Threats and Intimidation?

What stakes are we dealing with when we discuss the church-welfare issue? While we are all painfully aware that this matter has divided the Body of Christ and led many churches of Christ deeper and deeper into apostasy, could there be even more problems on the horizon? An editorial by nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas (12/23/1996) raises some disturbing questions about the future of churches that refuse to bow to the world's concepts of the church's role in benevolent activities.

Thomas begins by reminding readers of Ebenezer Scrooge and his hard-hearted approach to the poor. He then fast forwards to the present when Maryland church leaders tell the governor they cannot take more responsibility for the poor. The government, they tell Governor Glendening, will have to help. Mr. Thomas, usually a stalwart conservative, is positively incensed at such a suggestion. He urges a return to the time "when religious people were on the front lines in the war on poverty."

None of this is very different from the usual rhetoric we hear about welfare. But Mr. Thomas is ready to press further. "According to the Maryland secretary of state's office, there are 53,253 families or 185,083 individuals, receiving welfare payments in that state. There are more than 5,000 places of worship in Maryland. So, if every place of worship became responsible for just 10 families, or 37 individuals, the welfare rolls in Maryland could be wiped clean." Failure to do so would just be churches "rejecting one of their fundamental mandates and opportunities."

Wait just a moment, Mr. Thomas. Each church will assume responsibility for 10 families or 37 individuals? At what level of monetary support would a church become responsible for each of those families? If we are going to clean the welfare rolls entirely that means the church would be their sole support, not just a supplement to what the government gives them. Let's just say that each church would support each family at $20,000 per year. That is not really very much for a family to live on, but it gives us a starting figure. Perhaps Mr. Thomas would be so kind as to tell us where we are going to get an extra $200,000 a year to support these 10 families. Does he have any inkling of the staggering financial load that he would so easily and quickly place on the back of the church?

But there is even more. "Maryland officials should send a computer printout to all 5,000 places of worship in the state informing them of those in their communities on welfare. Clergy should begin preaching messages about the privilege of helping the poor out of their poverty. The state grants certain tax breaks to religious bodies, expecting them to perform work that the state can't or shouldn't do. It has a right to expect a return from the tax exempt. If church leaders think government ought to be the primary provider for the poor, perhaps the state ought to be asking the churches to help foot the bill."

Caught your breath yet? The government will send a computer printout to churches telling them what to do? What a brilliant idea that is, Mr. Thomas. The government will mandate and determine the church's ministry. Government does so many other things well, why shouldn't it get in the church business too? One does not often read a single sentence that both violates Divine Law and the United States Constitution at one and the same time but Mr. Thomas manages it when he suggests the government should tell churches what to do, and who to serve. God forbid that a printout ever should arrive from the capital ordering this church to undertake any kind of program or work. We take our orders from the Bible, not from Austin or Washington, Mr. Thomas!

But it is the last part of that paragraph that ought to raise some eyebrows. Mr. Thomas has the gall to suggest that churches are tax free because they "perform work that the state can't or shouldn't do." Churches that don't get with Mr. Thomas' new government church liaison should have their tax breaks revoked, he says. That is, plain and simple, economic persecution! It is shameful that such could be suggested in a nationally syndicated column, but coming from a supposed conservative is all the more terrifying. No, Mr. Thomas, churches do not receive tax free status because they "perform" for the state, and the state has no "right" to expect anything from them. Churches are tax free because the Constitution mandates an inviolable wall separating church and state. We thank God for the wisdom of this country's founding fathers, wisdom that seems in painfully short supply today.

It is tempting to dismiss all of this as merely an extremist view of one columnist. However, President Clinton has echoed the "Thomas plan" recently. In a message to church leaders he said "If every church in America just hired one family [off the welfare rolls--MR] the welfare problem would go way down." President Clinton did not say where he thought churches would get the money to finance his idea. But this much is clear: churches will be pressured to smooth out the problems the government's welfare reform package causes.

Mr. Thomas' (and others) may rattle on about "fundamental mandates," but they don't ever provide scripture showing that helping the poor is a mandate from God. His column does show, however, how deeply the thinking that the church is a welfare organization has sunk into America's psyche. Unfortunately, it also shows that if the times get desperate enough those who are true to the New Testament pattern for the church can expect heavy and painful opposition. Persecution of the Lord's people may not be so far away after all. We do well to brace ourselves for storms that are sure to come.