to the electorate and provide human needs.
The more I think about this, the closer the call becomes. For centuries — heck, forever until FDR rolled around — people have taken care of people’s problems without any government’s help.
Current government spending as a percent of the Gross Domestic Product (and that’s big) is more than it was in the 1930's (19% for fiscal year 1999 v. approximately 11% during 1930 through 1934) . That was when this government was trying to provide an unprecedented social safety net, the likes of humankind had never seen before (excluding Communist regimes, of course).
Does anyone really believe that our current economic conditions are as dire as they were during the Great Depression? We’ve been spending government dollars on social programs as if they were. Have we made a dent in this problem and reversed the terrible poverty that grips millions of our residents? Some would say yes; some would say no, or not enough.
I doubt many, if any, would argue that true need exists and that it must be met. But when I see the money being given to government versus what’s available to the churches, I shudder. Of course, if more people went to church and contributed financially,...well, that’s another story.
Both government and church strive to do largely the same things — feed the hungry, care for the sick, clothe the poor. I don’t know of any church that doesn’t profess and practice that doctrine.
It made me think again. Would the poor be better or worse off if we cared for them through the church rather than the government?
It’s convenient to choose the government -- and easiest. Not everyone goes to church, but everyone pays taxes, or is supposed to, like it or not. Besides, that way, with the government, we have someone else to point to.
If the job stayed within the community, however, we’d only have ourselves to blame.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 635 words.
© 2000