Gavin Newsom, a man who slept with his campaign manager’s wife and has done nothing about the tens of thousands of people living on the sidewalks of California cities, told Jake Tapper today that it was un-Christian to reduce the size and scope of the welfare state. One may believe food and medical assistance to the poor is one of the roles the government should perform, but that belief does not follow from Christian teachings. There is nothing in Christian doctrine that recognizes a role for government to play in meeting the needs of the poor and vulnerable.
Newsom’s argument that expansive social programs reflect Christian values of care and compassion for the less fortunate is a common one among proponents of big government, advanced to justify the size and scope of the state apparatus. While it is true that acts of generosity and mercy are central to Christian ethics, the question is not whether these acts are good, but whether scripture or Christian tradition supports their administration through the coercive power of the state.
When one turns to the Gospels, one indeed finds there injunctions to give to the poor, to feed the hungry, and to clothe the naked. But these are directed at individuals, not political authorities. Charity, in the Christian understanding, is a voluntary act of love—an expression of free will guided by compassion and faith. Coerced giving, by contrast, may provide material benefit but lacks the moral dimension that makes charity a virtue.
Indeed, the recent insistence on empathy—feeling what another person feels by putting yourself in their place—and, in previous decades, sympathy—feeling compassion without necessarily sharing another’s point of view—while concerned with emotional responses, are not really part of the moral commitment central to Christian teachings. Rather, the commitment is love or agape, the highest form of charity. This involves self-giving action for the good of the other. It is rooted in free will, not emotion. If a man wishes to be kind, he may be so; the government cannot compel his kindness.
Moreover, Christianity emphasizes not only moral agency but also personal responsibility. The Good Samaritan is commended not because he voted for a policy compelling others to do so but because he chose to stop and help a stranger in need. The spiritual merit lies in the act freely given. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:7, “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
The Gospels are very clear about this: the Christian ethic of charity is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that government should enforce redistribution. The state operates by compulsion—through taxation and regulation—whereas Christian charity is rooted in conscience, liberty, and love. Newsom is arguing that Christian charity can be achieved through state coercion. Nothing could be further from the truth of scripture.
This is not to say that Christians should oppose all forms of government assistance, to be sure; rather, it is to say that they should recognize the distinction between charity and state-enforced redistribution. The former benefits both giver and receiver; the latter, while (perhaps) alleviating material hardship, erodes personal responsibility and the communal and spiritual bonds between individuals. As the Robin Trower lyric in his 1973 “Two Rolling Stoned” goes: “Takers get the honey/Givers sing the blues.”
Historically, it has often been Christians themselves—through churches, missions, and voluntary associations—who have cared for the poor most effectively, motivated not by law (nor by empathy) but by love. In fact, Christians give much more to charity compared to secular individuals. The Gospel model of charity is deeply personal and moral, not bureaucratic or political, and the personal and moral desire to give is much stronger among Christians than in other groups.
Finally, whatever one’s view on Christian charity or the place of big, intrusive government, the United States is by design a secular state. It is not guided by Christian doctrine but by the will of a people who express many faiths—or no faith at all—with the rights of the individual, among these conscience and property, protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Newsom’s invocation of Christianity can have no purchase here—not only because his interpretation is wrong (really, cheap political rhetoric designed to manufacture the appearance of hypocrisy on the other side), but because religion is walled off from the formation and implementation of law and policy. Indeed, it is the principle of religious liberty that lies behind the strength and vitality of Christianity in America.
James Madison, in a 1832 letter written to Henry Lee, reflected on the meaning and intent of the First Amendment, particularly the Establishment Clause. “The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them,” he wrote, “will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
Madison believed that government involvement in religion inevitably corrupts and weakens faith. He saw in the situation of Europe historical evidence that state-established churches led to loss of spiritual vitality, religious stagnation, and persecution. He was convinced that religion flourishes most when left free from government control or support. He argued that state aid to religion undermines its authenticity and vigor. Separation was therefore not only good for the preservation of secular society, but good for religion, because it preserved its independence, integrity, and character of voluntarism.
freedom and reason 