I've been reading a lot about the plight of the poor in a class on Theology of Hope, and I've got to tell you, it's getting harder and harder to find hope the more that I read. But the interesting thing is that it is relatively easy to find hope among the poor. After all, in many cases just surviving another day is something to be thankful for and inspires them to hope for a better tomorrow. The bigger challenge is for me to find hope for the "haves", i.e. the non-poor.
Who would have thought that those of us who are fortunate enough to have more than we need would find ourselves in need of hope? We just expect that tomorrow will be better than today - hope actually doesn't play into the picture because we have something better. We have 'certainty'. And what makes us so certain? Well in some cases it is because prosperity is all we've ever known so we just expect it to continue and don't even recognize how lucky we are. But in many cases we feel that we've gotten what we have through the sweat of our brow, and as long as we continue to put forth the effort we'll get the reward we deserve. So we don't need to hope because we're in control.
But what about when we're not in control? When jobs are lost due to the larger economy. Or health fails and there doesn't appear to be a way to stave off the death that we all logically know will come someday but we're emotionally unprepared for on this day. Will our "hope muscles" be strong enough to keep us going or will we simply fall into despair. Has our belief in self-reliance diminished our capacity to hope in something larger than ourselves?
I wonder about this when I see the resiliance of spirit among poor people who've suffered great tragedy and compare it to the tendency of millenials to become nearly clinically depressed at the thought of their vacation benefits being reduced from 4 to 3 weeks per year. Or getting a "c" on a paper conjures up thoughts of suicide for a well-heeled high school student who's feeling peer and parental pressure to succeed.
I'm not suggesting that we measure the problems of the middle class against those of the poor, but rather that perhaps the middle class can learn something from the poor about faith and hope in something beyond themselves as individuals. Because if you live long enough eventually you'll be confronted by seriously bad news that is beyond your control, and the capacity to hope will be the only source you can tap into for a solution.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Hate has the power to transform violent crime into domestic terrorism
Congress is expected to expand federal hate crimes laws to add "sexual orientation" to a list that already includes "race, color, religion or national origin." Is this necessary? Should there be special laws against crimes motivated by intolerance, bigotry and hatred? Isn't a crime a crime?
A crime is more than just a crime when it impacts not just the immediate victim but also contributes to a reign of terror meant to keep an entire group of people “in their place”. All violent crimes are tragic and should be punished. But hate crimes are a special category of crime. “Hate” is the ultimate enemy of “love”, the greatest commandment, and so it deserves the greatest punishment.
A hate crime is defined as a traditional violent crime with a twist of bias. Hate itself is not the crime, although it is presumed to be the motivation for the crime and a sin. The crime is the violation of the person’s human rights and the civil rights of the group to which they belong. This type of crime is obviously meant to harm the individual who is the object of the violence, but in addition it is meant to send a signal to the group about their place in society and the consequences of being different. It is meant to be a threat, a form of terror.
Ironic that the U.S. government has been able to garner support for a war on terror against the U.S., however it has taken many years and the overcoming of significant political and religious leader opposition to pass a bill to combat domestic terrorism! Even more surprising is the reason often cited for the opposition – because there is concern that “hate” may become illegal under the guise of curtailing freedom of speech.
These leaders have no reason to fear for their rights, although they might want to pause to consider the risk to their souls. It’s not a hate crime until there’s an actual crime and at that point it is our obligation to protect those who are most different from us from being terrorized simply because they are different. We don’t have to agree with them or even like them but they are our neighbor. Like it or not, most hate crimes are perpetuated by Americans on other Americans. We would never stand for such behavior from an external threat to our wellbeing and we should be just a vigorous in our defense of “the other” that is treated as an outsider within our own community. They are our neighbors. We are called to love and care for them as ourselves. Because they are us.
A crime is more than just a crime when it impacts not just the immediate victim but also contributes to a reign of terror meant to keep an entire group of people “in their place”. All violent crimes are tragic and should be punished. But hate crimes are a special category of crime. “Hate” is the ultimate enemy of “love”, the greatest commandment, and so it deserves the greatest punishment.
A hate crime is defined as a traditional violent crime with a twist of bias. Hate itself is not the crime, although it is presumed to be the motivation for the crime and a sin. The crime is the violation of the person’s human rights and the civil rights of the group to which they belong. This type of crime is obviously meant to harm the individual who is the object of the violence, but in addition it is meant to send a signal to the group about their place in society and the consequences of being different. It is meant to be a threat, a form of terror.
Ironic that the U.S. government has been able to garner support for a war on terror against the U.S., however it has taken many years and the overcoming of significant political and religious leader opposition to pass a bill to combat domestic terrorism! Even more surprising is the reason often cited for the opposition – because there is concern that “hate” may become illegal under the guise of curtailing freedom of speech.
These leaders have no reason to fear for their rights, although they might want to pause to consider the risk to their souls. It’s not a hate crime until there’s an actual crime and at that point it is our obligation to protect those who are most different from us from being terrorized simply because they are different. We don’t have to agree with them or even like them but they are our neighbor. Like it or not, most hate crimes are perpetuated by Americans on other Americans. We would never stand for such behavior from an external threat to our wellbeing and we should be just a vigorous in our defense of “the other” that is treated as an outsider within our own community. They are our neighbors. We are called to love and care for them as ourselves. Because they are us.
Monday, October 19, 2009
In this case, being a doubting Thomas could be fatal
Q. Polls show a majority of Americans are concerned about the H1N1 virus (swine flu), but also about the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine. Is it ethical to say no to this or any vaccine? Are there valid religious reasons to accept or decline a vaccine? Will you get a swine flu shot? Will your children?
Concerns about whether or not to get the swine flu vaccine all come down to a matter of trust. Do you believe the government when “they” say that the swine flu is deadly? When “they” brand it a pandemic? When “they” say that the vaccine is safe? Or are you waiting for proof that you can see for yourself – to physically witness the serious illness of an acquaintance, a friend, a loved one. Or maybe even to feel it in your own body when you yourself catch the virus. Without visible proof it seems quite rational to doubt that all the hoopla is necessary. But unfortunately in this case, waiting for that type of proof risks putting you and others in life-threatening danger. It is selfish, irresponsible and unethical.
Skepticism about the severity of the H1N1 flu is a key contributor to the public’s ambivalence about getting the vaccine. Health experts readily admit that for most, the illness does not present a serious threat. However some become so ill that they need to be treated in intensive care – in fact that is the fate of one in four Americans who were hospitalized with swine flu. And then there are those that die. Children seem to be at particular risk of dying. The new H1N1 virus caused the death of 19 children and teenagers last week alone, pushing the number of fatalities in 2009 to 76. Seasonal flu typically claims the lives of 46-88 children per year so we’re running way ahead of schedule given that we’re just at the beginning of this flu season. Pregnant women and those inflicted with other health problems, e.g. diabetes, asthma, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, etc. are also among those who are more likely to suffer serious consequences from catching this virus. Truly it is the most vulnerable in our population who need to be protected the most –both by receiving the vaccination directly and by those of us who are more fortunate taking the appropriate precautions to avoid transmitting the virus to them. Our moral responsibility is to care for them by doing what we can to prevent infecting them. There are also concerns about the safety of the vaccine, but experts tell us that these fears are unfounded and point to statistics that show this is much safer than the last swine flu vaccine and on par with the seasonal flu vaccine in terms of potential side effects.
But for about 60% of Americans, this proof of the potentially deadly effects of H1N1 just doesn’t seem to be enough to convince them to get the vaccination. These statistics are reported in the media, which is generally perceived as a reliable source, but in this case it just isn’t enough. Similar to the reports of the sighting of a risen Jesus that Thomas received from his good friends, the other disciples, the fact that the proof is being provided by a normally trustworthy source sometimes just isn’t enough for everyone. In the case of Thomas this makes some sense. It takes a huge leap of faith to believe that someone who was clearly dead is now clearly alive again. So one can’t blame Thomas for demanding physical proof before believing this seemingly outrageous tale. But believing that the swine flu can kill you simply isn’t that outrageous, especially when it has already become accepted knowledge that the seasonal flu can kill you. So what else might be behind the current unhealthy skepticism of the H1N1 vaccine?
I suspect that the skepticism about the vaccine is rooted in skepticism about the government’s enthusiasm for trying to get as many American’s vaccinated as humanly possible. This has been portrayed as the government’s vaccination plan. Not only is the government racing to get the vaccine ready and shipped out to a location near you, they are also subsidizing the cost of immunization. It is a voluntary program but via the public service announcements, the media appearances by members of the CDC and the federal governments pledge to buy enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the country if there is sufficient demand, it is hard not to feel coerced. It can start to feel a lot like we’re standing at the top of the slippery slope of socialized medicine, and given the current debate over healthcare reform that image evokes concerns that are much scarier to some than getting a bad case of the flu. One may begin to doubt that all this hoopla is about the H1N1 virus but rather it could be a leading edge example of increasing government involvement in private healthcare.
Whether that hypothesis is true or not, the unfortunate reality is that when it comes to dealing with at highly contagious and potentially lethal virus, doubting can become deadly. For you and for others that you come into contact with. Everyone in my family will get the vaccine, i.e. me, my husband, and my three children. For our protection and for the protection of those we knowingly interact with and unknowingly come into contact with. Because it is the right moral choice for the common good.
Concerns about whether or not to get the swine flu vaccine all come down to a matter of trust. Do you believe the government when “they” say that the swine flu is deadly? When “they” brand it a pandemic? When “they” say that the vaccine is safe? Or are you waiting for proof that you can see for yourself – to physically witness the serious illness of an acquaintance, a friend, a loved one. Or maybe even to feel it in your own body when you yourself catch the virus. Without visible proof it seems quite rational to doubt that all the hoopla is necessary. But unfortunately in this case, waiting for that type of proof risks putting you and others in life-threatening danger. It is selfish, irresponsible and unethical.
Skepticism about the severity of the H1N1 flu is a key contributor to the public’s ambivalence about getting the vaccine. Health experts readily admit that for most, the illness does not present a serious threat. However some become so ill that they need to be treated in intensive care – in fact that is the fate of one in four Americans who were hospitalized with swine flu. And then there are those that die. Children seem to be at particular risk of dying. The new H1N1 virus caused the death of 19 children and teenagers last week alone, pushing the number of fatalities in 2009 to 76. Seasonal flu typically claims the lives of 46-88 children per year so we’re running way ahead of schedule given that we’re just at the beginning of this flu season. Pregnant women and those inflicted with other health problems, e.g. diabetes, asthma, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, etc. are also among those who are more likely to suffer serious consequences from catching this virus. Truly it is the most vulnerable in our population who need to be protected the most –both by receiving the vaccination directly and by those of us who are more fortunate taking the appropriate precautions to avoid transmitting the virus to them. Our moral responsibility is to care for them by doing what we can to prevent infecting them. There are also concerns about the safety of the vaccine, but experts tell us that these fears are unfounded and point to statistics that show this is much safer than the last swine flu vaccine and on par with the seasonal flu vaccine in terms of potential side effects.
But for about 60% of Americans, this proof of the potentially deadly effects of H1N1 just doesn’t seem to be enough to convince them to get the vaccination. These statistics are reported in the media, which is generally perceived as a reliable source, but in this case it just isn’t enough. Similar to the reports of the sighting of a risen Jesus that Thomas received from his good friends, the other disciples, the fact that the proof is being provided by a normally trustworthy source sometimes just isn’t enough for everyone. In the case of Thomas this makes some sense. It takes a huge leap of faith to believe that someone who was clearly dead is now clearly alive again. So one can’t blame Thomas for demanding physical proof before believing this seemingly outrageous tale. But believing that the swine flu can kill you simply isn’t that outrageous, especially when it has already become accepted knowledge that the seasonal flu can kill you. So what else might be behind the current unhealthy skepticism of the H1N1 vaccine?
I suspect that the skepticism about the vaccine is rooted in skepticism about the government’s enthusiasm for trying to get as many American’s vaccinated as humanly possible. This has been portrayed as the government’s vaccination plan. Not only is the government racing to get the vaccine ready and shipped out to a location near you, they are also subsidizing the cost of immunization. It is a voluntary program but via the public service announcements, the media appearances by members of the CDC and the federal governments pledge to buy enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the country if there is sufficient demand, it is hard not to feel coerced. It can start to feel a lot like we’re standing at the top of the slippery slope of socialized medicine, and given the current debate over healthcare reform that image evokes concerns that are much scarier to some than getting a bad case of the flu. One may begin to doubt that all this hoopla is about the H1N1 virus but rather it could be a leading edge example of increasing government involvement in private healthcare.
Whether that hypothesis is true or not, the unfortunate reality is that when it comes to dealing with at highly contagious and potentially lethal virus, doubting can become deadly. For you and for others that you come into contact with. Everyone in my family will get the vaccine, i.e. me, my husband, and my three children. For our protection and for the protection of those we knowingly interact with and unknowingly come into contact with. Because it is the right moral choice for the common good.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
"Just Abortion" theology
Wow, that title felt odd even as I wrote it. This week however I was reading about different ways to frame the pro-life/pro-choice debate and this comparison to "Just War" theology really struck a cord with me. I've always considered myself pro-choice because I strongly believe that a person, even a woman, should have the right to make decisions about ones own body. However, as a person of faith I've always felt a little uncomfortable about the implied casualness of "choice" - it seems kind of whimsical, like I'm choosing which shoes to wear with this outfit or which fast food drive through to pull into. And I've always wondered if the opposite of pro-life isn't actually pro-death and that makes me REALLY uncomfortable!
Reframing pro-choice under the rubric of Just Abortion however brings the same level of gravitas to the discussion as you get with Just War. Clearly war isn't a frivolous choice and neither is abortion. But what I like best is that thinking about abortion this way requires the woman to ponder two questions: Will the value of your actions outweigh the intermediate costs? Will the ends justify the means? These are deeply personal and situational questions. One size clearly won't fit all and that is where the role of discernment and choice will enter. But I find it a very helpful way to frame the pastoral conversation and provide the decision-making support that a woman facing this very tough choice needs - and to do so in a nurturing and forward going way vs. simply offering platitudes or worse yet, pushing my values on someone else. It is thought-provoking yet non-judgmental. And it affirms that we believe that women want to do the right thing but that it isn't always so easy to figure out what the right thing is.
Just Abortion theology also elevates the seriousness of the decision by equating it with the decision to wage war. Now some may think that is a serious exaggeration given that in deciding to have an abortion only one life is threatened yet a war will cost thousands or even millions of lives. But to the woman facing an unwanted pregnancy it can feel like the same weight of the world is on her shoulders, especially if others around her judge her or trivialize the situation as "no big deal".
This feels to me like a much more faith based approach to considering the abortion debate. What do you think?
Reframing pro-choice under the rubric of Just Abortion however brings the same level of gravitas to the discussion as you get with Just War. Clearly war isn't a frivolous choice and neither is abortion. But what I like best is that thinking about abortion this way requires the woman to ponder two questions: Will the value of your actions outweigh the intermediate costs? Will the ends justify the means? These are deeply personal and situational questions. One size clearly won't fit all and that is where the role of discernment and choice will enter. But I find it a very helpful way to frame the pastoral conversation and provide the decision-making support that a woman facing this very tough choice needs - and to do so in a nurturing and forward going way vs. simply offering platitudes or worse yet, pushing my values on someone else. It is thought-provoking yet non-judgmental. And it affirms that we believe that women want to do the right thing but that it isn't always so easy to figure out what the right thing is.
Just Abortion theology also elevates the seriousness of the decision by equating it with the decision to wage war. Now some may think that is a serious exaggeration given that in deciding to have an abortion only one life is threatened yet a war will cost thousands or even millions of lives. But to the woman facing an unwanted pregnancy it can feel like the same weight of the world is on her shoulders, especially if others around her judge her or trivialize the situation as "no big deal".
This feels to me like a much more faith based approach to considering the abortion debate. What do you think?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
God's Mailbox
This weekend I went on our All-church retreat to Tower Hill which is at the Michigan Dunes. The weather was beautiful but very chilly, so most of the adults spent the majority of the weekend inside conversing. But the youth were undaunted by the temperatures and the lure of Mt. Baldy was strong, so they spent most of their time out enjoying nature.
One of their activities was a worship service at God's Mailbox! I've never been to this particular landmark but my daughter went so it gave me the chance to talk to her about how she communicates with God and vice versa. I've always thought of prayer as the most direct way to communicate with God, but perhaps God appreciates mail as much of the rest of us.
Turns out that she did write a letter, a confession to be exact, and put it in the mailbox. Tradition says that God will send a reply within a few days, although it wasn't clear if one was to go back to the mailbox to pick it up or if it would come directly to ones home, etc. Either way my daughter was pretty sure that God wasn't going to write back because she figured, "he's got better things to do than watch us all the time. i'm sure he's too busy". However she wasn't exactly sure what he was so busy doing, and the longer we talked the more it seemed like God's mailbox and Santa's mailbox might be just a little too similiar for my taste. Send out a request. Be judged as naughty or nice. And then if you're lucky, you'll get a response in the form of what you asked for.
I think this is a very dangerous image of God to plant in our children's minds. And while the landmark of God's Mailbox is clever, I think it sends 100% the wrong message about the relationship that we should aspire to have with God. Perhaps a better (and more contemporary analogy) would be Facebook - you friend God, God friends you, and now you both post at will. Even the smallest status updates are read, commented on, and shared with other friends in your joint community. It's both a personal relationship but also an open one. And one that can keep expanding infinitely. (okay, maybe only to 5000 but then you can set up a second, third, fourth, etc. site. )
Maybe it's just because the only letters I write any more are Christmas cards, but i prefer thinking that God and I have a pathway that is direct and constantly open. And best of all it is portable. I don't have to go all the way back to Michigan to send or recieve communication!
One of their activities was a worship service at God's Mailbox! I've never been to this particular landmark but my daughter went so it gave me the chance to talk to her about how she communicates with God and vice versa. I've always thought of prayer as the most direct way to communicate with God, but perhaps God appreciates mail as much of the rest of us.
Turns out that she did write a letter, a confession to be exact, and put it in the mailbox. Tradition says that God will send a reply within a few days, although it wasn't clear if one was to go back to the mailbox to pick it up or if it would come directly to ones home, etc. Either way my daughter was pretty sure that God wasn't going to write back because she figured, "he's got better things to do than watch us all the time. i'm sure he's too busy". However she wasn't exactly sure what he was so busy doing, and the longer we talked the more it seemed like God's mailbox and Santa's mailbox might be just a little too similiar for my taste. Send out a request. Be judged as naughty or nice. And then if you're lucky, you'll get a response in the form of what you asked for.
I think this is a very dangerous image of God to plant in our children's minds. And while the landmark of God's Mailbox is clever, I think it sends 100% the wrong message about the relationship that we should aspire to have with God. Perhaps a better (and more contemporary analogy) would be Facebook - you friend God, God friends you, and now you both post at will. Even the smallest status updates are read, commented on, and shared with other friends in your joint community. It's both a personal relationship but also an open one. And one that can keep expanding infinitely. (okay, maybe only to 5000 but then you can set up a second, third, fourth, etc. site. )
Maybe it's just because the only letters I write any more are Christmas cards, but i prefer thinking that God and I have a pathway that is direct and constantly open. And best of all it is portable. I don't have to go all the way back to Michigan to send or recieve communication!
Saturday, October 10, 2009
How to be a good neighbor
Q-- Eight years after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, fighting continues. Religious extremists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda retain significant power there. What is our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan? If religion is part of the problem there, how can it be part of the solution?
The enemy in Afghanistan is the Taliban. They have declared the U.S. to be their enemy and demonstrated their willingness to inflict pain and killing upon us. The people of Afghanistan however are not all members of the Taliban and many have been innocent casualties in this seemingly endless war that the U.S. is waging against the insurgents. The Taliban has committed crimes for which they should pay however the people of Afghanistan are simply hostages in this war. .
We would like to believe that the misery of the Afghanistan people is all the fault of the Taliban. But the reality is that we have been co-conspirators in destroying their home and their ability to live what we treasure as a “normal” life. The length and nature of this war threatens to create a culture of despair. Our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan is to refocus on the initial mission to find and punish the perpetrators of 9/11 and then get out of their country.
It has been said that we are at a critical juncture in our military strategy; that if we don’t commit to winning and send in more troops now that window of opportunity for us gain the upper hand against the enemy will close forever. This is what our military leaders tell us based on their experience and understanding of the cadence of war. A similar cadence exists in matters of the human spirit. I fear that we are facing a similar closing window of opportunity in which to restore hope for the Afghanistan people. The U.S. needs to pursue whatever strategy will enable the military to find its targets with minimal impact on the civilians and then leave. Developing a democratic government for Afghanistan was not part of the original reason for invasion and should not be the reason for outstaying our welcome.
The greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. Muslims are our neighbors. Although we may be separated by great geographic distance we share a common ancestor (Abraham) and a common belief in the One True God. However their ways are not our ways, and they shouldn’t have to be. One of the reasons that good fences make good neighbors is that it keeps each side from overstepping boundaries. The U.S. should redouble efforts to stop terrorism against America but not continue the futile investments in nation building a form of government that is pleasing to us but contrary to the way of life that is familiar and traditional to the people of Afghanistan.
The enemy in Afghanistan is the Taliban. They have declared the U.S. to be their enemy and demonstrated their willingness to inflict pain and killing upon us. The people of Afghanistan however are not all members of the Taliban and many have been innocent casualties in this seemingly endless war that the U.S. is waging against the insurgents. The Taliban has committed crimes for which they should pay however the people of Afghanistan are simply hostages in this war. .
We would like to believe that the misery of the Afghanistan people is all the fault of the Taliban. But the reality is that we have been co-conspirators in destroying their home and their ability to live what we treasure as a “normal” life. The length and nature of this war threatens to create a culture of despair. Our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan is to refocus on the initial mission to find and punish the perpetrators of 9/11 and then get out of their country.
It has been said that we are at a critical juncture in our military strategy; that if we don’t commit to winning and send in more troops now that window of opportunity for us gain the upper hand against the enemy will close forever. This is what our military leaders tell us based on their experience and understanding of the cadence of war. A similar cadence exists in matters of the human spirit. I fear that we are facing a similar closing window of opportunity in which to restore hope for the Afghanistan people. The U.S. needs to pursue whatever strategy will enable the military to find its targets with minimal impact on the civilians and then leave. Developing a democratic government for Afghanistan was not part of the original reason for invasion and should not be the reason for outstaying our welcome.
The greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. Muslims are our neighbors. Although we may be separated by great geographic distance we share a common ancestor (Abraham) and a common belief in the One True God. However their ways are not our ways, and they shouldn’t have to be. One of the reasons that good fences make good neighbors is that it keeps each side from overstepping boundaries. The U.S. should redouble efforts to stop terrorism against America but not continue the futile investments in nation building a form of government that is pleasing to us but contrary to the way of life that is familiar and traditional to the people of Afghanistan.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Hospitality with strings attached may be practical but not particularly Christian
Walk long enough in an urban neighborhood and you'll be approached by someone asking for something - money for food, money for bus fare, or just plain money. Some have a story to tell or a sign that tells the story of why they need your money. Others simply just ask for it with no explanation other than, "I need it".
These types of folks always present a bit of a moral dilemma for me when I stop to think about it. Many times I just walk past without even really seeing them. But when I do pause to actually acknowledge them I have a quick debate in my head. Am I really going to help them by giving them money? Do they really need it? Instead of cash should I take them into the restaurant and buy them food so that I'm really sure they are spending the money wisely?
And then of course, WWJD? That's the one that makes my head hurt because deep down inside I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't pretend they don't exist but would some how find a way to minister to them. But I feel ill-equipped and short on time, so maybe the least I should do is give them money?
This issue came up in our Sunday School class today because we're doing a mission project for refugees. The organization we're fundraising for has a scripture quote as part of their description of why they do what they do. It's Hebrews 13:2 "Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels". I told my 7th & 8th graders that I always wondered about that when I am approached by a person asking for a handout. I was quite surprised by the response. Apparently yesterday at the UCC gathering for youth this very issue came up. And the general consensus was to NOT give people money because so many of them are scam artists, use it for illegal/unhealthy behaviors, etc.
Not only do I disagree with this position, I find it offensive as a Christian and am embarrassed that it was the advice given to the youth by our denominational leadership. Part of the rationale was that if you/the church gives money to the people who ask that aren't worthy then there won't be any money left to give those that truly are in need. But here's my question - how and who will determine who's really in need and therefore "worthy" of your hospitality? While no one wants to be taken advantage of, if I'm giving out of the abundance of blessing that I believe I've received from the Lord, my job is to love my neighbor, not judge him/her to see if they are fit to receive my love.
I'm not saying that walking around giving out cash is the answer. Certainly there are systemic issues that need to be addressed to clean up the streets - to get the people who really need help connected with resources, and to lock up those who are basically stealing by scamming good hearted folk. But I don't feel the need to concern myself with that. I love because first I was loved. And while it would probably be better to have the time and fearlessness to engage all the people who approach me and minister to them individually, sometimes a dollar or some spare change is the best I can do. It feels very wrong to not at least do that.
These types of folks always present a bit of a moral dilemma for me when I stop to think about it. Many times I just walk past without even really seeing them. But when I do pause to actually acknowledge them I have a quick debate in my head. Am I really going to help them by giving them money? Do they really need it? Instead of cash should I take them into the restaurant and buy them food so that I'm really sure they are spending the money wisely?
And then of course, WWJD? That's the one that makes my head hurt because deep down inside I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't pretend they don't exist but would some how find a way to minister to them. But I feel ill-equipped and short on time, so maybe the least I should do is give them money?
This issue came up in our Sunday School class today because we're doing a mission project for refugees. The organization we're fundraising for has a scripture quote as part of their description of why they do what they do. It's Hebrews 13:2 "Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels". I told my 7th & 8th graders that I always wondered about that when I am approached by a person asking for a handout. I was quite surprised by the response. Apparently yesterday at the UCC gathering for youth this very issue came up. And the general consensus was to NOT give people money because so many of them are scam artists, use it for illegal/unhealthy behaviors, etc.
Not only do I disagree with this position, I find it offensive as a Christian and am embarrassed that it was the advice given to the youth by our denominational leadership. Part of the rationale was that if you/the church gives money to the people who ask that aren't worthy then there won't be any money left to give those that truly are in need. But here's my question - how and who will determine who's really in need and therefore "worthy" of your hospitality? While no one wants to be taken advantage of, if I'm giving out of the abundance of blessing that I believe I've received from the Lord, my job is to love my neighbor, not judge him/her to see if they are fit to receive my love.
I'm not saying that walking around giving out cash is the answer. Certainly there are systemic issues that need to be addressed to clean up the streets - to get the people who really need help connected with resources, and to lock up those who are basically stealing by scamming good hearted folk. But I don't feel the need to concern myself with that. I love because first I was loved. And while it would probably be better to have the time and fearlessness to engage all the people who approach me and minister to them individually, sometimes a dollar or some spare change is the best I can do. It feels very wrong to not at least do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)