By Marvin Olasky, published by World News Group on April 24th, 2018

James Whitford received a doctorate from the University of Kansas School of Medicine, then moved on from rehabbing bodies to rehabbing lives. Whitford and his wife, Marsha, have given birth not only to five children but to the Watered Gardens Gospel Rescue Mission in Joplin, Mo., a city of 50,000. Here are edited excerpts of our interview in front of Patrick Henry College students.

Why the name, Watered Gardens? In Chapter 58 of Isaiah, God chastises His people for—in the short version—just going to church and not doing anything more. He goes on to say, “Is this not the path that I’ve chosen for you—to feed the hungry, shelter the poor, clothe the naked, welcome the poor into your house? Then you’ll be like a watered garden.” We see the blessing promised to God’s people when they’re helping struggling people be productive.

We’re happier when we’re more productive? The Journal of Applied Psychology in 2015 published a study of more than 6,000 adults. They were unemployed for more than four years but sustained by the government in another country. No work, but they had everything they need materially. The researchers apply psychometric measures. On agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness, the adults dropped significantly compared with a control group. One result of people not working is grumpiness.

So poverty is not just a material question. Outside our mission doors one evening, a man stopped me and said, “I’ve been to a lot of different missions, but I’ve never been to one where I had to work for my bed and meals. You guys take the shame out of the game.” The guy standing beside him said, “We get to keep our dignity.”

We’re poor in dignity and also in relationships? The welfare system is so robust right now that there’s no need to develop relationships, either on the giving or the receiving side. When an elderly person has a cupboard full of government-subsidized food, you’re less likely to volunteer to prepare him a meal. Here’s the latest: Our government-subsidized distribution of smartphones with free data. Now people who are unhappy sink into this form of entertainment that’s been handed to them and that they haven’t had to work for. When the tug for relationship comes, they’ve been so placated by things given them that they’re less interested in developing a real relationship with someone else.

‘Chronic poverty and homelessness are almost always rooted in broken relationships of some sort.’

Aside from the smartphones, what other kinds of changes have you seen in the culture of poverty over the last 15 years? Younger people at Watered Gardens. State-funded agencies telling more and more people to be homeless so they’ll qualify for HUD’s Rapid Re-Housing program. I had a meal with a young man who said, “I was living with my mom and grandmother. Things weren’t going so well.” An agency said that if he would come and live at the mission, he’d probably qualify for his own house. It’s a strange web of incentives, starting at the federal level.

What’s wrong with supplying that young man with a house? A person doesn’t become homeless when he runs out of money. He becomes homeless when he runs out of friends. Chronic poverty and homelessness are almost always rooted in broken relationships of some sort—a broken relationship between a man and his family, between a man and his community, or between a man and God.

We’re both fans of Alexis de Tocqueville. What did he write in the 1830s that’s still relevant today? Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that when the state supplants fraternal social connections in a community, we have fewer of those associations—and when individuals find themselves in need, they’ll turn back to the state again—a crowding-out effect.

You also like his Memoir on Pauperism. Tocqueville pointed out two reasons a person works: to survive and to better his condition of living. Work/betterment is a natural cause/effect relationship that every person should be free to experience. Imagine if a person doesn’t work for fear that life wouldn’t get better or for fear that his life condition might even worsen. That’s what’s happening today. Our welfare policy has created an environment in which regular employment doesn’t seem to add up for many—and in some cases, at face value, it appears to worsen a person’s situation. Those who perceive work as punishment develop learned helplessness.

Tell us about your conversation with one man, Randy. On our fourth visit together, he mentioned that he was applying for a part-time job but had limited himself to about 15 hours of work per week, because “if I work more than that, I’ll lose my benefits.” He believes things will get worse for him if he works more. How sad. For Randy and countless others I work with on a daily basis at the mission, work is not adding up.

I want people to know about some of the programs you have going in Joplin. Great Britain now has a Cabinet-level “minister of loneliness,” but I suspect your Neighbor Connect program will work better. Neighbor Connect connects one neighbor’s need to another neighbor’s skill. We database what people are able to do and categorize them by skill. When we’re vetting needs, we watch for opportunities to get people together. We have volunteers preparing a meal and taking it to people who are elderly and in need. We watch for opportunities like that.

What does your Charity Tracker do? It tracks all of this information that swirls around in a benevolent community, all of the aid that an individual or family receives. We’re careful to protect privacy, but it allows us as a community to operate in a collaborative fashion: When we put in goals for an individual, those goals are then read by other organizations. We are in an Uberized society, and we’re figuring out different ways to make information count.

What is your True Charity Initiative? We start by pervasively educating a community through public service announcements. It can’t just be nonprofits and churches: The entire community has to understand. The PSAs would couple compassion and common sense for radio listeners and TV viewers. I’d hope to see communities form up to rethink charity. That might set the stage for policy change that respects and protects “subsidiarity,” where neighbors help neighbors and local churches and community organizations help neighbors before state and federal governments get involved. We need that because we’re now in a nation that’s sinking, with $21 trillion in debt and the divide between haves and have-nots widening.

You’d like to see a “Charity Zone” pilot program. To create a “Charity Zone,” churches and charities would form an association with the goal of having private local charity replace welfare. Charity Zone associations would partner with their local social service offices to offer food, cash and utility assistance, instead of having the government do it. Financing would be via a 50 percent tax credit that donors could receive for contributions to members of the association.

Is that idea getting any traction with legislators? Federal-level legislators give me a blank stare. State legislators get it and they’d be more than happy to try a pilot program, but their hands are often tied because welfare components are federally funded, with strings attached.

By James Whitford, published in the Joplin Globe on April 30, 2017

I was in a meeting with some people who work for a government-funded organization that helps other organizations get funded by the government. I hope that sounds strange to you. It should. The conversation was cordial enough but certainly had its tense moments like when I bluntly declined to participate with a group that strategizes to take tax dollars for the work of charity. Unfortunately today, the position that charity should be privately funded is often ridiculed as unrealistic. But that position is nothing new as is the temptation for legislators to appropriate someone else’s earnings to provide relief for strangers in need.

Less than 20 years after our nation’s founding, a debate arose in the House of Representatives as to whether the US government should provide relief for Haitian refugees pouring into New England. The recordings of that third congress revealed compassion was the driving force to consider whether the sum of $15,000 should be spent from the Treasury to aid those escaping a war-torn Haiti in the midst of revolution. James Madison’s dissent was clear: “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of…sufferers.”

Was Madison heartless? Did his solid stance against government aid reflect an indifference to the suffering of others? Not at all. In fact, he pressed on to consider other ways to care for those refugees without compromising his principled Constitutional position. For those who had fought for freedom against the oppressive rule of a large and expansive government, their newfound liberty demanded this one remain small and limited. The state was to remain laissez-faire, hands-off in the affairs of men, providing only a simple framework of law and order upon which a free and flourishing society could be built; one in which each person was unrestricted to speak his mind, build his dream, defend his family, and to be charitable toward his neighbor in need.

What happened? Only a handful of generations later, that strict constructionist and limited government perspective has given way to a contagious dependency on a massive federal system whose gross overreach feeds the masses but never solves the problem. Instead, true charity that flows out of compassion, selflessness and love for neighbor is crowded out by a seemingly endless supply of state aid that incentivizes its recipients to remain sick and poor.

So why is it nearly every day, one can find another news piece decrying the proposal of federal cuts to various relief programs? Government programs that feed, house, help tutor, even programs that help people travel are all on the cutting block. Are we stuck in a box of believing government is required for us to help our neighbor? Are our community’s relief programs so dependent on government subsidy that they can’t stand alone with local support? Are we to believe that if a government program loses its funding, a more effective form won’t resurrect by the courage of a compassionate community? I don’t.

To conclude that a good work funded by the government needs government funding is to forget there was a day when the government wasn’t so necessary to do good work. There was a time when the expectation for government to feed the hungry, provide shelter for the homeless or clothe the poor was nil. It was once the work of charity. For nearly two decades I have witnessed the work of true charity rescue countless people from the streets, deliver hope and freedom to the addicted, restore families that were broken and put people back to work.

It’s foolish to put faith in programs afforded by a government that can’t afford them. Neither should we fear their end. Instead, let’s put our faith in God and the power of a community that cares. My experience tells me we have reason to believe.

Photo credit: Geoff Livingston US Capitol via photopin (license)

This article is just the tip of the iceberg for the practical resources available through the True Charity Network. Check out all of the ways the network can help you learn, connect, and influence here.

Already a member? Access your resources in the member portal.

By James Whitford published in the Joplin Globe March 27, 2016

Recently, after hearing me share that the working poor are happier than the welfare poor, Mark got a job. I’ll never forget when he told me, the huge grin that creased his face and his enthusiastic high-five.

Just a few days ago, I stepped out the front door of the mission and saw Mark with a food box from our pantry. He earned it in our Worth-Shop. Certainly, you know he didn’t have to work for his food that day. He could have gotten it somewhere else for “free,” but this guy whose disheveled appearance and grade-school education would cause many to turn a deaf ear has something beautiful to teach us all: We’re each made in the likeness of a producer, not a consumer. Mark represents a minority who are turning away from handouts for a more fulfilling lifestyle.

The research is clear. Producers are happier than consumers. It’s also clear that givers are happier than non-givers. Increased endorphin release has been measured in response to charitable activity. Both work and charity are keys to joyful living.

The more we feel good about our giving, the more risk we pose of relieving the recipient his need to work and, subsequently, the more we rob him of his joy.

An even greater risk to this joyful living is in our current drift toward socialism. It’s sadly ironic that those who embrace the idea of a statist utopia are actually heading down the path of less charity and less work, a recipe for social malcontent.

Some might question, “Isn’t a socialist society more charitable?” For the most part, no. A number of researchers have proven this, but certainly the study by Hungerman and Gruber on “crowd out” of charitable giving in response to the growth of government welfare programs is telling.

For every dollar the government spends on social service, at least 30 cents of charitable giving is crowded out. One might think that society ends up ahead in that game, but considering the cost of bureaucracy, it’s the poor who end up losing.

The definition of socialism almost always enlists the term “social ownership.” Social ownership is the opposite of private ownership, and yet it’s private ownership combined with compassion that gives rise to charity. Socialism and charity don’t mix. Social ownership also leads to social reliance.

The early American colonists experienced this firsthand. Their initial “social ownership” community model was plagued by a lack of production and stewardship because each individual relied on the group. Maybe Mark could have taught them something about the dangers of social reliance and the importance of self-reliance.

Socialism and work don’t mix, either.

Last week, our case manager was looking for some help to clean up outside the mission and asked a visitor if he’d like to earn a meal voucher. “No thanks,” he said. “I can eat for free.”

If you’re wondering, he wasn’t a very happy person. Neither were we. Maybe Mark, with his enthusiasm, will run into him soon and persuade him to give up welfare and do what he did: embrace work and true charity instead.

By James Whitford published in the Joplin Globe November 8, 2015

For 10 years, I practiced wound care. I’ve probed, irrigated, and cut dead tissue out of the nastiest ulcers and cavities imaginable.

I could share stories that would probably shame any haunted house you visited this Halloween. When my wife and I opened the doors to our mission 15 years ago, I didn’t realize it was the first step to becoming a different kind of clinician. Although my background was steeped in peer-reviewed research-driven methods, scientifically proven best practices and everything else that’s measurable and objective, I came to learn quickly in my calling to the poor that wounds of the heart are also very real. These aren’t wounds that one can measure with any physical device, but they have real signs and symptoms commonly linked to chronic poverty.

Recently, one of our residents sat in my office and shared with me that after her mother left her at age 13, her dad became physically abusive. One night he felt guilty about leaving welts on her back and demanded that she whip him in return. She refused, so he dragged her to the kitchen, where he lit the stove and threatened to burn himself if she didn’t comply. She ran away shortly after that and became addicted to pain medication. No wonder. The pain from a heart wounded like that is unbearable.

She’s just one. We meet thousands of people every year. Together, with hundreds of compassionate volunteers and partners, we’ve become somewhat of a hospital for the broken-hearted.

Let’s talk about treatment. People who know of my wound care background will sometimes jest, “You’re still in the business.” In some ways, that’s true. There’s certainly this commonality: You can’t just put a Band-Aid on it. In wound care, an open wound that’s simply covered and not cared for is a recipe for an infected abscess. Depending on the wound, proper care may demand debriding, cleansing and packing, then close monitoring. It’s not easy, but it’s necessary.

The same goes for the wounded at heart. We can see the outward appearance of poverty and simply think that the Band-Aid of food, clothing and shelter is what we’re called to provide. Not only does that fall short, but that might actually be more harmful than helpful.

It’s why the National Alliance to End Homelessness has it wrong. Its tagline “A housed person isn’t homeless” may be true, but it leads us to believe that a house is the answer. The alliance champions “rapid rehousing,” a government-funded effort that subsidizes housing for people who’ve become homeless.

Sounds good, but I see the problem at ground level. One man who refused to be held accountable at our mission was rapidly rehoused. I saw him just a few days ago. He’s housed but out of the community and not doing well at all. The lady I mentioned above was rapidly rehoused with her boyfriend. Few would believe either of them are ready for such a relationship. Another resident admitted that he was encouraged by a local agency employee to give up his transitional housing and become homeless so he would qualify for rapid rehousing. What’s being promoted here?

Giving folks a house doesn’t make a home, and putting a Band-Aid on the problem of homelessness will only make things worse. This holiday season, apply the right kind of compassionate care to the problem of poverty. Build relationships and heal hearts.

Single Parent with Two Children Household and Two Parents with Two Children Household Scenarios in Cook County, City of Chicago, Lake County and St. Clair County

Excerpted from Illinois Policy Institute. Written by Erik Randolph, Senior Fellow.

Of particular interest in this study are the following:

1. General conclusions on pages 13-14
2. The course of action on pages 15-16
3. The single parent scenarios on pages 26-29

The single parent scenarios especially show a serious trough of disincentive for those earning between $15 and $35/hr. Everything in between these two points represents an economic loss for the individual. In this scenario, it’s better to stay on welfare than to move to the middle class.

Read the full report.