A Perfectly Dreadful Christian Dilemma
12 February 2007Neal Boortz went on a rant this morning about a woman in Charleston, SC. Brenda Kelly has six kids (four living with her) with three different fathers, works a $6.00/hour job, gets food stamps and Medicaid and complains that life is stacked against her. Read all the details in the Charleston Post and Courier. The point Boortz was making was that this woman complains about her lot in life but she is, in fact, totally responsible for where she is. She blames other but she is to blame, not others.
This presents a dilemma for Christians. We certainly want to help this woman and others like her and we really want to help her children. The question is, how? How, in fact, do we define help and then deliver it? That’s not as easy to answer as some might think.
The gut reaction of some will be that we should do all we can to help her pay her bills and feed her children. On the surface this may seem to be help but is it? I submit that it is not help at all. To explain let’s look at a completely different but analogous situation.
Say you know a man with a bad drinking problem. He spends his pay checks on booze and it is costing him all he has. How do you help this man? Will paying his bills help him? Or is paying his bills simply enabling his destructive behavior and making the problem worse? I submit that the latter is true.
The same can be said for Brenda Kelly. Kelly’s first marriage ended in divorce and her ex-husband has custody of the two kids they produced. Of the other two men that Brenda had children with, one is in prison and the other also works a $6.00/ hour job and he’s already paying $75/week child support to another woman with whom he fathered a child. Do you see a pattern here? Brenda seems to have a lot of trouble making good decisions. She keeps picking losers and having children with them!
On top of that, Brenda (who is about to be evicted from her house because she refuses to pay rent any more), would qualify for public housing assistance but she’s tired of filling out paperwork so she won’t apply. She works 40 hours per week and, apparently thinks that’s plenty and won’t take on additional work. Oh, did I mention that at one point she made over $35k/year as a store manager? Yeah, she quite that job to spend more time with her kids.
The problem here is NOT that life is stacked against Brenda. The problem is that Brenda blames everyone else for her problems instead of taking any responsibility for them. In short Brenda is irresponsible. Clearly, providing direct physical assistance without any accountability is not real help. It is, as with the drunk, enabling the destructive behavior that put her in the position she is in. Providing assistance without strings only makes her situation worse, not better.
The real problem comes with her children. They are in no way responsible for the situation they are in. Their mother is responsible. What do we do about the children. Do we simply leave them in this unfortunate situation? Tough questions.
Christians and conservatives generally believe that children are better off with their mother. I presume that in this case many would say precisely that. I would disagree in this case. I think that Brenda should lose her children. They should be placed in foster care or with relatives who are capable of taking care of them. Brenda clearly is not capable of taking care of herself, much less her children. Of course, it is likely that Brenda will just have more children for others to have to take care of. But lets leave that for another post.
Brenda presents some difficult questions for Christians. How do we live up to Christ’s expectations with this woman? How do we show the love of Christ to her? I submit that tough love is called for. Brenda must live the consequences, all of them, of her bad choices. In this way, perhaps, Brenda can learn from her mistakes and work to improve her life. And at the point where Brenda has taken responsibility for her situation and is working hard to improve her life, then it would be Christian love and charity to provide financial and other assistance to her. But until she reaches that point, there is nothing anyone can do to help Brenda. She has to be willing to help herself first.
That is the bottom line. No one can be helped who is unwilling to help themselves. All the attempts to help end up doing more harm than good. Any parent knows this from experience. The child who is constantly bailed out of every situation never learns to take responsibility. Instead they learn the opposite. They learn that they never have to take responsibility so they can do whatever they want. Is that the lesson we really want to teach people?
The state approach to public assistance is completely flawed precisely because it typically comes without strings. It ends up encouraging that behavior the caused the need in the first place. It is self perpetuating and contributes to a dependent class rather than helping people get on their feet so they no longer need assistance. That, to me, is anything but a Christian approach in spite of what social gospel advocates may think.
My heart goes out to Brenda and her children. I genuinely feel sorry for them. But I do not believe that more public assistance will help them. The only thing that can help Brenda is suffering the consequences of her decisions.
Print This Post
Tags: Charity, Christianity, Conservatives, Economics, Ethics, ReligionRelated Posts
- Universitas Veritas Blog
- Christian Blogpshpere
- Talking Points on the Right
- Dobson Damages Conservative Hopes
- Any Reason to Bash Bush
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Obviously there is a difference between the federal responsibility, and the Christian’s responsibilty in matters. I’m getting from what you write that you don’t think the Christian, based on the gospel should continue to help one that will not help himself. I’m not sure I’m with you.
i struggle with this. For me the question is this: Is there a point when Christian charity should end? Are we to make the call that someone is no longer fit to receive our graciousness?
The problem here is how I understand grace, especially as concerns the gospel. I believe the work of Christ goes to those who would not help themselves, the most stubborn, unloveable people there are. And this grace continues despite our unwillingness and uncooperativeness. So I guess the question that must be answered is whether or not Christ’s method of saving the lost is an example for how we should treat people in our society. I have a difficult time saying it isn’t to be one.
At the same time, I have found myself being around some low parts of society, particularly the same ones for an extended period of time. I have seen all of my efforts go towards what appears to me to be absolutely no good end. And also we must discern how to apply Paul’s words of brushing off the dust and not throwing our pearls before swine. Tough call. I haven’t figured out where to fall yet. Not even almost.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:27 am
I understand your struggle but I have to disagree with you. First, I think it is a matter of stewardship. Repeatedly we are adminished to use our resources wisely, both in the Old and New Testaments. And Paul plainly said that if a man won’t work he shouldn’t eat.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
While I’m not completely disagreeing with your point, I will say that Paul’s words are intended for how to reprove a brother within the Church who is idle and lazy, and towards the end of refining and reforming that brother, I would agree. However, I’m not sure those words apply to the unbeliever. The text also says to “keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness.” If this is meant to apply to the non-believer, than we should not take steps to reform any person who is lazy, but should just leave them to their peril.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
An update on my thoughts:
One response to the things I am sure is Christian is distress over the effects of the curse. At the very least, we as Christians should view those who are wasting away in their sinfulness and self-destruction, and weep bitterly. As Christ wept as he saw the effects of sin and the curse on his friend Lazarus (John 11), and as Paul wept as he considered the horrible fate of so many of his kinsmen (Romans 9), we should also “be deeply moved in our spirit, and greatly troubled” to see those who are perishing.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
While I agree that Paul was speaking to the church, the basic idea has universal application. That is, people must take responsibility for themselves. We cannot, as Christians, just throw money at people to make ourselves feel better when we may, in fact, be making their situation worse by helping to perpetuate it.
Your second point above, about the way Paul and Jesus viewed others is valid and I agree wholeheartedly. I plan to post more on this whole social gospel business. Christians have a definite responsibility to the poor. But I have problems with the social gospel approach. I don’t want to do a whole post here in the comments so let me just say that I intend to get in to the social gospel, what I think our Christian responsibility is, and where I think the social gospel goes off track.
These are difficult issues. As Christians we want to do what Jesus commands us to do and acts as Jesus would have us act. But it isn’t always easy to do figure out how that works out, much less actually do it. One things certain to me. That is, help must actually be help. We don’t get off doing things that are easy and make us feel better.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Ron,
This is completely off topic, but I could not locate your e-mail address on the site. I’m a freelance blogger for the Post and Courier (I find it mildly ironic the P&C was mentioned in this post) and I read and highlight Lowcountry blogs here. If you live in the Lowcountry, I would love to include your blog in the round-up.
Please e-mail me if you would like to be included.