In the book of Matthew (the American Standard Version), chapter 25, verses 41-45, Jesus says the following:
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.
We live in an era where correcting social and economic problems is an imperative. Going all the way back to my childhood, when segregation was an evil that had to be cured, we have relied on to government programs to effect social change. Hunger, homelessness, unequal education, unequal access to employment, and now medical care all are now or have been on the government's agenda for resolution in one way or another. Whether the individual has abdicated his or her personal responsibilty as prescribed by Jesus above, or an action agenda has been usurped by politicians seeking a permanent majority is arguable. Whatever the case, the result in today's political process is a loud call for a solution from the government outward to "recipients" in specific problem situations.
In the parable of the prodigal son, who was it that took the prodigal in after he came home? The prodigal's father. One man, head of one family. Fathers take care of your babies. Mothers support the fathers. Children pitch in to help your family members. Brothers, sisters, circle the wagons and incomes to lift up a family member. Not communes but community within the family. Not one giant national family but neighbor to neighbor. If the above statement cited above from the book of Matthew was followed today by the nation's citizen's in large numbers, as indivuals, in our daily lives, how many homeless would there be? Would we need food stamps?
Take the same admonition and hand it to our lawmakers. What are their options? Speak out about the problem in public. Use their individual bully pulpits to raise awareness. That's called campaigning or lip service. Then proceed to legislation which in the past has created departments of people managing the act of government giving according to prescribed rules. All of which is supported by tax dollars. In an era of increasing deficits, this is the ultimate conflict. How can you cut these government distrbutions that are so well intended?
"One of these least" (ASV) or "one of the least of these" (NIV) refers to individual needs. Over a period of years we have gotten out of the sense of community that had us caring for the poor or afflicted person to person. Which is more efficient, a large population and their resources pitching in to help the less fortunate or a government program manged by narrowly focused hard fast rules and a human bureaucracy?
As time goes on, we get used to government taking care of "the least of these". There is a government program to address the problem so we can put it out of our mind. Citizenship and charity on the part of the individual are diminished, government is bigger and more expensive. As voters, or non voters, the citizens are responsible for oversite of the elected officials. It is the voters and eligable non voters that have relinquished authority to care for "the least of these". The voters because they have elected majorities over the years that have engaged in the spending on well intentioned but poorly concieved and managed programs. The eligable non voters because they didn't show up at the polls. In the above Bible passage, we are all admonished to help the less fortunate than us. Is it better to be a society of 350 million helpers or a nation of regulations that try to drive the society?
