Words'nTone

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.

Again my three ETS papers have taken a toll on my view of the world and in particular the political world.  I remain conservative politically—low taxes, limited government involvement in almost everything, and in particular how one reads the US Bill of Rights and Constitution: I am an originalist if I need to put a word to it.  But that’s for other posts.  I am profoundly Christian and hopefully someone who seriously thinks christianly.  Now that the papers are done, I am beginning to unpack their implications for me as a person, as a non-poor, evangelical Christian.  The direction I take is focused on, obviously, the local church’s responsibility toward the poor, I have rethought, more clearly, the role of the church in society, that is our task, mission, and activities.  At one of the sessions (i.e., papers) I attended in 2006 in Washington DC (where I presented my first Mark paper, “Widows in Our Courts”) my former colleague and hopefully still good friend, Kenneth Shoemaker presented a paper on the Psalms and God’s mission among the nations.  I was struck by something he concluded: The Psalms as it talks of God’s and Israel’s mission to the nations (i.e., the gentiles), there is a strong sense that “out there” the nations practice unrighteousness and injustice, and that the nations were to see in Israel as a people who did righteousness and justice.  This is certainly in line with my recent paper on “Idolatry and Poverty” (New Orleans, LA 2009), where the biblical view of poverty is set within a God vs. the gods apologetic, God’s righteousness/Israel’s righteousness vs. the god’s/pagans/non-Israelite’s un/righteousness relationship.  Sort of, “Hey look here, our God does righteousness and justice; look at us!” This directs my thinking that perhaps the church’s mission isn’t to change the culture or even fight the culture wars, but to offer through its activities, attitudes, and worldview a righteous alternative and a community of people does justice and advocate on behalf of the poor.

George Coon, in his 2006 ETS paper on Paul B. Henry (Carl Henry’s son and former US Congressman), referred to Henry’s book, Politics for Evangelicals (1974), offered a quote:

“So long as evangelicals engage, then, in prescribing only moral clichés to difficult social and political problems, they are in fact avoiding any direct interrelating of their faith with the sociopolitical world around them” (p 51).

Coon felt that Henry was not denying the important role of evangelism, but that the use of “platitudes” by Christians to deal with social and political ills of society was more of an excuse to not get our hands dirty and do the work of justice and righteousness.  We fight the cultural wars by lobbing catch phrases and platitudes into the public square, whereas the Scriptures actually say (or seems to anyway) that God’s people are to “preserve justice and do righteousness” (Isa 56:1) in the public square.  Maybe we should think less about fighting the cultural wars and should do more to be that alternative community of justice and righteousness. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, we need to “smudge” ourselves with “the hard complexities of the world.” The problem is, most Evangelicals comfortably living in the burbs just don’t like to get smudged with anything.

If you have read through this blog, you know I have often complained about the contemporary church’s building-centered church life.  Not only does this make the non-churched to seek out the church (the opposite of “go into all the world”!), it creates habits—structural and social—that make the church inwardly focused.  As Rusaw and Swanson open in their book, The Externally Focused Churchthere are two groups that the church ought be externally focused upon: The first, those who live on the margins of society, especially the poor.  Perhaps this isn’t good for a church budget or a pastor’s salary, but the church should be reaching out to its neighboring poor—and not just the overseas poor!

Referring to the founder of the Circle Urban Ministries in Chicago, Glen Kehrein, the authors point out that when a church evaluates whether it is a “Healthy Church,” what is normally looked at?  Does the church have dynamic worship [whatever that means]?  Are small groups a vital part of the church?  Does the church demonstrate evangelistic vitality?  Kehrein wondered why there is rarely any mention of caring about those on the margins of society as a part of evaluating a church’s health?  I think he is right on!  He asked, “How can you have a healthy church that has no concern for the poor?” James, the New Testament writer, would have concurred, for he mentions that the health of the church is affected by how the poor are treated.  In fact, he had to remind the church what pure religion must have, namely a concern for the poor (James 1:27).  In fact, we know that even the apostle Paul, deep in the midst of church planting and discipling mentions that he was eager to minister to the poor (Galatians 2:10).

The second group is the central-city in general, i.e., the church is to have the welfare of the city in mind.  I appreciate that the authors, Rusaw and Swanson, point out how the church’s rhetoric (and I might add, often its very actions and non-actions as well) “reinforces the idea of being at war with the city” rather than showing the church’s concern for its welfare.  This book is offers a great primer for being externally focused as a church; very thought provoking, and builds a good base of scripture to support the concept that the church is to be externally focused.

The following are a number of quotes from my recent paper, “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the Private vs. Public Isn’t Enough.” Section II of the paper, which is a review of Marken texts and his use of the idolatry-poverty OT juxtaposition, I will post in the next thread.  Although a repeat of drafts posted earlier, the final version is worth re-reading (I think, anyway).  For now, various quotes from the other sections of the paper are posted here:

• Issues of poverty are almost automatically, by default, arranged in private vs. public dichotomies, arguments, and responsibilities, which sets up a defective social construction of reality for the Christian.



• Then, the banal posture of many non-poor Christians to the poor can lead to the “bystander effect,” leaving many Christians out of any active role in addressing the causes of poverty or assisting those affected by poverty.



• It seems we do have a programmatic approach for discussing poverty that actually focuses application down to, not what the government or charitable individuals think or do, but how the Christian and the Christian community define themselves and how they are associated with the poor.



• There is a fascinating range of Old Testament contexts that Mark draws upon throughout his narrative that refer and allude to contexts that juxtapose both idolatry and the economically vulnerable.



• The Gospel is associated programmatically with the issue of idolatry and to those affected by poverty, which ought to, then, (re)form our understanding of Christian discipleship and evangelism.



• What is of particular interest is that the defense of the poor was “seen as a virtue of gods, kings, and judges,” essentially a policy of virtue that proved the piety and character of a ruler, monarch, or god.



• In light of antecedent ANE concerns for the poor, the uniqueness for the Israelite is that everything narrows down to one God who is alone righteous, who brings about justice for the poor.



• Peoples of the ANE all had social regulations that were part of royal legislation and subject to the state’s administration of justice.  Thus, enter the biblical concentration on land-management stipulations related to the economically vulnerable.  This is where the significance resides: The protection and advocacy for the poor were polemical, an apologetic for God against the false gods and their image-bearers.



• The prohibition against images and idols has a slight twist to it, namely there is a religious logic at play: It was understood that a pagan deity was present in its image and the human monarchs or sovereigns were considered to be image-bearers of their deity.



• This is particularly important in regards to the ethical stipulations where God demonstrates His righteous virtues in protecting and caring for the poor: As the work of God’s hands, Israel—His image-bearer—was to reflect His righteousness.  And, as the present Spirit-image-bearers, so now believers and the Church are to reflect such righteousness.



• The people’s relationship to the land was to reflect the virtues of God in contrast to surrounding deities and their image-bearers.  There was an apologetic to be demonstrated through the people’s relationship to the land.



• Fulfilling land-management stipulations regarding the economically vulnerable and the poor is set within a God vs. the gods polemic, actually raising justice for the poor to the level of apologetics and evangelism.  As the one true God, if He does not demonstrate care, provide for, and protect the economically vulnerable, then He is no God at all—at most, just one god among other gods.  Furthermore, when the people who are to reflect His image do not provide a profile and outcomes reflecting such concern and advocacy, not only does this diminish His glory, but also negates the witness and proclamation of His name among outsiders.



• With the inauguration of the Kingdom and the Church and believers as His image-bearers, there remains the same apologetic concerning God’s righteous acts on behalf of the poor, and thus demand relevant evangelistic outcomes related to the protection, care, and advocacy for the economically vulnerable.



• L. T. Johnson reminds us that “Idolatry comes naturally to us, not only because of the societal symbols and structures we ingest from them, but also because it is the easiest way for our freedom to dispose itself.”



• It is not necessarily how Old Testament ethical texts apply to our modern social-location (although important), but how the apologetic nature of the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition relates to those who are to be formed by the Gospel, then, how that significance dissuades Christians from conforming to any private vs. public dichotomous response to poverty.



• Although much of the Old Testament ethical content is similar to surrounding ANE religions, this is one of the most striking contrasts to Israel’s neighbors, namely the religion of Israel prohibited idolatry and, very importantly, in how idolatry formed social relationships.



• It is the body of knowledge that accompanies the object and service of worship and, then, the social and cultural habits that follow, developing an everyday world with meaning and definitions for relationships (repeated action, mundane habits) that objectifies reality and maintains plausibility, significance, and security (its symbols and corresponding institutions).



• As far as biblical revelation is concerned, “Idolatry [is] the Big Lie about reality” (Johnson).



• Applying the significance of a Gospel embedded with texts regarding idolatry and, as well, texts indicating relationships and social action toward the economically vulnerable, it is important to understand how the social-location experienced by many non-poor Christians was formed and its implications for their participation in the outcomes of this social-location.



• Over time new symbols and signs (lawns, yards, gated communities, commutes and highways, social status, shopping malls, upward mobility, the market, double-entry accounting, etc.) that permeate the social-location the modern non-poor Christian experiences as everyday life compete with religious or biblical symbols (e.g., the words of God, the redemptive-historical acts of God in history).



• After decades of political alignment and religious justification, for the most part, the non-poor Christian living in the suburbs now feel at home.



• Without a sociological imagination, many non-poor Christians are not fully aware of their own socially constructed exurban reality, nor how it has been formed, which can lead to duplicitous, self-righteous double standards toward the poor.



• Often arguments rest, not on biblical grounds, but realities constructed by everyday life outside concentrated areas of poverty, namely, the ability of the non-poor who have taken the “opportunities” presented in our socio-economic system to develop wealth and prosperity.  The poor in the cities only need to do the same.  Equal opportunity, not equal distribution of wealth is justice. But this is not a fair picture, for the so-called “opportunity” has had a history and an opportunity that has been largely absent from social-locations with the most concentrated poverty, a consequence that is more akin to the injustice described by the prophets than simply the results of a good, honest Christian work ethic and the invisible hand of the market.



• The invisible hand had and continues to get help—sometimes through Federal, State, and municipal efforts; sometimes through creative marketing; sometimes through celebrity-trend makers; sometimes by politically empowered zoning codes.



• It is an empirical fact, the system and its mediating institutions ignored its central-cities and promoted life in the burbs as the ultimate goal of prosperity, all for the gods of growth, progress, and the new.



• On the one hand, the non-poor’s social construction of reality which they now experience as everyday life allows them to benefit from past actions of government, not just the market, that laid much of the groundwork for continued prosperity. On the other hand, the concentration of poverty in central-cities is not simply about laziness, slothfulness, or even personal sin.  (I assume the non-poor who benefit from the current structure and mediating institutions are just as much “sinners” as those living in geographic areas of concentrated poverty.)



• The fact of poverty and the reality of those affected by it in the central-cities couldn’t have happened any more affectively if it were actually planned and implemented with malice.



• The present model for socio-economic progress and prosperity objectifies the non-poor Christian’s reality (i.e., “home world”) through habits and experiences of everyday life that are incorporated into his or her belief system—validating the plausibility of personal faith.



• The non-poor accept a world that is duplicitous, limiting the historic and current benefits of a socio-economic system to those the “market blessed.”



• For the Christian and Christian community it is, Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the affects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship.

No direct routes, so it took me almost two days of travel just for the back and forth from Bridgeport (CT) to New Orleans. But it was worth it. The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) 2009 annual meeting was wonderful, especially the fellowship.

Last year (2008) when the Other Voices Study Group of the ETS met to decide on the 2009 topic and possible papers, I voiced a concern that we (meaning evangelicals) had accepted and probably promote labeling that defines us as wealthier, suburban, conservative, capitalistic-market loving and politically republicans. I wasn’t happy or comfortable with such labeling (even though I am quite conservative politically), so I said I’d like to develop a paper on the subject of poverty where the biblical content resists such designating labeling. I had noticed in studying and researching my 2008 paper on Mark 4 and the Sower who sows that the bible juxtaposed the two concepts of idolatry and poverty—in fact almost every time (every time) a biblical author mentions the poor, the economically vulnerable, or the issue of poverty, somewhere in the context (many times immediately) or in the flow of thought there would be a reference to the prohibition against idolatry or the God of the Bible vs. the gods polemic. In fact in my study of Mark itself revealed that almost every time Mark makes a significant point or uses the OT to develop his NT revelation, he draws from these idolatry-poverty juxtaposed OT texts. I though a paper on this subject would be enlightening (at least to me). I thought such a study would help undue labeling and help to disallow the defining evangelicals through the lens of politics.

After the study (as previous posts suggest), my premise for this idolatry-poverty juxtaposition is that the issue of poverty is raised to the level of apologetics, a biblical defense of the living God as revealed in Scripture. Not so much an argument for God’s existence, but a living application by non-poor Christians as an apologetic for the Biblical God as the One true God, through reflecting His profile in how they, non-poor Christians, associate with the poor and in living out the biblical outcomes related to those affected by the issues of poverty. This is another set of reasons why I believe social action can be evangelism.

Furthermore, over the years as a conservative whose occupation is related to the social service world and in particular, Community Action, I have tired over the repeated non-truth that is often posited by non-poor exurbanites: “I did it on my own. Without government help. So should the poor. If they just take advantage of the opportunities to make something of their lives….” This mantra, repeated over and over, was and is bothersome and doesn’t make it more true (even if Rush and Sean Hannity keep saying it again and again). Please don’t read into this or my comments about my paper that the issue of poverty is fully the government’s responsibility. But read that I no-longer will accept that any “rich” or suburban non-poor did it on their own. They didn’t and still don’t. They had and have help along the way and government help to boot. (Read my paper or the previous posts.)

At the close of the session where I presented my paper, I referenced this “I did it on my own attitude” among Christians. (Of all Americans, Christians should never have such an attitude, ever.) I mentioned that there was an old story about the issue of kicking out prayer in schools, where there was a billboard in the South that read, “As long as there are math tests in school, there will always be prayer in schools.” I said I thought of a new billboard where it says, “As long as there are zoning boards, conservatives will never totally believe in the invisible hand of the market.”

In the end I was, through the paper, hoping to create a new, more biblical way of thinking about poverty for non-poor Christians. My hope is in the next few weeks to post the paper as a PDF. For now you can read through the previous posts and threads where the draft and notes have been posted. Just keep flipping back in time, you’ll find them.

In the first post of this thread, closing my conclusions on my ETS paper, I offered a rewrite on the conclusion of my paper (Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the affects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship). As most of my regular readers know I am working and finishing up a paper that I will present at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society that meets in New Orleans this month. The paper, “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the Public vs. the Private Isn’t Enough,” draft of which I have post on this site. I went into this project thinking I knew the outcome; already knowing what I expected to find out. After a year of research, having read and reviewed countless articles and books, I didn’t find exactly what I thought I’d find; I ended up discovering something slightly different.

In Rhode Island last year, I explained to my Evangelical Theological Society study group, “Other Voices,” that I feel, often, alone in any room. No matter where I go, I find I am almost always alone in the room, among colleagues, at church, among friends, at political activities. Don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of friends and family, and people are generally nice to me and often agree with parts of my thinking. So this isn’t about people as much as it is about what I believe to be important and true. I can be in a room of my professional peers and I’d, almost always, be alone; or in a room of friends or workmates, and again, be pretty much alone as a conservative, who believes in the original intent of the constitution, who works in the social service world on behalf of the poor. I am a conservative, “right wing” evangelical, a hawk regarding the military, a strong advocate of reasonable military preemptive action, low-taxes with minimal government, strong on business and the free market, who also believes that the issues of poverty are of national interest and deserve action at all levels of society, including government. Dealing with the issues of poverty is more than individual charity, for there is personal as well as structural sin, quality of life doesn’t mean just suburban life, but is a matter of well-being and economic self-sufficiency (or at least as much self-sufficiency as possible for individuals and families).

And particularly for the non-poor, conservative Christian there needs to be a different framework for thinking about poverty; one which is neither right nor left (although I am not that naïve to think one can totally be non-political or without a tinge from blue-red); one that doesn’t simply finds its basis in a political allegiance or socio-economic social location.

While writing my paper on “Wasted Evangelism” and Mark 4 for the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in 2008, I discovered that virtually every single reference in the Old Testament regarding the poor, the economically vulnerable, or the issue of poverty was juxtaposed with texts about idolatry. Vertically every Pentateuchal or Prophetic text dealing with the poor also, in the immediate context or flow of thought, had a reference to idolatry in some form or another—there is an idolatry-poverty juxtaposition that is consistent throughout the Old Testament. This intrigued me to do some further investigation. Here are a few things I learned and discovered along the way and in doing this paper:

• Because of the references to the poor and poverty in the Old Testament have as their basis the prohibition against idolatry, particularly the idea of God vs. the gods, the issue of poverty for the Christian is raised to the level of apologetics, placing it directly into the very nature discipleship and evangelism.



• The non-poor Christian living in the suburbs didn’t do it on their own as they claim—they had help over the years, particularly in Government aid, policy, and regulations.



• As long as there are zoning codes and laws supported by political conservatives, I will not believe those same conservatives actually believe in the free market—they believe in a controlled free market with rules and regulations that support their social location and place and property as they see fit (not as the market sees fit).



• The original Ten-Words, often referred to as the Ten-Commandments, have more to do with the issues of poverty than simply the piety of those who claim adherence to their so-called original intent.



• Political alignment is a faulty framework for thinking and dealing with the issues of poverty, and for the non-poor Christian in particular, it is a faulting and idolatrous construction of reality.



• Social action isn’t an option for the evangelistic efforts and life of the church community; it is by definition of the Gospel as presented by Mark, part of it—so much so that not to provide social action as a believing community is to be disobedient to the Gospel.



• Those living in and enjoying the benefits of exurban life have stolen and are “stealing” (as the original 8th commandment is to be read) from those who live in urban centers and are guilty of the original intent of the 10th commandment to not covet.



• This private vs. public dichotomy where the choice is between individual charity and government or public is a faulty framework for Christians to think about poverty, which supports both the idolatry of individualism and idolatry of the state rather than truly addressing the issues of poverty.



• And one wild and crazy thought—imagine thousands and millions of suburban, non-poor evangelical Christians moving out of their exurban comfort-zone and into urban–centers all across this nation. Imagine. Do you know what kind of impact that would have on urban centers, on urban school districts, on municipal, State, and Federal politics—and zoning laws? Imagine.