Insincerely Acknowledging Poverty

No one is obligated to give what they need to someone else no matter how destitute another person might be.  This much is clear simply from understanding Deuteronomy 4:2 and noticing that the Bible does not demand that everyone forsake their material possessions in part or in full for the sake of specific individuals in poverty.  If it did, this would result in an obvious contradiction: it would mean that the poor who have just received material wealth would suddenly be obligated to give away what they have only just received, which in turn means that no one ends up with any serious level of personal wealth and everyone lives in poverty together.

However, the Bible does naturally prescribe the rejection of classist discrimination against the poor and rich alike (Exodus 23:1-7 addresses this in part by condemning all favoritism based on economic standing).  Moreover, it does command people to not overlook the poor as some do even if they distinctly call on others to address poverty with their words.  Of this, many conservative and liberal Christians alike are guilty, just as they are guilty of so many other philosophical and moral hypocrisiescor errors.  They might appeal to the same passages in the Bible about poverty to look benevolent to others or to further an irrelevant political ideology, but they are not doing so for the sake of truth and genuine moral excellence.  James 2 directly calls this kind of insincere or incomplete "benevolence" dead.

Now, what James 2 describes is different from not having the means to give but wanting to, just as it is different from having surplus resources or wealth for personal security, comfort, and pleasure without immediately giving away money one could live without.  It is not even the same as having plenty of money to give and the right moral approach to the poverty of others but not giving money, food, or some other such societal necessity to specific poor people in one's life.  What James 2 describes here is a disconnect between a person's professed attitude towards the poor and a continual lack of action taken on their behalf.  As the text itself says, merely using words in hopes of comforting the poor without caring or acting in any deeper sort of way across a lifetime is as empty as the body without the consciousness that animates it.

This does not mean that someone without the resources to take care of others and themselves must rush to put their own life in economic ruin to help anyone else, nor does it mean that anyone is obligated to care for any specific poor person in their immediate life.  The point is that unwillingness to act on one's professed beliefs--and even then belief is only justified when it is perfectly aligned with rationalism and therefore it can be extremely nuanced--is an indicator of a lifeless intellect and moral standing.  The person who divorces their deeds from their worldview succumbs to their own hypocrisies and lack of philosophical initiative.  This is why James 2 compares such a person to a literal corpse.