In the search for solutions in the area of welfare reform history can be an invaluable source. Some of the principles and practices of welfare from centuries earlier could help today. It seems therefore prudent to employ a rearview mirror to note what has successfully worked in other eras.

In this political issue, religious traditions may have some of the best wisdom around.

Contrary to some modern caricatures, religious reformers were sensitive to the needs of the poor. A well-functioning diaconate was one of John Calvin's contributions to Western civilization. Calvin's relief ministry may have had as much influence in Europe as his theology did in other areas.

Calvin's welfare program in Geneva was contoured to the theological emphases of the reformers, providing an earlier illustration that welfare practice was and is erected upon definite principles that were religious in nature.

Calvin was so interested in seeing the diaconate flourish that he not only left an inheritance for his family but also provided for the Boys School and "poor strangers" in his will. Calvin's deacons cared for a large range of needs, not wholly dissimilar to the strata of welfare needs in our own society.

The Genevan deacons actively encouraged a productive work ethic. They provided interim subsidy and job-training as necessary; on occasion, they even provided the necessary tools or supplies so that an able-bodied person could engage in an honest vocation. They were discriminating as they ascertained the difference between the truly needy and the indigent. If necessary, they would also suspend subsidy. Over time, they developed procedures that protected the church's resources from being pilfered, even requiring new visitors to declare a craft and list character witnesses to vouch for their honesty. Within a generation of this welfare work, the diaconate of Geneva discovered the need to communicate the front-end goal that recipients were to return to work as soon as possible.

In 16th century Geneva, deacons were frequently called upon to raise children in cases of abandonment. Special gifts were given to truly needy children. The diaconate also included a ministry to widows who often had dependent children and a variety of needs.

Still, however, it must be noted that although this faith-based poverty relief resembled many other contemporary welfare funds, it had its own theological peculiarities; moreover these theological distinctives led to certain practical commitments. For example, there were no guaranteed food handouts. Furthermore, there were certain pre-requisites for receiving care, including the possibility that certain moral deficiencies would nullify the opportunity to be assisted by the deacons.

Calvin's deacons were not concerned only with spiritual or internal needs. On many occasions they hired medical doctors to take care of the ill. Their records indicate that the deacons oversaw medical care for the needy, reflecting that diaconal ministry was not limited only to inner spiritual concerns.

Despite the rigor with which the deacons distinguished between the deserving and undeserving poor, charity motivated them to err on the side of generosity. Still, however, there were times and instances when the deacons would not give assistance to supplicants because of attitudinal or moral blights. Charity did not justify subsidies that mitigated against personal industry and responsibility. If a recipient behaved immodestly or unchastely then he/she would not receive certain aid. Recipients of subsidy were expected to uphold Christian standard of morality; if not, the deacons might withhold support until immoral behavior was jettisoned. The deacons definitely attempted to use relief as a means of discipline and encouragement.

Sounds like the Genevan model has inspired the recent welfare reform suc­cess in Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Texas, and Tennessee.

In summary, the following Reformation era welfare reform principles should be considered today:

(1) It was only for the truly disadvantaged. (2) Moral prerequisites accompanied assistance. (3) Private or religious charity, not state largesse, was the vehicle for aid. (4) Ordained officers managed and brought accountability. (5) Theological underpinnings were normal. (6) Productive work ethic was sought. (7) Assistance was temporary.

As those who look to the past and to the inadequacies of the present, perhaps we should replicate some of these policies, too. We might advance if we learn from the past, rather than looking exclusively to the present. In fact, if we find ourselves advocating practices markedly different from those in Geneva five centuries ago, then we might ask if our departure from their proven and tested methods should not be suspect.

Of course, the presumption that the modern is always superior may blind some to one of the best sources of reform.