As the Legislature worked through the state budget, one question rose above the rest for what it revealed about our values: Should Wyoming authorize administrative funding to draw down federally funded summer nutrition benefits for low-income children?
The program—known as SunBucks—provides $120 per child for the summer, tied to free-and-reduced-lunch criteria already in use. Roughly 32,000 children would qualify.
The benefits are 100% federally funded; the state would only share in the administrative cost, just as we do with SNAP.
The Senate included this funding. The House did not, defeating the measure twice: 26-34, and a more narrow 29–31.
The debate was not really about $120. It was about what government is for, how Wyoming treats its most vulnerable, and whether public responsibility ends where private charity begins.
Two moral frameworks emerged. One side argued that government aid weakens moral character, that poverty is best solved through personal responsibility and local charity, and that federal dollars are inherently suspect.
The other argued that children should not bear the consequences of adult circumstances, that rural Wyoming lacks the infrastructure to meet needs privately, and that federal dollars are Wyoming dollars returning home.
Much of the opposition came from the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, whose worldview can be summarized this way:
· Government should be small and limited;
· People are responsible for themselves;
· Government aid creates dependency/entitlement; and
· Churches and private philanthropy—not the state—should care for the poor.
I want to be clear: many of these legislators are deeply compassionate Christians.
I think of Speaker Chip Neiman, my representative John Bear, Abby Angelos — whose father pastors in my community — and Jeremy Haroldson, who serves as a pastor himself.
Their private lives reflect genuine concern for the poor and marginalized. Their faith tells them that government is not the solution and plays little to no role in crafting one.
This conviction is driven significantly by their conception of the church and what they believe the Bible teaches about the role of government.
Before challenging their conclusions, I want to acknowledge that I share many of their instincts.
I believe in personal responsibility, strong families, and the church’s vital role in caring for the poor. I believe government can overreach.
But the question is not whether these principles are good. The question is how they apply—and whether Scripture truly supports the idea that government has no responsibility for the welfare of its people.
To answer that, we must ask a deeper question: What is the church and its relationship to other governments?
Many today view the church as a community of people who share a private spirituality—concerned inwardly with the soul and outwardly with well-doing toward others. Government handles earthly affairs; the church handles heavenly ones.
A great gulf separates the two. But this is not how Scripture presents God’s people.
Consider ancient Israel. It was not merely a religious community. It was a nation—with God as its King, Lawgiver, and Judge. Its civic life was ordered by God’s law, and its public institutions were sustained by a tax known as the tithe (מַעֲשֵׂר maʿăśēr).
According to Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, the word refers to a fraction of measurement, a “tenth,” and functions as a tax “utilized for state income.” It supported the priests/leaders, the festivals, and—crucially—the poor.
Scholars identify three tithes in the Torah: the Levitical tithe (Lev. 27:30–34; Num. 18:6-32), the festival tithe (Deut. 12:5-19; 14:22–27; 26:1-11), and the poor tithe (Deut. 14:28–29; 26:12-15)—resulting in an annual rate of roughly 23.3%. The poor tithe, collected every three years, was designated for “the Levite, the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow”—in modern terms: the marginalized and vulnerable.
In other words, God required the nation to levy a tax to care for the poor, because addressing inequality among all who bear God’s image is important to God. Funny how this never comes up when Christians look to the Bible for instruction on the role of government.
It is rather intuitive that governments, like Wyoming, bear a responsibility for the general welfare of their people. The church is called a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9). It has responsibilities to its own people, yet its generosity extends charity to others—even its enemies.
It partners with other governments, but it does not replace them. Just as it would be absurd to say Canada is primarily responsible for America’s poor, it is equally absurd to say the Kingdom of God is primarily responsible for Wyoming’s poor.
Wyoming’s poor are Wyoming’s responsibility. Jesus’s Kingdom stands ready as a partner, but the state must pull its own weight, not side-step its responsibility. SunBucks is not socialism. It is not dependency. It is a modest, federally funded tool to ensure that children—who cannot choose their circumstances—do not go hungry.
And that, I believe, is not only good policy. It reflects God’s wisdom, generosity, and love as we acknowledge that the most lowly among us bear God’s image.
