I am watching Hour of Power - w/Bobby Schuler.
He has a guest who was on welfare. She mentioned how she believed the lie that because she was
black - it wasnt her fault that she was poor.
Well, she was saved! Went to a preching service and the pastor preched on the passage
that God would supply all our needs.
At that point Star Parker was convicted. She called her welfare worker and insisted she be taken off
welfare!
Later Sue wrote the book Blind Conceit,
So, if we are on welfare, are we not trusting God to supply our need?
TAKE ME OFF WELFARE!
Discussion in 'Money Talk$' started by Salty, Dec 26, 2015.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Or God may be supplying our needs through welfare. O O
It is hard....well, it's impossible....to deal with this issue via stereotype and characterization. There are people who genuinely need the program, and who (I believe) receive this assistance as a blessing. But your comment, and the book, seems to deal with the mentality that welfare is more of a "benefit" to the poor (what Clarence Thomas referred to as another type of slavery). But I suppose it may be hard....well, perhaps impossible....to deal with this issue in a focused manner without stereotype and characterization (there are so many "exceptions" to the rule....either way). -
This is a broader issue than welfare. If God will supply all our needs, is welfare-- or any means of support whatsoever-- a way He might do it? Even crooked ways? He 'supplied' Rahab's needs even though she was a harlot and a liar. And if we could get by on public assistance in all its manifestations, should we do it so we would then have time to go door-knocking and street preaching? Or is it sinful to keep our jobs so we have more than just a living, as we lust for 3 or 4 bedroom brick homes instead of cheap frame houses, and new cars when we don't have to have them, except to do our secular business, which is a big reason why we want them?
And then it ties to oft-discussed topic of being blessed by tithing. If people tell me the more they give [to a church] the more they are blessed financially, I then ask why they don't give everything they earn, they usually just turn and refuse to answer. But all in all, if that woman got saved, why did she have to get off welfare when she could then have spent her 'working hours' proclaiming the gospel? This story seems to be saying one result of being saved is to put more of the secular and financial into our lives. -
It would depend on why a person is on welfare. There are some people who have a legitimate reason for needing help. If the need is legitimate welfare may well be God's answer to prayer.
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
People turn to welfare because they are unable to work for whatever reason. They need to provide for their family. They need to have a roof over their head and food on their table. That is what is it for. You need money to survive in this world. It has nothing to do with having faith in God and believing he will provide for you. You can have faith in God but you also need to feed your family.
-
But why is govt doing this, when it is a mission of the church?
-
evenifigoalone Well-Known Member
I'm not a believer in relying on the government to supply our needs, government only has so much money to go around and the answer isn't spending more. And yet...some people genuinely need it. My family has in the past. With a disabled parent neither of my parents were able to work, we had to rely on SSI, welfare, and medicaid. I do very much believe that it's the church's responsibility to provide help (and we had received helped from local churches as well), but in our case it was a long term need. I don't think asking the churches to pay for my dad's medical bills would have turned out too well.
I believe in getting off welfare as soon as it's possible to do so. Probably also gradually letting go of it and setting up viable alternatives that do no rely on the government. -
In fact, the system is set up so that often its better to stay on welfare than to get off.
Example - here in NY State - if you go on unemployment - and you were to work - even 2 hours on one day - you would loose 25 % of your weekly unemployment check. ( that means you work any portion of 4 days - you receive nothing that week).
So what incentive is there to work while on unemployment? -
I believe it is only there as a last result. I don't agree with generations of families being on welfare because that is how they were raised so they raise their children the same way. Welfare is there when you have no other option. I know that it is abused a lot and they should really crack down on who gets. I am all for getting out their and working and paying your own way if that is possible.
-
There certainly seems to be a social stigma to having to rely on welfare, but for me I think it depends on the reason they have to claim the benefits in the first place.
While I think there is a lot of people that are just playing the system and are choosing to live on benefits, there's a lot of people that are in genuine need.
The question is a simple one. Is this person using welfare as a lifestyle choice or a necessity? And I think that's a question that needs to be looked at for everyone that applies. -
Looks like we are looking at this from a lot of different directions - (which is fine)
One main concern is the incentive to get off. The policy should be a sliding scale. For example, for any program - - ie unemployment, welfare, foods stamps, ect - say for every $5 you earn - you loose $1 of benefits.
Now, how do we work on these other problems? -
I agree. There does need to be a bigger incentive to get back into work.
Over in the UK for example, your allowed to work 16 hours a week and still claim unemployment benefit. Anything over that and you get the full unemployment benefit taken off you, but your still entitled to other benefits to 'top up' your wage as long as you don't work over 35 hours a week. Sounds fair enough.
The problem is that most companies now work on zero hour contracts. You get a job and they contract you to 37.5 hours a week, so you lose all your benefits, but they don't then guarantee you'll work 37.5 hours a week. They'll only give you as many hours as they need you to work, in some cases it's been as little as 8 hours.
People are too scared to come off welfare and get a job because in a lot of cases they'll be worse off. While people might want to work, if they're going to get a job but then struggle to put food on the table then they'll just say what's the point? -
evenifigoalone Well-Known Member
For my family, we got off not long after my dad passed away. We were in a much better situation financially after that point, and if we didn't need welfare we didn't want it.
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
In a way that's where we're lucky in the UK as the NHS is the main provider of healthcare over here and not many people do have private health care and don't need it.
That's at the moment of course although I'm not sure how long that's going to last under this government. -
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
evenifigoalone Well-Known Member
So the argument goes privatizing the medical system would lower the cost of health care and make it much more in the affordable range, but I can't say I know enough about that to make a case one way or the other.
Page 1 of 2