Being Poor is a Lot of Work (by Bart Campolo)
Until very recently, I had no idea how hard it is for some of our friends just to find somewhere to lay themselves down to sleep at night. I knew that inner-city families moved around a lot, but I didn't realize how much heartache and humiliation goes before and after most of those moves, both for the families and for the neighborhoods they come and go from in search of better space.
Part of the problem is low incomes, of course, which leave almost everyone around here one minor setback way from missing rent. But beyond that, there are often rats and roaches and bedbugs to contend with, along with those normal, everyday conflicts with neighbors that, in this environment, can quickly become unacceptably dangerous. There are broken pipes and broken heaters and, as often as not, broken promises from landlords who live in a very different world.
Of course, the broken promises go both ways. Every day we see neighbors say and do things that would rattle almost any property owner; and we have learned the hard way not to immediately take any story of mistreatment at face value. Still, there is no denying that lots of money – much of it taxpayers' money – flows through neighborhoods like ours into the pockets of people who care too little about those they are supposed to shelter.
Last week our friend Helen and I spent the better part of three days driving all over town tracking down birth certificates, proofs of custody, income statements, and police background checks, hoping to qualify her for a HUD-subsidized apartment near enough that her grandson David could stay at his school and that both of them could stay in our fellowship. Helen's recently deceased mother had been paying the rent for all of them with her Social Security, but all they have now is the paycheck from Helen's part-time home health care job and David's food stamps.
Without my car, my computer, my money at certain offices, and my white male privilege at others, the whole endeavor would have been utterly impossible for Helen - who is herself in need of some home health care. Even with my help, we needed a few kind folks to bend a few silly rules in our favor. By the time we got everything squared away, I was worn out and cranky. Being poor is an awful lot of work.
Thank God there is a whole bunch of us here, living together and loving our neighbors as a team. While Helen and I were jumping through HUD hoops, Karen and Donna were tracking down furniture for her and three other families in the fellowship whose living spaces are nearly empty, and our newest partner, Mark Leeman, was tracking down donors who want to invest in some rental properties we can fix up and manage right, right here in the neighborhood.
We know we can't house everyone, but the more we see what's going on around us, the more bound and determined we are to take care of the handful of neighbors we feel God has given to be our closest friends. After all, there is no way to build the kind of close-knit community we keep dreaming of without first making sure that all of us are safe and sound.
Bart Campolo is a veteran urban minister and activist who speaks, writes, and blogs www.bartcampolo.com about grace, faith, loving relationships and social justice. Bart is the leader of The Walnut Hills Fellowship www.thewalnuthillsfellowship.org in inner-city Cincinnati. He is also founder of Mission Year www.missionyear.org, which recruits committed young adults to live and work among the poor in inner-city neighborhoods across the USA, and executive director of EAPE, which develops and supports innovative, cost-effective mission projects around the world.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
This short story is a good reminder to us all that we can, and should, do more for those who can't.
Posted by: Eric | December 18, 2007 2:59 PM
One thing we can do to help them is vote for candidates who will be more likely to set up the social programs necessary to help them. Are you pro-life? Do you think the woman Bart describes would be more or less likely to have an abortion knowing that her Christian society would help her? Would her current experience with HUD housing lead her to believe that the prenatal care and daycare she needs would be available to her?
Wait a minute, you say--what was she doing having sex anyway? Why should we help a woman without the common sense not to get pregnant? Let her suffer the consequences of her stupidity and sin!
So, do you want her unborn child to live or not, or do you just want to have the fun of judging her?
Voting Pro-life is voting for people who will deal with the underlying social inequalities which underly abortion, and offer the woman described above our hard-earned tax money by way of prenatal care, housing, daycare, and strict deadbeat dad laws. Hillary Clinton is the most Pro-life candidate IMHO since she has the clearest vision for a child-friendly society.
The Republicans IMHO, including Huckabee, seem to be saying, "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? If they be like to die, they better do it and decrease the surplus population." They admire the pre-Christmas Scrooge's health plan for his workers and their families--why should our earnings help Tiny Tim? Republicans are mad at Scrooge for listening to the Spirit of Christmas and going all liberal.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 18, 2007 6:23 PM
Bless you Bart, for helping this woman and also for trying so hard to understand her plight. Jesus will not forget this "cup of cold water" (well, OK, a bucket or a truckload!)
I'm sad that someone has started this discussion out by quoting Darwin, and then attributing "survival of the fittest" to Mike Huckabee.
Blessings,
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 18, 2007 9:07 PM
Why can't some people see the difference between giving their money and time to those in need vs. having the government take it? And for the record, it is very irresponsible to call Hillary pro-life in any way shape or form.
Posted by: no hillary | December 18, 2007 9:43 PM
Please see the Scripture passage listed a few articles below this one, you know, the one about everyone selling what they had and sharing it. If this appeals to you, I'm not sure why paying taxes doesn't. I realize that giving part of your wealth for the common good goes against the average sinful nature, but remember, even Jesus paid his taxes. I believe Paul mentioned it, too, even saying that the government was put in place to do good things for people.
I define pro-life as someone who's policies will actually reduce abortions, not simply shame people into back alleys. By that measure, the sort of policies Clinton wants to put in place will actually encourage people to keep their children. Her Christian faith reflects the social ideals of Methodism more than her fellow Methodist, currently in the White House.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 18, 2007 11:10 PM
Ashpenaz - you've made two very credible posts on this thread. The pro-life issue as it relates to overall health care is far more involved than many care to grasp. For the typical suburban evangelical to articulate that world's standard pro-life stance is comparatively convenient and essentially costless. If we were truly pro-life, we'd sell our gas guzzling SUVs and make a basement suite available to a pregnant teen. But we both have to work to pay the mortgage you know, and that cottage at the lake, and next year's cruise and Johnny's tuition at Wheaton and...
Be blessed, my friend, and keep us thinking here!
Posted by: canucklehead | December 19, 2007 12:01 AM
To Bart Campolo:
Thank you for this post. As a former legal services attorney, I can relate to the part about not having the resources to get your documentation together. I also can relate to there being people of good will in the bureacracy who can do a whole lot of good. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 19, 2007 5:53 AM
canucklehead is right: "If we were truly pro-life, we'd sell our gas guzzling SUVs and make a basement suite available to a pregnant teen." Being pro life is a LOT more work than voting for Hillary. Many people do, in fact, open their homes to teens who love their unborn baby and don't want to face a lifetime of regret. But imagine what it would be like to have someone in your home: not just the space, but someone who's expected quick fixes all her life. Her boyfriend thinks she's stupid for having the baby. He offered to pay for the abortion but now is thinking of all the ways he can get out of paying child support.
This is exactly the service that pro-life pregnancy resource centers offer, and it's lot more work than voting for ANY candidate. Thanks for pointing this out!
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 19, 2007 8:04 AM
Thank you Bart for what you are doing and for sharing it with us. Being poor is mighty costly. It is not only a lot of work, but it is expensive!
Posted by: I and I | December 19, 2007 8:58 AM
I have had three episodes in my life in which I experienced a lot of help. As a child it was a breeze--my parents were there 24/7. I just had to cry and pout a little.
Newly married, my wife and I, innocently attempted to adopt three siblings with special needs. They came into our home in foster care and had a hoard of professionals and state dollars attached to them. This literally was the only time in my life I truly felt violated. My wife and I both had much experience helping others and maneuvering systems. And we felt no match for the system. To this day, I don't want the 'county' anywhere near my house.
And sadly, most of the professional helpers who were wonderful, also felt no match.
With my wife critically ill for several years we had another hoard of highly paid professionals. She had up to six case managers at any given time and approx $100,000 of services per month. I cannot express the depth of my appreciation nor the depth of the dysfunction and difficulty through that battle.
She had two physicians who would 'go to the mat' for her. I watched one physician battle the intensive care unit he was in charge of for hours over one small protocol.
He went the distance because his wife is a neurosurgeon who had battled for her own life with a disease like my wife's. That experience transformed this physician's care for his patients.
Every person who helps would benefit profoundly from being helped.
For this reason, poor persons who have experienced much help are rich resources.
I so commend Bart for 'putting boots on the ground.' There are people in the system who rally their own energies to make the system work when those on the outside rally their own resources.
With people on the ground forming community--professional and bureaucratic services can be layered in on top of the assets of the community. Without that, the professions and bureaucracies at best place a huge burden on poor persons--and at worst (and very commonly) fundamentally cripple communities.
The first fundamental need of poor persons is a dignifying connection to a community in which they can gradually work out healing for very complex realities.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 19, 2007 10:43 AM
Ashpenaz - I don't think most people have a problem with paying taxes in principle. What a lot of people have a problem with is paying taxes and having the money wasted on so many worthless endeavors. I'm sure we could all name a few.
In addition, most Christians I know don't have a problem with giving of their time and money to help the poor. They do it all the time. But if you have a set amount of money to give to help the poor, would you give it to the government or use it some other way to help the poor? How much of very dollar you pay in taxes actually makes its way to the poor versus how much of every dollar you use in some other way to help the poor?
Posted by: Eric | December 19, 2007 10:49 AM
I think that government does a better and less selfish job distributing funds than private charity and churches. While neither church or state is perfect, the current church scandals should make one wary of trusting Christians with money. I especially think that Democrats do a better job of distributing money to the poor and needy through well-run and well-funded programs. IMHO, a Democratic congress with enough of a majority to fight Republican stonewalling, along with a Democratic president, would be much more likely to use taxpayer money to set up programs to achieve Christian goals such as he following: feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, helping the sick with universal healthcare, preventing torture, caring for the environment, working with other countries to prevent unjust wars, welcoming the stranger from across the border, supporting gay relationships modelled on David and Jonathan's vows to each other, and encouraging mothers to keep their children. I would rather my money go to the government, specifically the Democratic party, because I don't see the Christian community giving consistent support to these causes.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 19, 2007 11:34 AM
Nice opinions, but few facts. To say that David and Jonathan were married is nonsense. That would've been impossible and a blatant violation of the Law that the prophet Samuel and others clearly held to. (Maybe you got your facts from the Alexander movie?) God loves homosexuals so much that he gives them the same laws as everyone else. So-called leaders in the homosexual community use the private suffering of homosexuals for public gain.
As for the inner city, folks there would love to have churches and businesses strengthened, instead of strangled by regulations and Supreme Court interference in state and local matters. The "Boots on the ground" are both Republicans and Democrats, not ideologues, and may God bless them for their hard work.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 19, 2007 11:51 AM
"I don't think most people have a problem with paying taxes in principle."
Not only does the government's role in our daily lives becomes an issue , but the money so many of us who work for living takes time . Time is precious .
People are more prone to pay taxes when they see improvement .
Pay higher taxes for education , you expect education to improve . When you see spending on government programs on causes that appear not to help , sometimes even appear to get worse , its harder to raise taxes the next time around for the same causes .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 19, 2007 2:02 PM
What if we were to start off with a basic principle: we give any one who works 40 hours a week gets food, clothing, clean water, decent housing and basic medical care. To do any less is to steal labor. Note that except for the housing part (and the work part) this is less than what Jesus says is necessary to enter heaven (Matthew 25.) I will repeat what I said in a different thread. The free market will demand 100 plus hours of work per week for bad food and housing. That is not only immoral, but a recipe for the destruction of a free society. Of course the free market and those who run it could not care less about the preservation of western civilization, all that matters is the pursuit of power and wealth.
Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | December 19, 2007 2:20 PM
Don't forget that one of the stated strategies of the right when it takes power - Grover Norquist has repeatedly detailed the intention - is to reduce the size of government by making the agencies run underfunded and incompetently, so that the taxpayers will lose faith in them and support defunding them completely.
Ideologically, these people are impervious - they don't believe anything can be run efficiently or properly, so they don't even try to do so, and appoint inexperienced and incompetent party hacks to manage them.
We could have a discussion of what the proper purview of governemnt is, but it's completely irresponsible not to run things in the most efficient manner. I suppose this is yet another example of the "end justifies the means" philosphy that has so come to dominate the conservatice political and moral landscape of late, and that has bankrupted it.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | December 19, 2007 2:59 PM
Saul considered David and Jonathan's households joined after they took their vows--he made fun of them for it. Maybe it was more of a civil union.
When Ruth gives birth to her child, the child is called the child of Naomi--as if Boaz was a surrogate and Ruth and Naomi are the child's parents. Ruth and Naomi were acknowledged as the primary couple.
We should give the same consideration to today's same sex couples--we should consider that their vows mean they have joined their households together.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 19, 2007 3:33 PM
Saul considered that David and Jonathan had joined their households together after they had taken their vows. Maybe it was more of a civil union.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 19, 2007 3:34 PM
Jesus didn't give homosexuals any laws, or anybody any laws, for that matter. He said "Love your neighbor as yourself" is all the law you need. Jesus also said, "It is not what goes into a man which defiles him, but what comes out of him." Physical actions are judged by whether the motives behind them are loving. What might be unnatural and unloving for you might be natural and loving for those who Jesus said were born without the capacity for traditional marriage.
Paul said, "Everything is permissible" and "Love is the fulfillment of the law." We each have to work out our own salvation by determining what our conscience tells us is the loving thing to do. If you still believe in law, then you are among the foolish Galatians.
Lack of compassion for the poor, the sick, the homeless, the undocumented, and the gay is all the same lack of compassion--trying to impose a dead legalism where the law of love should be the foundation for our actions.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 19, 2007 4:05 PM
Ashpanez--Thanks for listing out particular issues on which you believe a Democrat-controlled Federal government would address most effectively; and hence a greater willingness to pay taxes to fund such efforts. If I understand, you are also willing to pay taxes for these issues because you don't perceive the Christian community to be giving towards these matters.
Would you allow me to just choose one of your issues (and I would happily engage another if you preferred) and break it out a little. I will just take the first--feeding the hungry.
A great issue given Jesus showed direct compassion for and instructed likewise. There are obviously many fundamental issues (from mental health, to global economies, to food transporation) that impact the availabilty of food. But limiting the reality, for sake of discussion; there are many persons/families going to bed tonight with inadequate nutrition.
What is our communal responsibilty to the hungry?
What is the primary role you see for local churches?
What is the primary role for local governments?
What is the role for large NGO's (e.g. Second Harvest, World Vision, Salvation Army)?
What is the role for Federal Government?
If someone argued that the provision of breakfasts to low-income children at school should be funded through local mechanisms versus a federal mechanism, would you assume that person to be uncaring or unChristian??
No, I am not trying to obligate you to answer my long list--but if you would be willing to engage a couple of these, that would be kind.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 19, 2007 4:20 PM
The law is not the means of righteousness, but it is still the measure, for it is not subjective and arbitrary like your utterly sentimental appeal to what you call "love." Love is the fulfillment of the law. If you love someone, you WILL see their need and meet it. Whatever you feel like, whatever your motivation or lack thereof.
If my motives are good, and I still ignore the poor, does that get me off the hook? Of course not. If I have withheld wages, I am stealing. Even if I really, truly think ten cents an hours is all I can afford. Who says I’m not sincere? You can’t know my motives, nor I yours. But you can see my actions and judge rightly. Jesus said we are to judge all people the same, i.e. according to revelation, not our person, internal, inaccessible whims.
Your appeal to Galatians ? 14When I [Paul] saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Peter was accommodating the Judiazers, who compelled circumcision and ritual observance of the law. These are the parts of the law which have been fulfilled. As for the rest—the shameless adultery and other breaking of the Ten Commandments you falsely accuse David, Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi of—not one jot or tittle will pass away. You quote King Saul as your authority: here is exactly the one who does as he pleases, offering sacrifices from a sincere, well-intentinoed impatience. Later he claims to "love" David, then tries to murder him. The law judges King Saul, the Law judges me, the Law judges us all. Without throwing ourselves on Christ’s mercy we all are lost. The standard has ever, only been this: are we as perfect as Jesus? Are you? I know I’m not. I rely on his perfect fulfillment of every part of the law as my only salvation. My motives are nothing. My sentimental appeals to "love" and pity are nothing. Jesus, as revealed in the Scriptures, is everything, my righteousness, my holiness, my redemption.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 19, 2007 4:43 PM
I dont pretend to know all the administrative angles related to getting the hungry of the world fed, but I do recognize that, when His disciples came to Jesus on that hillside, and said, (paraphrased) : "Lord, these people are hungry. Let's send them away so they can get something to eat. . ." Jesus responded by saying, "YOU feed them." They didnt; they didnt know how, so He did, but apparently His first wish was that His disciples should step up and do it.
Is there any relevance here for 2007-2008, and beyond?
Posted by: joekc | December 19, 2007 5:15 PM
They didnt; they didnt know how, so He did, but apparently His first wish was that His disciples should step up and do it.
Posted by: joekc
That was quite the lesson . Never thought of it from that angle before . Thank you !
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 19, 2007 5:43 PM
Ashpenaz - Yes, exactly! Right on! Once we're in complete control in Washington all will be right in the world. It will be perfect! Almost, dare I say, like the Kingdom of Heaven. Make sure you send in your check and convince all your friends to abandon their churches because they waste money and are selfish. Put your trust in the Party! The Party will solve all problems, relieve all suffering; the lame will walk, the gays will marry, Britney Spears will disappear. Once the Party is in control it will be glorious!
Posted by: Hillary for President | December 19, 2007 6:40 PM
canucklehead - Please remember Ryan's admonition:
"Disruptive behavior may include... making statements that are deliberately inflammatory.."
Please, try to follow the rules.
Posted by: Truth | December 19, 2007 6:48 PM
Jesus says He will judge nations. I believe that each nation must work to feed the hungry, heal the sick, welcome the stranger, include the marginalized, and other Christian goals. I think Jesus will look more favorably on our nation when He returns if we can show Him universal health care and civil unions for gays, among other things. I think that countries levy taxes to fund programs to help their citizens, and I see no problem with that. Governments do it better than churches.
I don't accuse Ruth, Naomi, David, Jonathan, Daniel, Ashpenaz, the Centurion and his beloved slave of anything--I include them, along with me, among those Jesus said were born without the capacity for traditional marriage and for whom heterosexual sex would be unnatural. I believe they had the same orientation I had, fell in love with someone of the same sex, made lifelong vows to that person, made that person their primary life partner, tied their households together, and physically expressed their love for each other in ways described so beautifully in the Song of Solomon.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 19, 2007 6:51 PM
Ashpanez--Would you be willing to respond to my 4:20 pm post???????
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 19, 2007 7:01 PM
Ashpenaz, my friend: This is a discussion of helping the poor not about gay theology. But if the Bible isn’t true, if the Ten Commandments aren’t for today, why should we help the poor? If our science teachers get it right, the only logical conclusion is that unfit and the poor are a drag on our evolutionary progress. Only if the Bible is true does each individual have value. If with perfectly pure scientific motives, I do triage on a global scale, who are you to judge me and my pals the Darwinists? On what basis? You can only judge if you believe in the one Jesus of Scripture, not the 6 billion personal Jesus’s that liberal Episcopalians such as yourself offer us. "I’m right, you’re right, we’re all right" and the poor die. But no, Mother Theresa and the Bible are right. That godly lady continued to obey the Bible even though she didn’t get the warm fuzzies we expect when we invite a lonely neighbor over for Christmas. I am humbled by the thought of my sister in Christ, now at the feet of the historical, biblical, flesh and blood Jesus she served so well.
And I admit it: I still want a few of the warm fuzzies. I’m weak, really weak…………
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 19, 2007 7:25 PM
canucklehead - Please remember Ryan's admonition:
"Disruptive behavior may include... making statements that are deliberately inflammatory.."
Please, try to follow the rules.
Posted by: Truth | December 19, 2007 6:48 PM
The most disruptive or inflammatory thing that's been said on this thread yet is that somebody would use the handle: Truth
Posted by: canucklehead | December 19, 2007 8:16 PM
Time for me to live up to my handle. Peace, you "nuckleheads". I though he was saying that your post was so clever it was disruptive. Are you sure you're posting to the right thread? I sometimes get confused myself.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 19, 2007 8:37 PM
I answered your post by saying I think that the government is better in helping the poor than the churches, and I that I think it's better to pay taxes, which do some good, that tithe to those who simply waste the money.
The poor, the old, the self-accepting gay, the sick, the undocumented--they are all the ones that we are called to welcome in Jesus' name. This is not a thread about being a self-accepting gay, but that issue arises in any discussion of this society's marginalized.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 19, 2007 10:38 PM
Methinks we BOTH see some connection. Do we agree on anything else?
Ashpenaz has garbled something Jesus said about eunuchs into a loophole that fits his purposes. Why can’t I garble "The poor you always have with you" into an excuse for inaction? The same Jesus that said plainly that marriage is between a man and a woman tells me to serve the poor. He calls me to obey him, even when I don’t feel like it. I’m sorry and without a good explanation as to why some people have a harder time with these two teachings of Jesus than others do. Why are there poor people in the first place? Why not manna every morning? Why can’t every boy grow up with a loving, affirming father, committed for life to a godly woman? I don’t know. There is pain, sorrow and sin. But I will not twist Jesus’ words to make it easier on me, or you, or the rich person in that huge air conditioned house across the street with one SUV, one sports car, and who never seems to walk to any of the little shops around here. Jesus calls each of us to follow him. I don’t know their story, and I don’t know much of yours. But I know what Jesus said about the law, and I lovingly invite you to follow that Jesus. To the cross, and to wholeness.
"The fellowship of the Beatitudes is the fellowship of the crucified"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, martyr and signer of the Theological Declaration of Barmen.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 19, 2007 11:18 PM
"I think that the government is better in helping the poor than the churches, and I that I think it's better to pay taxes, which do some good, that tithe to those who simply waste the money."
As astounded by this comment as I am, I will ask whether you can back up this statement with any evidence that churches waste money at a greater rate than government.
I will also ask whether you intend to give extra money to the government this year, from the goodness of your heart. Is that your intention?
Posted by: kevin s. | December 20, 2007 12:41 AM
Ashpanez--I seek clarity so I can evaluate your argument. If I understand your response, you believe the Federal Government is the best and most appropriate party to address daily nutritional needs of every person; not families, local governments, state governments, churches, or other organizations. Am I clear on your stance??
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 20, 2007 12:50 AM
The Federal Government needs to provide programs so that families can feed their children--such things as daycare, minimum wage, universal health care, etc. I think the government, specifically, the Democratic party, does a better job of creating and funding these programs, so, yes, my money is better spent in taxes than the church collection plate. I was on the vestry--I know where church money goes. Not to the poor, for the most part. Mostly to buy copiers and kitchen equipment. Look at your church's annual budget. Look at what percent goes to social programs. Look at the federal budget. Look at what percent goes to social programs.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 20, 2007 1:31 AM
P.S. My definition of a eunuch comes straight from Strong's concordance and Vine's dictionary--look it up.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 20, 2007 1:33 AM
That settles it:
"A castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers)
by extension an impotent or unmarried man;
by implication a chamberlain (state-officer); eunuch.
Thanks for clarifying this. Strong’s says nothing whatsoever about homosexuals. God loves homosexuals so much that they are protected by the same good laws from God as everyone else, including Jesus’ ringing affirmation of Old Testament law (not even the smallest stroke will pass away), and his definition of marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife. (Note that there is nothing generic anywhere in Matt. 19:5; the husband doesn’t leave his "parents" or just his father, but his father and mother.)
The relevance to poverty is this: those seeking to neglect almsgiving quote "The poor you will always have with you" as if that is anything other than the CONSEQUENCE of our sinful neglect.
Those seeking to accommodate the Bible to modern lifestyle choices apply their imagination to selected OT and NT passages.
Our choice is clear, but extremely difficult. Poverty is a huge, seemingly intractable problem, and chastity is not a simple matter for anyone, whatever their circumstances. But God’s grace is abundantly available to all. In it, I bless you and pray God’s best for all who read this.
(And see my comment above about "warm fuzzies")
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 20, 2007 8:48 AM
So in Bart's story, Helen wages a battle with _____________? A Federal bureaucracy.
Basic human needs (e.g food, water, shelter, safety) are powerful motivators to work, create and innovate. My children's need for food is met by their Daddy. If I could not meet the need, they have an extended family that would cover the base. And if extended family was too broken, they have Godparents and a church. If Uncle Sam says, "I will give your children lunch, breakfast, and latch-key program with evening meal" then what becomes of the incentive to my State, County, City, Neighborhood, Salvation Army, Church, Godparents and self to work, create and innovate a life and community with the capacity to meet my children's needs and call them into productive/creative/innovative adult responsibility??
I agree there are a thousand fronts and actions for the Federal government to take in regards to the nutritional status of the nation and world. Ashpanez mentions minimum wage. I agree a Federal standard makes far more sense than state or local standards.
My bias is always towards keeping the responsibility for meeting human need as close to the need as possible. Otherwise we cripple the natural mechanisms through which humans organize to meet needs. And we end up in a vicious cycle in which no amount of bureaucratic intervention can fix Humpty Dumpty.
I frankly also trust Democrats more (if my choice was between the two parties) to raise a better set of issues; but I trust neither party (on Federal level) to give good answers. They see the center of the world as Washington DC. They will approach a problem as if DC could solve it, let everyone else off the hook, and fund it at 2% of what is needed.
"There is a time and a place for everything under the sun." Lord, grant political leadership wisdom to know the times and places...........
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 20, 2007 10:22 AM
The Bible also says nothing about homosexuals, so that settles it, all right. The term "homosexual" did not exist until the 19th century, when psychologists began using it to define sexual orientation. Find me the word "homosexual" in the Bible, anywhere.
Strong's says "eunuchs" includes those "naturally incapacitated for marriage"--language which you left out. That's the way people in that culture would have seen homosexuals. But, even your truncated definition points out that there were men who were neither castrated nor celibate, but who weren't "the marrying kind." And Jesus welcomes them into the Kingdom. Right after that part you quote about traditional marriage--read all of Jesus' words, not just the ones you like.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 20, 2007 11:13 AM
Ashpenaz, from your comments maybe your church needs to rearrange its priorities. Also, I think you need to actually look at the federal budget; only a very small percentage of it goes to help the poor.
Do you really believe that you will be judged based on how the country you live in treats the poor? Why would something like a man-made, abitrary (in God's eyes) line drawn on a map change God's judgement of you or me? This makes no sense. What matters is what you or I do to help those around us. Yes, that could include how we advocate for the poor, but God's not going to judge me differently than someone else simply because of what country I live in and how the particular govenment that rules that particular country treats the poor. The Roman government didn't do much in the way of poverty relief; were the disciples judged harshly by God because of this? I doubt it.
Posted by: Eric | December 20, 2007 1:23 PM
Ashpenaz, I quoted the ENTIRE text from my version of Strong's, leaving nothing out. You have added an improbable definition to Strong's, and a suggestion that Jesus OVERLOOKS or excuses sin. He doesn't. He calls it what it is, and offers forgiveness. And relief from your struggle to justify. On twisting Jesus’ words, I rest my case. Augustus Strong is right; the liberal wing of the Episcopal Church in the US is wrong, even as it desperately graps for legitimacy.
I'm sorry to hear about your church budget. I came across a church in Iowa whose $2,000,000 budget includes barely $100,000 to meet practical needs.
Through no virtue of mine, or anyone else's virtue for that matter, our congregation is able to spend a full 25% of its budget ministering to the whole person. These are not staff members, but professors in Moscow and Singapore, a medical mission aiding refugees from the thugs in Burma, a shelter for abused women, assistance to local immigrants with legal issues, and on and on. Another church in town does far, far better: 40% with an ultimate goal of giving away 50%.
Our church does have a color copier; most recently it was used to invite friends and neighbors to hear a woman who had escaped from the child molesters in Northern Uganda. Google "Grace Akallo" for more info, including a front page story in one of the nation's largest dailies. Many of our staff members, outside of the 25% amount, spend substantial time with welfare mothers seeking a volunteer opportunity, or counseling and aiding the infirm. We have excellent relations with the local Jewish community, including chapel pews, complete with the Star of David, donated after we shared our facility with a large synagogue nearby during renovations. The David Project http://www.davidproject.org/ asked to be able to speak at our church, did so, and has been invited back. We also have a Jewish couple on staff.
All this to allay your fears that churches squander all their money, as the media would have us believe. Some do, many don't. While the government has a role in meeting needs, it ignores the facts to assume that gov't must be better 'cause they're really, really big. The USGov’t owns plenty of copy machines, and among many employees who are dedicated, there also lurk those aren’t, but who can’t be fired. Unless, perhaps, they just don’t show up for work and someone notices.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 20, 2007 1:31 PM
Jesus does not overlook sin--He calls it what it is. In fact, He calls it a sin to insult people using words which are derogatory to gays. "Raca" is the equivalent of "faggot." Also, Jesus condemns sex outside of a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. Gays are called to the same standard of sexual behavior as straights. Many gays sin, and Jesus calls them on it. However, gays who have taken vows similar to the Westminster Rites approved by Anglican congregations in Canada (to which I have frequently posted links) in front of God, family, and friends, are not sinning when they express their intimacy through sex.
Read Matthew 25: 31-46. Jesus judges nations, not people, for their treatment of the poor, homeless, stranger, prisoner, etc. I don't think a country which condones torture, condemns undocumented workers, refuses to offer universal health care, fights the minimum wage, blames the homeless for their own poverty, and conducts unnecessary pre-emptive military strikes is going to do well in the judgment Jesus describes here. How can you look at this judgment scene and think America is going pass the test? If your church is not giving its resources to help with these issues, what do you think Jesus will say, since churches will be judged even more harshly than nations?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 20, 2007 1:55 PM
Nice try, I can see your sincerity. But Jesus said unless "a MAN leaves his father and mother and is united to his WIFE" it's NOT a marriage. The Old Testament speaks of homosexuality with great specificity, as you well know. See this professor from a mainline seminary: http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Homosexual-Practice-Texts-Hermeneutics/dp/0687022797/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1496179-4277215?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190846077&sr=8-1
Our church addresses all of the problems you mentioned as best as we know how. All churches are forbidden by the tax laws from certain political activities.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 20, 2007 2:46 PM
When Jesus said, "It's not what goes into a man which makes him unclean, but what comes out of him," He freed us from Levitical purity laws. Paul explains this in detail in his letter to the Galatians.
About marriage, Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it has been given." I agree--in the majority of cases, marriage is between a man and a woman. But Jesus points out this doesn't work for everyone, and there are those who are born without the capacity for traditional marriage. Like me, say.
The law of love compels me to express my sexuality in a loving way, based on the way love is described in 1 Corinthians 13 or Song of Solomon or any number of passages. Therefore, I see the stewardship of my sexuality as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship because that is the way love acts in the world.
I've noticed that I've had to bring up the gay issue in a lot of threads because Sojourners seems afraid to address the subject. They deal with a lot of social issues, but it's interesting that in the midst of many articles on the poor, the homeless, the undocumented, there is nothing about policies toward gays. I wonder why.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 20, 2007 7:42 PM
Ashpenaz, when the word "nations" is used in Matthew he's not talking about modern day countries and governments; they didn't even exist at the time. "All the Nations" means all the people, everyone - and they shall be seperated. Do you really think He's going to seperate Mexicans over here, Italians over there, Ugandans over here based on the actions of the government that happens to be ruling them at the time?
Also, under your reading of the text, I could do absolutely nothing for the poor my entire life as long as the U.S. government took care of them and I wouldn't be judged harshly. That is ridiculous.
But you obviously don't believe this as you say above that "many gays sin and he calls them on it", which tells me you do believe in individual judgement.
Posted by: Eric | December 20, 2007 10:28 PM
If you can make "nations" mean what you want, I get to make "eunuchs" mean what I want! :)
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 20, 2007 11:28 PM
Ashpenaz, the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is I'm using logic to make sense of a word. I'll ask you again, do you believe He's going to seperate Mexicans over here, Italians over there, Ugandans over here based on the actions of the government that happens to be ruling them at the time? Is some poor Ugandan who happened to be living during the time of Idi Amin going to be judged harshly by God because of Amin's inhumanity? Or to bring it more close to home, is Jim Wallis going to be judged more harshly because he happened to be born around the same time and in the same country as George Bush?
Posted by: Eric | December 21, 2007 7:11 AM
No, what you're doing is saying is that since their culture did not have the same understanding of a concept as we do, we have to be careful imposing their understanding on what we know today. Since they did not have the scientific understanding of homosexuality as an inborn orientation, they used a catch-all word, eunuchs, for all the sexually other. You are saying that our understanding of what a nation is has changed as well, and that we have to see the word Jesus used in a different light today. I agree.
I think we will be judged for our stewardship of our citizenship. If we have the chance to vote for policies to help the poor and we choose not to because we don't want to pay taxes, then I think that's a sin--both individual and corporate. We will be judged for our individual acts and those acts where we participate with the domination system. That means we will be judged as individuals and as Americans, Mexicans, etc.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 21, 2007 10:59 AM
Ashpenaz - Now you're making sense. So you do believe that we'll be judged as individuals and what type of societies we, as individuals, work to construct, and not collectively as nations of people. This is the complete opposite of what you said before, but I'm glad you've clarified your position on this.
Posted by: Eric | December 21, 2007 12:18 PM
In spite of our mutual concern for the poor, I really doubt whether you believe in individual judgment, Ashpenaz. You said:
'Everything is permissible" and "Love is the fulfillment of the law." We each have to work out our own salvation by determining what our conscience tells us is the loving thing to do.'
Meaning everything, or practically everything, is permissible if you can rationalize it as love. This tosses out everything Jesus and the Old Testament say about sexuality and poverty if you are creative enough, I mean "sincere enough" before your own unique conscience. Let me put my Darwinist hat back on and posit: I help the poor by advocating natural selection. Since many people "make it" in spite of poverty, those are the ones with good genes. They'll live, the rest will starve, and in the future all poor people will make it and be tough. So my neglect actually helps the poor. If I am sincere enough about this, will God let me into Heaven?
They didn't understand Darwinism back then, either, so just like "eunuch" means what your argument from ignorance might suggest (an interesting argument, really, though I disagree) so the means of helping the poor in the 21st century must take on a global, evolutionary perspective. In the end we all win: My Darwinist alter ego needn't feel guilty, and the poor get better as quickly as Darwinism will make them tough and resilient. Builds character along the way, really!
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 21, 2007 3:06 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?