Words'nTone

So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Exodus 3:8; cf. 3:17; 13:5).

Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way” (Exodus 33:3).

In the previous post, I suggested that if those who cannot, through whatever means or for whatever reasons, cannot benefit from the “milk and honey” of the land, are like those who are lactose intolerant and diabetic in that they cannot enjoy the benefits of the milk and honey. Now, of course I do understand that many people are poor of their own doing. And as well, I point out there are many who are wealthy and affluent who are so not of their own doing—but are so despite who they are as people or what they can and cannot do. And as for sin, first I take it that those who are poor and those who are not poor are of the same, both are sinners. But yes, sin can lead to poverty—as well as can wealth. So let’s stop with that game and move toward seeing that it is a Christian responsibility to assist those who are poor to move out of poverty and stop generational poverty, and as well it is a Christian obligation to addresss the causes of poverty. Now with this all said, I’d like to move to a second idea I have from the book Crashers.

It was the quote that got me going—Land of milk and honey…Bloody lot of good it does if you can’t handle lactose and you’ve diabetes to boot.--but my stream of consciousness kept flowing further in light of the Crashers book. In the reality behind the book I am impressed in how the gathering of experts would be called to act and move toward a crashed airline and would examine the crash, determine its cause or causes, and put things in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. I like that analogy.

Wouldn’t it make sense that such a team—or teams—of Christians (and even inviting non-Christian experts as well where needed and appropriate) to descend on areas of poverty and examine the blight and determine the cause or causes, and put things in place to ensure it doesn’t continue (or at least to begin to ameliorate the incidence of poverty)? (Now won’t that be a worthwhile endeavor to fund!)

It is interesting that there is a shift between the first promised move toward the Land flowing with milk and honey at the beginning of the exodus (cf. Exodus 3:8) and the latter part of the story in Exodus 33. In the latter chapters of the book of Exodus, we discover that even the Israelites were idolatrous—not just the Egyptians. This idolatry was a threat, yet they’d still be able to enter the Land flowing with milk and honey (it was a promise), but God would not go with them, because they had become stiff-necked people (a reference to how God viewed people who are idolatrous). The Israelites would inherit the land as promised, maybe even benefit from it, but God would not go with them.

So, it is possible for the people of God—in name at least—to inherit the blessing of God, but be actually without God’s presence. Very similarly, non-poor Christians can enjoy the blessings of God’s creation, yet be without God. They can look and sound like God’s people, but not in truth when they live idolatrous lives. And without repeating myself from a host of other posts, it is clear from the Biblical data and the Gospel itself that Christians are to be associated with the poor and should be concerned about the affects of poverty. It seems to be, although true of any economic culture, but especially true in a culture that promotes upward mobility, that Christians ought to be concerned for those who cannot benefit from the blessings of the Land (i.e., the economic location) and be active (as a Go-Team) that addresses the causes of poverty.

PS But who are the experts? Now that’s a good question, and I don’t intend to offer the answer in an sense of fullness, but I am thinking experts from the social service world, business, education, psychology, urban development and redevelopment, economists, bankers, medical…

So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Exodus 3:8; cf. 3:17; 13:5).

Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way” (Exodus 33:3).

I am reading a great novel about investigating a mysterious plane crash.  It’s really a great read.  Enjoying it immensely. It is a novel called Crashers by Dana Haynes.  ”Crashers“ is the name given to Go-Teams who are sent to investigate airline plane crashes, leading experts from specific fields vested in determining the cause of the crash so it never happens again.  In the midst of the storyline a character, not necessarily religious, thinks a rather interesting thought that got me thinking.  She thought,

Land of milk and honey…Bloody lot of good it does if you can’t handle lactose and you’ve diabetes to boot.

The book and the line referred to, Land of milk and honey remind, obviously, of the references in Exodus about the Land of Promise, the Land of Gift, as “a land flowing with milk and honey.” This was the promise made to the Israelite slaves, captive and abused under Egyptian rule, namely that God would deliver them from Egypt and bring them to a new land, a land flowing with milk and honey.  Obviously good news.  Mostly the reference to milk and honey simple means the land would be fruitful agriculturally (the milk) and productive (the honey).  The land would be a benefit to the incoming inhabitants.  It would be workable, sustaining, a land that would allow a measure of self-sufficiency for the Israelites who believed God and followed Him into the land.

But, the second part of the character’s thought brought me back to the numerous references in Exodus and other exodus-related texts to the weak, economically vulnerable and the poor who would be fellow occupants of this land flowing with milk and honey (e.g., Exodus 22:22, 24-25; 23:3, 6; cf. Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17; 10: 18ff ; 16:19; 24:17, 18; Prov 23:10, 11; Jer 7:6, 7; Amos 4:1-2, etc.).  It is so true that if one is lactose intolerant, one cannot enjoy the benefit of milk.  Nor can honey be useful to someone who has diabetes.  Bloody lot of good it does them. 

Similarly, the poor and other economically vulnerable populations are exactly in this bloody fix: The poor and economically vulnerable are unable—because of lack of access, barriers, lack of power, educational gaps, demographic separation, gender bias or racism, lack of resources, legislative policy—to enjoy what the land has to offer.  The economic vulnerable and the poor cannot utilize the milk and lack the ability to enjoy the honey (or, cannot be productive for the lack of abilities and barriers).

A number of years ago we witnessed at church on a Sunday morning a young man and his wife stand before us, poised and ready to head off to the foreign mission field: China. He was going as a medical-doctor-missionary for a organization called Christar. I remember the moment; it was great, wonderful, and moving. I could tell his parent’s were proud—I would be. He pointed to the place in the sanctuary where he sat as a teenager when he first felt called to missions. That day the young man was also the morning speaker for our church’s annual mission conference. He didn’t get far into his message before he began to cry, tears of passion for missions and thankfulness. The church, where he was called, was now sending him with support, blessings, and much prayer. He spoke on a simple theme: “How do we measure success?” Without the details, in summary he plainly explained that biblically, success = obedience. Not worldly prosperity, riches, or recognition. Sounded simple enough and to the biblical point as I recall.

Every church service has its serendipitous moment—we had one that morning in our pew. As part of the mission decor, the missions committee had placed a rather large, almost a story tall, balloon-world to our right in the sanctuary. It was filled with helium for about a week or so, giving it fullness and shape and rising up a bit into the sanctuary. After a week, however, the balloon was looking rather dilapidated, yet still holding itself up--somewhat. After the young man had finished speaking, our Pastor stood to close the service, pointed to the globe, and said, “What’s wrong with the world?” Without hesitation, more to us in the pew than to the rest of the congregation, my good friend, sitting next to me, Pete Kramka leaned toward my ear and replied, “Helium.”

Now that’s funny. I thought how true: The world is losing what it takes to stay afloat. I thought it also odd that the remaining helium in the plastic globe made the Northern hemisphere look fine. There was the USA all filled out, but the lack of helium at the bottom made South American and Africa all shriveled up, along with the southern portions of Asia. And there you have it—the Christianized west is full and fine, the unreached (least reached) and more populated countries are all shriveled up. What’s wrong with the world? It needs more helium—Christian witness and resources. I know, silly perhaps. But Pete’s retort struck me as funny, ironic, serendipitous. Nonetheless, the fact is 80% of Christian resources are used for 5% of the world’s population (that’s North America). And to add to that sad fact, most of that 80% of Christian resources is made to prop up wealthy and affluent church building-centered ministries in places of prosperity rather than in those places and locals and among people groups in the USA that are economically vulnerable and affected by poverty. Either way you—as a Christian—look at it, judgment on USA Christians will come, someday, and we will be held accountable for hording the 80%.

When Jesus said, “The poor you will always have among you” (Mark 14:17) or when Moses penned, “There will always be poor in the land” (Deut 15:11), we should not take these statements as our goal, nor understand them as indicative of what we should expect as a future matter of fact. Nor, are these statements excuses for the Christian community of faith to eschew its responsibility to invest in the poor among us and seek to alleviate the causes of poverty. These are not matter of fact statements of fact, but descriptions of the proximity of the poor to God’s community. Almost as if to say, “While you are living in the land of promise, the poor will be living with you as well.” The Old Testament law and practices provided for how the community of promise was to treat and care for the poor. The New Testament does not rescind such arrangements or principles of conduct. In fact, these statements ought to be taken, “The poor will be in our midst, as they ought to be; they will be a sociological group associated with our community.” In fact there is a good likelihood that the New Testament text indicating that “poor always” will among the Christian community is drawn from that Deuteronomy text. In other words, Jesus and Moses were indicating that the poor are identified with His community of people. Being poor is not a mark or “automatic” entry into the invisible community of God—that comes through faith in God’s means of salvation, namely faith in His Word, faith in Jesus Christ. That being said, one cannot read through the Old and New Testaments without feeling the sense that God chooses the poor to be close by, to be close to His people. As someone has pointed out, these texts ought to remind the community of faith of its “share shared accountability and social responsibility” regarding the issue of helping the poor. As we benefit from God’s redemption (Old or New), we ought not ignore the poor among us or even seek to, as the same author says, “eradicate them.” As a part of our social structure, we have a sacred responsibility to them—a reason why Moses continued, “Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” Jesus enjoins, after indicating the poor’s presence among His people, “whenever you wish you can do good to them.” The problem: Do we wish? God’s people are defined as those who wish to do so. Moving away from them—i.e., further into the suburbs and into the countryside—is a sinfulr way of attempting to eradicate them, the poor, from our midst and does not relieve the Christian community of its responsibilities. One cannot escape the continuous indictments throughout Scripture against God’s people, and the eventual judgments, for ignoring our responsibility toward the “poor among us.”

Finally, some concluding thoughts. Please remember these are first thoughts. I am hoping to work on a paper, maybe to present, but certainly as a chapter in my hopeful book on evangelism and Social Action: “Significance Before Application: Proclaiming, Casting, and Evangelistic Social Action Outcomes.” But for now, these concluding remarks are very rough draft. My concern in this thread was to attempt some thoughts and a preliminary answer to the question, “How is casting out demons = to social action.” I have suggested below in the posts to this thread that it is not that casting = social action, but that the significance of the fulfillment of the promise to become fishers (Mark 1:17), that is, the significance of the commission to announce the arrival of the kingdom and the activity of casting out of demons (Mark 3:14-15), ought to have social action applications—I’d rather say, they can have social action outcomes.

First as briefly discussed above, I believe part of the impasse, the barrier, to seeing how social action outcomes are a legitimate evangelistic outcome is that we start with application and move back to the text. We start with witnessing and other verbal forms of evangelism and we read back into the Gospel story that is what Jesus must have meant in saying you will become fishers of men. Second, we have a problem with moving from proclaiming the gospel to anything other than “the four spiritual laws,” or “Jesus died on the cross for your sins.” And third, we make no application regarding the significance of the fisher activity of “casting out demons” other than literal exorcism. So we stop and assume we know what the text says because we’ve already figured out how to apply it. So the text (i.e., “fishers of men” in Mark 1:17) must mean what we already think it means, namely, we are to verbally communicate that Jesus saves and fish, catch people for Christ, i.e., get them to convert, be saved, become a Christian. This however is our doing, not the text’s inference, and certainly not what is presented even throughout the whole of the New Testament.

I’d like to return for a moment to Mark 1:14-15, Jesus’ first summary of His ministry and Mark’s primary summary text of the content of what the Jesus-ministry-mission is.

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Let me borrow from Joel Markus’ thought on this passage from his commentary on Mark 1-8. We read this as two statements, but we do not read them as two parallel statements that explain or correspond to each other, which would not have been so far-fetched given the Hebrew thinking of the one who said it (Jesus) and the one who wrote it (Mark). Let’s just say it’s a structure that smacks of Hebrew parallelism.

The time is fulfilled   and   the kingdom of God is at hand
Repent                  and    believe in the Gospel

The significance of the parallelism is that the time of the old age, or this present evil age with all its anti-YHWH aspects, has come to an end; that time (the καιρὸς) has come to its eschatological end, for the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated. The old age of Satan’s rule over mankind has come to its eschatological end, albeit in a “now and not yet” form. And, the time of God’s dominion, His right to rule over the realms of mankind, has come—His Kingdom has been inaugurated in the appearance of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (Mark 1:1). (Also in the “appearance” are the other inaugurators as well—John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit, and the fishers of men.) The first imperative is to repent, which corresponds to the first indicative that the Kingdom has come. The second imperative is to believe, which corresponds to the second indicative that the hearers are to turn to belief/faith in (loyalty to) the good news that the new age of God’s dominion has dawned.

The fisher-promise, which comes right after this ministry-mission summary, pulls those who follow this King Jesus, the Messiah, to mirror this ministry-mission. As Jesus begins his ministry in the following verses through chapter 3, consisting of proclamation and casting (and healing), so now in Mark 3:14ff the followers are commissioned to mirror the same. The content of the Kingdom is drawn from Old Testament covenant texts, land-stipulations, and prophetic judgments—all of which contain issues related to the economically vulnerable (as I have already demonstrated and written and posted even on this site). Why shouldn’t we think that both the proclaiming and the casting interventions are related to bringing about the values, laws, and regulations that mirror the rule and reign of the arrived King? One certainly explains it; the other certainly demonstrates it. The proclaiming in the Gospel isn’t about “Jesus saves” (although one of the outcomes associated with the presence of the Kingdom for sure), but about the time when God’s Kingdom has arrived and all of creation is to realign itself with this Kingdom, and all people are to reorient themselves to the demands and values of this Kingdom.

Those who say “fishers of men = verbal communication of the Gospel as evangelism” forget there is a second part, “casting out of demons.” Of course there are those who believe casting is a miracle for today—this is not the debate here, although I have no problem with that assumption. What I am driving at here is, “Do we cast as well as preach, witness, and proclaim?” Few do. So how do those who disagree with me “cast out demons?” Or, do we take literally the fisher commission to proclaim (and narrow it down to only individual salvation) and “spiritualize” or do away with the commission to “cast”? Or perhaps we should see the significance of the Gospel of Mark’s commission and the two interventions of preaching and casting, that is interventions that are to reorient ourselves to God’s inaugurated Kingdom and that God’s Kingdom is “aggressively” taking over the realms of Satan, the present evil age, which has distanced itself through private actions of individuals, through structure sin (intended and unintended), and through both intended and unintended consequences of the choices and social structures we live within? Long sentence, but it makes my point.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out elsewhere, even the casting in Mark’s Gospel, particularly in the lengthy section of chapter 5, is actually about God’s stronger man invading the realms of mankind in order to bring about God’s rule and reign. More on this in a future thread. For now, I believe we should see the significance of the commission to proclaim and cast as interventions that are to move the realms of mankind away from the present evil age that has come to its end and move the realms of mankind—individually and corporately, things of the private sphere and things of the public sphere—toward the outcomes that are to be associated with the arrival of God’s Kingdom.

Yes, proclaiming the presence of the Kingdom and the casting out of demons are to be understood as including social action outcomes that address the needs and conditions of those who live in poverty. Social Action Outcomes can be biblical evangelism.

Yes I know it’s March 9th and I haven’t posted since February 28th; it has been busy and crowded these last few weeks.  I spent March 2-5 in DC at our Community Action national legislative conference.  I took the train down to DC from CT this time—what a wonderful trip.  Should have been taking the train for all these trips to DC.  In the midst of doing “homework” (you know office work), I spent time looking out the window.  I loved seeing the homes and factories and neighborhoods, and the people just in eye-reach of the train.  I keep thinking after seeing so many homes and dwelling places—do we really have that many people living here.  Yes, over 300 million now.  But I kept thinking, There are real people living in those homes.  Most of the homes were blighted or concentrated.  I was awestruck at the conditions, wondering about the lives that live among these homes and neighborhoods 24/7.  I wondered what impact there is on the kids; how many will be able to escape to a better life.  I don’t mean a life in the burbs—heavens no!  Just a meaningful life, personally, family, college, work.  I wondered what are we promoting as a civil society, so vast with resources and the capacity to do so much better, in allowing such concentrations of poverty and blight to exist—and to let children and youth remain trapped in it.

The train ride and my ability to see “America” as it is for hours at a time caused me to reflect on my regular mode of transportation—flying.  I kept thinking that most non-poor, especially among the evangelical community, are living life like flying in an airplane as opposed to taking the train.  Flying doesn’t let you see things as they are in everyday life; the train ride does.  Soaring high above it all, the impact of everyday life is not seen, almost avoided, out of eye-reach, small, minute.  Flying offers a distant, disconnected view of everyday life.  Sure the landscapes are beautiful from 22 thousand feet—I’ll admit that.  But the train ride showed me everyday life as it is—rolling by my eyes with enough time to think about the lives behind the homes, streets, the neighborhoods.  The train ride made me think about the separation we build into our lives to keep us at a distance to the concentrated areas of poverty.  I think I’ll be taking the train more often now.

Typically we hear that these Beatitudes are for us “to find true happiness.” In other words, if we just become these (poor in spirit, meek, pure in heart, a peace-maker, etc.) we’d find happiness—you know, be blessed.  However, it seems to me that what these B-attitudes are is a description of the presence of the Kingdom and the framework or ingredients that are to make up the community of the Kingdom of God.

As I have stated here before, we seem to take the “poor” out of the poor and seem to read-in that “in spirit” means the poor can be anyone who has a poor spirit about them.  But that word for poor is never used that way and the connotation is that someone who is poor is someone who has be robbed of a voice or power within the community.  Combine the reference to “poor” with “those who mourn” and “the gentle” (I prefer the translation, meek, which is also a term akin to poor, or one who has no power for self-advocacy in a community) and you really have a description of the down-trodden, the marginalized in a community—you know, the poor in spirit.  We suburbanites like to figure out ways to read these verses as if Jesus mean us, you know the poor, meek, and mournful suburbanite non-poor.  I am sorry, no way this text is to be read that way.  What we have is poor non-poor readers of Scripture when this happens.  The first three blessed-people are blessed because of their condition, not because they have humbled themselves and realized they are broken (i.e., poor in spirit) and truly not happy (i.e., mourning), and although we have power, we’re truly gentle, meek and we now realize we are to have our power under control.  Hogwash!  These first three terms describe how God’s Kingdom turns everything on its head—it’s the poor, and those who mourn because of their loss, powerlessness, or marginalization, and those who are meek and cannot advocate for themselves—it is these in the community who are blessed, for the kingdom belongs to them and they will be comforted, and they will eventually inherit what has been denied them—the earth!

Now that the Kingdom has come, we are to recognize that all is not what it seems in society.  Then, it is the next set of B-attitudes that grab us and points us in the direction of witness and advocacy:  When those who hunger and thirst for righteousness seek such God first (biblical) righteousness, they often will find themselves at the wrong end of the sword (as it were); for those in power and with power, those who by worldly standards are not poor, mournful, or meek, are not receiving of such righteousness in society—these will resist those who hunger and thirst for such right-ness in society (i.e., advocacy for those who are poor, those who mourn, and those who are meek).  It is those who are merciful who will receive mercy.  The presence of the Kingdom and the demand for righteousness among people points to judgment—punishment/curse for those who resist God’s righteous demands on society (on behalf of the marginalized—I think you get the point by now) and reward/blessing for those who show mercy.  The pure in heart are those who show no duplicity and, as the young say, what you see is what you get.  Among those who are advocating for the poor, mournful, and meek, there is no hidden agenda, no duplicity—their advocacy isn’t for show or to be recognized (as we will see in the remaing parts of the Sermon on the Mount).  And peace-makers…more on this in the next post in this thread, along with some concluding remarks…

A faithful Words’nTone reader has made us aware of the need for helping our Haitian friends, brothers and sisters, and neighbors. She has provided a link to a page on the Christian & Missionary Alliance website where we can read about the need and how we can help. I encourage the Words’nTone faithful to take the time to click over to the site and help with what you can.

The Alliance Responds to Haitian Disaster
CAMA is gearing up to assist survivors of the 7.0 earthquake that destroyed Port-au-Prince, Haiti’s capital, on January 12. According to a CNN report, the death toll may top 100,000. The hospitals are gone, and medical supplies are desperately needed. About 3 million people—one-third of Haiti’s population—were impacted by the quake.

In partnership with sister organizations already on the ground, CAMA will provide immediate assistance—including clean water, emergency shelter, medical aid, and other necessities—as well as long-term help in rebuilding efforts, integrating Jesus’ message of redemption with practical acts of compassion.

A compassionate response during a disaster tangibly expresses Christ’s love and opens doors for other ministries, says Phil Skellie, CAMA’s president. [CAMA is Compassion and Mercy Associates, a ministry arm of the Christian & Missionary Alliance.]

Read and give...

My paper on Evangelism and Social Action, which I presented at the 2008 Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in Providence, RI, has been published in the Africanus Journal’s recent edition. I am honored and humbled by their kindness in asking for and publishing this paper as an article. You can obtain both the article and the Journal online through the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary website, the Boston Campus.

     A number of years ago my pastor had a great idea to get people to come to church. One Sunday morning he asked us to list on the 3 x 5 card in our bulletin topics that our friends would like to hear. He was planning a “relevant and practical” sermon series during the evening services. The pastor hoped the topics would interest our non-churched friends if there were some “practical” value to them. This was a no-brainer for me, so, without hesitation, I wrote down “workforce development” and “poverty,” topics that would interest my friends. Some weeks later, I asked the pastor if he had seen my 3 x 5 card. He acknowledged he saw my topics and then made this comment, “That’s your area.” For sure, these areas are mine in the sense that I work within the social service world, and, in particular, a Community Action Agency, whose mission is to alleviate the causes of poverty and move families toward self-sufficiency. At that moment, I realized I needed to develop my own “theory of evangelism” as it relates to the Christian faith and issues like “workforce development” and “poverty.”
     The pastor’s comment was in line with a history of dissonance over the Church’s social responsibilities and how the Bible speaks to issues of poverty…click here for the full article...and scroll down…

Populist rhetoric favoring the poor over the rich and the government over the private sector hurts the poor
In the history I have studied and in recent and current history I have lived through and observed, one would think we would have learned that populous political rhetoric might win over the marginalized masses to ensure a change of who is in power, but actual governing leadership by populous politicians never have produced the utopias or “equalized” societies they promise—just consolidated, concentrated, and centralized their own elite status and power. In fact most such politicians once in governing power tend to be intolerant of competition, violent and aggressive against those who disagree, and tyrants over those they govern—even those masses they appealed to for power in the first place. If someone knows of one such governing politician that has actually brought their marginalized out of poverty and blight, please let me know.

Although it is rare for a politician truly to advocate for the poor and mean it and actually do something about poverty (I mean this—who, really, which one has? The list is short, very short), all render lip service and find ways to endear themselves to the poor, while at the same time ensuring the wealthy stay close and friendly.

I told my daughter just earlier this month, I could never be mayor of my urban city (or a legislator who represents it), for I would feel it was my obligation to make sure not one child goes to bed hungry. I couldn’t go to bed knowing that I had the power to do something and didn’t. No one wins elections and especially reelections on that platform. I heard a Connecticut Congressman say once, his constituency is so diverse, for he must find a way to please the billionaire and help the poor who don’t have enough money for food. For me, that’s an easy call—introduce the billionaire to the poor, make sure that happens. As a Christian (which the Congressman stated he was), it is not the politician’s obligation to please the billionaire, but it is his biblical obligation to advocate for the poor. However, it is even worse when a politician (and I don’t necessarily mean this CT Congressmen referenced here) sounds like he or she is an advocate for the poor, but in the end does little to truly promote the eradication of the conditions of poverty.

So on the one hand, political advocates for the poor in the end rarely come through for those whom they are advocating. (Just shifting financial resources doesn’t ameliorate poverty—or it would have happened already. Just throwing money at poverty and the poor doesn’t fix it either.) On the other hand, the politicized rhetoric and class envy in political speech does little good in the end for the poor. In fact it makes that separation stronger; it actually creates resentment by the non-poor against the poor; it makes it seem it’s “us with money” verses “them who want to take our money” and makes the non-poor wary of government funds and programs that shift resources and their money toward the poor. Most of the time politicized rhetoric in the form of class envy is used to produce resentment among the poor, the marginalized, and those who form the low-income populations, the “have-nots” (for a get out the vote). This resentment is to produce political power to shift money and resources to them, to promote spread-the-wealth policies (which isn’t a solution), particularly a power that comes in the form of voter-blocks toward the politician creating that class envy with their political rhetoric. But in the end it doesn’t work, for it also has the consequence of making the non-poor resentful of the poor—which in turn creates another block of voters with interests to protect themselves from government take-over in any form—which in the end just shifts power back to those alienated from those who live in poverty.

I’d go back to introducing the billionaire to the poor. I’d help the non-poor to learn more about poverty, its causes, and how some—maybe not all—of their wealth was created through the assistance of government (whether federal, state or municipal) in the first place (in order to take some of the self-righteous wind out of their own bravado). I have been to at least one “how to end poverty” or “how to help the poor” or “how to bring economic stability and jobs to the poor” workshops and/or conferences each year for the last thirteen years. I love the people who go—they are my colleagues and friends whose jobs are to everyday advocate for the poor. But I have always thought we’re the wrong group to have this discussion—at least wrong to be the only ones in the room. We need the billionaires in that room; we need the business leaders, entrepreneurs, the educators. Solutions to the problems start with the potential solutions being understood and owned by those who could make it happen, or at least to provide the resources and creative energy.

Populous political rhetoric, in the end, hurts the poor by either those offering the rhetoric, but not truly producing the promises, or through the dividing resentment and backlash created in those who are non-poor. There seems to be a better way. There must be.

Extreme and Undisciplined Spending on Social Programs Paves the Way for Zero-lining Important Social Service Programs

For eight years I had to face that a republican president kept zeroing out line items associated with supporting urban renewal, rural blight, and supportive services to the economically vulnerable and the poor. I argued with the best of my liberal leaning colleagues to restore such cuts in the federal budget. I also watched as my own State Governor over the years, especially in these economically turbulent times, attempt to balance the State budget on the backs of the same economically vulnerable populations. I understand it’s a tough call—and most conservatives believe these government funded support and urban/rural economic development for those living in areas of concentrated poverty are simply not the government’s business. But, and as I have discussed elsewhere in this blog and in my papers, it’s not a fair assessment to say the non-poor have not received similar government-funded assistance (see some previous posts—social construction 4 and social construction 5, as well as NIMBY-BANANA-LULUS). Certainly we can be more creative than always assuming it’s the right and prudent thing to do—that is cut out what helps the economically vulnerable and the poor.

Now we have an administration in office that seems to spend a lot on social services and the poor. Stimulus funds and funding for long established Government budgeted items have poured out in abundance. After many years in the wilderness of cuts and restraint (under Reagan, H W Bush, G W Bush, and even under Clinton), this is make up time and the dollars have flowed out of Washington. As someone who is indeed conservative, I still see, however, the value in much of this spending. However, two things make for a future of cuts and decreases in these areas once there is a change in power to right-leaning Congresses, Senates, and the Oval Office:

1. Most conservatives don’t know the poor, nor interact with the poor, and are geographically and through daily social habits separated from the economically vulnerable, and only see the spending as reckless and undisciplined.

2. Perception is many times 100% reality for those who don’t know the whole picture.

The unrestrained and undisciplined spending that is flowing from Washington under democrat controlled Congress, the Senate, and the Oval Office will be met with resistance once the power shifts. My fear is that there will be a stronger will and a more powerful ability to zero-out those important items in the federal budget aimed at helping those living with the affects of poverty. Those of us in the social service world and who work within Social Action need to be better at demonstrating what we do and how it benefits everyone. At the same time I think there needs to be more discipline in showing the outcomes of social spending and more argument in showing how the non-poor have benefited from the very government they now want to restrain in helping those living with poverty. Somehow we need to be able to see that helping those who are poor and economically vulnerable isn’t a right-left, red-blue, private-public thing. We’re smarter than that. Well, I certainly hope we are.

Typically, everyday you’ll find me reading and researching three subject areas—the fun part is linking them all together.  I am getting a little ahead of myself here.  I just spent the last six months researching and getting a paper done to present at this past November’s annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.  They met in New Orleans.  A great setting to present a paper on the issue of poverty.  And then, this past Thursday the new issue of the Africanus Journal was posted, along with an article of mine on the topic of evangelism and social action called “Wasted Evangelism,” based on the Sower who sows parables in the Gospel of Mark.  My colleagues at work, obviously proud of their co-worker (which I am humbled by), they wondered when I had time and why I wrote academic papers like this for a hobby, a past time.  Some curiosity at the religion stuff mixed in too.  Most know I have a personal faith in Christ and have been an ordained pastor, so it’s not too hard to make the connection.  But a full fledged academic pursuit with resulting paper—that’s harder to fathom.

I do it to see if I can.  Really.  Back in 2005, I attended an Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in Valley Forge, PA.  (The annual meetings float around to different major cities each year.) I hadn’t been to a meeting since 1996.  Mostly I had been redirected in my vocation and employment away from full time church and academics to community action and social services.  The academic, evangelical setting didn’t seem a matched for those intervening years, 1996-2005—so I didn’t go.  Then an annual meeting was set for Valley Forge, a two-hour drive.  I wanted my wife to see and experience my old life a little, maybe meet some of my former colleagues and friends from that time of my life—I was in church work and Christian higher education from 1986-1996.  And it was close by.  So we went—made all the introductions and we had a great time.  She even enjoyed some of the “academic” papers herself.  I wanted to reintroduce myself into the ebb and flow of the ETS and academic world, and start going to annual meetings again.  But I wasn’t going unless I could present papers—way too expensive a trip and stay unless I was justifying it with a paper to present.  So I undertook the attempt for the 2006 meeting in DC.  And I was able to research and write and present a halfway decent paper on Mark 12, “Widows in Our Courts.”

I wanted to see if I still had it in me to write at this level—and I did.  So in 2008 I wrote another paper to present (“Wasted Evangelism” on Mark 4) and again in 2009 (“Idolatry and Poverty”).

I spend almost every day reading books and papers and essays on the issues of poverty and social action, workforce development and preschool development, and biblical studies.  Synthesizing the three is my goal.  Relating the Church, especially the evangelical church and church-life to such topics as poverty, workforce development, child development, and social action.  The church needs to do this in order to make our proclamation and action both biblical and relevant to the needs around us.  So I do this because now I know I can and we must as evangelical confessing Christians.

My next paper is on Mark 1:17, “Designed for Discipleship: Disciples as God’s Instruments of Judgment.”

Low taxes often means more revenue into the government

I like low taxes.  I believe most people do—even those who want to tax everything in sight.  They just want other people’s income to be taxed more; not theirs.  The politicians who make the laws know the loopholes, and recently we discovered that many just don’t pay their own taxes anyway (until they get caught).  Historically when the Federal government reduces taxes, revenues go up.  Of course this also depends on Federal spending and inflation.  The reduction of the capital gains tax as well causes revenues to increase (for many reasons); in fact the 2003 cuts to capital gains under President Bush doubled the revenue from this particular tax.  When will politicians ever get it right—raising tax rates are never the best way to raise revenue; in fact, tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.  Address economic growth and job creation and unemployment and you will see revenues increased.  (It’s all about jobs, stupid!) This is what should be concentrated on—whether there are tax cuts or not.  It is not that tax cuts directly increase revenue.  Tax cuts leave earned cash in the hands of people to spend, which in turn spurs on economic growth.  Overall this leaves more financial resources and capital in the hands of those who expand, build, create, and improve business and jobs, which in turn places more financial resources in everyday people’s power to spend.  This is what increases revenue when taxes remain low.

For me, its not just about increase in tax revenue but about creating the potential for job expansion and creation and what any increase in revenue is spent on that matters to me.  There is no way in a short blog post I can analysis the Federal budget in any meaningful way, but I can target my thoughts on two things: jobs/employment and the economically vulnerable.  Republicans miss out on opportunities to address concentrations of poverty and the issue of unemployment (lack of job skills and work history, poor education, employment barriers, and the lack of employment opportunities).  Meanwhile, democrats continue to act as if more taxes and time will fix the problems of the poor and unemployment and the lack of employment opportunities.  Both are wrong.  Both utilize the power of taxes and taxing erroneously.  As the tax laws and various Acts of Congress in the post-WWII era helped to establish the movement of wealth and resources, including human capital, away from central-urban cities and into the regions of exurbia, new and created laws could bring restoration and wealth creation in urban centers.  There has been some success in the Laws that create Enterprise and Economic Empowerment Zones in urban areas, as well as the Earned Income Tax Credit.  My only issues with the EITC is that it should be utilized for promoting employment preparation or advancement and education.  Certainly not home ownership—this leads to economic ruin for everyone!  Just paying bills with EITC is like buying fish to eat rather than teaching to fish—if you get my point.

Tax revenue, as long as it’s about power, is harmful in the end.  Just makes politicians, well, powerful and their status high.  That’s all.  After reviewing the numerous ways the tax system and laws were used to create outward exurban expansion and wealth, along with the deterioration of and depletion of resources in the urban centers post-WWII, I have concluded that creative people with a desire to actually enrich and change and ameliorate the conditions of poverty in the central-cities can if they have the will.  Everyone likes low taxes, but it is all about creating economic and job opportunities, especially within areas of concentrated poverty, that counts in the end.  This view and intention would do more to stop and prohibit general poverty in our urban centers.  Just making taxes low or cutting social spending or decreasing the safety net type of infrastructure doesn’t address the causes of poverty, but neither does just throwing more money at the problem—rather than actually addressing the causes.  Advocates for the poor should target their advocacy on causes and solutions, not just taxes and taxing.

In my profession within the social services and social action world, I have been identified as the “good republican.” This is mostly so because I work and argue on behalf of social action, social programs and safety net provisions for the economically vulnerable and poor among us in our communities—and do it rather well.  And yet, I am conservative and tend to vote republican at the State and Federal level and tend to be rather hawkish regarding the military, and advocate an originalist approach to understanding the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.  (The nuanced and progressive approach is eisegesis, a reading into the text, and more like making ammendments without going through the constitutionally established process of having the States vote on the ammendment—tricky I say.) Mostly I consider myself a politically conservative person because of these tendencies, but my social leanings are mostly libertarian.  And as for my views on social action and the poor, most would say my leanings are liberal, however, I’d beg to say why such a designation—probably because it is held mostly by those who are politically liberal.  So I am accused of being liberal, too.  The number of people who hold or act on a principle or view (or worldview) determines such a principle or view is defined by the larger group?  Who made that rule?  I think I am a Christian who thinks christianly about the poor and poverty.

But I know…since conservatives believe in limited government that implies that the government should not be involved or utilize public funds to pay for or support social service programs; thus, those who advocate social service programs supported by the government are liberal, not conservative.  But yet, it is degree—almost everyone believes the government has “some” role in providing a social services safety-net.  But, should that line of too little or too much, too socialist/liberal or too capitalist/conservative be drawn in the Christian community.  Now I agree that “line” could and should be debated, but as my recent paper on “Idolatry and Poverty” pointed out that many of the non-poor conservatives seem to think they “did it on their own” without the government—which is simply not true (read the paper!).  So in the end its not limited government, but who gets the benefits of limited government and when and how.  This is duplicitous.

Ah, but this leads me to my new found independence and some conclusions I have drawn from my recent research and my political involvement and observations over the last twenty years.  Not everything makes it into a paper—so I’d like to post a thread of the gemera, the leftovers, some thoughts and thinking on a few areas.

First I’d like to unveil my decision to change political parties, well, really to move from being a Republican in party name and affiliation to being an Independent with no party affiliation (My renewed independence).  Then a series of observations that review how the policies and rhetoric of political parties and talking-heads can have the opposite effects on desired outcomes: Second, Low taxes almost always means more revenue into the government.

Then a post where I talk about a grave concern I have, namely Liberal Extreme and Undisciplined Spending on Social Programs Pave the Way for Zero-lining Important Social Service Programs by Conservatives and a post on Populist Rhetoric Favoring the Poor over the Rich and the Government over the Private Sector Hurts the Poor in the End.  And finally in this thread, Political Power-grabbing that Claims Attachment to the Poor Never Works for the Poor, but Secures the Establishment Wealthy.  I might not curry favor with some of my colleagues, nor make friends among my more conservative associations.  But, my aim is not to be liked or loved, or even to gain power in any sense of the word.  My goal is to maintain a Christian persepective on the issues of poverty, advocate on behalf of the poor, and attempt to be faithful in my obedience to God’s Word as much as I possibly can, particularly in how I express my political and social views as they relate to those living with the affects of poverty.

In the next post in this thread (My renewed independence), I will explain some conclusions I drew on a personal level.

“The prohibition against stealing and coveting are thus safeguards in behalf of the primary commandment, the love of God alone, as much as they are safeguards in behalf of the neighbor’s property” [Patrick Miller, an essay, Property and Possession in Light of Ten Commandments, p 48 in a compendium called Having: Property and Possession in Religious and Social Life].

“The acquisition of excessive wealth as it arises out of coveting and stealing is indeed a neighbor issue, but it is fundamentally a matter of the fear of God and the sole reliance on the Lord for the provision of life” [Miller, p 49].

A recent sermon on the 10th commandment, Thou shall not covet, emphasized the sin of wanting what others have. No mention was made of coveting what we already have that has already been coveted and has stolen the economic means for other people’s well-being—which by the way is actually the text where the command is found (Exodus 20:17; cf. Deuteronomy 5:21). This happens in most sermons on coveting. We concentrate through the sermon on what we don’t have but want as sin, not what we have already in our possession that has robbed others of their means of sufficiency as sin. The end of the sermon keeps the non-poor suburbanites comfortably in their social location of having more; but no application for the non-poor to repent of what they already have coveted, making restoration, and finding the salvation that God’s promises for such faith.

Although most often glossed over with poor application, this is what is most likely meant in the wee-little-man Zacch’s words in Luke 19:8:

“Zacch stopped and said to the Lord, ‘Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.’”

Whatever the short-little, tree-climbing seeker of Jesus had defrauded the poor, he would restore—just like the Old Testament implies of those who covet, steal, and defraud the poor and economically vulnerable (my goodness, read the Old Testament with your eyes open!). Zacch knew, in the preaching of Jesus was the inauguration of the Kingdom, the presence of the pending judgment of God. God had promised that those who stole and coveted and as a result put the economically vulnerable in peril and in generational poverty would be faced with God’s reciprocal wrath—they too would face such poverty in their life (either through personal tragedy or exile, or death, which would make their wives and children widows and orphans like those they defrauded through stealing and coveting). This is why, when Zacch repents, Jesus says, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham” (v 9).

When a sermon stresses future action to be ceased—i.e., to cease wanting what others have in this case—and neglects to point out what one already has in possession might in fact have already broken the 10th commandment, this leaves the lost (the non-poor who don’t know they are lost but sitting comfortably in the pew) not feeling lost (or having broken any commandment, especially not the ones concerning stealing and coveting) and in no need of being sought after (or of repenting for that matter). That is why Jesus ends the short tree-climbing-humbled-tax-collector story with, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (v10). Contemporary, keep-the-comfortable-comfortable-and-give-more-to-the-church sermons leave the lost (the non-poor right there in the pews each sunday morn’n) not knowing they are actually lost, and as a result, not needing the Son of Man to seek them. This is a sad state of affairs for everyone, for the preacher who leaves the non-poor comfortable and in their sin, the poor who are to be protected, and the non-poor sinner up a tree with no salvation.