"We shall find that we are more frequently influenced by the desire of getting rid of the importunities of a disgusting object than by the pleasure of relieving it. We wish that it had not fallen our way, rather than rejoice in the opportunity given us of assisting a fellow creature."
-Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, as reprinted in The Fear of Beggars: Stewardship and Poverty in Christian Ethics, by Kelly S. Johnson
How easy it is to see a homeless person and walk away quickly so that we can forget the sight and avoid having to interact with them. If we as Christians had no obligation to show love to others that might be an appropriate response. However, the God-given command to love our neighbors creates a moral obligation on us that demands that we do more than worry about self-preservation or mental happiness.
There are at least two passages of Scripture that indicate that turning away from beggars and the poor is not an appropriate response for us as Christians to have. Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:39 and Mark 12: 31 that we must love our neighbors as ourselves. This commandment is second only to a commandment to love God, and every other commandment comes out of these two. See Matthew 22: 35-40, Mark 12:28-31. As long as the poor and homeless are our neighbors, then we as Christians are obligated to show them love.
The question that must be answered then is: Are the poor and homeless our neighbors? Most of us would readily agree that under Scriptural principles, the poor and homeless should be considered our neighbors. Our basis for this answer is the parable of the Good Samaritan found in Luke 10. Scripture even indicates for us that the parable is intended to help us understand what Jesus means when He says we are to love our "neighbors." In this passage, He has been speaking with a lawyer who was trying to test Him. The lawyer repeats Jesus' position that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love our neighbors, and then "desiring to justify himself" he asks who is his neighbor. It is in direct answer to this question that Jesus' tells the parable.
We all know the answer that Jesus gives: even strangers that we meet along the road are our neighbors, even if that stranger would despise us under other circumstances. See John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament, http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/DarbysSynopsisofNewTestament/dby.cgi?book=lu&chapter=010, and Matthew Henry's Completel Commentary on the Whole Bible, http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=lu&chapter=010.
We all know that we should show love to the poor and homeless rather than turning away as quickly as possible. Yet how often, we act like the lawyer in this case, desiring to justify our actions, use excuses to turn away, trying to forget what we have seen as quickly as possible.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
Beggars in Austin
I started reading a book entitled The Fear of Beggars by Kelly S. Johnson while I was visiting Austin, Texas for a week. The timing was incredible, because Austin has beggars on every street corner. The small town that I'm from doesn't have an obvious problem with beggars or homeless people, so I am usually fairly oblivious to the plight of those without a home or support. However, in Austin I encountered people asking for money, food or just hovering on a street corner looking miserable everywhere I went. Through that sudden change of environment and the insight of Kelly Johnson, I was able to examine my response to the poverty around me.
Honestly, I wasn't pleased with what I discovered about myself. My heart is full of fear of beggars - fear that they will be violent, fear that if I do give money that the money will be used to feed an addiction, fear that if I give food that the money they would have had to spend on food will be used to feed an addiction, fear that if I give to one beggar thirty more will appear, and even a fear of the general dirtiness of someone who has been living on the street.
Am I alone in having this response? I don't think so. Few people I have observed ever appear to enjoy interacting with beggars, much less rushing out to meet the nearest street dweller. Usually we all walk past with eyes averted, straining to look so absorbed in a conversation so that maybe we won't be bothered, won't be stopped - because of that fear that once we're stopped there is no resisting some unsatisfactory outcome.
This brings us to the question of is this response good. I have to admit that at this point, I have no answers. Even with the desire to show love to all of God's people, figuring out the right way to show love to homeless people is hard. As a female, I have concerns about physical safety that are hard to ignore. Even without those concerns, no easy answer appears. Should we give money? Should we give food? Should we help them find a shelter? Should we offer a ride? Should we simply give a tract and say "God loves you"? Ultimately, there are no easy answers to these questions. Recognizing that we are afraid of beggars and homeless people is at least a place to start though.
Honestly, I wasn't pleased with what I discovered about myself. My heart is full of fear of beggars - fear that they will be violent, fear that if I do give money that the money will be used to feed an addiction, fear that if I give food that the money they would have had to spend on food will be used to feed an addiction, fear that if I give to one beggar thirty more will appear, and even a fear of the general dirtiness of someone who has been living on the street.
Am I alone in having this response? I don't think so. Few people I have observed ever appear to enjoy interacting with beggars, much less rushing out to meet the nearest street dweller. Usually we all walk past with eyes averted, straining to look so absorbed in a conversation so that maybe we won't be bothered, won't be stopped - because of that fear that once we're stopped there is no resisting some unsatisfactory outcome.
This brings us to the question of is this response good. I have to admit that at this point, I have no answers. Even with the desire to show love to all of God's people, figuring out the right way to show love to homeless people is hard. As a female, I have concerns about physical safety that are hard to ignore. Even without those concerns, no easy answer appears. Should we give money? Should we give food? Should we help them find a shelter? Should we offer a ride? Should we simply give a tract and say "God loves you"? Ultimately, there are no easy answers to these questions. Recognizing that we are afraid of beggars and homeless people is at least a place to start though.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Domesticating the Sacred
"We have domesticated the sacred by stripping it of authoritative wisdom and by looking to it only to make us happy....Religious leaders want the churches to play a heroic role in our society - challenging people to make deep commitments, inspiring them to great deeds of service, encouraging them to be concerned for the poor, and liberating us from the excesses of greed and materialism. In reality, religious faith prompts few people in any of these directions....The way in which our faith influences our economic behavior is to an important degree a function of the economic system itself, and more broadly, a reflection of the cultural norms that govern Middle America. Thus, religious commitment often makes only a marginal difference to the economic behavior of individual believers."
-Robert Wuthnow, God and Mammon in America, p. 6-7.
How sad that the church should be viewed in such a light and yet how accurate that description is. Before anyone jumps up to defend the American church, let's think carefully about several examples of a deeply committed life to see if many modern churchgoers that you and I know are following in that pattern:
The early church sold property owned by individuals to pay for the needs of everyone. Acts 2:44-45; 4:32, 34-37. Among the early church there was no destitute poverty as the church helped each member as a need arose. Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 112. The early church did not claim ownership of possessions individually, but instead viewed property as belonging to the church. Kistemaker, p. 173. This sharing of property was voluntary and done from a desire to follow biblical commands to help the poor. Kistemaker, p. 173. The book of Acts even gives a specific example of Barnabus selling a plot of land and giving the money to the Apostles to use as they saw fit. Acts 4:36-37.
Mother Teresa began a life of service at the age of 18. At the age of 36 she left her home in a convent and went to live in slums in India to care for the poor. She started a mission called Missionaries of Charity to help people rejected by society because of disease, poverty and deformity. Throughout the time she worked she had two heart attacks, pneumonia, a broken collar bone, malaria, and other heart problems. She died at the age of 87, having given a lifetime of service to the poor.
Brother Lawrence lived in a monastery as a lay brother. He spent his lifetime working in the kitchen of the monastery and repairing sandals, yet he wrote letters that were compiled into a profound work entitled The Practice of the Presence of God.
-Robert Wuthnow, God and Mammon in America, p. 6-7.
How sad that the church should be viewed in such a light and yet how accurate that description is. Before anyone jumps up to defend the American church, let's think carefully about several examples of a deeply committed life to see if many modern churchgoers that you and I know are following in that pattern:
The early church sold property owned by individuals to pay for the needs of everyone. Acts 2:44-45; 4:32, 34-37. Among the early church there was no destitute poverty as the church helped each member as a need arose. Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 112. The early church did not claim ownership of possessions individually, but instead viewed property as belonging to the church. Kistemaker, p. 173. This sharing of property was voluntary and done from a desire to follow biblical commands to help the poor. Kistemaker, p. 173. The book of Acts even gives a specific example of Barnabus selling a plot of land and giving the money to the Apostles to use as they saw fit. Acts 4:36-37.
Mother Teresa began a life of service at the age of 18. At the age of 36 she left her home in a convent and went to live in slums in India to care for the poor. She started a mission called Missionaries of Charity to help people rejected by society because of disease, poverty and deformity. Throughout the time she worked she had two heart attacks, pneumonia, a broken collar bone, malaria, and other heart problems. She died at the age of 87, having given a lifetime of service to the poor.
Brother Lawrence lived in a monastery as a lay brother. He spent his lifetime working in the kitchen of the monastery and repairing sandals, yet he wrote letters that were compiled into a profound work entitled The Practice of the Presence of God.
Monday, June 9, 2008
The Church v. Individual Christians
Some people that I have spoken with say that a call for reform among churches is unneeded as most denominations affirm a commitment to ending poverty. The people often point to programs like the Southern Baptist's Annie Armstrong Easter Offerings and Lottie Moon Christmas offerings, that are geared towards foreign missions, as examples of the commitment of individual churches to the poor. I do not doubt that collectively Christianity does have a strong commitment to aiding the poor. In fact, the more research I have done on this topic, the more I have discovered just how much churches, Christian denominations and other religious organizations act against poverty. However, my main concern is that while religious institutions are concerned with helping fight against poverty, individual Christians are not.
Others may object to the claim that individual Christians generally are not concerned with the poor. The donations of time and money given to the Salvation Army, local churches, soup kitchens and similar organizations provides evidence that some individuals are acting on their Christian duty to aid those in need. However, donations at Christmas, Easter and in the wake of a natural disaster still leave something out of the picture. Christians are not called to make special love gifts every few months to help the poor. They are called to have a lifestyle of service. SUV's, six foot wide flat screen televisions, designer clothing, $150 tennis shoes, and million dollar houses do not seem to lend themselve to a lifestyle of service. (Please understand - I am not saying these things are bad or that people who own these types of things cannot serve others. My criticism is of the mindset that these things are necessary to be comfortable and of the mindset that comfort ought to be one of our goals.)
The question we must ask ourselves is: "Does my faith in God affect what I buy? Does it affect how I spend money? Does it affect my priorities in life? Does it affect my economic behavior more than advertisements and American culture?" Most of us, if we answered honestly, would have to say that usually our consumer choices are driven by materialistic desire and not by a commitment to God. We may give lip service to the fact that we have prayed about buying a big ticket item, however often times we don't even realize that many items we view as essential are in fact luxuries. Our American society has taught us that new furniture, beautiful cars and tailored clothing are needed in order to conside our lives successful and happy. How odd that Scripture makes no such suggestions for achieving personal happiness.
Although we all may agree that God cares for the poor and Christians should demonstrate God's love to the poor, we are sadly in need of some consideration of how that should affect us everyday. This is not a call for us to dispose of all of our material goods. But it is a call for us to reexamine the importance we attach to our material goods and to see the subtle ways that our society has convinced us that we need so much to be content.
(Admission - I am clearly as guilty of having a mindset of materialism as anyone else. Please do not let my hypocrisy stand in the way of recognizing truth. My hope is that my awakening recognition of my own double-standard in life will help me to move away from that hypocrisy.)
Others may object to the claim that individual Christians generally are not concerned with the poor. The donations of time and money given to the Salvation Army, local churches, soup kitchens and similar organizations provides evidence that some individuals are acting on their Christian duty to aid those in need. However, donations at Christmas, Easter and in the wake of a natural disaster still leave something out of the picture. Christians are not called to make special love gifts every few months to help the poor. They are called to have a lifestyle of service. SUV's, six foot wide flat screen televisions, designer clothing, $150 tennis shoes, and million dollar houses do not seem to lend themselve to a lifestyle of service. (Please understand - I am not saying these things are bad or that people who own these types of things cannot serve others. My criticism is of the mindset that these things are necessary to be comfortable and of the mindset that comfort ought to be one of our goals.)
The question we must ask ourselves is: "Does my faith in God affect what I buy? Does it affect how I spend money? Does it affect my priorities in life? Does it affect my economic behavior more than advertisements and American culture?" Most of us, if we answered honestly, would have to say that usually our consumer choices are driven by materialistic desire and not by a commitment to God. We may give lip service to the fact that we have prayed about buying a big ticket item, however often times we don't even realize that many items we view as essential are in fact luxuries. Our American society has taught us that new furniture, beautiful cars and tailored clothing are needed in order to conside our lives successful and happy. How odd that Scripture makes no such suggestions for achieving personal happiness.
Although we all may agree that God cares for the poor and Christians should demonstrate God's love to the poor, we are sadly in need of some consideration of how that should affect us everyday. This is not a call for us to dispose of all of our material goods. But it is a call for us to reexamine the importance we attach to our material goods and to see the subtle ways that our society has convinced us that we need so much to be content.
(Admission - I am clearly as guilty of having a mindset of materialism as anyone else. Please do not let my hypocrisy stand in the way of recognizing truth. My hope is that my awakening recognition of my own double-standard in life will help me to move away from that hypocrisy.)
Monday, June 2, 2008
This is a random article that I ran across that I thought was interesting. Figured I'd share it.
The Bible or Bob Geldof? Britain can't decide
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times
March 3, 2008
In a poll into public perceptions of the Bible, researchers found that 27 per cent of those questioned mistook a verse from the Book of Proverbs for a speech by the activist and former pop star. A further 20 per cent thought the verse came from a report by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.....
Paul Woolley, director of Theos said: "There are clearly some important challenges to the Christian community contained within these findings. The fact that people confuse the Bible and a speech by Bob Geldof is intriguing, but the fact that 42 per cent of people disagree that the Bible champions the cause of the poor and marginalised demonstrates a significant degree of biblical illiteracy and the need for the Christian community to model the emphases of its sacred text more clearly."
Read the rest of the article at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3476777.ece
The Bible or Bob Geldof? Britain can't decide
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times
March 3, 2008
In a poll into public perceptions of the Bible, researchers found that 27 per cent of those questioned mistook a verse from the Book of Proverbs for a speech by the activist and former pop star. A further 20 per cent thought the verse came from a report by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.....
Paul Woolley, director of Theos said: "There are clearly some important challenges to the Christian community contained within these findings. The fact that people confuse the Bible and a speech by Bob Geldof is intriguing, but the fact that 42 per cent of people disagree that the Bible champions the cause of the poor and marginalised demonstrates a significant degree of biblical illiteracy and the need for the Christian community to model the emphases of its sacred text more clearly."
Read the rest of the article at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3476777.ece
Other authors and their take on poverty and religion
This is an excerpt from a book that poses some very intriguing questions. I have not yet read the whole book, merely an excerpt so I am not necessarily recommending it. I will also state for the record that my view of Salvation (and probably my view of several different theological issues) varies greatly from Mr. Wuthnow's view. However, the book seems like it is worth the effort to investigate to find out some of the issues affecting the Church's passion for the poor.
What Religious People Think About the Poor
by Robert Wuthnow
In any case, it's clear that religious commitment, at least certain kinds of it, does encourage people to think more about their responsibility to the poor. If two-thirds of all church members -- and three-fourths of all the people who attend religious services every week -- think a fair amount about their responsibility to the poor, this represents a lot of people. The fact that at least half of regular churchgoers have heard a sermon on stewardship in the past year, and that nearly this many are involved in a fellowship group or Sunday school class, is all the more significant, for such involvement appears to stimulate thinking about the poor.
If this is the case, then an outsider to American society might well be surprised by the realities of everyday life. Knowing that religious leaders have often pressed for social action on behalf of the poor, this outsider might be surprised to find that there was virtually none. Knowing that religious people have mobilized in huge numbers to protest in front of abortion clinics, and that large religious movements have emerged to fight pornography and to turn back court rulings against school prayer, she would undoubtedly be surprised to learn that religious movements oriented toward passing legislation to help the poor have foundered for want of public support.
Read the rest of the article at:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=492
What Religious People Think About the Poor
by Robert Wuthnow
In any case, it's clear that religious commitment, at least certain kinds of it, does encourage people to think more about their responsibility to the poor. If two-thirds of all church members -- and three-fourths of all the people who attend religious services every week -- think a fair amount about their responsibility to the poor, this represents a lot of people. The fact that at least half of regular churchgoers have heard a sermon on stewardship in the past year, and that nearly this many are involved in a fellowship group or Sunday school class, is all the more significant, for such involvement appears to stimulate thinking about the poor.
If this is the case, then an outsider to American society might well be surprised by the realities of everyday life. Knowing that religious leaders have often pressed for social action on behalf of the poor, this outsider might be surprised to find that there was virtually none. Knowing that religious people have mobilized in huge numbers to protest in front of abortion clinics, and that large religious movements have emerged to fight pornography and to turn back court rulings against school prayer, she would undoubtedly be surprised to learn that religious movements oriented toward passing legislation to help the poor have foundered for want of public support.
Read the rest of the article at:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=492
It's not spiritual enough, Part 2
In addition to the Scriptural reasons indicating that the Church should be involved in helping the poor, there are many additional reasons the Church should care about those less fortunate.
A few years ago, I went with a group of college students to a Christian university located in a major city. This university had a beautiful campus with a domed chapel, ornate buildings and beautiful grounds. As we were admiring the school, one person (whose religious leanings were agnostic at best) commented about the irony of such oppulence in a location dedicated to Christian worship when so much poverty existed merely a few blocks away in the inner city. Ultimately, he commented that it was hard for him to believe the message of Christianity when Christians wasted so much money on themselves without demonstrating love to those in need.
This experience indicates that there are people who choose not to believe in God because of they way they see Christians treating poor people. If Christians were to demonstrate a heart of compassion for the sick and needy, might it not sway some of these same people towards God? I cannot quantify the number of people who reason as my friend did at that university. However, it is not unusual to hear similar criticisms everywhere you look. A simple search of the internet reveals numerous people who embrace this reasoning. (Austin Cline's "Poverty & Religion," http://atheism.about.com/b/a/232637.htm; S. Menon's "Christianity and Poverty: correlation or causation?" http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1137122831; Athiest Revolution's "Religion and Poverty in Mississippi," http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/10/religion-and-poverty-in-mississippi.html; James R. Gorman's comment on Michael Harrigan's journey away from religion in "Conversation with a Athiest -- Micael Harrigan on Religion and Socialism," http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1795; Poch Suzara's "Poverty in the Phillipines," http://atheistangpinoy.blogspot.com/2006/04/poverty-in-philippines-by-poch-suzara.html).
What could be more spiritual than working to convince unbelievers of God's existence? Although helping the poor is an indirect method of doing this, it is still a method of persuasion. Sometimes actions that preach are just as important as words that preach.
A few years ago, I went with a group of college students to a Christian university located in a major city. This university had a beautiful campus with a domed chapel, ornate buildings and beautiful grounds. As we were admiring the school, one person (whose religious leanings were agnostic at best) commented about the irony of such oppulence in a location dedicated to Christian worship when so much poverty existed merely a few blocks away in the inner city. Ultimately, he commented that it was hard for him to believe the message of Christianity when Christians wasted so much money on themselves without demonstrating love to those in need.
This experience indicates that there are people who choose not to believe in God because of they way they see Christians treating poor people. If Christians were to demonstrate a heart of compassion for the sick and needy, might it not sway some of these same people towards God? I cannot quantify the number of people who reason as my friend did at that university. However, it is not unusual to hear similar criticisms everywhere you look. A simple search of the internet reveals numerous people who embrace this reasoning. (Austin Cline's "Poverty & Religion," http://atheism.about.com/b/a/232637.htm; S. Menon's "Christianity and Poverty: correlation or causation?" http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1137122831; Athiest Revolution's "Religion and Poverty in Mississippi," http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/10/religion-and-poverty-in-mississippi.html; James R. Gorman's comment on Michael Harrigan's journey away from religion in "Conversation with a Athiest -- Micael Harrigan on Religion and Socialism," http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1795; Poch Suzara's "Poverty in the Phillipines," http://atheistangpinoy.blogspot.com/2006/04/poverty-in-philippines-by-poch-suzara.html).
What could be more spiritual than working to convince unbelievers of God's existence? Although helping the poor is an indirect method of doing this, it is still a method of persuasion. Sometimes actions that preach are just as important as words that preach.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
It's not spiritual enough
Over the years, I've heard several people explain the reasons that they aren't more involved in helping the poor. One of the reasons I heard was that "A focus on people's physical needs takes away time and attention that should be directed towards people's spiritual needs." While people who voice this objection generally have a good heart and good intentions, such a belief is not based on Scripture or an appropriate understanding of the world around them.
First of all, this reason is contrary to Scripture. Jesus tells a story of the end times where He separates out the sheep and the goats. (Mt. 25:31-40). He tells the sheep that they will inherit a kingdom because when Jesus was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick and in prison that the sheep had fed, clothed, sheltered and visited Him. The sheep respond by asking when did we ever see You hungry or thirsty. Jesus' response was "[T]o the extent that you di it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." Jesus was telling His listeners that there is eternal value in showing compassion for the physical needs of others. Even when caring for those who ars hungry or thirsty is not coupled with preaching, there is still inherent value in feeding, clothing and sheltering them. Not only is this work eternally valuable, it is as though we are caring for and showing compassion on God Himself.
Also, James 1:27 says "This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress..." (NAS). Strong's Concordance indicates that the word distress, which can also be translated affliction, means "anguish, burden, persecution, tribulation, trouble." What are the burdens and troubles of widows and orphans? Some emotional, some spiritual, but surely as well a they are burdend with being able to provide for their physical needs. Scripture states that when we care for the needs of orphans and widows we engage in pure and undefiled religion. Pure and undefiled religion surely does not lack in spirituality or eternal value.
This only begins to scratch the surface of Scriptures indicating that caring for the poor has eternal significance. In addition to these Scriptures indicating that giving to the poor is a Spiritual act in and of itself, such concern for the needy also has side-effects of monumental Spiritual importance. These will be taken up soon, but in the mean time, let us not belittle as unworthy acts that God has deemed to be of supreme eternal value.
First of all, this reason is contrary to Scripture. Jesus tells a story of the end times where He separates out the sheep and the goats. (Mt. 25:31-40). He tells the sheep that they will inherit a kingdom because when Jesus was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick and in prison that the sheep had fed, clothed, sheltered and visited Him. The sheep respond by asking when did we ever see You hungry or thirsty. Jesus' response was "[T]o the extent that you di it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." Jesus was telling His listeners that there is eternal value in showing compassion for the physical needs of others. Even when caring for those who ars hungry or thirsty is not coupled with preaching, there is still inherent value in feeding, clothing and sheltering them. Not only is this work eternally valuable, it is as though we are caring for and showing compassion on God Himself.
Also, James 1:27 says "This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress..." (NAS). Strong's Concordance indicates that the word distress, which can also be translated affliction, means "anguish, burden, persecution, tribulation, trouble." What are the burdens and troubles of widows and orphans? Some emotional, some spiritual, but surely as well a they are burdend with being able to provide for their physical needs. Scripture states that when we care for the needs of orphans and widows we engage in pure and undefiled religion. Pure and undefiled religion surely does not lack in spirituality or eternal value.
This only begins to scratch the surface of Scriptures indicating that caring for the poor has eternal significance. In addition to these Scriptures indicating that giving to the poor is a Spiritual act in and of itself, such concern for the needy also has side-effects of monumental Spiritual importance. These will be taken up soon, but in the mean time, let us not belittle as unworthy acts that God has deemed to be of supreme eternal value.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
What does Jesus say?
In Sunday School today the teacher made an interesting comment that was not directly related to the poor. However, that comment opened up a whole new pattern of thought for me. We were studying Matthew 11:2-6 and discussing faith, hope and doubts as illustrated in the life of John the Baptist.
John the Baptist had been preaching about the coming Messiah, had baptized Jesus, had heard God call Jesus His "beloved Son," and had even watched the Holy Spirit descend as a dove after Jesus' baptism. (Mt. 3). However, a few chapters later in Matthew 11, John the Baptist was no longer entirely sure that Jesus is the Messiah. Whether it was because John the Baptist was then in jail, because Jesus wasn't setting up an earthly kingdom, or because Jesus didn't act the way John the Baptist thought a Messiah should act, John now questioned whether Jesus was the "Expected One." John sent some of his disciples to ask Jesus this very question while John waited in prison for the answer.
Jesus answered the question by pointing to signs that He is the Messiah. He told the disciples to report to John about the things they had heard and seen. Then Jesus started listing the signs of His Messiahship, starting at the obviously miraculous signs: the blind see, lame walk, lepers are healed, deaf can hear, and dead people come alive again. Clearly these are all miraculous events that no other person could do. But then Jesus added in a sign of His Messiahship that doesn't seem to fit with the rest: "the poor have the gospel preached to them." Jesus' statemet refers back to an Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 61.
Interesting that one sign of Jesus' position as Messiah relates to the poor. This indicates that God is interested in and cares for the poor. However, beyond merely a general concern for the poor, the verse indicates that to be Christlike, we should prioritize preaching to the poor.
There is also significance in the fact that a sign of Jesus' position as Messiah was preaching to the poor and not providing for the physical needs of the poor. Although other Scriptures support helping the solve the bodily needs of the poor, the importance of caring for the Spiritual needs of the poor should ultimately have the same priority in the Church as it did with Christ.
How often Christians want to be able to replicate the other signs of Jesus' Messiahship. We pray for healing from physical ailments all the time. Yet very rarely do we give the same attention to preaching the gospel to the poor. Perhaps as Christ signalled His position as the Son of God by preaching to the poor, the Church could signal it's position as followers of Christ by preaching to the poor as well.
John the Baptist had been preaching about the coming Messiah, had baptized Jesus, had heard God call Jesus His "beloved Son," and had even watched the Holy Spirit descend as a dove after Jesus' baptism. (Mt. 3). However, a few chapters later in Matthew 11, John the Baptist was no longer entirely sure that Jesus is the Messiah. Whether it was because John the Baptist was then in jail, because Jesus wasn't setting up an earthly kingdom, or because Jesus didn't act the way John the Baptist thought a Messiah should act, John now questioned whether Jesus was the "Expected One." John sent some of his disciples to ask Jesus this very question while John waited in prison for the answer.
Jesus answered the question by pointing to signs that He is the Messiah. He told the disciples to report to John about the things they had heard and seen. Then Jesus started listing the signs of His Messiahship, starting at the obviously miraculous signs: the blind see, lame walk, lepers are healed, deaf can hear, and dead people come alive again. Clearly these are all miraculous events that no other person could do. But then Jesus added in a sign of His Messiahship that doesn't seem to fit with the rest: "the poor have the gospel preached to them." Jesus' statemet refers back to an Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 61.
Interesting that one sign of Jesus' position as Messiah relates to the poor. This indicates that God is interested in and cares for the poor. However, beyond merely a general concern for the poor, the verse indicates that to be Christlike, we should prioritize preaching to the poor.
There is also significance in the fact that a sign of Jesus' position as Messiah was preaching to the poor and not providing for the physical needs of the poor. Although other Scriptures support helping the solve the bodily needs of the poor, the importance of caring for the Spiritual needs of the poor should ultimately have the same priority in the Church as it did with Christ.
How often Christians want to be able to replicate the other signs of Jesus' Messiahship. We pray for healing from physical ailments all the time. Yet very rarely do we give the same attention to preaching the gospel to the poor. Perhaps as Christ signalled His position as the Son of God by preaching to the poor, the Church could signal it's position as followers of Christ by preaching to the poor as well.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Who are the poor?
As was suggested, there are many different interpretations of who Christians should consider as "the poor." What standard should we use in determining who Scripture is referring to when the words poor and needy appear?
There are several different definitions of poverty offered by governments and other organizations. There are also lots of less formal definitions of poverty. In looking for reliabe sources that offered well researched and thought-out definitions, I came across in the Urban Dictionary that claimed that being poor meant living without cable and videogames. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poor). Although amusing, this definition points out the heart of the difficulty in defining what it means to be poor. As standards of living rise in some places around the world, the definition of poverty tends to expand. Should we as Christians assume that Scriptural intended to use these expanded definitions? Or should we automatically exclude these expanded definitions from our discussons?
To answer that question, I believe we should first examine what is meant by the words used to identify the poor and needy in Scripture. One word that seems to be used repeatedly throughout the Old Testament. (II Sam. 12:1-4, Prov. 10:4, 13:7-8, 13:23, 14:20, 17:5, 18:23, 19:1, 19:7, 19:22, 22:2, 22:7, 28:3, 28:27, 29:13; Eccl. 4:14, 5:8). That word is defined by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as meaning to be destitute, and according to biblical lexicons it means "to be in want or in hunger." (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Genesius Lexicon, http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?search=7326&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find).
According to Strong's Concordance, the word used most often in the New Testament to describe the poor indicates beggars or paupers. (Mt. 5:3, 11:5, 19:21, 26:9-11; Mk. 10:21, 12:42-43, 14:5-7; Lk. 4:18, 6:20, 7:22, 14:13, 18:22, 19:8, 21:3; Jn. 12:5-8, 13:29; Rom. 15:26; II Cor. 6:10; Gal. 2:10; Jas. 2:2-6; Rev. 3:17, 13:17). When looking at the explanation for this word given in biblical lexicons, it has several colorful interpretations ranging from being "reduced to beggary," "destitute of wealth," "helpless and powerless to accomplish an end," to "destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture." (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Genesius Lexicon, http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/grk.cgi?search=4434&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find). These two words appear to be the Greek and Hewbrew words most commonly used to denote the poor. However, several other words are used that would bear examination as well.
The use of these two particular words in Scripture, at a minimum, indicates that the poor that we are to be concerned with incompasses the group that we typically think of as poor - those who can't afford food, clothing, or shelter, the destitute. The Greek word used in the New Testament includes the destitute, but may also imply a broader group of people. Even if we canot agree on how far the definition of the poor should be expanded, we surely will not err if we start with those who are destitute. Since Scripture indicates that poverty will never be eradicated (note Jesus' reference in the Gospels to us always having the poor, see Mt. 26:11, Mk. 14:7, Jn. 12:8), we will likely never run out of destitute people to help.
There are several different definitions of poverty offered by governments and other organizations. There are also lots of less formal definitions of poverty. In looking for reliabe sources that offered well researched and thought-out definitions, I came across in the Urban Dictionary that claimed that being poor meant living without cable and videogames. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poor). Although amusing, this definition points out the heart of the difficulty in defining what it means to be poor. As standards of living rise in some places around the world, the definition of poverty tends to expand. Should we as Christians assume that Scriptural intended to use these expanded definitions? Or should we automatically exclude these expanded definitions from our discussons?
To answer that question, I believe we should first examine what is meant by the words used to identify the poor and needy in Scripture. One word that seems to be used repeatedly throughout the Old Testament. (II Sam. 12:1-4, Prov. 10:4, 13:7-8, 13:23, 14:20, 17:5, 18:23, 19:1, 19:7, 19:22, 22:2, 22:7, 28:3, 28:27, 29:13; Eccl. 4:14, 5:8). That word is defined by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as meaning to be destitute, and according to biblical lexicons it means "to be in want or in hunger." (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Genesius Lexicon, http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?search=7326&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find).
According to Strong's Concordance, the word used most often in the New Testament to describe the poor indicates beggars or paupers. (Mt. 5:3, 11:5, 19:21, 26:9-11; Mk. 10:21, 12:42-43, 14:5-7; Lk. 4:18, 6:20, 7:22, 14:13, 18:22, 19:8, 21:3; Jn. 12:5-8, 13:29; Rom. 15:26; II Cor. 6:10; Gal. 2:10; Jas. 2:2-6; Rev. 3:17, 13:17). When looking at the explanation for this word given in biblical lexicons, it has several colorful interpretations ranging from being "reduced to beggary," "destitute of wealth," "helpless and powerless to accomplish an end," to "destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture." (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Genesius Lexicon, http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/grk.cgi?search=4434&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find). These two words appear to be the Greek and Hewbrew words most commonly used to denote the poor. However, several other words are used that would bear examination as well.
The use of these two particular words in Scripture, at a minimum, indicates that the poor that we are to be concerned with incompasses the group that we typically think of as poor - those who can't afford food, clothing, or shelter, the destitute. The Greek word used in the New Testament includes the destitute, but may also imply a broader group of people. Even if we canot agree on how far the definition of the poor should be expanded, we surely will not err if we start with those who are destitute. Since Scripture indicates that poverty will never be eradicated (note Jesus' reference in the Gospels to us always having the poor, see Mt. 26:11, Mk. 14:7, Jn. 12:8), we will likely never run out of destitute people to help.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Topics to consider
It was actually just this last winter that my church spent time examining our role in caring for the poor. In an effort to ensure that I do not just plagiarize the work of my elders in their paper yet still bring their wisdom to this discussion, I think laying out the categories they used will be a helpful way to examine what the Bible has to say about the poor.
The first issue to address is who are the poor? Do we just use the poverty line set by the government? Or do we use the 125% of the poverty line used by many organizations whose purpose is to aid the poor? Or is there some other standard we should use?
Next in identifying the poor, is there a difference in the way we should treat Christians who are poor and non-Christians who are poor? Does the fact that someone is part of the universal church place extra obligations on fellow believers to care for that person? Or do we have an extra obligation to the non-Christian to show how Christ can care for their spiritual poverty just as we can care for their physical poverty?
When the poor are identified, it is useful to turn to identifying where the responsibilty to care for the poor is placed. One place to start is the government. What is the government supposed to do for the poor? Certainly the government is to treat the poor justly. Does this require more than a passive refusal to oppress the poor? Must the government actively work for the betterment of the poor and provide for their care?
The church understands poverty to be a picture of our spiritual condition. Does this give the church a unique obligation to care for the poor? Is caring for the poor a requirement to effectively preach the gospel? Can the church speak to our spiritual poverty without addressing the physical poverty of the community or does the church working to address physical poverty confuse the gospel message so that people equate the gospel with helping the poor?
Is the way I care for the poor individually supposed to look different from the way my local church as a local church cares for the poor? What is my responsibility as an individual when I am approached by someone who is homeless? Should I ever spend my money on something I don't need, like going to a concert, when that money could be given to an organization that could feed someone?
This post asks many questions. In doing so, it lays out a framework from which to move through and thoughtfully consider these issues. For my next post I plan to include Scripture and examine what a passage or several passages have to say about these issues.
The first issue to address is who are the poor? Do we just use the poverty line set by the government? Or do we use the 125% of the poverty line used by many organizations whose purpose is to aid the poor? Or is there some other standard we should use?
Next in identifying the poor, is there a difference in the way we should treat Christians who are poor and non-Christians who are poor? Does the fact that someone is part of the universal church place extra obligations on fellow believers to care for that person? Or do we have an extra obligation to the non-Christian to show how Christ can care for their spiritual poverty just as we can care for their physical poverty?
When the poor are identified, it is useful to turn to identifying where the responsibilty to care for the poor is placed. One place to start is the government. What is the government supposed to do for the poor? Certainly the government is to treat the poor justly. Does this require more than a passive refusal to oppress the poor? Must the government actively work for the betterment of the poor and provide for their care?
The church understands poverty to be a picture of our spiritual condition. Does this give the church a unique obligation to care for the poor? Is caring for the poor a requirement to effectively preach the gospel? Can the church speak to our spiritual poverty without addressing the physical poverty of the community or does the church working to address physical poverty confuse the gospel message so that people equate the gospel with helping the poor?
Is the way I care for the poor individually supposed to look different from the way my local church as a local church cares for the poor? What is my responsibility as an individual when I am approached by someone who is homeless? Should I ever spend my money on something I don't need, like going to a concert, when that money could be given to an organization that could feed someone?
This post asks many questions. In doing so, it lays out a framework from which to move through and thoughtfully consider these issues. For my next post I plan to include Scripture and examine what a passage or several passages have to say about these issues.
Why the poor?
Why focus on the poor? Why not focus on thousands of other groups that the Church relates to? Why not discuss GLBT's? Why not alcoholics? Or Muslims? Or women? Simply put, we should focus on the Church's relationship to the poor because Scripture focuses on the poor.
There are over nine different terms used to refer to poverty and the poor in Scripture. The Psalms and Proverbs are replete with references to the poor and needy that reveal God's attitude toward this group. (Ps. 9:18, 10:8, 34:6, 35:10, 37:14, 41:1, 68:10, 69:33, 72:4, 82:3-4, 107:41, 109:14-16, 109:31, 112:9, 113:7, 132:15, 140:12; Prov. 13:23, 14:20-21, 14:31, 17:5, 19:1, 19:17, 19:22, 21:13, 22:2, 22:7, 22:9, 22;16, 22:22, 28:3, 28:6, 28:8, 28:11, 28:15, 28:27, 29:7, 29:13-14, 30:14, 31:6-9, 31:20). These references indicate that righteous people care for those who are poor and needy and that wicked people oppress the poor and needy. These verses also indicate that the Holy God created both poor and rich and that He judges both groups justly.
The Old Testament provided guidance for the Israelites to know how they should treat the poor among them. (Ex. 22:25, 23:6, 23:11; Lev. 19:10, 19:15, 23:22, 25:25, 25:35-37, 25:39-41, 25:47-49; Deut. 15:7-11, 24:12-13, 24:14-15). Although these laws are no longer binding on us in the same way that the Israelites were bound, we can learn of God's attitude to the poor through these references.
Jesus' own words also make reference to the poor. (Mt. 11:5, 19:21, 26:9; Mk. 10:21, 12:41-44, 14:7; Lk. 4:18, 6:20, 7:22, 14:12-14, 18:22, 21:1-4, 12:8). Although some of His words seem cryptic, each of these references also reveals something about God's attitude toward the poor.
These references are not exhaustive. They are simply a brief first glance at some of the rich comments Scripture makes on God's relationship to the poor, and thus by extension what the Church's relationship to the poor should be.
These references are also the reason why the Church must take time to examine it's relationship to the poor. Even without considering the content of each text, the sheer volume of the references indicate that God is concerned about the poor. What is important to the Holy God should be important to the Church as well.
There are over nine different terms used to refer to poverty and the poor in Scripture. The Psalms and Proverbs are replete with references to the poor and needy that reveal God's attitude toward this group. (Ps. 9:18, 10:8, 34:6, 35:10, 37:14, 41:1, 68:10, 69:33, 72:4, 82:3-4, 107:41, 109:14-16, 109:31, 112:9, 113:7, 132:15, 140:12; Prov. 13:23, 14:20-21, 14:31, 17:5, 19:1, 19:17, 19:22, 21:13, 22:2, 22:7, 22:9, 22;16, 22:22, 28:3, 28:6, 28:8, 28:11, 28:15, 28:27, 29:7, 29:13-14, 30:14, 31:6-9, 31:20). These references indicate that righteous people care for those who are poor and needy and that wicked people oppress the poor and needy. These verses also indicate that the Holy God created both poor and rich and that He judges both groups justly.
The Old Testament provided guidance for the Israelites to know how they should treat the poor among them. (Ex. 22:25, 23:6, 23:11; Lev. 19:10, 19:15, 23:22, 25:25, 25:35-37, 25:39-41, 25:47-49; Deut. 15:7-11, 24:12-13, 24:14-15). Although these laws are no longer binding on us in the same way that the Israelites were bound, we can learn of God's attitude to the poor through these references.
Jesus' own words also make reference to the poor. (Mt. 11:5, 19:21, 26:9; Mk. 10:21, 12:41-44, 14:7; Lk. 4:18, 6:20, 7:22, 14:12-14, 18:22, 21:1-4, 12:8). Although some of His words seem cryptic, each of these references also reveals something about God's attitude toward the poor.
These references are not exhaustive. They are simply a brief first glance at some of the rich comments Scripture makes on God's relationship to the poor, and thus by extension what the Church's relationship to the poor should be.
These references are also the reason why the Church must take time to examine it's relationship to the poor. Even without considering the content of each text, the sheer volume of the references indicate that God is concerned about the poor. What is important to the Holy God should be important to the Church as well.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Why blog?
Over the course of several months, many discussions with friends, fruitless hours at bookstores, word documents full of the beginnings of ideas, and time spent generally contemplating, I've come to the frustrating and startling conclusion that very few Christians discuss with much detail the concept of how Christians should relate to those who are poor. The irony of this current state of the Christian church seems striking as the Bible itself is chock-full of references to caring for the poor.
These posts are intended to start discussions and open up space for a consideration of what role the Bible indicates that the Christian Church should be playing in ministering to the poor. Should it be a ministry of witnessing only? Should witnessing be secondary to ministering to physical needs? How is the Church to prioritize ministry to poor people as compared to other ministry opportunities? What effect does the Church's involvement with the poor have on our relationships to other groups of people?
I invite everyone to participate in this process of learning and seeking for Truth. However, my caution is that Truth only emanates from the Holy God and His word as revealed in Scripture. Many of us may disagree and have various ideas. We are all free to share those ideas, but we, myself included, should also all be willing to have each of those ideas tested by the teachings of Scripture. As we search for truth, we can rest confident that if we come with a willing heart the Holy God will reward our diligence. May we all seek to glorify Him.
These posts are intended to start discussions and open up space for a consideration of what role the Bible indicates that the Christian Church should be playing in ministering to the poor. Should it be a ministry of witnessing only? Should witnessing be secondary to ministering to physical needs? How is the Church to prioritize ministry to poor people as compared to other ministry opportunities? What effect does the Church's involvement with the poor have on our relationships to other groups of people?
I invite everyone to participate in this process of learning and seeking for Truth. However, my caution is that Truth only emanates from the Holy God and His word as revealed in Scripture. Many of us may disagree and have various ideas. We are all free to share those ideas, but we, myself included, should also all be willing to have each of those ideas tested by the teachings of Scripture. As we search for truth, we can rest confident that if we come with a willing heart the Holy God will reward our diligence. May we all seek to glorify Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)