whose responsibility?

A recent post over at I am a Christian Too has led to a discussion of the proper role of government in reducing poverty. The viewpoints have ranged from "It is our responsibility as individuals to take care of the poor, and the government just gets in the way," to "The government has an important role to play in fighting poverty, especially when our leaders claim to be Christians. There are some things that a government can do that individuals can't."

The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of the earth, yet we still have many people living in poverty, some of whom are living in circumstances that give them little hope of ever getting out. How can that be, in a nation in which three fourths of all citizens claim to be followers of Jesus?

While our elected leaders are busy equating moral values with opposition to gay rights and abortion, people are starving, children are dying, people are losing their homes.

I'll admit that I can't even understand the notion that only private money, and no tax money, should go toward poverty reduction. That idea seems to be born of the false dichotomy that individual action and government aid are mutually exclusive. It's absurd. I can support TANF and still volunteer with Habitat for Humanity, for example.

It seems to me that Christ calls us to use whatever resources we can to take care of those in need. In a nation where the leaders boast of their Christian faith, it doesn't seem at all inappropriate to expect them to bring the nation's spending priorities more in line with what Jesus said was important:

Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.... Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.

- Matthew 25:34-36,40

To use one example: The Red Cross is trying to raise $2 billion for relief efforts following Hurricane Katrina. Congress has already allocated $62 billion and is expected to eventually spend more than $200 billion. No private charity, and certainly no individual, can match the level of funding that the federal government can bring to the table.

Does the government spend its money wisely or efficiently? Probably not as efficiently as it should. Still, that's no reason for eliminating or reducing federal spending on poverty programs. The better answer is to demand better results from government programs. Real reform, though, might require even greater expenses at first. That might not be popular in today's political climate.

I don't have the ultimate answers. I'll leave the specifics to those more detail-oriented than I. But if this country (or any country) wants to be serious about taking care of its most vulnerable citizens, the government must play a leading role.