Fumbling the Ball on Benevolence?

I’ll need some help for the numbers on this, but here is the idea.  If the church took care of the benevolent needs in their own communities, would there be any need for government safety net programs?

I need the total amount given to the church in the U.S. and the total amount spent on government benevolent type programs.  I did a quick Google, but didn’t see what I wanted.  I guess we would have to define “church” broadly to get the two numbers close.  There are, of course, other church expenditures in addition to benevolence.  I am just wondering if there is any chance this could happen.

There would be many advantages if the church could take care of its community’s benevolent needs instead of the government.

• The financial flow should be more efficient.  The government is no model of efficiency.
• Increased efficiency should result in lower taxation.
• There should be fewer who would need help and “fall through the cracks.”
• If members saw those being helped, I would think they would be more eager to give instead of reluctant to pay taxes.
• If members were involved with those being helped, I would think that would make it easier for them to love their fellowman.
• The quality of help from members of the church might be better than the overall quality of help from government employees.
• There would be greater accountability on the part of those helped.
• God would get the glory instead of Uncle Sam.

A final question:  Do you think we would have fewer government social programs in the present if the church had done a better job helping people in the past?

This is something I have thought about for a while and find intriguing.  Please comment.