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+
His observation, however, is absolutely correct: there should be no need for a meeting such as the one he describes. His underlying point is that the world is sick (and it is); and the the true hope of the world is for us to work for health for the Body of Christ (he's right).
I've been reading Barclay's commentary on John, and one of his comments has stuck with me: (paraphrasing) It is not "love" to fail to speak the truth.
A healthy Body of Christ requires us to speak the truth; and speaking the truth with respect to the third world means that we must not overlook the bad things that third world countries do to themselves. At the same time, it would be wrong to pretend that we in the First World are not also to blame for some of what has happened there -- you can undoubtedly pick out a lot of examples, some of them done in the name of "love" by our friends on the left, and also in the name of greed by folks across the political spectrum.
I think the former Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, is a perfect example of how all of these factors play together. Rhodesia was a place where some people were badly exploited by the "first world" white minority. The "loving" response from the west was to force out the white minority, and to usher in the reign of Robert Mugabe, who has (in lamentably typical African fashion) made things incomparably worse. Who's to blame? Everybody -- not just the third worlders.
We need to be honest about others; but we need also to be honest about ourselves. As ++Rowan points out, we are in need of a doctor ourselves.
As for the third world, I think the answer is "simply" this: to speak the truth about Christ, and how we are to live in Him. The Africans doing a good job of that themselves; the folks in need of a physician on the speaking of His truth is us, not them.