Thielicke on the Modern Welfare State; D. Walker

THEFREEMAN IDEASON LIBER1Y Thielicke on the Modem Welfare State by Daniel F. Walker H elmut Thielicke was a leading Chris tian theologian of the post-World War II era. Early in his career, Thielicke was removed from his teaching position at the University of Heidelberg because of his criticism of the Nazi regime. Late in the war, he was allowed to preach and informally teach in Stuttgart. Thielicke' s lectures and sermons were privately (and illegally) pub lished, bringinga Christian message to thou sands of people. After the war, Thielicke held high posi tions at the universities of Tiibingen and Hamburg, and several published collections of his sermons brought him acclaim in the English-speaking world. What established him as a leading theologian, however, were two multi-volume works: The Evangelical Faith and Theological Ethics. In Theological Ethics, Thielicke ad dressed the dangers of governmental pater nalism. While Thielicke did accept a role for government in providing a "safety net"

for its citizens, he expressed deep alarm at the reach and effects of the modem welfare state. Thielicke defined the' 'rationalization" of the welfare state's process as "organizing the effort in such a way that a maximum of production is achieved with a minimum of expenditure," thus infusing impersonalizaMr. Walker is an attorney in private practice in Tallahassee, Florida. tion into the welfare process and deperson alizing the participants. Direct, personal caring would be reduced to a minimum, "and even then the final stage will be a welfare officedesk or the home mailbox."1 Forms, computers, and adding machines not individual love of one's neighbor would drive the process. The greater the reliance of the welfare state machinery upon the depersonalization of givers and recipients, the greater the effects. Unlike many theologians, who im properly interpret the New Testament as a manifesto for "compassion" by force of government, Thielicke recognized the un desirable consequences, economic and per sonal, of the modern welfare state.

Individual Initiative and the Burgeoning Welfare State External consequences of the growing welfare state would be an increasing tax burden, decreased investment in the means of production, and a strain on credit; a further danger was that of welfare "bene fits" threatening' 'to become the equivalent of a normal wage" or, even where not, "a temptation ... for people to quit their job, justify their action on other grounds, and make up the loss in income by doing part time work on the side. All this leads to chaotic tendencies in the labor market." Internal, personal consequences of the 557 558 THE FREEMAN • AUGUST 1996 rationalized welfare state also were serious. As the modern welfare state embraces more "duties," it "not only reduces individual initiative but also kindles suspicion of the welfare work of other groups" and "de mands that all activities which impingeupon its monopoly must first receive official au thorization. " While American governments do not have a monopoly on providing wel fare services, Thielicke' s concern is valid; think of charitable organizations having to obtain 501(c)(3) recognition from the Inter nal Revenue Service before donors' contri butions can be used to reduce individual tax liabilities assessed by the government.

State Welfare versus Genuine Caring Of deep concern to Thielicke was the inner consequence where "welfare be comes the object of a 'claim': In time of need, when I cannot care for myself, I claim to have a right to be cared for; the state is obliged to assist me whether or not I act or am capable of acting to help myself." As Thielicke said, "welfare is thus transferred from the ethical to the legal plane." Anticipating more contemporary argu ments, Thielicke noted that supporters of welfare "rights" would emphasize the al leged "degrading" nature of people having to rely upon private charity, of being a mere object of benefactors' good will-thus vio lating the recipients' "dignity." Thielicke found that argument "meretri cious, " making" a false distinction between welfare as a legal act regulated by the state and welfare as the function of private, im provising love." Genuine Christian love of one's neighbor does not degrade the recip ient of aid. Genuine caring for another person is not mechanical, nor is it a "sub ject-object relation between giver and recip ient," but it is a partnership. Within the Christian context, "the giver knows that he is one who, in relation to God, receives without merit, and who must therefore act towards his neighbor as God has acted toward him." This is a dignity far different than that contemplated by supporters of the modem welfare state.

For Thielicke, a society in which the government' 'provides in principle for every kind of disability and the helplessness of old age" would alter' 'fatefully the relation ship between the generations." Families with sufficient financial strength should care for family members who need help. Look at America .now; older middle income Americans are encouraged to divest themselves of their assets in order to qualify for Medicaid so that taxpayers at large must subsidize the costs of warehousing the ar tificiallyimpoverished in nursing homes-in the name of "independent living" and "not being a burden to the children." Thielicke said that such a welfare apparatus for caring "would make parenthood a temporary func tion: When the function is fulfilled, parents simply step down and enter another sphere of existence." So it seems today in the United States. Again anticipating contemporary battles, Thielicke asserted that opportunities should be present for people to plan and "pay in advance for later pensions and other bene fits (medical benefits, etc.)." Aside from the economic advantages to be gained by Indi vidual Retirement Accounts, medical sav ings accounts, and other similar measures, the greatest benefit from such planning op portunities is that citizens can be active participants in the continuity of their lives rather than being mere passive recipients of whatever favors are doled out by a partic ular government. Genuine welfare depends upon personal involvement, but' 'the radical welfare state aims at state pensions for all citizens without distinction, irrespective of need or achievement. . . . It has become instead the welfare robot, devoid of any personal features at all." Does any of this ring true, in light of talk about welfare state recipients being given ATM-like cards to "access" their government benefits?

Ultimately, Thielicke characterized the State as an "emergency order" to which "we should commit to the state, not every thing we can, but only what we must. . . . [T]he state should give up as many tasks as possible and commit them to other agen cies." Thielicke was not fooled by those who would equate "compassion" with a perva sive welfare state and greater taxes. Those who' 'farm out to the machinery of the state all care of the needy" are "refusing to be human toward a fellow human being." Del egating a personal moral responsibility to a "robot" shows a lack of involvement in others' lives. The modem welfare state can not be a substitute for proper love of one's neighbor.Evenifthe welfarestate' 'worked," was efficient,and delivered to or on behalfof recipients most of each dollar allocated for welfare-it still would do damage. How? Why? According to Thielicke, "The responsi bility of love cannot be transferred. Love that is hidden away in some mechanical THE ONE-MINUTE SHED 559 apparatus 'gains me nothing.' And when I am without love I myself 'am nothing.' (I Cor. 13:2).The perfection of the machinery can actually deliver up the person to noth ingness."