Should a Christian go on welfare?

"S. D." As to the question of a Christian's going to the parish for relief, we believe it is the privilege of every needy child of God to look, in artless faith, to his Father for all he wants. We certainly could not think of going to the parish, or to any human resource while we have the living God to look to and lean upon. The life of faith is either a divine reality or a mere sham. We believe it to be a reality. But then going to the parish, or going to man at all, is not faith. However, there is another side of the question. We consider it a reproach upon Christians to allow a brother or sister to go to the parish for relief, if they know of it. It is their high privilege to minister to their brother's need. "Thou shalt open thy hand wide to thy poor brother." This was a precept under the Levitical economy, and surely it should speak to our hearts. If a Jew was told to open his hand wide to the poor, how much more ought we to do so? We believe there is ample provision in the Church of God to meet the need of all the members. What we want is more grace — more faith. Oh for real enlargement of heart! May we breathe more the atmosphere of the divine presence, and thus learn to find our true delight in ministering to every form of human need, and in making poor hearts glad.

So in helping God's saints who have got into actual debt through their folly, I believe the way is not to help them without sincere repentance on their part, and a resolve to walk in the ways of the word in regard to those things, which says, Owe no man anything, but to love one another. (Rom. 13:8.) If I help a saint, for instance, encouraging him thereby to set up in business without capital to carry it out; I am only encouraging him in a path of dishonour to the Lord, in which the Lord can by no means go with me. Under the government of God I believe the principle is true as set forth in Psalm 37:25: "I have been young and now am old, and yet saw I never the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging their bread." God has promised food and raiment to His children (Matt. 6:24-34), with the caution, Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. The words, "Are ye not much better than the fowls? How much more shall he not clothe you, oh ye of little faith?" come in with unmistakable truth to faith wherever it is. Again, Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. See also Luke 12:22-31. Again, Let your conversation be without covetousness, and be content with such things as you have, for He hath said, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee, so that we can boldly say, The Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man can do unto me. (Heb. 13:5-6.) All these sure promises ought to give confidence to the saints in the care of the Father, and prevent then from ever getting into debt, like other men. And indeed how can I give to others if I am in debt myself? I am then giving what is not my own, a terribly solemn thing when it is professedly done in the name of the Lord: I am taking what ought to be in another man's pocket, and giving it to the Lord. Is not this hypocrisy?

(V. 11) It is possible that some had so wrong a viewpoint in reference to the nearness of the Lord's coming that they considered it not necessary to work at all. But this reasoning is sinful. Though I am not to be doubtful or worried as to the future, yet I am to labor, working with the hands that which is good in order to have to give to others who may be in need. Work is not simply to be a means of amassing provision for the future on earth but of providing things honestly in the sight of all men, at present. What utter disgrace for a Christian to decide that since Christ is coming soon, therefore he need not work at all, but take his support from others who do work! Nor will it end there. They also become "busybodies," for since paying no attention to their own business, they shamefully interfere in the business of others. The apostle both commands and exhorts such "that with quietness they work and eat their own bread." For one to despise this was to despise the commandment of God.

Reflections. — We may learn from this passage. That from the nature of the precept to communicate to the poor, it is perfectly clear that there was no general custom among the first Christians of a community of goods. That it is only to the necessities of the saints that the rich are commanded to communicate of their substance. What love may delight to do in distributing its riches, great or small, is left to the hearts and consciences of those who have the means. While the Lord makes the most just and tender appeals for the poor, He guards the rich. The indolent, in strongest terms, He condemns. Such is the fulness and wisdom of scripture. "This we command you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." While it is one of our most sacred christian privileges to communicate to those who have need, according to our ability, it would be a violation of the word of God to support the idle. (2 Thess. 3:6-15.)

But would it be right to give, if we knew the person would make an ill use of it? Must we use that as an excuse if we have been victimised? How ready some people are to borrow? Surely there are counter-truths to guide us in all these questions. The good man spoken of in Ps. 112 will not only "show favour and lend," but "will guide his affairs with discretion." There is a guard for us. Suppose a thoroughly lazy man, who will not work though able, but lives by borrowing — 2 Thess. 3:10 affords direction for us. That supposes a man who refuses to work when he can. There may be an excellent brother out of work, and in need, and it is a privilege to help such. But Scripture is given us to guide in all cases. It is not a book of rules, though all scripture is the rule to the christian, and where saints wait on the Lord He knows how to make plain. There are cases for exhortation. The very word that says, "From him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away," says also, "Owe no man anything." And a christian in a right state of soul would not be happy to owe any man anything. A christian is not governed by the world's standard. If one, for instance, becomes bankrupt and gets a "legal" release from the payment of his debts in full, is he not still before the Lord, morally responsible, though legally acquitted?

True, there in urgent need of prudence and caution, lest we take a man out of the honourable position in which he was designed and fitted to move — namely, a position of dependence upon the fruits, the precious and fragrant fruits, of honest industry. This would be a grievous injury instead of a benefit. The example of Boaz should instruct in this matter. He allowed Ruth to glean; but he took care to make her gleaning profitable. This is a very safe and a very simple principle. God intends that man should work at something or another, and we run counter to Him when we draw our fellow out of the place of dependence upon the results of patient industry, into that of dependence upon the results of false benevolence. The former is as honourable and elevating as the latter is contemptible and demoralising. There is no bread so sweet to the taste as that which is nobly earned; but then those who earn their bread should get enough. A man will feed and care for his horses; how much more his fellow, who yields him the labour of his hands from Monday morning till Saturday night.

Help in material need was a much greater necessity in former times when there were no social benefits, no unemployment benefits, no pensions, etc. But how much need is there still today, if we only open our eyes and hearts to it! How much good can be done even today, if only we are prepared to put our hands in our pockets! (see Gal. 2:10; Eph. 4:28; James 2:15-17; 1 John 3:17).

“But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” Is this not to be a real, personal exercise and responsibility as before God? This is no demanding of the government that the poor should be relieved from public funds, while taking nothing from my own pocket; nor is it the founding of a benefit society to solicit the support of the world for the relief of the poor. The Lord give His people serious concern to see that their means are used for the blessing of others, and here it is specially the household of faith. If we ignore evident needs, is this an evidence of the love of God dwelling in us? To give where there is not need is of course a mistake; yet it is better to err on the side of kindness than on the side of greed and heartlessness.

(V. 8). For a Christian to fail in providing for his own, and especially for those of his own house, is to sink below what is natural, and thus deny the faith of Christianity which sanctions these natural relationships and teaches us to respect them. It is thus possible for a Christian, if acting in the flesh, to behave in a way that is “worse than the unbeliever.”

(Vv. 9, 10). There may, however, be needy individuals in the Christian circle, who have no relatives to provide for them. Such should be put upon the list of those who can be rightly cared for by the assembly. Nevertheless, one must take care not to use the house of God as if it were merely an institution for supporting needy people.

Grace may, indeed, on occasions help the most abandoned. Here it is a question of suitability for inclusion in a list of those who receive regular assistance from the Lord's people. Such must, by their lives, have proved their fitness for such help. In persons of normal health, the one suited for the list must be of an age when, under ordinary circumstances, she would no longer be able to work for her living; she must have been the wife of one husband, and one to whom an honourable testimony is borne by reason of her good works in bringing up children, in having shown kindness to strangers, in having refreshed the saints, comforted the afflicted, and, indeed, followed every good work.

Not every widow was to be given the same honor, but if she were "a widow indeed" she was entitled to particular attention and respect. She is one who, while feeling the sorrow of her widowhood, nevertheless puts her confidence in the Living God, and manifests her dependence upon His love and grace, by prayer and supplication consistently. If she were in any need, this "honor" would certainly involve the alleviation of those needs by temporal support. Yet, if she had children or descendents, these were certainly responsible for her care, and they should learn to show piety at home by relieving her need, in some measure returning the care of the mother or parents in former years. God expects and accepts this. It is, of course, evident that if this were callously ignored by descendents not in the assembly, then the assembly would be responsible. But if the widow lives in self-indulgence, she is dead while she lives, and in such a state she could certainly claim no support from the assembly. Indeed, their supporting her in such a case would be an unseemly encouraging of her irresponsible ways.

It was necessary that these things should be solemnly charged upon the saints in order to preserve them from the blame that wrongdoing brings: they must not be ignorant of these serious matters. Verse 8 of course refers to one whom we have seen to have responsibility for his close relatives, including widows. He should provide, at least if he is at all able, for his own near relatives who require care, but, of course, specially for those of his own house. If by irresponsible neglect he does not do this, in practice he denies the wholesome truth of Christianity; and his practice being in opposition to his profession (for this refers to one claiming to be a saint), he is worse than an unbeliever; it is virtual hypocrisy.

Taken into the number would mean being made a regular dependent of the assembly. This was not to be the case if she were under sixty years of age, for she could support herself by working. Of course, this is not a rigid law, for there would naturally be exceptions in cases of disease or accident having caused permanent incapacitation. On the other hand, it may be necessary on occasion that relief should be given to a younger widow who is manifestly in need, even though the assembly ought not to support her regularly.