Elder Holland’s October 2014 General Conference address titled “Are We Not All Beggars?” was a masterpiece. In it, Elder Holland exhorted Mormons to serve and help others, even if those others seem to “deserve” their plight.[1] His sermon was a Christlike reminder that the poor are the Savior’s “foremost messianic duty.” The Bible and the Book of Mormon are full of commandments, pleadings, and admonitions to help the poor.[2] There is little disagreement about that fact. The LDS Church does a significant amount of humanitarian work across the world and Mormon people are charitable on an individual level in a variety of ways.[3]
While Elder Holland’s talk was not really “liberal”–the ethic of helping poor people is shared by conservatives and liberals alike–it was a welcome message for this liberal. I desperately listen for messages in General Conference that are even remotely liberal to balance out the ever present and less-than-remotely politically conservative messages in these and similar meetings. But regardless of this particular sermon’s political neutrality, Elder Holland’s topic was particularly timely considering a common criticism of liberal or leftist policy: the government shouldn’t be in the business of charity.
This criticism says that charities do charity and that government should get out of the way. I’m not going to disagree with that: in many cases, the government should just let charities do their thing. But I suggest that a Mormon examination of government programs might find that such programs are not actually about charity. In order to make this case, I will outline two types of social ills and their associated solutions.
Individual Harm
Some people do terrible things to other people. They are despots, and you can find them in business, in politics, and occasionally in your neighborhood. They’re also in the scriptures: in the Book of Mormon we read of Alma and the sons of Mosiah who actively went around trying to subvert the equality so carefully established by King Mosiah. These activities weren’t illegal, but they were harmful. The law does an increasingly better job dealing with the illegal stuff (looking at you Madoff and Blagojevich), but as in the days of Alma and the sons of Mosiah there will always be individuals who legally harm other people.[4]
Solution? Charity.
Relying on government to fix individual harm will only go so far. You do what you can, but you just can’t (and shouldn’t!) make everything that is immoral also be illegal, so when people do bad stuff there’s not much you can do but reach out to help the victims. Joseph Smith’s classic strategy of “teach[ing] people correct principles and let[ting] them govern themselves” works very well here. The best charities are incredibly experienced at this sort of thing–acute short term relief from the results of individual harm. In this case, the charity was undertaken by Alma and the sons of Mosiah themselves who, rather than lobby for a law or government intervention to alleviate the suffering they’d caused, worked to alleviate it themselves.
Systemic Harm (aka Injustice)
Sometimes institutions and organizations have policies or behaviors that harm large groups of people. For example, the Book of Mormon gives us a look at the dangers of systemic inequality:
12 And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.
This wasn’t a case where a few bad people were oppressing their brothers and sisters. Rather, it was a case where the entire system had reached a point of injustice in which the poor would be oppressed whether or not individual people were to blame. This is key: you couldn’t very well point a finger at any particular rich person or people in this situation (those who had greater chances for learning) and blame them for the problem. Individual people weren’t to blame, nor was any subset or group of people. It was simply an unjust and systemic weakness.
Solution? Justice.
Just like problems stemming from individual harm are best handled with individual solutions, problems stemming from systemic harm are best handled with systemic solutions. It wouldn’t be appropriate to expect individual charity to overcome systemic injustice. And any economic system, every economic system, will have blind spots. Ours included.[5] So, what do we do?
We liberals are often blamed for wanting the government to get in the business of charity. Maybe some do, I don’t know. But this is what I do know: the government is in the business of justice. And this is important business: as Saint Augustine said,
Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
Charity isn’t Justice
Elizabeth Stoker drive the point home in contemporary terms: “But here’s what conservative Christians miss: Welfare programs aren’t about charity; they’re about justice.” When liberals talk about the importance of government safety nets and strategic wealth or income redistribution, we are simply trying to fix systemic failures with systemic solutions. And I’ll be the first to say we don’t always succeed. But this is our motivation. And trying to treat charity and justice as interchangeable leads to some problems for those we’re trying to serve, as Chris Henrichsen points out:
The change you put into the red kettle outside of WalMart this holiday season was more about the warm fuzzy it gave you or the sense of guilt it delayed than it was about those it will help. It will only help a small few and only for a short period of time.
Charity isn’t, and can’t be, a substitution for justice. Fighting injustice with charity is like fixing an electrical wiring problem by changing a light bulb. It is all but abusive to the ones most affected by the injustice:
Fiscal stability that relies on gifts is not stability. It is a guarantee of insecurity: income based not on work but on whim. Capricious generosity is not a replacement for a living wage, nor is it a basis for a functioning society. Charity is no substitute for justice.
“Taking what you can get” is also the path pursued by corporations and people who prefer cheap acts of charity to long-term investments in justice. It is a path that encourages citizens to depend on arbitrary generosity while decrying stable [programs] that help people through tough times.
William Sloane Coffin adds his words of inspired wisdom to the issue, summing it up as only this Christian giant can:
Had I but one wish for the churches of America I think it would be that they come to see the difference between charity and justice. Charity is a matter of personal attributes; justice, a matter of public policy. Charity seeks to alleviate the effects of injustice; justice seeks to eliminate the causes of it. Charity in no way affects the status quo, while justice leads inevitably to political confrontation.
To use another light metaphor: charity enters a dark room and starts handing out flashlights, while justice installs overhead lighting.
Now, how public policy addresses injustice is another matter and another blog post. But it seems to me that charity and justice are separate issues, that charity can’t even begin to address systemic injustice, and that the lefty view of a safety net and redistributive government seems both moral and Mormon.
Notes:
- Elder Holland: “Perhaps some have created their own difficulties, but don’t the rest of us do exactly the same thing? Isn’t that why this compassionate ruler asks, “Are we not all beggars?”
- For example: Warner Woodworth on the Mormon ethic of treating workers well , this huge collection of scriptures preaching the value of economic equality and this description of the overlapping sensibilities of Occupy Wall Street and Mormon doctrine and teachings
- A quick disclaimer: the word “charity” is used in two very different ways by Mormons. The first is a religious and highly powerful sense of compassion, the pure love of Christ that we are told to seek. See, for example, 1 Cor. 13:13 and Moroni 7:44. In contrast to this type of charity, which we try to have, is the type of charity that we give. Donating to nonprofits, giving to the poor person on the street, establishing a foundation–all these are examples of this second kind of charity. Of course, there are significant connections between the two different kinds of charity, but it is important to acknowledge that the two are different. In this post I’m discussing the second, the donation of time/goods to help the poor.
- We can also add to this category things like natural disasters and accidents that harm individuals in a given time/place.
- Fast Food CEOs, for example, are paid over 1,000 times more than their workers. That’s not because Fast Food CEOs are evil people, nor is it because they are dishonest or hateful. It’s because our system is designed for this to happen. You’re supposed to seek for personal gain as well as whatever will maximize the corporate bottom line. The Supreme Court has established precedent:if you don’t seek to absolutely maximize your bottom line, you are in trouble.
This post was originally posted at MormonLiberals.org and was updated and republished with permission.
This couldn’t have been said better. I’ll give you a perfect current events example.
I have been volunteering to help LGBT youth in the Ogden area for almost a year and a half, many of whom are homeless. The legal injustices they have faced often come in the form of being kicked out by parents when the youth comes out as LGBT, or sometimes running away from an unsafe foster home for the same reason. The parents and legal guardians have done nothing which can be called illegal, but the youth pays the price for their actions.
I have helped with the charity portion as the Donation Coordinator for the OUTreach Resource Center in Ogden for the past six months. I work to organize toiletries, clothing, food, and other supplies such as tents and sleeping bags accessible by these youth. While we would love to have housed them, it was considered “harboring a runaway” if they remained in our facility for more than 8 hours. The irony of being declared a runaway by the law after being kicked out of your home is not lost on us.
Other charities such as homeless shelters are unable to house youth under 18 for the same reason. These shelters were unsafe for older youth because of the adults who would attack them for being LGBT. Again, no legal protections are yet in place to prosecute such attacks.
So for the past 10 years OUTreach and other small facilities have been working to alleviate the symptoms of the problem. There is good news. In the past year OUTreach now has four other locations in Northern Utah and is working on gaining two more. We’ve given the blueprints for such a program to other cities nationwide. Help is available in ways it wasn’t 10 years ago.
Now where is the justice? Finally coming through to play its part. This past legislative session saw a modification to the law declaring how to treat a runaway. It included a clause noting what a legal shelter must have in place to house youth under 18. The 8 hour timeframe was also extended to give more time to decide a youth’s best options before having to report them to authorities such as the Department of Child and Family Services.
This gave one of us the chance to purchase a facility and legal turn it into a much needed shelter. Here’s the most recent news piece on it. There are another two shelters in the process of being started in Utah.
Without the recognition of necessary legal justice, our charity work could not have had such an impact.
I’m one of those who’s against government charity. I can break it down pretty simple.
1) Yes, government is largely incompetent, which is a fact, but that’s really not what it’s about. Very simply the issue is individual liberty. Would you force a Baptist living in Utah to pay tithing to the LDS church? The money is being used for a good cause you say. I don’t care how well the money is being managed or how noble the cause. Freedom includes, or ought to include, the right to be stingy. As a matter of principle, I think it’s morally wrong to force a (liberated free American) to pay for your pet cause, even if it’s a cause I agree with.
2) Charity breeds dependence. Government by it’s very nature is biased towards creating dependence on government. We can argue until we’re blue in the face, but this is the nature of the beast. Corporations want you to keep buying their products and engage in all kinds of schemes to manipulate people into doing so. Government is no different. Politicians want more votes, government agencies want to grow and expand in size, yada, yada.
This dependence is ultimately bad for those receiving the charity. It goes back to the teach a man to fish vs feeding him argument. I’m all for helping someone who’s down, even taking care of those who literally care incapable of taking care of themselves. This however requires a level of involvement that government is not designed to provide, and is simply incapable of providing. There are good ways to give charity, which actually helps those receiving of it. Government solves problems through bureaucracy. It creates simple rules and applies them to the masses. And then you get people bouncing on youtube making rap videos about their EBT or “obamaphones”. Look at the hoards of women who intentionally have babies out of wedlock just for the benefits. This is a real thing. These systems are too easily abused and people become dependent on them.
3) Tapped Out. Government is broke. Need this really be explained? It spends twice what it takes in. I pay 10% to my church and another 50% to the government. The amount of money being absorbed by government is tremendous in its size. Are you really wanting to increase this even more? First balance the budget, then let’s talk about spending money actually have. In my view I literally pay more in charity than I do to support my own family. Look at where all that government money goes. What, about 20% is defense, and all the rest is various forms of welfare. I’ve got nothing left to give, and I’m already so demoralized about what I’m currently giving that it makes me want to blow my brains out and just quit life. Or just become a bum so I don’t have to pay anything. Tired of working my rear off and getting nothing for it. I’ve got no savings whatsoever. Who’s going to take care of me when I get old, or if I have a debilitating accident next week? If I were allowed to keep my own money I’d happily build up some savings to take care of myself.
Looks like Peter didn’t understand the point of Jeff’s post. I totally agree with you, Peter, every word of it. But what you said has nothing to do with what Jeff wrote.
This is probably the best and most thought provoking article I’ve read on Rational Faiths. Thank you.
The distinction between charity and justice is important. Government charity is a complete contradiction of terms. Charity is “the pure love of Christ,” which is a personal attribute as rightly observed by William Sloane Coffin (quoted above). Governmental spending, including that regarded as charitable, is done with money that is ultimately acquired from tax-paying citizens under threat of imprisonment. A “charitable” politician is someone who is spending other people’s money. This has nothing to do with the pure love of Christ.
Meting out criminal and civil justice are universally agreed legitimate functions of government, but what you are talking about is social justice. That is more debatable. Social justice as promoted by modern progressives and liberals is wealth distribution in disguise. It is a secular philosophy that is deeply rooted in atheism. Again, not charity (“pure love of Christ”) despite efforts of Leftists to cast it as such.
Jesus’ mission was not to the Roman or Hebrew institutions of government. He did not command Pilate to use the might of the Roman Empire to use the power of their legions to extract taxes for purposes redistributing wealth more fairly amongst its subjects. Neither did Peter or Paul lobby the Empire to do these things when they were in Rome. Instead, they sought to change the hearts and minds of individuals to foster greater love and charity, one for another. They sought to enact “social justice,” if you want to call it that, by inspiring people to choose to share their bounty with their neighbors and treat each other with love (i.e. fairly). They did not seek to have government impose these values upon them.