Caring for the Poor
Editor’s note: The is the second of six posts looking alternately at Republican and Democratic priorities that I believe Jesus probably supports. If you’re new to this blog, it would be helpful to start from the beginning. But regardless, recognize that the very predictable reactions of cheering for one and booing for the other are the reasons for the earlier material.
Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist, had been imprisoned for his preaching, probably more specifically for calling out the political leader Herod for his immoral behavior. John sent two of his followers to go ask Jesus if He was really the One they’d all been waiting for, the Messiah. Jesus replied,
Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. (*1)
Similarly, in what many commentators refer to as Jesus’ inaugural address launching His public ministry, Jesus reads from Isaiah and says,
The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
With all eyes on Him as He takes His seat, Jesus announces,
Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. (*2)
The word evangelical literally means “bearer of good news.” (*3) How ironic that in our day “Evangelical” has become associated (rightly or wrongly) with a political position that sounds to many like good news to the rich, not the poor. (*4)
This section will be more about perspectives than policy, because people far above my pay grade quote statistics and come to completely opposite conclusions on various policies relating to how best to care for the poor. I’m a firm believer in the axiom, “where there’s a will, there’s a way,” and it’s the will that needs some attention. There’s another axiom at play here: “perception is (some high percentage of) reality.” If there’s a perception problem, there’s a problem, and there’s no way on God’s green earth that reducing poverty should be, or be seen as, a partisan issue.
Poverty is not a left-wing issue; it’s a Christian issue, and it’s time for us all to recognize that. (*5)
There are literally thousands of verses in the Bible addressing the issue of poverty. It’s one of the two most prominent themes in the Old Testament (the other being idolatry). One out of every 15 verses in the New Testament is about the poor or the subject of money. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that number bumps up to one in ten, and in Luke by itself it’s one in seven. (*6) When Mary was pregnant with Jesus, part of her exclamation while visiting her cousin Elizabeth includes these words,
He has brought down rulers from their thrones, but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. (*7)
In Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount, His opening statement is,
Blessed are the poor (in spirit), for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (*8)
In the early days of the Christian Church, “there was not a needy person among them” because the Christ-followers sold their property to help out anyone in need. (*9) Jesus’ half-brother, James, says,
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (*10)
He goes on to directly call out any favoritism that might be expressed toward the rich. (*11) And just in case we aren’t convinced yet that alleviating poverty is a major Biblical theme, Jesus brings it home when He says that at the end of time, how we treated the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and imprisoned is how we treated Jesus Himself. (*12) Mary Glover, a woman volunteering regularly in a food distribution line (and in need of a bag of groceries herself) understood Jesus well as she prayed every week,
Lord, we know that You’ll be comin’ through this line today, so Lord, help us to treat You well. (*13)
It’s impossible to read the Bible and not conclude that Jesus’ heart beats for the poor. Some branches of theology use the phrase “preferential option for the poor,” with one stating,
The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. (*14)
Whether one subscribes to that language or not, it would be impossible to follow Jesus in a Biblically faithful way and not want to care for the poor in the most effective and compassionate ways possible.
There’s a scene toward the end of Jesus’ earthly life where a woman comes in and anoints Jesus with some very expensive perfume. Jesus’ disciples object, scolding her by pointing out how much money that perfume could have been sold for, “and the money given to the poor.” Jesus, as He often had to do, corrects his disciples, and within His response makes the oft-quoted comment,
The poor you will always have with you. (*15)
Some have taken this as an escape route, assuming that since there will always be poor people, we don’t need to worry or do anything about it. Nothing would be more out of character for Jesus than such a sentiment. As Jim Wallis writes,
Jesus is saying, in effect, ‘Look, you will always have the poor with you’ because you are my disciples. You know who we spend our time with, who we share meals with, who listens to our message, who we focus our attention on. (*16)
Far from being a “get out of compassion free” card, Jesus is actually talking about our need to have proximity with the poor at all times. He is also making a theological statement that if we don’t want to suffer from compassion fatigue and burnout, we need to put Jesus first, drawing our strength and our compassion from the One whose well never runs dry.
So how bad is the poverty problem in America?
Approximately 12% of the U.S., or 38 million people, live at or below the federal poverty threshold, which in 2018 for a family of four was $25,700. Even at the federal poverty threshold, basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care will be very difficult to achieve consistently. The rate for women (12.9%) is higher than for men (10.6%), and for single parent women (24.9%) is nearly double that for single parent men (12.7%). Poverty discriminates by age, with 16.2% of all children living in poverty, meaning nearly 1 in 6, which equates to about 12 million children. Poverty discriminates by skin color as well, with the poverty rate for Native Americans at 25.4%, Black 20.8%, Hispanic 17.6%, and White and Asian both at 10.1%. (*17)
iamharsha_/Pixabay
Before jumping to root cause or possible solution questions, which if you’re anything like me you’ve already done, can we just pause for a moment to agree that the above paragraph points out numerous very serious problems? Problems that are unacceptable, meaning that we cannot just sit back and accept them, possibly by misinterpreting Jesus’ “the poor you will always have with you.” It’s encouraging that as the economy has improved in recent years, the poverty rates have also dropped slightly for most subgroups. (*18) Perhaps that trend will continue, although don’t get too excited until after you keep reading. And regardless, the numbers are still unbearably high for a country with the levels of affluence we enjoy in America.
The greatest moral question in American politics today is, What is our prosperity for? The Biblical prophets say that a society’s integrity is judged, not by its wealth and power, but by how it treats its most vulnerable members. When our unprecedented economic growth exists alongside the embarrassing fact that one in six American children is still poor, and one in three children of color, the moral underpinnings of our prosperity are in great disarray… We now have record prosperity and rising inequality at the same time. The rising tide has lifted all the yachts, but not yet all the boats. (*19)
I remember taking a class on economics in college and studying trickle-down economics – and that’s about all I remember from that class, that the topic came up. The theory is that tax cuts to businesses and the wealthy stimulate the economy, eventually helping everyone. Well, the nature of theories is that they need to be tested, and good theories will hold up under the testing. While there may be some evidence in support of the theory, such as the improved economy in the last couple of years reducing poverty rates, it’s hardly the silver bullet that solves all the issues. In the 1950’s the average CEO of an American company made 20 times the amount than the median worker’s wages (meaning, half of the workers made more than the CEO, and half made less). By 2018 that ratio had risen to 361. The average worker’s wages, adjusted for inflation, have been stagnant for the last 50 years, while the average CEO’s wages have increased by 1000%. (*20) The United States’ CEO/Worker ratio is the highest in the world by a significant margin. (*21)
Reminder – this is still the “Houston, we have a problem” phase of this section. I haven’t advocated anything… yet… other than that we should care about a shrinking middle class and 38 million Americans at or below the poverty line. Caring for the poor needs to make our list of “important things to pay attention to” and “important priorities at the ballot box.”
My previous job included a concept of inviting people from all different domains and sectors (i.e. church, business, education, government, social services, etc.) to work together to address the city’s systemic problems. The first systemic problem chosen was poverty reduction. I thoroughly agree with the premise that if one domain (say government, or education, or social services) could alleviate poverty all by itself, the problem would have been solved decades ago. The problem is our lack of unity, not only within sectors but even more so between them. (*22) This multi-domain, multi-sector theory is one that actually has been tested, and the Center of Opportunity where my office is located is living proof.
The research in preparation for the poverty reduction taskforce revealed a startling statistic. If three conditions are met (just three!), there is only a 2% likelihood of landing in poverty. (*23) Those three conditions?
Graduate from high school.
Secure employment.
Wait until marriage to have a child.
Donkeys and elephants can work themselves into a tizzy over whether or not there should be a minimum wage and if so, how much, and what the tax rates should be for individuals, families, and corporations. Those are important questions, but smarter people than me haven’t been able to lead the country to clear consensus on them yet. What I find so encouraging about the aforementioned research is how tangible and practical it is. There are all kinds of things we can do to make a difference in those areas. And there are policies that could be implemented that would make an immediate difference in reducing poverty.
That leads us directly to take a closer look at the first item, education. Virtually everyone agrees that a quality education might be the single most important factor in a person’s economic well-being. Here’s where the cycle of poverty is the most vicious. The poorer a person/family is, the harder it is to get a decent education – including just graduating from high school, let alone anything beyond high school. Poorer neighborhoods have less resourced primary and secondary schools. Here in Arizona, property taxes are a primary funding source for schools. The state has attempted to mitigate the obvious built-in disparity from a funding source based on property taxes by allotting a set amount per student regardless of district, with the state general fund making up the difference between what’s needed and what’s collected via property taxes. Yet the inequities are still built into the system because school districts can propose budget overrides for both operations and capital expenditures, as well as bond elections. Guess which districts have an easier time passing those overrides and bonds? The districts in more affluent neighborhoods. Furthermore, the system assumes an equal distribution of students, both in terms of percentages of special education students (for instance), as well as the neediness of the student population. Yet that isn’t what happens at all, and the less resourced schools typically end up with the most higher-need students. As Vail Unified School District Superintendent Cal Baker said,
We have to find a way to solve these inequities, if for no other reason than this: society cannot continue to economically carry a higher and higher percentage of the population.
I see nothing partisan at all in a desire for steady employment at a livable family income, access to health care, a path to homeownership, and a chance to send your kids to good schools. (*24) Yet if you Google bipartisan efforts on reducing poverty, you won’t find much. I agree with Jim Wallis when he writes that it will take liberals and conservatives working together to solve our issues and alleviate poverty. (*25)
We need a “renewed commitment to the common good over the bottom line and an ethic of both personal and social responsibility.” (*26)
Economic policies for a country and a Biblical worldview on money are not the same thing. Yet neither are they as disconnected as we tend to make them. One more quote from Wallis:
Our anxious striving after affluence has also created a spiritual poverty. Nobody wants to say out loud that shopping doesn’t satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart. We underestimate our spiritual impoverishment. The consumer economy is putting enormous pressure on all of us, fueling a never-ending and relentless cycle of working and buying. Affluence often helps to mask moral and spiritual poverty. (*27)
And Biblically, we can clearly say that our spiritual health is directly related to how we treat others, especially those in need.
Luke 4:18-21, quoting Isaiah 61:1-2.
Evangel is the Greek word for “good news.” The word used here in Matthew is literally “evangelized”; ironic since we tend to think of that word in spiritual terms, not material terms as it’s used here.
Keep reading, elephants. I’ll address trickle-down economics shortly.
Jim Wallis, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It (HarperCollins Publishers, New York, New York), 2005, p. 226.
Wallis, p. 212
Luke 1:52-53. This passage of Scripture is called the Magnificat.
Matthew 5:3 includes the phrase “poor in spirit”; Luke 6:20 just says “poor”. Jesus probably said both.
Wallis, p. 217
Option for the Poor, Major themes from Catholic Social Teaching, Office for Social Justice, Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
Wallis, p. 210
The statistics in this paragraph come from PovertyUSA.org/facts, which draws from the U.S. Census Bureau. A quick Google search reveals multiple sources, all with very similar information.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.html
Wallis, p. 236-7
Go to 4Tucson.com for more information.
Brookings Institute (2016). Three simple rules poor teens should follow to join the middle Class. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins.
Wallis, p. 228
Wallis, p. 226
Wallis, p. 238
Wallis, p. 237