More on the Upside of the Downturn: Cuts in Government Spending Mean Roles of Church, Family and Neighbors Return

I was asked to give my views on the roles of the family, church and government. I will most happily do so. I've been meaning to blog on this very thing (i.e. the article that appeared in the TG regarding the cut in county financing for the Heartland Home), but have not had the time to do so until now. But it is my delight to do so because there is great ignorance today regarding the divinely appointed roles of each sphere of society. If we would return to the Bible and see what God says about such subjects, we would indeed see society improve by leaps and bounds.


The county commissioners have recently had to make some very tough decisions regarding their budget due to their lack of revenue. And I find this to be another upside to the recent economic downturn. There are basically two options for our governing officials as they face financial difficulty: increase taxes or cut spending. Our county commissioners have chosen wisely and sought to downsize their spending by reducing the amount of distributions, particularly money given to social programs that are not specifically associated with the proper role of the government.

One of the cuts has been to the Heartland Home, the county's elderly care center. The cut is set to be a hefty one, a 78% reduction from 2008 (a total decrease of aprox. $290,000).

Why do I say that this is a good thing? It is because it allows the government to focus on its duties and requires families, churches, and neighbors to fulfill theirs.

First, I must clarify a misnomer. Some would say that I (and the commissioners) are being heartless and are not demonstrating a spirit of compassion. This must be dispelled. For one, it is not the job of our civil leaders to do the works of charity and compassion. I like what I heard today regarding Grover Cleveland during his administration. Cleveland was known to use his veto power quite liberally, and he would send bills back to congress saying, "I do not see the work of benevolence in our Constitution."

Cleveland was exactly right (well actually, the Constitution is exactly right). The proper role of the government is not to do the work of the United Way or Mother Theresa. The function of government is to wield the power of the sword. That is to say, it's duty is to protect its citizens by arresting, prosecuting and punishing evil-doers. In Romans 13:4 the civil magistrate is called in stark terms "the avenger who carries out God's wrath on the evildoer." In this vivid statement of the unique role of the civil magistrate we see that it is, by design, cold and uncompassionate.

Another way to look at it would be like this: A military sniper is not given the task of handing out alms. If he is, the alms will not be collected nor distributed well. That is because, by nature, a sniper is a killer. To make him do a duty that is not his forte would be to do a great injustice to those who are in need of charity (not to mention the disservice it would be to those who go unprotected because the sniper is not focusing his expertise on his gun.).

So it is with our government. The government is, as ordained by God, a killer/punisher; not a caretaker and provider. To force upon it the responsibility to take care of the poor and infirm would be more of a curse to them than a blessing to all who are under its authority.

I heard another thing today which applies to this very topic. It went like this, "When people reach into their pockets and willingly choose to give money to those in need, that is compassion. When someone holds a gun to your head and demands that you give the money, that is not compassion."

Very true. When the government comes around and collects for others it does so by force: Pay or face prosecution. This is not charity. Neither is it compassion to require someone to give up what is rightfully theirs against their will for someone they do not know. If you met someone on the street who held you up at gun point for your money, you would call that tyranny, not compassion.

(Please note: for the sake of time, I am not going to delineate how inefficient the government is at collecting and distributing funds. Just make the connection yourself: can a man who has been trained to kill people with incredible accuracy be the one who is the best steward of other people's money and best determine who gets that money?)

So where is compassion best to be found? Who is the best suited to care for the elderly and infirm? The answer is families, friends, and churches.

The first circle of priority for caring for the elderly are (imagine that) family members (1 Timothy 5:4. As a matter of fact, this passage goes on to state that he who does not provide for his elderly parents is the worst of all humanity). The pattern is easily noted: For the first third of life parents are charged with caring for their children. The favor is returned when the parents become unable to care for themselves. Children and grandchildren are required to honor their parents by seeing to it that they are properly cared for--even if that means bending over backwards financially (Hey, they did it for you!).

[And make sure you see how this benefits the whole of the community. If you see your children as an asset for your future will be disciplined to raise them right! As a result, they will not only benefit you, but all of society. Yet many elderly (not necessarily those at HH) in their latter days only reap what they sowed (or did not sow) from earlier times.]

Should the elderly not have this option though, there are various options that are open to them for charity. The primary source is the church (1 Tim. 5:3, Acts 6:1-7). The church provides a network of friends who can provide for one another and a pool of funds (i.e. deacons fund) for assistance. Of course, other charitable organizations are options too (e.g. United Way, and the like).

I wish to expand on the role of the church though. First, I can hear someone object by saying, "Well if you didn't belong to a church, then you don't have that option." This is not correct (though it is a at least one pragmatic reason why one should be intimately affiliated with a particular church). Churches have long been places that care for elderly non-members (Look at many long established hospitals and elderly care facilities. They have names like St. Johns or contain the word Presbyterian).

But in the situation with our own Heartland Home. What would it be like if churches adopted some of these aged? They could not only provide for their residence, nurture, and health care. They could also provide friendship! So many elderly are put in a facility that looks--for all intensive purposes--like a 4 star jail cell (stone walls do not a prison make). They are basically left alone to die. Churches could provide individual attention to allow the latter days of a person's life to be enriched. Christians could affirm their dignity by watching over them and ministering to them...and that would be true compassion (certainly better than a mere check from a governing body), and exactly what Christ would want.

O, but that will never happen! say the critics. Well, I guess we will find out. I've already contacted the director of Heartland Home to see what we can do. I hope to be the first to contribute to their need.

I hope that others in Ashland will follow suit and demonstrate the same spirit of charity (especially those of you who are the outraged TG commenters). If you would like to do so, please email or call me (419-289-2552) and I will try to direct you on how to do so.