Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30-31
“William Diehl wrote that “even if all Christians had the commitment to care for the poor, how could I or my congregation possibly know where all the unmet needs were, and how could we be certain that there would be an equitable distribution of our benevolence? Some overall agency is needed for such a task, and it is obviously civil government.”
Diehl’s belief that government could and would cover all the bases equitably showed a faith in things unseen. Similarly, Ron Sider’s Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger survived heavy barrages and found readers throughout the 1980s; Sider proposed simple living but accepted conventional ideas of poverty-fighting through collective action rather than individual challenge.”
William E. Diehl in “A Guided Market Response,” in Robert G. Clouse, ed., Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics (Downers Grove: IVP, 1984) 68-69, and Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Downers Grove: IVP, 1977), as referenced by Marvin Olasky in The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky (Washington DC: Regnery, 2022) 195.
In my reading about the failure and destructive impact of social welfare programs in America in Olasky’s classic book, I found this section to be interesting.
Diehl’s thinking reveals what many believe about benevolence: that it should be the government’s job to sort the needs of the poor. His congregation seems disconnected from the greatest commandment, which is to love God and love your neighbor.
Sider called Christians to simple living to make margin for generous giving, but still saw benevolence as best worked out through collective action.
Repeatedly, however, Olasky makes the case for “individual challenge” as the answer for addressing poverty. While collective action can aim to teach people biblical ideas, he argues that there is no substitute for individual challenge. Understanding a person’s situation and calling them to take steps in the right direction.
This reminds me of the Good Samaritan story.
The Samaritan had compassion and extended benevolence in a personal and financial way. I am growing convinced that biblical teaching coupled with individual challenge affects the most change.
And it helps those we serve love God (biblical teaching) and their neighbor (individual challenge).
This year-end, please generously support ministries like GTP that promote biblical teaching. In addition to that, ask God if there is one person you can help in tangible ways like the Good Samaritan. With individual challenge, help them get back on their feet.