...is amazed by Andre Bauer (Republican) quote on helping the poor: "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
Response: Wow! Is he saying (poorly) how not to fund and empower a welfare-state-of-mind, or is he really saying "let people starve since they cannot take care of themselves"? Or is he talking about the limited responsibility of national or local government? I don't think, despite their attempts, that any political party (Canadian or American) has the corner on charitable and humanitarian ventures - not sure they all see helping poorer people as essentially a political concern, but a social one. Some see this as the job of elected officials, where others see caring for our poorer neighbours as the job of everyone in our community, town, and city, and not the purpose of taxation. Some of us think that government workers should be the caregivers of poorer people, and that loving our neighbours needs to happen bureaucratically and through taxation and employment - not with personal concern, self-sacrifice, and local outreach by all the people of a community. I've never thought any government, in the history of the Western World, has done a great job of caring for its poorer citizens, especially people who suffer with mentally ill. I believe our biggest challenge is not with irresponsible government - but the biggest threat to the welfare of those in need of assistance is from within ourselves, with us, expecting someone else (government employees) to be missional, and to love our neighbours instead of us. It is time for people, especially Christians, to be more responsive and be truly counter-cultural, and stop passing the buck. Seems much of the political battles and finger-pointing is just dodging the call to be personally responsive - Christlike.
Perhaps we should ask the question: Are the best humanitarian "movements" more likely to be self-sacrificial social responses or government-run political reforms? Assuming a distinction can be made, we might divide what Wilberforce did between the two, but I think we can see from Jesus, and those inspired by him (Martin Luther King and Ghandi) that the climate that makes political reform possible is social responsiveness that finally gets like-minded people elected in. I'm not sure why, but one of my favourite movies is 'The Kingdom of Heaven'. The line: "It is a kingdom of conscience or nothing at all", makes me think that the issues and needs of our poorer people in our communities and cities needs to move from the abstract to deep within to our sense right and wrong, to justice and to reflection on some of the causes of marginalization, and to the condition of our own hearts, not away from us, past a pointing finger. Seems the Good Samaritan story (Luke 10:25-37) is all about not passing the buck, claiming responsibility for people and situations we did not influence or create - but are willing and resourced to simply embrace and help in any way possible. If there is anything beautiful about Christianity, beside God Himself and the mystery of His holiness and His self-sacrificing love, it is the strong, relentless, unflinching, Christ-like love of people.