[The following post first appeared on 18 January 2005. Due to the fact that so many people quote Jesus about the enduring presence of "the poor," it seemed appropriate to bring this one back for the sake of a deeper biblical understanding of Jesus' intentions.]
_______________________________
Paying attention to how people use the Bible in developing a worldview can be downright entertaining.
If I had a dollar for every time someone has quoted Jesus' line to me--"The poor you will have with you always, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me" (Mark 14:7)--I could stop worrying about how to fund our organization!
Jesus made the statement in response to critics who wondered out loud why he allowed a follower to "waste" an expensive gift just to honor him. Of course, he had the good sense to know that the real concern of these critics had nothing to do with the poor. His reply made that clear, as he challenged them and us to understand that poor folks are in abundance and can be assisted whenever those of us with wealth decide to turn loose some of it!
Most people never look "behind" what Jesus says here.
As was usually the case when he spoke with authority, Jesus was quoting scripture here. The text he had in mind was Deuteronomy 15 (fifth from the front cover!).
Now I've noticed across the years that most of the people who throw Jesus' words at me about the poor also have a very high view of the Bible. These Bible believing, sometimes Bible banging folks, are pretty sure Jesus is responsible for the Deuteronomy passage as well.
So, what do we find there?
Well, for starters there is this directive: ". . .there should be no poor among you, . . .if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today" (15:4-5).
That line comes immediately following a commandment to cancel all debts every seven years in the land of Israel.
Talk about things that make you go Hmmm!!!
. . .poverty reduction program based on systemic, public policy that helps level the economic playing field on a scheduled, periodic basis. That would sure make a difference in how many people were poor, remained poor and fell into poverty, wouldn't you think?
But, the text goes on.
The next line reads this way, "If there is a poor man among your brothers. . .do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs" (15:7-8).
Hmmm.
Pretty radical, this call to lend without much question. The text continues by prohibiting any calculation as to when the next seventh year of debt forgiveness would mean for this loan (15:9-10)!
You'd think the Creator really knows us, wouldn't you?
Get the picture so far?
First, there should be no poor among the people of God because we are all doing what God says we should do about poverty from a global, macro-economic standpoint.
Second, almost as a beginning concession by God, if there happens to be someone poor, then the solution is to lend freely.
But then, it is as if God says to himself, "Wait what am I thinking! I know how these people are!"
At this point there follows the final line, the one Jesus quoted to his critics who had observed the presentation of a genuinely openhearted gift. The text in the Hebrew Bible reads, "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land" (15:11).
Why is this true?
Because of something in the poor that is wrong or faulty or irresponsible? A basic laziness or unworthiness or stupidity? Not according to this text, the one Jesus quotes.
No. The problem is with people who claim to be interested in making God happy. People who love to read and quote the Bible with ease, but who also find ingenious ways to ignore what the good book actually says about poverty, its root causes and those crushed under it.
Like I say, it is really entertaining to watch us use this book.
Extremist, thanks for your post.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do acknowledge the distinction to which you refer. The horrific fact that 3 billion people (or more) live on less than $2 per day is tragic and immoral.
The same forces that drive our underclass to the ground also conspire to create the extremely poor around the world.
In both cases U. S. economic policy and practice contribute to the conditions. (For an enlightening read, see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins)
At the same time, these realities are relative. The experiences of the poor in the U. S. bespeak and point toward the same kind of injustice that consigns billions around the globe to lives of misery. While there is more opportunity here, obviously, the system today is driving millions more into our brand of poverty.
I remain concerned about both. Since I am here, here is where I am working.
But the point you make needs to be made again and again, but not with a view to ending efforts here at home, but to expand and radicalize our efforts in the Third World. On this, see Bono.
extremist, I won't argue with you. I would suggest however, that you read an objective history of say Panama, El Salvador or Saudi Arabia. Or, try a good review of the Amazon rain forests and the impact of American corporations on same. And, read Perkins, if you dare.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but your notion that the wealth of people never contributes to nor causes poverty is laughable.
extremist, please understand, I don't intend to provoke you here, but my curiosity led me to your website where I discovered that your a Harding University man. So am I (class of 1972).
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the two of us came out of that experience at very different places. I expect you are a bit younger than I am.
Speaking of conspiracy theories--when I was at Harding, we were encouraged to believe that there were Communists under about every leaf and behind every tree. I guess that has changed by now.
extremist: I will admit, it is hard to imagine that we would live in such a country. That does not mean it is not true, however, and I believe that John Perkins' long history in this arena makes him a credible person on the topic. Since you have not even read the book, I think it is very close-minded of you to pass judgment on it.
ReplyDeleteDo you pass such judgments against all new ideas that you encounter, or only those that would somehow alter your perception of the world?
On the matters of Larry's original post: yes, in the Bible, the Lord lays out an economic system in which none are poor and none are wealthy. This is because He knew that the wealthy would find ways to retain their wealth at the expense of the poor. This is, of course, exactly what has occured. So, you are wrong: poverty is often caused -- and, more importantly, SUSTAINED -- to support other people's wealth.
Look at the policies of the current Bush administration. They are cutting back benefits to the poor to afford tax cuts to the rich; this is counter to the Lord's command. They are rolling on debts to our children by increasing the national debt (strictly forbidden in the Bible which Bush so often thumps when it suits him).
The poor we will have with us always, therefore let us be like Christ: be not concerned with our own wealth and welfare, but devote our lives to the prosperity of all peoples.
c hand, I totally agree with you! Bet you are surprised!
ReplyDeleteI have never, nor will I ever discourage or minimize the importance of good personal choices or of personal responsibility. We do it every day in almost every one of our efforts here at CDM. We preach it, try to model it and expect it.
Anyone who believes that poverty is only the result of poor personal choices or of only systemic injustice likely doesn't know many "poor people." The problem today is that too many people believe that the system is just fine and that if the poor would just behave, everything would be okay.
By the way--I think lotteries are bad public policy created by politicians who haven't the courage to craft fair and progressive public funding policies. So, I would go even further--no lotteries at all.
c hand, no one we have ever "helped" has ever bit my hand or any hand here. So, that doesn't compute with my experience.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for getting rid of lotteries in poor neighborhoods. This discussion does remind me our our county commissioner, John Wiley Price, and his effort s few years back to eliminate liqour and cigarette billboards from the communities (low-income) that he represents. He whitewashed many of the ad boards as a protest action against the fact that an inordinate number of the ads were in this community as compared to more affluent neighborhoods. As you say, folks raised cane mostly from the affluent communities!
For a good example of how the wealthy contribute to the continual poverty of the poor, I suggest you all examine Memphis polotics. The city brings in a NBA team with a $190 million dollar 15 year-old arena (The Pyramid) in place, to which the city still owes money for. Then the city helps build a $400 million dollar arena (Fed-Ex Forum) for the NBA team and signs a contract which guaruntees that the pyramid will not be allowed to host any concerts, sporting events, etc... so long as the Fed-Ex Forum is available. In addition, it is the NBA team which profits from all events at the Fed-Ex forum -- not the city of Memphis. Further more, the Pyramid now is the world youngest and most expensive empty building still not paid off. To make way for the forum, some low-income housing was buldozed over.
ReplyDeleteSo who has benefited from the new arena and the arrival of an NBA team in Memphis? Certainly not the poor. And if you talk to ministers who work with the inner-city communities, they will tell you it is those communites who are suffering because of the arena.
And just for one more laugh. The city of Memphis is currently trying to decide what to do with the Pyramid. Are you ready for this? One of the suggestions has been a Casino. Yeah, that is what one of the poorest cities in the U.S. needs
extremist, I do not believe that Larry was trying to say that there was an inconsistency between the OT and NT. In fact, he pointed out that they both say the same thing: the Lord has commanded us to turn over our wealth to the poor, for they will always be with us (i.e. we will never have a good reason to cling to our wealth, because there will always be a higher use for it than our hording it).
ReplyDeletePrivate charity will never be able to replace government programs. However, the systemic change that both the OT and Christ advocated does not pit the two against each other: rather, it reveals that the two should be one and the same. We should construct a state that is based on the philosophy of justice and equity, so that we can turn our wealth over to it for the benefit of all.
The communism that Deut and Christ advocate is a radical one, far from the Communist state that many of us think of. The reason why the latter of these failed was simple: human greed. The state was not built to empower the citizenry and eradicate poverty, but to amass power for the elite.
In Christ's commune, there is no such thing as "ownership." Tough words for people living in an "ownership society" to hear.
extremist, thanks for stirring up a conversation!
ReplyDeleteOne thing seems clear here to me. You are thinking in individual terms only when it comes to rich and poor. Don't get me wrong--individual responsibility among both groups will lead us to a better society.
What you seem to not see is the impact that impersonal, systemic realities and structures have on both the rich and the poor.
Deut. 15 outlines a systemic provision for establishing economic justice in a society. Individuals must obey the rules of the system, but the system is in place.
Over the past 25 years the systemic changes have for the most part benefited those at the top. That is just a fact.
On a historical note, the reason poor people in the US have done better than those around the world has to do with our economy's base line and to fairer social policy in the past. It is not surprising that over the past half decade millions have fallen below the poverty line. Surely, you aren't going to say that millions have taken that plunge only because they were sinful or irresponsible?
extremist,
ReplyDeleteYou mention not taking things that don't belong to you. Forget government here - are your things yours, or God's that are entrusted to you?
Looking forward to your answer,
Charles
Extremist, I commend you for holding your own here so gallantly. And Mr. James, I thank you for your hospitable website.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering: What are the secular reasons for caring for the poor? I don't care about the Bible; I don't care what Deuteronomy says. And what are the secular steps that work that alleviate poverty?
While Mr. James is (arguably) right that "millions" continue to fall below the poverty line, he fails to fully develop what those numbers mean. For instance, more people than ever can own a home; black and single-parent homeownership are at record levels, as are the number of black and female millionaires. Of course, illegal immigration and other immigration-associated problems have adversely affected the poverty level numbers, pushing them down.
What some people seem to be suggesting is that it is bad news that there are more wealthy people today than yesterday. Apparently it would only be good news if there were fewer rich people and more poor people.
Let us not forget, by the way, as we all think about Jesus' alleged model for social and economic justice, that Jesus had something of an advantage over his peers: He was endowed with wealth at his birth, with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrhh. Moreover, to pay his taxes he merely had to have Peter catch a fish.
It is demonstrably absurd to think that we can destroy poverty. That I should nonetheless strive for economic justice is surely noble, irrespective of its futility. I of course could give my wealth away; I could give my food away in grand generosity, but neither deed helps the poor or the hungry. My choosing poverty will not make someone else richer. It will just make me poor.
What is probably needed, at least among Christians, is a commitment not to taking from the rich; or for more compartments in the machine that is the care industry. What is needed is for more Christians to start generating real wealth for people: jobs and industries that get people to participate, with dignity and meaning, in the betterment of their own lives. Lest I forget, the early Church apostles were not solely earning money by sharing the gospel. As Paul said, everywhere he went he earned his keep, as did all the faithful, by working (as a tentmaker, in Paul's case) to generate wealth for one another.
Look, there are some incredible injustices on this planet. One look at the credit card industry and any doubts should be pushed aside: there is greed and exploitation everywhere. But what is the alternative, in a fallen world that shall pass? Do we really think our efforts are to be directed toward fixing something that will not and cannot be fixed? Yes, we shall fight for change. Yes, we will fight for justice. But some things will not change; some things will never be just.
Does God love the rich? I think he does. And man, I am grateful there are rich people who generate jobs and economic opportunities for millions. And I am grateful that there are rich people to turn to when there are natural disasters and sundry other crises on this planet.
If we all decided as a world to meet in one place and start over with a "new world", with each person given only one T-shirt, a pair of pants and $1000 (everything else is destroyed), how long before there are people with $10,000 and others with nothing? About a minute? (Of course, in a free world we must take this risk, or else we face another risk.) Imagine then that after a day we all realize, after some of us have lost our shirts and our $1000, that the "new world" will not work FAIRLY. Thus, we all decide to reconvene, to start over on a corporate equal footing. But this time, we elect people to MONITOR us to ensure that everything stays fair. A whistle blows, we start each on our merry way, and instantly people begin losing cash, shirts, pants. The new nightmare? A ruling class that intervenes in this injustice, distributing "equality" according to law. The result? Corruption aplenty, a rich ruling class, and the overarching fact that freedom MUST BE DESTROYED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN EQUALITY. That is the failure of the Soviet Union, and it is the failure of forcing justice out of a sinking ship.
Peace to you all,
BG
BG,thanks for posting! I will attempt to answer most of your ideas.
ReplyDelete"For instance, more people than ever can own a home; black and single-parent homeownership are at record levels, as are the number of black and female millionaires."
Here in Dallas--opportunity city--homeownership rates stand at 43% of the population. We are 30-40K lacking in decent, affordable workforce housing--over 18K of our citizens are on waiting lists for the housing voucher program. Because rental housing that is affordable is so sub-standard, many people are being forced into risky homeownership deals well ahead of their capacity which contributes to many getting in real financial difficulty. Talking about black millionaires is just fine, but when you look at the numbers and compare the scale of the problems on the other end of the spectrum, what you realize is your example is a classic part of the American mythology that is as old as Horatio Alger from the Gilded Age. Didn't work then, don't work now.
"Of course, illegal immigration and other immigration-associated problems have adversely affected the poverty level numbers, pushing them down."
Why has this been such a growing reality? America's demand for cheap labor. Immigrants want a better life, we want cheap labor.
"What some people seem to be suggesting is that it is bad news that there are more wealthy people today than yesterday. Apparently it would only be good news if there were fewer rich people and more poor people."
To the contrary, what would be good news would be if there were more previously low-income persons who were making it into the middle class, as was once the case in this nation. If you compare earnings value over the past 25 years, you will be shocked at the decline in purchasing power of wages across the middle class and into the under class. How much is enough? Supply side economics produced exactly what it intended to produce: an ultra-wealthy upper class with a resultant growing underclass.
"Let us not forget, by the way, as we all think about Jesus' alleged model for social and economic justice, that Jesus had something of an advantage over his peers: He was endowed with wealth at his birth, with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrhh. Moreover, to pay his taxes he merely had to have Peter catch a fish."
Jesus was a very poor man. If you follow the logic of this reality, it is clear that if he had been born today he would not be acceptable or welcome to most people, as was the case then.
"It is demonstrably absurd to think that we can destroy poverty. That I should nonetheless strive for economic justice is surely noble, irrespective of its futility. I of course could give my wealth away; I could give my food away in grand generosity, but neither deed helps the poor or the hungry. My choosing poverty will not make someone else richer. It will just make me poor."
I have noticed when our system is questioned even a little bit, opponents rush to the extremities to find their arguments! No one is suggesting that you become poor. No one would be made poor for example by an equitable national housing or health care startegy. Many would be made much better off, but no one would be made poor.
"Look, there are some incredible injustices on this planet. One look at the credit card industry and any doubts should be pushed aside: there is greed and exploitation everywhere. But what is the alternative, in a fallen world that shall pass? Do we really think our efforts are to be directed toward fixing something that will not and cannot be fixed? Yes, we shall fight for change. Yes, we will fight for justice. But some things will not change; some things will never be just."
Possibly, but things can get better for children and families. Before one has the right to make such a sweeping statement of what is possible, I would need to ask some questions as to self-interest and personal cost in terms of what one would be willing to contribute to solutions.
"Does God love the rich? I think he does. And man, I am grateful there are rich people who generate jobs and economic opportunities for millions. And I am grateful that there are rich people to turn to when there are natural disasters and sundry other crises on this planet."
No one here is saying God doesn't love the rich or anyone else. We are having a frank conversation about public policy. What is currently in place is far from fair and along way from what is possible for a nation like ours.
Sorry, but your last example is so tired. Again, you rush to the extreme. No one is arguing for complete equality, but for a better system that doesn't exclude so many from the start. We've done better in the past. We can do better going forward.
extremist: maybe I rushed to extremes, too. my apologies. but I don't think it's accurate to criticize Larry's argument because of something that I wrote (and late at night, at that). Larry didn't say those things, I did. I think his point is well made -- and stands as a much stronger argument than mine. hopefully, my poor ramblings won't detract from his.
ReplyDelete-jeremy
This will be my last comment here, but Jeremy, you need not apologize to me. A
ReplyDeletes you are fully aware and as extremist may want to understand, uniformity of thought is not a requirement for employment or for a chance to make a huge difference in partnership with our low-income neighbors here at CDM. As a matter of fact, if everyone at CDM agreed with me, what a dull and ineffective place it would be!
I need to add just here that extremeist and I didn't come from such an academic environment, at least not in our undergraduate days.
Yep, ole Harding U ("College" when I was there back in the day) was no citadel of free thought or scholarly investigation. As a matter of fact, if you didn't pretty well "toe the party line" there in your thinking, you were asked to leave or you were dismissed. I watched brilliant professors leave by the truck load. Sad.
It did have the wonderful affect of causing me to question everything I heard there. My liberal arts education seemed to come along just fine given my academic MO at the time!
How 'bout you extremist? I bet you have a slightly different point of view on this one! :)
It is unfortunate that Mr. James has chosen to stop commenting.
ReplyDeleteThat Mr. James claims that Jesus was an extremely poor man is thoroughly unfounded. There is no biblical reference to Christ's alleged poverty. He was, after all, presented with wealth at the point of birth. That Jesus said he had no where to lay his head is not itself an indication of poverty. It is perhaps a bit like St. Francis, who chose poverty, which is easy to do if, like Francis, one comes from a wealthy merchant family. Jesus may very well have been poor. But the New Testament is curiously silent about the gold he received in the manger.
Of course I go to extremes. Why not? I have blogged a thorough series on my views re: poverty and wealth. I have challenged the leftists who loathe religious speech in the rightists the left claims are pushing theocracy; by pointing out that it is the leftists who quote scripture re: issues of social and economic justice. I have challenged economic justice by force of guilt or shame; I have challenged the idolatry of free markets. But Mr. James does not seem to note that while the bottom end of the American economy is filling up with what he calls "cheap labor", thus affecting poverty numbers, he offers no proof that people are NOT (in his claim) moving up into the middle class. But a perfect indicator of this is home-ownership: It is going up across the boards. Sad that Mr. James just dismisses me: "Didn't work then, doesn't work now." He does not show why it doesn't work. Instead, he sees a numeric correlation and concludes something erroneous: the American dream does not work, see? But the correlation he sees might be faulty. We'll never know his rationale.
My only point in visiting this issue is to challenge a culture that claims to be secular and ask why it finds itself appealing to religion to motivate itself to care for the poor. From Mr. James, I get no answer. Moreover, I see no reason why what Christians are expected in Scripture to do for each other should be extended to the socio-political sphere by the more liberal Christians among us. Why does anyone expect the state to act for us the way we ourselves are called to act?
My convictions are that alleviating poverty is a complex issue, a VERY complex issue. But I am certain that programs on the right or left that succeed will become idols for all to worship. This is why the poor are always with us: to remind us that our successes are not really successes; that our home is not here; that we cannot restore Eden or create a new one; that our programs and even our ideals may become idols that entrap, ensnare and even damn.
Dismiss me for going to extremes if you must. I'll take that over banal contemplation any day.
Peace of Christ to you,
Gnade
Gnade, for you I will speak again! Actually, I just couldn't keep coming back here and I had shared about all I had with extremist--didn't really mean that statement for you.
ReplyDeleteI'll just respond to your one point about Jesus and poverty. The rest is all very open to debate and I agree that pvoerty is complex, VERY complex. I also see your point about Christians calling for their values that relate to poverty being pushing on others in a secular society. My problem is I am surrounded by very poor people and I will do whatever I can to move the culture to do a better job of providing opportunity for all.
That being said. . .let me speak to Jesus and his poverty.
It seems to me that you are hung up on the gold of the wise men--Joseph probably used that up pretty quickly in caring for his young family! I mean the trip to Egypt must have set him back a bit.
But there are indicators of the poverty of the family in the story. When Jesus was dedicated at the Temple the family offered the sacrifice reserved for the poor--rather than a lamb, they offer two pigeons. Jesus borrows things constantly in the narrative--rooms, homes, tables, even a tomb for his burial. He and his disciples gathered grain in the corners of the fields--the places reserved for the poor. He depended on a group of generous women to support him in his ministry. On this one the evidence and the scholarship is very clear. Jesus lived and died a very poor man. We can debate the other issues, but this one is not up for debate among anyone who has seriously investigated the matter.
You are kind, and gentle, in responding to me.
ReplyDeleteThe reference you make re: the Presentation. Joseph and Mary have yet to be visited by the Magi, so of course their offering will be of the poor. They have not yet received the Magis' gifts.
Second, while I have no reason to doubt the scholarship to which you refer, what is not clear is whether Jesus was poor by choice or by station. Did He embrace poverty, rejecting some form of wealth? On an earthly level we do know choice is part of the case: Jesus rejects the devil's offers of the wealth of kingdoms. But is there more to the story of Christ's poverty than what you and I can glean from scripture? I do not know, but surely He had no qualms with the wealth of His family friend, Joseph of Arimithea, who bought Jesus' burial plot (apparently Mary and Jesus were too poor for this sort of purchase).
I have no qualms with your quest for economic justice. It is an important calling. Who am I to deny you this? My only reservation comes from learning that my idealism was motivated not by wisdom or love, but by resentment, shame, and guilt, even envy. I was not so much concerned about the poor as I was concerned about being judged for failing to do the right thing: My conscience was what I aimed to palliate, not the hunger on the street nearby.
You need not go to my blog, but in my latest essay on poverty and wealth I encourage people who feel strongly about economic inequities to get going with relief efforts; and not to get caught up waiting for others to join in, or even demanding others to join in. If you can help your neighbor put out his house fire, you better not wait for the fire department. Just do it.
Why is America viewed, mostly by those on the left, as uncompassionate if it fails to mandate caring for the poor? Let me put that another way. God does not want us to love our neighbors because He told us to. To love because of law or commandment is not love. God wants us to love purely, from our hearts, without recourse to law or creed or principle. Does God love because He's obeying a commandment?
Similarly, why are so many people expecting "care for the poor" to be a law of the state? It is not caring if it is a law; giving money through taxation is not generosity; and giving money through taxation is not caring.
I have a close family member who claims to be a Democrat solely because s/he believes that "I am indeed my brothers' keeper." But my family member really believes no such thing: S/he believes the STATE is the keeper of brothers, using money s/he gives to various neighbors so that s/he doesn't have to.
This ultimately is my disagreement with many forms of economic justice. Ultimately I believe it is not about care at all. Rather, it is about the appearance of care.
Peace to you, dear sir. Thanks for your hospitality.
Gnade
As is too often the case, I write too fast and make silly mistakes.
ReplyDeleteRE: my family member. I meant that some people ultimately believe, at least their practice bears this out, that they actually intend for the state to be their brother's keeper, with the money given through taxes constituting an apparent benevolent act towards one's neighbors. The state in this model replaces my family member; s/he need not really be a friend to anybody.
Not that I've cleared anything up with this addendum.
Gnade
Gnade, I hear what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteI would simply invert your equation. Your comments are about the motives of givers, neighbors, etc. That is all well and good.
At the end of the day, my concern has nothing to do with my motives or those of others with power. My concern is with the real life, day-to-day needs of people who have been shut out. Frankly, I don't care how or why we do a better job, because I can assure those who struggle to raise and educate the children don't care about the why--they simply know things need to change.
In a strange, unintended way your paradigm plays to those who really have choices and in that way it is fundamentally narcissistic.
Always appreciate hearing from you.
Thank you, sir, for continuing this discussion.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you mean when you say those who have choices are fundamentally narcissistic. I am willing to learn, because your thesis sounds interesting.
We agree that things must change, but how? I long held the belief that capitalism was inherently evil. Now I don't hold that view at all. And I am not convinced that the political and economic aspirations of my more socialistic brethren are the answer to poverty.
Lastly, I sort of think that motives are very important, because the results certain motives seek are not aimed at helping the object but the subject: I hand money to the beggar on the street not to bless him but to bless myself. Is this the narcissism of which you speak? Surely the poorest have choices: they can choose to beg or not. Perhaps there is narcissism in their seeking handouts: surely they offer a place for me to exorcize my guilty conscience, but their ultimate concern is solely themselves.
My point is not to chastize the poor. It is to point at motives solely to ensure that our projects are absolutely the best for the needs they seek to meet. It is possible, I think, to damn someone with gestures too generous, even too benevolent. Our care must be loving, and wise. Too often we serve like fools.
Peace to you,
Gnade
Gnade, thanks for the ideas.
ReplyDeleteMy point was and is very simple. . .and very pragmatic. I see, live alongside and know--actually very well--many very low-income people. I see how hard they work. I watch them attempt to provide better lives for their children and I watch their children struggle to achieve. Like the middle class and the rich, they are not perfect, but much works against them.
That being my baseline of reality, I don't care why people begin to move toward justice--charity is not enough--or fairness and I don't care why people do an occassional act of compassion. The bottom line is not much is actually being done and the poor are hurting. So, whoever wants to step up for whatever reason, come on to the party.
My point about your concern over the motives of the givers is that from my perspective it is a waste of time. Most abstract discussions like this are all about control anyway, aren't they?
Peace!
extremist, sorry, I meant no disrespect with my post or "question." It was rhetorical, actually, so I guess I should apologize again!
ReplyDeleteCouldn't find your "why play leap frog" reference. I would ask you about minimum wage, how much do you make an hour?
All the best.