The other night, we were discussing with my in-laws Rob Bell's newest book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians. The book points out the tendency of God's people to forget that He is a rescuer of the oppressed when they themselves are no longer members of the oppressed. Bell reminds his readers that God always hears the cry of the oppressed and the needy, and that we are to represent His merciful, rescuing nature to the world.
As we reflected on this truth, we realized the difficulty in agreeing about precisely how this translates into real-life action. Bell is calling us to a higher level of giving than currently exists, and many of us would agree that the poverty that exists worldwide is sickening, especially in light of American affluence.* So we agree that we need to give more as a group, but how does that translate into our individual lives? Is there a point at which Christians should draw the line in their lifestyle and say "This is enough; I will give the rest away"? Or is there a point when we can agree that the poor among us are provided for, so it is okay to have whatever lifestyle one wishes, within one's means?
I do not think that God wishes all of his people to be at exactly the same level of wealth or poverty; I don't believe making a lot of money or having a lot of wealth is inherently displeasing to God. Rather, I see how God works through His people who do make a lot of money or have a lot of wealth to bless others who are in need. It is only when God's people hoard their wealth at the expense of helping the poor that the wealth becomes an obstacle to a relationship with God. In that situation, the poor suffer, but the wealthy also suffer as they cling to their wealth and forget their God.
Even when Christians who are high earners or born wealthy are willing to give, there is still the decision of how much. How much to keep and how much to give? Furthermore, in giving, should one concern oneself first with our fellow Americans, or primarily with the desperately poor in other countries?
We do have some government programs to help Americans in need, but do these programs meet the needs that exist? Here are some interesting numbers I compiled about the qualifying income for a family of four for various government programs:
$42,850 - maximum amount a family of four can earn without paying taxes
$42,400 - to qualify for State-sponsored health insurance for children (for a fee)
$39,783 - to receive Earned Income Credit
$39,220 - to receive WIC vouchers
$31,806 - for pregnant woman or child under age 1 to be on Medicaid
$28,194 - for children 1-5 to be on Medicaid (higher limits in some states)
$27,564 - to receive food stamps
$21,200 - for children 6-19 to be on Medicaid (higher limits in some states)
These amounts may conjure a wide range of reactions in those who see them. Some may think, "How does anyone live on that amount!" Others may think, "That's not so little! I can't believe the threshold is so high for certain programs." This reflects the difficulty in deciding what it means to care for the poor. Consider this: According to the Census Bureau, among poor families (earning less than $21,027 for a family of 4):
66% have living space of more than 2 rooms per person (on average a 3 bedroom, 1.5 bathroom house), 75% own a car and 31% own two cars, 97% have a color television, 55% have two or more TVs, 25% have a large screen TV, 78% have a VCR or DVD player, 62% have cable or satellite tv, 89% have a microwave oven, 64% have a clothes washer, 58% have a clothes dryer, 50% have a stereo, 33% have a dishwasher, 91% have phone service, 33% have both landline and cell phones.
I am not listing these statistics in order to downplay the difficulties faced by families in poverty. I am simply illustrating that the standard of living that we perceive as "minimal" for Americans is changing. When my mother was growing up, her family had almost none of the conveniences listed above, nor did most middle class families (of course, many were not invented yet). Even in my childhood, a family considered poor would usually not have phone service or a television, and certainly not a washer and dryer, dishwasher, microwave, VCR or cable service. We have gotten used to our conveniences and can't imagine what it would be like to live without them, so we have come to think that everyone must have them. So often when a family is having trouble making ends meet, it is in light of this lifestyle which we have made the norm in our society. This illustrates that food or shelter insecurity is not often an ongoing condition for families in the United States. Even among the poor in America, food and shelter needs are generally met, allowing other amenities to be acquired. So, the needs of America's poor are more likely to be help in a temporary housing or food crisis and help with other less critical but still important needs, like health care and education.
Turning our attention to the poor outside our country, we are faced with a much different picture. People in other countries are truly starving, lacking shelter and clothing, lacking clean water and basic protection from disease. God's heart and the heart of His people cry out to meet these critical needs. It often seems beyond our grasp to truly make a difference for the huge number of desperately poor, but we can at least contribute to change.
So, what do you think? Do you have a lifestyle limit in mind for yourself (or others), beyond which any income would be given to the poor? How do you think we should balance our giving between home and foreign countries? How do we define need, and is it possible to agree that needs are being met, short of coming to a point of everyone having essentially the same standard of living?
*Heath pointed out the need to reword this sentence, when I at first wrote that American affluence is sickening in light of worldwide poverty. Actually, the poverty is what is sickening and wrong.
