Hasn't it always been a Christian duty to help the poor? We can agree that ++Rowan's specific prescriptions for doing so are likely to cause more harm than good, as his understanding of the underlying problem is probably incorrect; however, his main point follows the lines of the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus, in Luke 16.
It has been, but what ++Rowan is here doing, as is so often the case with people whose secular interests have spawned the Christian Socialist political movements, is arguing in favor of compulsory contribution, as a matter of state policy. That is emphatically against the long and firm tradition in the Church of giving from your own hand (a free rending of the Didache's instruction in the matter).
It ends up being just one more 'you owe for the flesh and I get the moral credit for reminding you'. It quite leaves out of the picture any understanding of what really keeps a culture from fully civilizing - a clear and fair law of property. It sounds very selfish, but then if you can truly and unimpeachably claim title to land, goods and even the services you can provide, then you can that much more clearly give, right from your own hand, to those now in need.
What ++Rowan is proposing is what leads to permanent state welfare as a functional substitute for Christian charity, institutionalizing, trivialing and eventually marginalizing the actual gifts from actual persons in submission to their Lord's admonition to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the houseless.
I am happy to help someone in need, but if they personally are going to become a permanent destination for part of my income, then I'm eventually going to have to insist on some compensation more literal than the tax break the government can at any time take away.
I grant that this leaves one group aside: the group that is in dire, chronic and irremediable need, such that they will never be able to provide for themselves. This is the core from which modern welfare provisions grew and upon which they still stand for ethical substantiation. Many in the Third World are quite capable and likely quite willing to provide for themselves, were their society adequately founded to permit orderly and individual commerce.
Had I had the grace of opportunity to address this, I really would have limited myself to seeking to learn and embrace God's eternal Truth and to bring it to those still in darkness. I actually believe that having God's Truth in one's heart and directing one's ways and means is itself the truest and most dependable path to prosperous civilization, not least because of the fundamental admonition against theft and dishonesty. When one fully accepts the injunction to love one's brothers as oneself, all the social mechanism needed to ensure fair, honest and decent commerce follows in train. It is when these virtues are assumed in shadow play that the resulting civilization is faulty and abusive.
That's what I would have emphasized to the ACC.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+