A version of this article was published on InsideSources.com on April 4, 2021.

“We want to avoid a situation where people are unaware of what they’re entitled to,” said Vice President Harris last Monday. She was explaining the purpose of the Biden administration’s “Help is Here” tour, showcasing the third round of national stimulus legislation passed into law this month.

I hope someone meets them along the way and hands off the book When Helping Hurts. This fundamental read, authored by leaders in community development, highlights the harm done when indiscriminate charity fails to discern true need on an individual level. Certainly, the most recent stimulus package represents another round of indiscriminate charity marketed on the grounds that nearly all Americans need relief. Accordingly, HR 1319 was titled American Rescue Plan Act and infers we the people are in the direst straits.

But are Americans in need of a government rescue?

I run a poverty-fighting gospel rescue mission alongside hundreds of other nonprofits like mine in a national network, Citygate. We know about the work of rescue. From a life of being trafficked, attempted suicide, or a sub-zero winter’s night, we have rescued a lot of people. Even so, the majority of the poorest who come to us are more in need of encouragement, guidance, and a friend than to be rescued.

Unnecessary rescue diminishes a person’s dignity, and if repeated enough, births a debilitating dependency.

Marvin Olasky in his seminal work, The Tragedy of American Compassion, notes “Dependency is merely slavery with a smiling mask.” In my two decades of fighting urban poverty, I’ve seen just that— indiscriminate aid resulting in the bondage of dependent poverty. Jocelyn who manages our emergency shelter is a good case in point. In a news interview highlighting her successful transition from a chronically homeless drug addict, she was clear about her dependency on welfare: “It was harder for me to give up food stamps than heroine.”

In his 1935 state of the union address, FDR noted this tendency to get hooked on government handouts after millions signed up for his New Deal welfare programs: “The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

In one recent interview, President Biden said, “I’m kind of in the position F.D.R. was,” and regarding the pandemic, “I think it may not dwarf but eclipse what F.D.R. faced.”

However, data on economic health reveal an inconvenient fact: March of 2021 and March of 1933 are quite different.

Unemployment is 6.2% now. Then? An all-time high of 24.9%. Home foreclosures then? At least 1.3% – twice that of the first half of 2020 when the pandemic inflicted its greatest economic impact. And in early March of 1933 just before FDR signed the first bill launching the New Deal package, GDP had plummeted 12.9% from the previous year. In contrast, the GDP had fallen 3.5% before Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act.

If President Biden insists on comparing the current economic situation to the Great Depression, he should also consider what FDR learned from massively expanding social services. In that same 1935 address, his mind was made up: “The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.”

Unfortunately, there is no such intention in the current legislation: $390 million is designated toward outreach and innovation of the WIC welfare program through 2024, $25 million is designated to improve food stamp (SNAP) technology through 2026, $21.6 billion toward rental assistance will remain available until 2027, and $5 billion in Emergency Housing Vouchers will be around until 2030.

The greatest problem, though, with sweeping rescue-rhetoric legislation is that it shifts our attention toward a paternalistic federal government, rather than creative local solutions, our family members who need support or who can lend it, and to our neighbors in need.

A more apt name for HR 1319 might be “The American Civil Society Disruption Act.”

For more than two decades, I’ve witnessed how government programs intended to address social ills instead crowd out the private efforts of civil society and disrupt the natural, relational ties vital for families and communities to flourish.

Section 1107 of HR 1319 will reimburse shelters for the meals they serve children, but it will also crowd out private donors and volunteers whose service will seem less necessary. Section 1104 that expands government food commodity by $37,000,000 but ties the hands of organizations to a no-questions-asked mode of charity, will reduce the need for people to come through local food banks that offer more than a hand-out. I also know from experience the penalty associated with unused Emergency Housing Vouchers (section 3202) will tend to motivate local housing agencies to qualify more people as homeless, perversely incentivizing just that–homelessness.

This bill is far beyond a rescue. It’s a gross expansion and entrenchment of the welfare state. To use the word “rescue” is more than a little disingenuous and though many might be sincerely thankful that “help is here,” there’s a lot of hurt that comes with it, too.

Photo Credit: Sonder Quest on Unsplash.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a “nearly identical” version of the bill referenced below on February 25, 2021. Learn more in this article from The National Law Review.

Imagine for a moment this scenario: You’ve finally escaped a traumatic and abusive relationship at the hands of your husband and found refuge in a local faith-based women’s crisis shelter, which is helping you begin the long process of healing.  For the first time you can remember, you feel safe.

One study shows that 92% of homeless mothers have experienced sexual and/or physical abuse.  Because of this reality, shelters implement strict safeguards to protect the emotional and physical well-being of vulnerable individuals who have placed trust in that shelter, and they have had the discretion to do just that. President Biden’s promised resurrection of the Equality Act during his first 100 days, though, endangers that discretion.

Over the past few decades, a rising tide of efforts grew into the Equality Act of 2019, which threatened to permanently handicap faith-based organizations (FBOs) by limiting their freedom in day-to-day decisions.  Although this legislation only passed the Democratic-led House of Representatives in 2019, there is now a greater possibility that a similar bill could be signed into law with one-party control of both the legislative and executive branches.

In section 3 of the Equality Act, an amendment to the language of the CRA would have effectively prohibited sex-specific facilities, such as homeless and women’s crisis shelters, from separating biological males and females.  One can imagine the emotional and physical dangers this might pose to the safety and well-being of residents who have experienced sexual and physical abuse from the opposite sex.  This nine-page list of individuals charged with sex crimes in intimate facilities suggests that similar incidences could occur in shelters (pg. 26).

Anchorage’s Hope Center, a self-described “safe haven…for homeless women,” recently faced an incident in which an inebriated biological male identifying as a female expected a bed for the night. A representative for the shelter stated, “Some of the women have said to the shelter, if you allow biological men to sleep right next to us at night, to disrobe and change right next to us at night, we’ll brave the cold.” The Hope Center explained that “it would rather close than deviate from its religious views and its mission to serve vulnerable women.”

A quick glance into the history of social work, philanthropy, medicine, and education reveals that faith communities have been the primary providers of assistance and aid to marginalized populations—the sick, poor, enslaved, and the refugee. The love that drives these humanitarian efforts is rooted in a deeply held faith, one which places a moral imperative on caring for those in need and affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every individual.

While the policymakers responsible for the Equality Act likely have good intentions, the unintended consequences of the Equality Act threaten not only FBOs but also individuals in need. The underlying faith that drives the work of FBOs will not allow most to violate their deeply held convictions and would likely cause these organizations to cut back or cease operation entirely in their present realm.

Currently, FBOs are a major player in providing social services for the marginalized populations in their communities. A 2017 study by Baylor University involving eleven major cities found that FBOs are responsible for providing, on average, 60% of all emergency shelter beds and lead the way in measuring positive outcomes for those they serve. The study also linked those outcomes to taxpayer savings of $119 million over three years. Not only do private FBOs save Americans money, but they require less of it to accomplish better results than their public counterparts.

Economist James Rolph Edwards further determined that FBOs are far more efficient in utilizing funds, with two-thirds of income directly impacting those in need—government agencies are half as efficient.

Faith-based efforts to care for those in need clearly have immense benefits for the individual and society as a whole.

Those working in charitable efforts, whether faith-based or secular, are not simply cogs in a social assistance machine—they are individuals making significant sacrifices for the opportunity to impact their communities. They do so joyfully, freely exercising their beliefs in the care of those in need.  The aim is not to turn away those in need, but to help the most vulnerable in the most effective way that they know, based on their convictions.  The Equality Act would handicap their ability to do so and may cause those they seek to protect to “brave the cold.”

It is imperative that leaders of faith-based organizations understand the potential implications of similar future legislation, as well as their rights.  We recommend beginning with the following three steps:

• Make the faith-based aspects of your mission clear.
• Remove the necessity for government funding in the operation of your organization.
• Utilize the resources in the “Further Reading” section below to learn more about this issue and the rights of faith-based organizations.

True Charity Initiative can work with you to take the first two steps above.  Consider joining the True Charity Network to learn, connect, and influence public policy to ensure effective charity.

FURTHER READING:

• Protecting Religious Staffing by Religious Organizations
• US Department of Justice FAQ Regarding Federal Funding and FBOs
• The Freedom of Faith-Based Organizations to Staff on a Religious Basis
• Text of Equality Act (H.R. 5, 116^th, 2019)
• Washington Wednesday Analysis of the Equality Act on The World and Everything In It
• Faith-Based and Secular Humanitarian Organizations (a history)

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”0px|||||”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”-27px||5px|||” custom_padding=”||45px|||” global_module=”7656″ saved_tabs=”all”]

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″]

This article was also published on RealClearPolicy.com on December 7, 2020.

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default”]

I was reminded of the lost art of “truth in love” recently while volunteering with Watered Gardens Ministries’ overnight shelter. As I listened to a homeless man confidently share about the quality of his romantic relationship, I noticed some red flags. So, I asked him a tough question: I asked him how he knew their relationship was as healthy as he said.

Immediately, his eyes glazed over and, wordlessly, he pulled his phone out and began scrolling absentmindedly. He ignored my presence and left my question hanging in the air, unanswered. It made him uncomfortable, so he dodged it—and his smartphone made it easy.

Jobless and staying at a homeless shelter, how could he afford such a phone? It looked a lot like mine: a touchscreen that clearly came with data as he scrolled through social media. A cursory glance over the shelter dining area revealed that he was not the exception; many residents stared listlessly at their own screens.

That man and other shelter residents can have smartphones courtesy of a government program called Lifeline. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented the Lifeline program in 1984 to help low-income households with what was deemed an essential service: phone access. It originally covered a small portion of low-income residents’ landline phone bills. But, over time, the program ballooned, with greater benefits for an ever-increasing number of people—now, many low-income people qualify for free smart phones with free or very cheap service plans, complete with unlimited talk and text and free data. The government imposes a tax on phone companies to pay for the program. The phone companies then pass the expense off to their customers via the Universal Service Fund, an additional charge on every conventional customer’s phone bill.

That night, I spoke with two other residents interested in joining the Forge, Watered Gardens’ long-term men’s program. I encouraged them to join—what could be better for these men than a program that promoted virtue, work, and self-sufficiency? But both expressed trepidation, which I pressed them on: Why choose the path of chronic homelessness over the path out of poverty? Both men cited the same reason: “I couldn’t give up my cell phone.” Participants in the Forge program are asked to give up their phone for six months to enable a distraction-free environment.

That evening at the shelter, I kept thinking: unintended consequences. On the surface, Lifeline seems to be a good and even necessary program. What could be wrong with providing low-income citizens with means to call about job opportunities, schedule doctor appointments, and stay connected to family?  But the insidious problem lies in the risk of addiction and its concomitant issues.

Phone addiction is not limited to the poor. A 2015 study in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions discovered a significant correlation between the extent of smart phone use and depression among university students. However, the negative effects appear to accrue disproportionately to those at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. Other studies link heavy phone usage with anxiety, depression, and social isolation, maladies which already disproportionately affect the poor. Robert Putnam, in his ground-breaking book Bowling Alone, indicates that social isolation is especially harmful to the economically disadvantaged; conversely, strong social connections, particularly outside an impoverished person’s socioeconomic tier, are invaluable in their potential to leverage him or her out of poverty. Indeed, the poor have the most acute need for the benefits afforded by a variety of real social connections, including better work opportunities, a sense of community and belonging, and an improved outlook on life—and significant evidence shows smartphones inhibit our ability to make these vital connections.  Is it compassionate to provide a device that’s strongly linked with depression and social isolation to a group that’s particularly vulnerable to those afflictions?

Such research, and experience, indicates that free cell phones harm the homeless more than help them. If Lifeline is going to spend over 20 billion dollars in less than 20 years on subsidized phone service to the poor, perhaps the burden of proof that the program is both necessary and effective is on them. If they can deliver service to 7.5 million people, surely they can afford to run a small randomized controlled trial to determine whether the program is a line pulling people out of poverty or an anchor dragging them beneath the waves.

The Lifeline program is a sobering reminder of what seasoned poverty fighters know well: well-intended interventions don’t always have the hoped-for result. That which was intended to release the poor from unemployment and isolation may be fostering them. The devices’ ensnaring effect was evident: mastered by their phones, the homeless residents were like automatons, drifting through days, lulled into missing a vibrant and opportunity-filled life, victimized by unexamined good intentions and their unintended consequences.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

Learn about True Charity here.

Versions of this article were also published by The Federalist and The Joplin Globe.

Face masks are “all we’ve got right now to fight this virus, and it is up to each one of us to do our part,” Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly told reporters last week. Kelly signed an executive order last Thursday requiring all Kansans to wear masks when in public spaces. The best Kelly’s got, though, might not be best for every Kansan.

A 2015 randomized controlled study published in the British Medical Journal evaluated 1607 health care workers throughout 14 hospitals. It revealed the continuous use of cloth masks increased respiratory infection rates, with the type of mask and length of wear as relevant factors. Regardless of the efficacy of masks, however, should a governor or any government authority have the power to cover your mouth?

Government tends to grow during crises, and as Robert Higgs from the Independent Institute points out in his book “Crisis and Leviathan,” that growth begins with an expansion of power. From labor disputes and riots in 1886 that propelled public support for expanded federal power to regulate industry, to the 9/11 tragedy that gave way to the Patriot Act growing the government’s power to surveil Americans, crises have historically served as the perfect matrix for government to swell its power and reach into our personal lives.

The common denominator is public fear. In 1886, it was fear of railroad companies growing too powerful or labor strikes stopping their delivery of supplies. In 2001, it was fear that neighbors might be terrorists. In both cases, fear inspired public opinion that government should step in. Fear might be justified in some circumstances, and perhaps the Wuhan virus pandemic is one of them, but to the extent that fear pries open our hands to let loose of personal freedom, it also subjects those hands to be tied by tyranny.

It’s not just the Kansas governor. Attorney General William Barr recently created a task force to investigate anti-government extremists after certain groups instigated violence following the death of George Floyd.

In Barr’s June 26 memo, he wrote, “The task force will develop detailed information about violent anti-government extremist individuals, networks and movements — and will share that information as appropriate with federal, state and local law enforcement.” He added, “The ultimate goal of the task force will be … to understand these groups well enough that we can stop such violence before it occurs and ultimately eliminate it as a threat.”

A free society cannot flourish without just rule of law, but when the government starts spending resources on investigating “anti-government” American citizens deemed “extremists” to stop crime “before it occurs,” one should at least raise an eyebrow. Fear of riots and radical groups such as Antifa shouldn’t drive our support for government expansion or increased supervision. It might be Antifa today, but it could be you tomorrow.

Consider these words from our own Declaration of Independence: “[W]henever any form of government becomes destructive of [our unalienable rights], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” We’ve entered a dangerous time if speaking those words places you on a government watch-list.

Higgs describes the ratcheting effect of government growth. It starts with a crisis justifying expanded power, which requires resources to exercise it — another upward click in the ratchet of non-retractable government growth. No matter the reassurance or motivational tenor that accompanies the rally cry of “safety,” we should remember that no one feels safe when he’s handcuffed, nor should he, even if only under the threat of such arrest.

Kelly got the second part right, though: “[I]t is up to each one of us to do our part.” It’s not up to President Donald Trump and Dr. Anthony Fauci to do our part in remaining vigilant and informed. It’s not up to Congress to do our part in stimulating our economy. And it’s not up to a governor to ensure we wear masks.

It’s up to each of us to care about others enough to wash our hands, stay home when we’re sick, support those who feel they need to shelter in place, educate people in our circles of influence, and wear masks as a precautionary measure. Government mask enforcement isn’t “all we’ve got right now to fight this virus.”

Consider the greater weapons of conscientiousness, courtesy, kindness, and charity. I choose to fight with those, and I’m not alone. I know volunteers who have delivered meals to the elderly, others who’ve traveled and then responsibly self-quarantined, and many who have gladly worn masks in our mission while preparing meals for the homeless.

Before the government steps in to protect us from each other, let’s exercise real compassion and neighborly concern — and do it ourselves. This love for others won’t just prevent the spread of a virus. It will preserve our liberty.

James and his wife, Marsha, founded Watered Gardens Ministries in Joplin, Missouri, in 2000, now a 105-bed mission working with the homeless and poor. He currently serves as the mission’s executive director. James also founded the True Charity Initiative in 2012 to champion a movement of privately funded effective charity at the most local level.

I love our fight for civil society.

It’s not just Joplin. Communities throughout the Midwest fight to retain hospitality and restore neighborliness while volunteers care for their community members struggling in poverty.

The fight for civil society is a worthy one, too. A recent Barna Group survey revealed that Americans are twice as likely to say they’re lonely compared with 10 years ago, and several studies conclude isolation is an epidemic that affects health at a number of levels, including heart disease and mortality.

The death of civil society is literally deadly.

How do we preserve it?

It’s a question we must wrestle with in a society where social media interrupts conscientious parenting, drugs are prescribed to merely numb broken hearts, and a person can somehow survive in a sea of people yet remain isolated.

The cornerstone of civil society is compassion. Without compassion, we simply won’t care enough to engage the young parent who needs guidance and encouragement. Without compassion, we won’t care enough to pray with or comfort the brokenhearted. And without compassion, we’ll give no time to the lost and lonely in our downtown who’ve learned to survive in seclusion but never thrive in healthy relationships.

Then is it a lack of compassion that eats at the fabric of civil society?

If giving is a measure of compassion, then it’s a valid argument. The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of Culture and Opportunity reported that Americans are giving less of their time and volunteering fewer hours since 2005. Citygate Network, a national association of gospel missions, reported that two-thirds of their membership saw a decrease in donations during the last quarter of 2018 compared with the prior year.

What gives?

There’s reason to believe that compassion wanes because of government “solutions” that too often meet a need but fail to meet the person. Could America’s welfare state be driving a wedge between one’s compassion and another’s plight?

In his 1835 “Memoirs on Pauperism,” Alexis de Tocqueville studied Europe’s growing welfare programs, noting their disruption of civil society and the vital, compassionate, charitable transaction:

“Individual alms-giving established valuable ties between the rich and the poor. The deed itself involves the giver in the fate of the one whose poverty he has undertaken to alleviate. The latter, supported by aid, which he had no right to demand … feels inspired by gratitude. A moral tie is established between those two classes whose interests and passions so often conspire to separate them from each other … This is not the case with legal charity (that) allows the alms to persist, but removes its morality. The law strips the man of wealth of a part of his surplus without consulting him and he sees the poor man only as a greedy stranger invited by the legislator to share his wealth. The poor man, on the other hand, feels no gratitude for a benefit which no one can refuse him. Far from uniting … the rich and the poor … it breaks the only link which could be established between them.”

“Removes its morality … feels no gratitude … breaks the only link.” I’ve seen that during nearly two decades of poverty-fighting. It’s why our True Charity Initiative educates our community and others concerning the importance of private, local, compassionate charity. Privately funded charity is the only charity that stems from individual compassion — and without individual compassion, civil society is lost.

Keep up the fight, Four States. It’s worth it.

You can find out more about True Charity’s upcoming educational summit at truecharity.us/summit2019.

James Whitford is co-founder and executive director of Watered Gardens Ministries and True Charity Initiative.

This article was originally published in the Joplin Globe on September 1st, 2019.

By James Whitford, published in the Joplin Globe on July 6th, 2018

In the afterglow of this past week’s Fourth of July celebrations, I remain grateful for those who fought to provide and protect our freedoms in this country. I’m also reminded of the freedom for which many churches and missions fight for the sake of those entrapped by government welfare dependency.

What is this freedom for which we fight? The “experiential freedom” that only work-oriented solutions to poverty are able to provide to our neighbors who struggle but have potential and ability often unacknowledged.

In 1833, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this fight. As the English Poor Laws had corrupted countless through government relief, he penned “Memoir on Pauperism” and noted two reasons a person works: to survive and to better one’s condition of living.

Work/betterment is the natural cause/effect relationship that every person should be free to experience. That’s why I call it experiential freedom. And all other freedoms, including the economic freedom to act in our own best interests, depend on it. Why? Because every decision we make is based in what we’ve experienced. If we’re not free to experience, we’re not free to act.

Welfare has a nasty way of stripping freedom when it comes to experiencing the benefits of work. I meet people every day who don’t work for fear that life wouldn’t get better or that it might even worsen if they did.

I was mentoring Ken at our mission and on our fourth visit together, he mentioned he was applying for a part-time job but that he had to limit himself to about 15 hours of work per week. “If I work more than that, I’ll lose my benefits,” he reasoned. He believes things will get worse for him if he works more. How sad.

On another occasion, a young man named Josh admitted playing the system for a yearlong HUD housing voucher instead of committing to our yearlong work-ready program, Forge. Why? Because free housing seemed better than our offer of commitment, effort and accountability.

And many times, I’ve heard a person say, “I can only work for cash under the table because my disability attorney told me if I get a real job, it’ll hurt my case for early SSI.” Why? Because many of our policies incentivize sickness and poverty more than they do health and wealth.

Our welfare state policy has created an environment in which regular employment doesn’t seem to add up for many, at least not to a better life. And in some cases, at face value, it appears to worsen a person’s situation.

But this welfare cliff is not as dangerous as many fear. “Three Myths About the Welfare Cliff,” a recent paper published by the Foundation for Government Accountability, reveals that work pays off even in the face of a threatening withdrawal of state support.

This truth is reflected in the president’s recent executive order, Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility. More importantly, legislation that follows its direction could help free able-bodied adults currently caught in the welfare dependency trap. If D.C.’s renewed attention to the truth that government can’t solve problems of poverty is followed with policy that reduces the enticement of welfare’s low-hanging fruit, local churches and missions such as mine may find themselves winning the fight to empower the poor through work-oriented solutions.

It is a fight.

For Ken, Josh and countless others I work with on a daily basis at the mission, work is not adding up. Welfare dependency is stripping people of experiential freedom, the realization of work and betterment, the joy of earned success, and the hope of independence. Regrettably, our policies have perverted the natural cause/effect relationship of which Tocqueville spoke.

Until we win this fight, much of America will remain bound, trapped in poverty, never really free.

Picture found on pixbay.com

Learn more about True Charity and Watered Gardens.

By James Whitford, published in the Christian Post on June 2, 2018

At Watered Gardens Gospel Rescue Mission, I’ve met many men and women who’ve traded the freedom of God-given work for the chains of government-sponsored welfare. Decades of failed welfare policies have led many of them to believe they are better off not working, and they’ve missed out on the dignity of work as a result. They come to our mission defeated, but when they give up their government benefits in exchange for a place to sleep and an opportunity to work, they experience something different: hope.

A shift in federal policies may finally give millions of Americans this same hope. Recently, President Trump signed an executive order to ensure welfare programs promote work for those who are able. And Congress has included work requirements in the 2018 Farm Bill proposal—a reform that would lift millions of able-bodied adults on food stamps out of poverty.

These reforms should instill hope in anyone trapped in dependency, and they should excite all of us in faith-based ministries. After all, you only need to look to the Bible to realize that work is literally a textbook solution to poverty.

Many in the Christian faith are familiar with the verse, “A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man.” From the Bible we learn from the failures of those like King David, who, when not working, fell into temptation and sin. And we learn from the successes of those like Joseph, whose hard work and diligence enabled him to provide not only for his family, but for an entire kingdom. Our faith began with work: in Genesis 2:15, God places Adam in the Garden of Eden and gives him a job: to work the land.

When the poor come to us at Watered Gardens, their needs are met in exchange for work in our Worth Shop—and they get much more than clothes and food. Through work, they find dignity in their self-sufficiency and freedom from government dependency. They find a purpose.

Take April, for example. Before coming to us, April spent most of her life abusing drugs and living on welfare. But at Watered Gardens, she was given a job to do—she was given a purpose. Shane also came to us after struggling to remain sober. Shane lost his job, his home, and the life he once knew, but at our Worth Shop, Shane was able to regain a purpose for his life as well. It’s a simple principle—work leads to prosperity—but it’s a principle with real results. For Shane, it led to sobriety and gainful employment. For April, it led to her own ministry as the Director of a Women’s Discipleship House.

For everyone, it leads to a fulfilled life with meaning.

These stories aren’t exclusive to Watered Gardens. States like Maine and Kansas are applying these same principles to their food stamps programs and are getting results. Research shows that when work requirements are applied to able-bodied adults on food stamps, individuals’ time spent on welfare is cut in half. After leaving food stamps, they find employment in over 600 different industries and their incomes more than double on average. To get these results, Maine and Kansas simply moved out of the way and let the God-given principle of work do its job.

When the government gets out of the way, local churches and missions, like mine, have a greater opportunity to help our neighbors break free from government dependency. We have the chance to allow them to experience the joy of earned success, the hope of independence, and the truth of God’s promises. That’s a torch I will gladly carry—and one I hope you will, too.

Photo credit: pexels.com

Learn more about True Charity and Watered Gardens.