by The government and the church need to work together and be interconnected when providing welfare. Welfare is a sensitive subject to Americans as most agree that the system is failing. Different viewpoints provide varied reasons but few state that welfare is fixed in the United States (US). The American welfare state is a collective series of policies developed from the federal government, states, and localities to address the many Americans that lack financial resources to meet basic human needs.[1] The concern for the poor in the US has been a long tradition that derives from Christian and Jewish commitment to the biblical faith and biblical law.[2] There are provisions for the poor from the US Government and other non-profit organizations, but there is still a need for more assistance and focus from both the government and the churches.
While Social Security and Medicare are available, each of them is more than ten times larger than “welfare” at its peak.[3] Mothers have multiple barriers to work as they are normally responsible for the raising of the children which brings additional health problems, disabled children, transportation issues, and childcare needs. Unfortunately, these conditions make the mother unable to meet the welfare work requirements and she is then faced with sanctions or harassment. This is where the mother leaves welfare without attaining stable employment.[4]
There are programs and efforts to give families a chance at economic success. Some of them include high-employment and tax policies, government-funded childcare, and low cost or subsidized community colleges and vocational programs.[5] These efforts are not enough and while there has been activity from the churches, there needs to be increased energies and focus to assist the poor in all aspects of life and not just housing, work, and limited education. When the government and the churches are aligned on fixing welfare, then meaningful change can occur.
When referring to the church in this paper, it specifically means local churches, including mega-churches, rather than nonprofit religious organizations designed to address welfare issues. Such organizations are outside the scope of this discussion due to the complexity of the issues and solutions they deal with. Similarly, community lifestyles like those of the Amish are also excluded. This paper focuses exclusively on the role of local churches in welfare provision.
This paper describes welfare, its importance, and provides historical context of welfare responsibilities and Christian principles regarding social responsibility. There is an analysis of the role of the government explaining the legal and constitutional basis, examples of previous government welfare programs, and current welfare policies and programs. There is an analysis of the role of the church from a biblical perspective along with historical and current examples of church-led welfare initiatives. An argument for the two being interconnected is provided with opposing viewpoint responses, and proposed roles of each. The conclusion is that the government and church are responsible for providing welfare to individuals and families.
Role of the Government
Because of the federal nature of the American government, welfare programs may differ significantly from state to state.[6] The government operates both as a set of institutions and as a process. As a set of institutions, it includes the various agencies and officials responsible for creating and implementing policies. As a process, government refers to the political direction and management of these institutions, guiding how policies are enacted and executed.[7]
The main objective of the US welfare is to transition families from welfare dependency into the paid labor market. Poverty and the well-being of families is not the priority as the assumption is that those items will fix themselves once people have employment. This limited approach overlooks the complexities of poverty and the multifaceted aspects of support that is needed to support the long-term well-being for families.[8]
There are a diverse number of methods to determine whether individuals or families are living in poverty. One method is the normative criteria: a fixed income level (such as the World Bank’s $2 a day), nutritional standards based on caloric intake, or possession of assets (like having a shelter with a roof and a floor). An alternative method is comparative: assessing whether the living conditions of poor people are better or worse than those of others. Another method is behavioral: observing what people choose to have and using that data to establish a standard for comparison. Societal norms are another: identifying what people in the same community consider essential and evaluating whether individuals possess those items. These standards vary widely across different societies. For example, in the United Kingdom, family celebrations are essential; in Benin, bedding is necessary; and in Vietnam, owning a cow or buffalo is crucial.[9]
In the US, the standard reference is typically the Federal Poverty Line (FPL), also known as the Federal Poverty Level or Federal Poverty Guideline. Some programs are designed for individuals and families at or below the FPL. Others extend assistance to those within a specific range above or below it. For 2021, the poverty threshold was set at $12,880 for an individual, $15,510 for a household of two, and $19,530 for a household of three.[10]
Legal & Constitutional Basis for Government Involvement
Human dignity is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, but it is fundamentally one of the core values behind the system of government. It is essential to institutionalize rules through laws, establish norms via social conventions, and cultivate habits that protect dignity for a democracy to function effectively. These elements work together to safeguard individuals from being subjected to indignities and ensure that personal and group behaviors consistently uphold human dignity.[11]
The federal government frequently supplies most of the funding, while the states handle the implementation of the programs. The amount of flexibility the states have on eligibility and benefits varies by program and is dependent on the restrictions of the national program. Recently, Public-Private Partnerships (P3) are common as they are a way to jointly address public needs. This is where the government (local, state, or federal) provides funds and private organizations, usually non-profits, implement the policies.[12]
Policymaking in Congress is conducted by congressional committees and the representatives and senators within the committees face different electoral incentives. They are influenced by who lobbies them and the beneficiaries are viewed publicly. Many senators and members of Congress support programs in their committees less because they are anti-poverty programs and more because those programs assist other constituents.[13]
Historical Examples
There are several government welfare programs that highlight the evolution and variety of the efforts to address poverty in the US. The New Deal Programs were relief programs during the Great Depression (1929-1939) which included the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps which provided jobs and income.
The Social Security Act of 1935 marked a meaningful change in the relationship between citizens and the state, though it remained influenced by themes of work and race. The Act was comprehensive and multifaceted. Three key elements include old-age insurance, Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).[14]
ADC was racially structured. It was funded by both the federal government and the states, providing cash assistance to poor children and their parents. The states determined the qualifications and the amount of support, often requiring parents to be of “good character,” which were code words to exclude non-white recipients until such discrimination was banned in the 1960s.[15]
In the 1960s, there was a set of initiatives focused on the War on Poverty which included Medicare, Medicaid, and the Food Stamp Program. All of these aimed to reduce poverty and racial injustice from the previous programs. Since then, working conditions have improved as manufacturing jobs have been replaced with service jobs and employers have adapted to their workforce needs. Fewer workers experience harsh working conditions due to the transition from a manufacturing to a service economy.[16] Fast-food employers, recognizing the value of their employees, are more willing to adjust work schedules accordingly.[17]
At the turn of the twenty-first century, Americans grappled with the age-old question of how to assist the “deserving” while excluding the “undeserving” from welfare rolls. The focus was to ensure that those that were gaming the system would not benefit from the programs. The solutions to these questions shaped the foundations of today’s welfare programs. Most low-income individuals are supported with financial aid, public housing or rent vouchers, free or low-cost health insurance, free or subsidized school meals for their children, food assistance, and job training programs. As good as they are, these programs often keep them below the poverty line or just slightly above it. Only programs designed for workers injured on the job or temporarily unemployed manage to lift them above the poverty line.[18]
Current Welfare Policies & Programs
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which replaced ADC, requires a certain percentage of workers to work at least twenty hours weekly.[19] It is only available to households with children. Poor children get free school lunches (and often breakfasts) through their schools but there are no programs for the weekends.[20] There are lifetime limits on the number of years each mother is guaranteed the ability to collect cash payments. The federal limit is five years, but the states can set the number even lower.[21]
Workers and their spouses who reach sixty-five will get health insurance through Medicare and a retirement pension from Social Security. On the other hand, those who are not working or are in low-wage jobs must rely on TANF, which will not lift them above the poverty line. They will get health insurance through Medicaid only if they meet income limits or through subsidized plans in health insurance marketplaces. If they do not contribute to Social Security, they will not receive benefits when they are older nor qualify for Medicare.[22]
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides financial relief to low- and moderate-income households, particularly those with children. This reduces the amount of taxes owed and sometimes provides a refund. Another benefit is that these credits supplement wages earned.”[23] It has been effective in raising the purchasing power of working moms, but then other problems emerge as the EITC is means tested. There are consequences when the income of single mothers rises above $15,000. The credits are reduced, food stamps are reduced, and copayments for government childcare increases.[24]
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as “Obamacare,” has redefined the medical pillar of the social safety net on a state-by-state basis. In 2014, it was mandated that every legal resident must have health insurance or face a tax penalty that increased over time. The “individual mandate” ended in 2019, but individuals and families can still purchase health insurance through state exchanges. Private insurance companies provide the insurance, while the government facilitates these exchanges and sets minimum standards for the insurance offered.[25]
Some Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) receive government funds to administer some of the programs. An example is the Boys & Girls Clubs providing free lunches for children during the summer when the school cafeterias are closed, using funds provided by the federal government.[26]
Role of the Church
As stated earlier, when referring to the church in this paper, it specifically means local churches, including mega-churches, rather than nonprofit religious organizations designed to address welfare issues. Local churches in the US have critical roles in providing welfare and social support to the communities. While the government manages large-scale welfare programs, churches often fill gaps and provide direct assistance to those in need.
Studying how biblical law addresses the needs of vulnerable individuals provides valuable insights for public policy. Some modern legal frameworks may even draw directly from biblical teachings on addressing societal needs. While religious ideas and traditions may not directly dictate community organization, they serve as foundational sources of moral standards that inform political principles.[27]
Biblical Foundation for Church’s Involvement
Like the federal government’s initial perspective of welfare available only to the “deserving” that want to work, Proverbs 6:6-11 illustrates how the lazy are not rewarded and will be poor. Bridging the gap of time, geography, and culture is sometimes difficult when analyzing biblical law to today’s modern legal system in the US. Most of the time, biblical law is not directly applicable because it was intended to govern the conduct of God’s people in ancient Israel and not a pluralistic, democratic society today.[28] In comparison, humankind has not changed so much that social concerns like poverty and the poor are completely different from ancient biblical times.[29] The Bible has plenty of laws to protect the resident aliens, widows, orphans, poor, disabled, hired servants, and slaves.
For many Christians, the theological principle of “law” has been superseded by “gospel.” Either way, the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT) relate to many social issues, particularly those involving human welfare.[30] For protection against injustice and mistreatment, Scripture within the OT include the books of Deuteronomy (Deut. 10:18, 24:19-21), Exodus (Exod. 22:21-22, 25, 23:9), Leviticus (Lev. 25:35-37), and Proverbs (Prov. 12:25, 19:17, 22:9). Within the NT, there are Acts (Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-37, 6:1, 11:29-30), 2 Corinthians (2 Cor. 8-9), 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 5:1-16), and 2 Thessalonians (2 Thess. 3:6-15). Regarding caring for others, some examples include Galatians 6:10, Luke 6:30, 14:13, 16:19-31, Matthew 25:34-45, 19:21, 1 John 3:17, and James 2:9.
Historical Perspectives and Examples
During the 16th century, the Protestant ethic, discouraged provision for the poor through norms, customs, and laws. John Calvin emphasized St. Augustine’s doctrines on free will, grace, and predestination. Calvin refined the doctrine of predestination to highlight the central place of God’s will in foreordaining salvation or damnation. Calvin believed that not all are created in equal condition as eternal life is foreordained for some and eternal damnation for others. This predestined ending means that people could not do anything to change their fate and should look for signs to see if they might be among the elect. These signs of salvation could be identified through an ascetic life of hard frugality and material success.[31]
Unfortunately, distinctions between the worthy and the unworthy in church and in society came to be reflected by distinctions between the deserving and the undeserving in the disbursement of charity and welfare. Calvin was against giving contributions and gifts universally to those considered lacking moral worth. He strongly encouraged church authorities to remove begging and promote the values of hard work and frugality. He endorsed Paul’s statement, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thess 3:10, New King James Version).[32]
Followers of Calvinism proposed a form of unemployment insurance where they would setup parish workshops to train children in useful skills. This would be funded by taxes on the poorer classes where those that were paid-up would be allowed to benefit. All of this would be placed entirely under the control of church authorities. This system would promote sobriety and hard work while discouraging drunkenness and laziness. There were exceptions for the grateful poor as they could still benefit from charity, benevolence, and unexpected favors.[33]
During the 19th century, Durkheim and others agreed that humans must realize their nature, but they did not see this as unchangeable because they are modified by changes in society.[34] The power of human reason to make sense of the world was emphasized into Christian theology but advocated the subordination of reason to faith. Faith was the lens through which reason was exercised. Reason provided the church with a mechanism for engaging with social change and a theological way forward in its influence with secular knowledge.[35]
Human nature was presented as a set of basic tendencies, or inclinations, which are essential for human life. These include the internal drive to stay alive, seek food, and care for offspring as they are all shared with other living creatures. There was an emphasis on the social aspects of humankind and the need for cooperation, so everyone lives a good and sufficient life. The thought was that humans were naturally disposed towards reason with a natural curiosity to live together in social communities. This reason was used to devise social and political institutions because they were aligned with natural law which was underwritten by the will of God.[36]
There were pushes for socialism, but some argued against socialists who wanted to do away with private property and make individual possessions common property controlled by the government. The argument was that this would remove hope and deprive the individual worker of the ability to use his wages to improve his lifestyle which is contrary to natural law.[37] This led to a proposed system of government that mirrored the church’s paternalistic and authoritarian watch over its flock.[38] There was a promotion of family rights with the father at the head of the family.
The second half of the 20th century was when the church’s influence began to diminish as society became more urban and less religious as the old communal lifestyles were replaced with individualistic ways of life. Fanning states, “The ability of the Church, and its apparent stranglehold over public morality, combined with censorship, isolationist nationalism and economic protectionism, to ‘prevent the future,’ as a prominent political scientist put it, declined over time.”[39]
Recent Church Practices
Many churches operate food pantries, shelters, and clothing drives to support the homeless and economically disadvantaged. They also offer counseling services, addiction recovery programs, and financial assistance to help individuals and families navigate challenging circumstances. Additionally, churches engage in advocacy efforts to address systemic issues such as poverty, inequality, and social justice. By integrating moral principles with practical assistance, churches contribute significantly to the welfare and well-being of their communities, complementing government efforts with personalized care and community support.
The church’s concern for the poor took modern shape for the mainline during the Social Gospel movement at the turn of the 20th century.[40] The church took center stage in America’s fight against poverty in the 1990s. Over the course of that decade, both political parties viewed the churches as uniquely effective providers of social services for the poor.[41] The mainline Protestant organizations have historically been among the largest nonprofit providers for the poor and have entered national discussions about welfare.[42]
In 1982, President Reagan mentioned Billy Graham’s statement that if every church adopted ten poor families, all government welfare (federal, state, and local), could be eliminated. It would cost infinitely less, and it would help more because it would come from the heart. The president mentioned that government welfare was demoralizing, and volunteers administered by churches were better. His examples included the church-supported Jubilee Housing effort in Washington, DC, that “changes lives,” along with other groups in Massachusetts, Illinois, and California that harnessed generosity with lessons in personal responsibility. He pointed to the meaning of the Bible with its emphasis on faith, hope, and charity.[43]
Complimentary Roles & Collaboration
The United States has never seen a church-based political party akin to Europe’s Christian Democratic parties, but various religiously motivated movements have significantly influenced US political agendas and mobilized citizens into political activism.[44] There are several Protestant evangelical leaders that have national influence and receive a great deal of attention in the media and among scholars of religion.[45] As stated earlier, the government and the church need to work together and be interconnected when providing welfare. There needs to be clear boundaries with specific limitations of authority with enough flexibility to constantly be innovative on how to support the poor and lift them above poverty. There needs to be a balance as the church continues to provide a substantial role in addressing social needs. Recently, involvement has shifted to acts of service and less through political engagement. This could be dangerous as both are needed for the church to broadly contribute to improving social conditions.[46]
Addressing Opposing Viewpoints
Up to the 19th century, the government and church blamed the poor for their poverty. Some of that is still present today as many pious, or self-righteous, people proudly proclaim their hostility to the poor, and consider “welfare” programs on their behalf an anathema. Politicians pandering to popular prejudice have frequently equated social welfare with socialism, and socialism with communism, denouncing alike.[47]
Some people are self-centered and may commit to the idea of welfare if it is also good for oneself. They urge for the poor to be given a safety net lest they revolt and cause problems. Conservatives argue that social rights should come with obligations that all citizens must fulfill. They believe the “undeserving” are receiving too much generosity. Welfare, in their view, should be conditional.[48]
Several people advocate stopping the giving of money in order that the poor become more responsible for themselves and less dependent on others. This may have some kernel of truth, but it also sounds callous and lacking in compassion. Others measure compassion by money directed towards social programs which can be viewed as a “handout-without-responsibility” approach which has been disastrous as it has resulted in long-term dependency and a sense of entitlement.[49]
The Palmer Home for Children almost failed because of a split congregation. Founded in 1895, the orphanage faced internal conflict by 1980 despite its large campus and substantial budget. A doctrinal dispute led to the congregation splitting which resulted in a struggle for control. The decision was whether it should operate as a nonsectarian welfare agency or a church-based institution. The latter view prevailed, and one of the former residents explained, “If we ever get to the point that we take government assistance, that’s the end of the value of Palmer because the government that gets involved in these social things . . . is a sure sign of failure.”[50]
Proposed Roles of Government & Church in Welfare
The proposed role of the Government is to continue to address welfare and provide P3 opportunities for the mega-churches to be involved and grants for the smaller churches to be involved. Both approaches force the church to be innovative with their proposals on how they would use the government money and the government could then turn some of the historically successful ones into national programs. Churches need to remain close to the local community and understand their needs. The government then evaluates the proposals and holds the churches accountable for the results that were estimated in the proposal.
In addition to the church roles already mentioned above, the churches should have internal ministries focused on helping the needy in the local community and direct a significant amount of their budget to being perceived as a beacon of hope in a failing community for the poor (monetarily and spiritually). One example is where a church partners with a local grocery store and every week the grocery store donates soon-to-be expired food for the church to pick up and provide to its church members and the surrounding community. The government’s role in this example could be where they provide a monthly stipend to the church to purchase additional groceries at a discount to increase the amount that can be given to qualified people within the church and the community. There would be reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the intentions of the program. Other programs that could involve the government and church include after school literacy/tutoring and clothing the needy through charity.[51]
When the church knows the pulse of its local community, it can effectively work with the local government agencies to improve other aspects of poverty. The church can work with local police to reduce crime in poor neighborhoods. The church can inform local politicians on local issues that need to be addressed to lift people above poverty. An example would be to have a coat giveaway program in the winter to homeless with the local church being the distribution center. There could be a “Local Agency Fair” at the church where the local agencies display their services for those in the congregation that qualify for their services. There are multiple churches in every neighborhood and if every church focused on this it would be effective quickly.
Concerned church members can act as role models, mentors, friends, and tutors for the underprivileged. The church can promote family involvement activities that keep the families together and raise the children without the need for welfare. Tutoring should be a joint effort between the government and the church as many church members have the spiritual gift of teaching and would be available to tutor if compensation were fair. The church could provide after school programs that give hope to parents and educate the youth despite the neighborhood’s climbing crime rate and deteriorating conditions.[52] There could be government scholarships to educational summer camps at churches for those that qualify.
Some government leaders go to church. All churches should focus on transforming their congregation with the power of the gospel that transforms attitudes and behavior. Turning the community into Christians will spread the moral values into the local community and the local government. The church should be perceived as more than a spiritual solution, it should be “the solution” that helps the local poor be lifted above poverty. They should be the hub and viewed as a one-stop place that can assist the poor in knowing and receiving what is available to them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the provision of welfare in the US requires a partnership between the government and local churches. This is necessary because the current welfare system is inadequate. The complexity of poverty and the multifaceted nature of support requires long-term well-being and a more comprehensive approach. The historical context of welfare in the US reveals a tradition rooted in Christian and Jewish commitments to biblical principles. Despite various government programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the EITC, many programs fail to lift individuals and families above the poverty line.
Churches provide a vital role in addressing these gaps by providing direct assistance, advocacy, and community support. Historical and biblical foundations for the church’s involvement in welfare underscore its moral responsibility to care for the poor. Examples from the church-led initiatives highlight the significant impact that religious institutions can have in complementing government efforts.
For meaningful change to occur, the government and churches must establish clear boundaries, specific roles, and collaborative frameworks. P3 and government grants for church-led programs are potential avenues for leveraging the strengths of both. Churches can offer tailored support, while the government can provide oversight and funding.
Addressing welfare requires balancing compassion with responsibility, ensuring that support systems promote long-term self-sufficiency rather than dependency. By working together, the government and churches can create a more effective, holistic approach to welfare that addresses not only the economic needs but also the social, emotional, and spiritual well-being of individuals and families. In doing so, they can fulfill their collective responsibility to uplift the poor and ensure a more equitable and just society. Wuthnow quotes Reagan, “If we believe in ourselves and in the God who loves and protects us, together we can build a society more humane, more compassionate, more rewarding than any ever known in the history of man.”[53]
Note from Professor: An excellent job in research, biblical/theological writing, and formatting/ presentation. Appropriate use made of sources. Earlier today I graded a paper on Evangelicals and Social Justice that was far less balanced. The takeway was that Evangelicals love only their GOP and don’t buy into DEI because they don’t love God. Suffice it to say your paper was everything that paper lacked: solid scholarship, helpful balance, appropriate historical background, insightful biblical vision. Easily one of the best papers I’ve read in a year. – Dr. Todd Buck
Bibliography
Barnes, Carolyn. State of Empowerment: Low-Income Families and the New Welfare State. Michigan: University of Michigan, 2020.
Cherry, Robert. Welfare Transformed: Universalizing Family Policies That Work. Cary, NC: Oxford University, 2007.
Fanning, Bryan. Three Roads to the Welfare State. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2021.
Glen, Brian J. The American Welfare State: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2022.
Hiers, Richard H. “Biblical Social Welfare Legislation: Protected Classes and Provisions for Persons in Need.” Journal of Law and Religion 17, no. 1/2 (2002): 49–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1051395.
Handler, Joel F. Social Citizenship and Workfare in the United States and Western Europe: The Paradox of Inclusion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
McQuilkin, Robertson, and Paul Copan. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom. 3rd ed. Lisle, IL: InterVarsity, 2014.
Poole, Jay and Bob Wineburg, eds. Religion, Welfare and Social Service Provision: Common Ground. Printed edition of the Special Issue Published in Religions. Basil, CH: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2019.
Quadagno, Jill, and Deana Rohlinger. “The Religious Factor in U.S. Welfare State Politics.” In Religion, Class Coalitions, and Welfare States. Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2009.
Spicker, Paul. States and Welfare States: Government for the People. Bristol, UK: Bristol University, 2023.
Wuthnow, Robert. “Human Dignity: Welfare Provision, The State, and Charitable Choice.” In Why Religion Is Good for American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2021.
Wuthnow, Robert, John H. Evans. The Quiet Hand of God: Faith-Based Activism and the Public Role of Mainline Protestantism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002.
[1] Brian J. Glen, The American Welfare State: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2022), 1.
[2] Richard H. Hiers, “Biblical Social Welfare Legislation: Protected Classes and Provisions for Persons in Need,” Journal of Law and Religion 17, no. 1/2 (2002): 50, https://doi.org/10.2307/1051395.
[3] Joel F. Handler, Social Citizenship and Workfare in the United States and Western Europe: The Paradox of Inclusion (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 1.
[4] Robert Cherry, Welfare Transformed: Universalizing Family Policies That Work (Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, 2007), 6.
[5] Cherry, Welfare Transformed, ix.
[6] Glen, The American, 1.
[7] Paul Spicker, States and Welfare States: Government for the People (Bristol, UK: Bristol University, 2023), 1.
[8] Handler, Social Citizenship, 20.
[9] Spicker, States and Welfare, 1.
[10] Glen, The American, 3.
[11] Robert Wuthnow, “Human Dignity: Welfare Provision, The State, and Charitable Choice,” in Why Religion Is Good for American Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2021), 115.
[12] Glen, The American, 2.
[13] Glen, The American, 5.
[14] Ibid., 9.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Cherry, Welfare Transformed, 7.
[17] Ibid., 8.
[18] Glen, The American, 8.
[19] Cherry, Welfare Transformed, 4.
[20] Glen, The American, 11.
[21] Cherry, Welfare Transformed, 4.
[22] Glen, The American, 10.
[23] Cherry, Welfare Transformed, 5.
[24] Ibid., 114.
[25] Glen, The American, 4.
[26] Ibid., 11.
[27] Hiers, “Biblical Social Welfare,” 53.
[28] Hiers, “Biblical Social Welfare,” 52.
[29] Ibid., 53.
[30] Ibid., 91.
[31] Bryan Fanning, Three Roads to the Welfare State (Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2021), 14.
[32] Ibid., 15.
[33] Fanning, Three Roads, 22.
[34] Ibid., 80.
[35] Ibid., 85.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Fanning, Three Roads, 88.
[38] Ibid., 90.
[39] Ibid., 98.
[40] Robert Wuthnow, John H. Evans, The Quiet Hand of God: Faith-Based Activism and the Public Role of Mainline Protestantism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002), 215.
[41] Wuthnow and Evans, The Quiet Hand, 213.
[42] Ibid., 214.
[43] Ibid., 130.
[44] Jill Quadagno and Deana Rohlinger, “The Religious Factor in U.S. Welfare State Politics,” in Religion, Class Coalitions, and Welfare States, Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2009), 236–66.
[45] Wuthnow and Evans, The Quiet Hand, 2.
[46] Jay Poole and Bob Wineburg, eds., Religion, Welfare and Social Service Provision: Common Ground (Basil, CH: MDPI, 2019), 213.
[47] Hiers, “Biblical Social Welfare,” 51-52.
[48] Handler, Social Citizenship, 4.
[49] Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom, 3rd ed. (Lisle, IL: InterVarsity, 2014), 489.
[50] Wuthnow, “Human Dignity,”131.
[51] Glen, The American, 2.
[52] Carolyn Barnes, State of Empowerment: Low-Income Families and the New Welfare State (Michigan: University of Michigan, 2020), 2.
[53] Wuthnow, “Human Dignity,”130.