Two Philosophies about Combating Poverty… and a Third Way.

Poverty in America is real.  I think most people agree with that statement.  Statistical evidence seems to confirm it. 

The National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan has studied the history of poverty in the U.S.  According to their research the poverty rate in the 1950’s was 22.4 percent; around 39.5 million people.  Throughout the 1960’s and into the early 70’s the rate declined to a low of 11.1 percent.  Then in 1980 it began to rise again.  By 1983 the percentage of poor people in the U.S. was 15.2 percent.  In 2010 it was 15.1 percent; 39.3 million individuals.   

Information from the U.S. Census Bureau helps make this percentage more concrete, and frankly more potent for me.  According to the 2010 census there are more than 16 million children under age 18 living in poverty in our country. 

Poverty is real.  It impacts millions of U.S. citizens.  In one way or another, poverty touches the lives of every American citizen.  So, two questions – What do we do about it and how?

The Bible is pretty clear about God’s heart for the poor.  Included in the law code that the ancient Israelites were to follow were very clear instructions about how to provide for the poor. They were instructed to give interest free loans to poor people and to especially care for orphans and widows (Exodus 22:22-27).  They were to leave some produce in the fields for the landless poor to harvest (Exodus 2310-11, Leviticus 19:10 & 23:22).  Property that went into foreclosure was to be restored to the original family owners at the Year of Jubilee (every fifty years).  Debts were to be canceled and indentured slaves were to be released every seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1-15).  (I wish we still had the debt canceling thing going!)

During his ministry Jesus cared for the poor and taught that his followers were to do the same.  In fact, in Matthew 25 Jesus describes a time when he will render judgment on those who claimed to be his followers.  Those who failed to care for the poor, the homeless, the sick and the imprisoned would be exposed as false devotees.  In that passage Jesus even tells them that when they failed to care for “the least of these” they actually failed to care for Jesus himself.  In other words, Jesus identified with the poor and marginalized.

The answer to the “what” question is pretty clear.  What do we do about poverty?  We fight it.  We combat it.  We try to eliminate it.  Then that leaves the “how” question.  And that question is harder.

There are two prominent philosophies (and resulting strategies) for combating poverty.  I think both have some merit and both need to be scrapped for a different “third way.”

Perhaps we can describe the first philosophy as a passive approach. 

This philosophy reflects the sincere belief that, in order for the poor to gain what they need most – self esteem or a sense of accomplishment – they need to be given the opportunity to achieve on their own.  It is possible to hurt poor people more than we help poor people by trying to help poor people.  In other words, the only real way to help poor people is to let them help themselves.  Get out of the way and let those who want to succeed, succeed! 

Like I said, I think this idea has some merit.  There is some truth to it.  One of the things a person needs most is a feeling of accomplishment.  Success breeds success.  I get that. 

However, there are drawbacks to this philosophy.  It fails to take a lot of reality into account.  For instance, it doesn’t address the reality of generational cycles; the fact that we all tend to repeat what we learn, even when what we learn is hurtful to ourselves and others.  Many who “could do better” and “should do better,” at a gut level have a distorted understanding of what “better” is.

Nor does it address the reality of oppressive systems.  Some people live in places, and are caught up in systems (governmental, cultural, etc.) that actively hold back poor people. These systems are designed to restrain those who really want to defect from the cycle like a prison cell restrains an inmate.

The second prominent philosophy is a more active approach. 

But it is still similar to the first philosophy in that it takes a “hands off” approach to poverty.  (By the way, I know that I’m generalizing a lot.  I’m doing that for the sake of brevity – not very successfully – and clarity.)

The strength of this approach is the willingness to do something to combat poverty.  The “something” is to, in one way or another, give money, goods and services to poor people.

Those who advocate this philosophy know that the poor can’t actually break the chains of poverty on their own.  Sure… there are a few success stories of exceptional people whose level of intelligence, talent and natural ability propel them out of the cycle of poverty like a sling shot propels a rock through a window. 

But they are the exception, not the rule.  And those who are left behind in the poverty cycle outnumber the “success” stories like cars out number pedestrians on a major highway.

However, the tendency of those who support this particular approach is to depend on the power of money.  It’s kind of like the “if you build it they will come” mentality.  This philosophy says “if you spend it they will change.”  (And we all know that change – what the Christian community calls “transformation” is what we all need.) 

But over the years it has become increasingly obvious that the “if you spend it they will change” approach doesn’t work any better than the “they have to do it on their own” approach.

Throwing money at the poverty problem fails to recognize the complexity of poverty as much as withholding money does.  You can’t buy dignity, self-esteem, a sense of accomplishment in a job well done.  The very things we want to give to the poor we can, unintentionally, take away from them. 

You can see the problem!

So the alternative “third way” might be described as a “hyper-active” approach.

The prefix “hyper” comes from the Greek preposition “huper.”  It’s most basic meaning is “over, above, beyond, across.”  It is very versatile and gets translated “on behalf of, in the place of, on account of, for the sake of.”  You get the picture. 

I think the Bible teaches a hyper-active approach to helping the poor.  We can’t be passive; hoping and praying that they find their way out.  We can’t just provide money, goods and services; believing that will be enough.  Actually, we must do more… much more!  We must invest our very selves; not just money but also time, tears, talent, creativity, relational stamina, patience, raw confrontation… the list goes on and on!

Jesus summed it up by teaching that we are to love our neighbors, including our poor neighbors, as we love ourselves.

Let me give you one example and then I’m done.  I have a friend who is a youth pastor.  We’ll call him Ed but that’s not his real name.  He does all the things that youth pastors do and more… much more!  In Ed’s youth group there is a special kid that lives in poverty.  We’ll call him Joe.  Actually Joe not only lives in poverty, he lives in a family where he experiences blatant neglect and border line abuse. 

In my opinion, Ed is taking a hyper-active approach with this kid.  He takes Joe food, clothing, school supplies and other things that he needs.  When things get too rough at home Joe calls Ed and Ed picks him up and takes him out for awhile.  Ed picks Joe up for youth activities and worship services.  Joe is a very bright kid and has the potential to get scholarships for college.  Ed is keeping him on track by helping him learn how to apply for those scholarships.  Ed is also raising money for the fees that Joe will need to apply to schools.  Ed meets with Joe’s teachers and guidance counselors at school because Joe’s mother won’t. 

In short, Ed is pouring his life into Joe’s life.  He holds Joe accountable.  He prays with him. He counsels him.  He chews him out.  He picks him up.  He is doing stuff on Joe’s behalf, sometimes in his place, on his account, for his sake.  Ed is hyper-active for Joe. 

What would it look like if, in our country, we had 16 million Ed’s being hyper-active for 16 million Joe’s?