Bureaucracy does not work nearly as well.

Islander VI’s article “Brotherhoods” by Stephen Carson is well worth the read, short as it may be compared to some of its companions. In it, Carson lays out the pitch for ‘mutual aid societies,’ including his own. Such an organization, he avers, provides a way to develop meaningful, effective relationships, guaranteeing and creating character, such that men have connections with each other which aid them in daily life and sustain them in crisis, including financial crisis.

He is precisely right to note that “the bureaucratic approach [to charity] has had corrosive effects on family and community life” (pg 53). Government welfare is atrocious in its effects, not to mention its breathtaking inefficiency, but institutional, bureaucratic charity is at best a mitigated disaster, taken overall. The structure forbids the creation of those relationships which allow charity to be more than throwing money into a well.

Charity ought to be relational. Scripture speaks of such: “If ever you take your neighbor’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down” (Ex. 22:26). Scripture’s model of charity is of creating relationships which seek to provide the person aided with a path back to full health or to such extent of normal sufficiency as is possible. For some, this means a loan without interest, to be repaid only if the loanee is sufficiently successful within a certain time. For some, this means a job, even one not perfectly economically efficient (Lev. 23:22). For some, the most destitute and those incapable by reason of circumstance of sustaining themselves, full support is to be given by the local church body, in order that they may share their wisdom (1 Tim. 5:3-10).

Bureaucracy forbids the development of meaningful relationship; even if a relationship forms, it may not be allowed to matter. An institutional charity conducted on institutional grounds can be run well, but its structure does not encourage such virtue.

Societies such as Carson suggests are not the solution, and we must not confuse them for the goal. They are merely a means to foster the relationships which are the substance and groundwork of effective, nurturing charity, the type of charity that aims to get the other guy back on his feet in full confidence he’ll return the favor when the time comes, without feel of indebtedness. They have also their own dangers- clannishness which wrongs the outsider; the creation of an ‘inner circle’ whose lure is an invitation to idolatry (re: That Hideous Strength); and pride, to give just a taste. They are, however, potent tools, handled rightly.

The ultimate goal is a society which fosters these bonds as a matter of course, where community forms along naturally reinforcing economic, religious, and geographic lines (there’ll be an article up on CreationalStory.com on this topic soon). In such a society, mutual aid organizations would be not deleterious but largely superfluous. Such a society, however, isn’t in existence. Mutual aid societies, run with a prioritization of God’s law and with great care, could be of immense value in helping to build it, in helping men and families to stand firm amidst the rushing tide of the world.

Christians should also be aware that our churches, though often abysmal at it, should perform a part of these duties. The church should provide a common connection, an encouragement to virtue, and a set of relationships on which we can rely. The church institution likely cannot and perhaps should not be the sole effector of these things, but the church body should seek to magnetize to itself. We should be the shining light and the leading warriors in the development of relationship, not the shirkers to the side, remembering that the mark of the true church (and thus of true institutional churches) is “that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another,” for Christ said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35).

God bless.