John H Armstrong

What Are the Real Solutions to Poverty in America?

The argument about poverty and how to address it creates more debates among serious Christians than almost any concern I know. Some Christians believe the response should be to tax the rich and redistribute wealth through government safety nets and programs. Other Christians are equally convinced that such programs are not only unnecessary but downright harmful. When incentive is removed and the poor are given government aid it destroys their dignity and creates a welfare dependency that is a serious problem. So far as I can tell this debate has raged in America all my life. 

In the religious world this debate plays out constantly. Jim Wallis and Sojourners focus on condemning greed and promoting social justice through government solutions. Others, including many that I am closer to in this debate, argue that income inequality is itself a form of greed. Both sides argue their point of view with conviction and sometimes their arguments become rather fierce, even mean-spirited. 

In 2010 1.6 million children in the US were homeless and more than 15% of Americans lived below the poverty line. Worst of all, several million children are actually hungry in a serious way. Some will only get a decent meal in school thus creating a two-day fast every weekend. Meanwhile, our political leaders debate all of this while our national debt is out of control and threatens the well-being of millions of both the poor and middle-class Americans. 

In a USA Today Monday Focus (2/27) Anna Williams, an editorial page intern and recent graduate of Hillsdale College, reminds us that hidden from the public eye are the many people who don’t argue about poverty but who choose to live out a lifestyle that seeks to alleviate it. Williams is referring to Catholic monks and nuns. While their commitment, says Williams, is radical they offer to all of us some valuable lessons. Their primary motive is not political. Their primary motive is living out the love of Christ in practical and simple ways. They run homeless shelters, food pantries, medical clinics, etc. By the way there are evangelicals doing the same but their number seems more difficult to determine and much harder to track. 

This much we know. Since the first century there have been Christians who took a vow of poverty so that they could give themselves entirely to living with and serving the poor. These people have no personal bank accounts, no cars, no computers and no cell phones. This sacrifice is, for those who make it, not so much a sacrifice as a way to freedom. It is their way of loving God and their neighbors. 

Fr. Peter Funk of the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Chicago says, “Once we have things, we want to protect them, and we also can get used to satisfying our desires in a way that we don’t get to the bottom of our root desire for God.” This is the point really. Not simply living a life of extreme poverty but rather  getting to the root of our true desire, namely to know God’s love in Christ very deeply. 

These monks and nuns, and similar lay orders as well, reject the concept of self-reliance and depend on one another for their support, trusting God to work out the rest through their community. 

Anna Williams writes, “Though it’s difficult to separate politics from social policy, party affiliation is irrelevant to people wondering how to feed their kids or pay their health care bills. Americans have justifiably low expectations of the government’s ability to solve the world’s problems. But individuals can still open up their wallets and their hearts to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and think of others rather than just themselves. So how can we do this better?”

First, as these monks and nuns all admit a vow of poverty is not for everyone, not even for most Christians. But we can all heed St. Gregory’s advice and "Not let what you own, own you.” And we can follow Mother Teresa’s advice, at least sometimes, to “give until it hurts.” She specifically said, “We are supposed to stretch our hearts a little bit, to be open to giving even if it hurts, because that’s the test of love.”

Williams concludes, rightly I believe, that these religious bands and groups offer better relief to our society than all the programs that we fight about politically. And there is evidence that a growing number of younger Catholics and Protestants are forming “new monastic” communities where this lifestyle is being taken very seriously in fresh and creative ways. 

Will these response solve all our poverty-related problems? It is quite unlikely. Some form of government safety-net is still needed and even most conservatives agree with this premise. What troubles so many conservatives is the wasteful and harmful way that such federal programs are administered and abused.  I would argue that those programs that are closest to the real people in need are usually the best. Those people who actually see the need in the real faces of people can do the best job of serving those people. This is much more than a budget debate. It is a human crisis debate that should awaken us in America today. We would do best to admit that we have the problem and then discuss how to proceed. One thing is for sure, while many of us are talking and debating during an election season many are hungry and some of our fellow Christians are actually doing something about this problem rather than discussing political solutions, pro and con. 

I find it sad that so many Democrats who say they care deeply about the poor are often wealthy people who want government to solve the problem through more taxation. I think of business tycoons and Hollywood stars who favor the government way in this matter. Then there are Republicans who fight against this viewpoint by arguing for the role of private charity while their giving records reveal little or no evidence that they have done much at all to help the poor. 

The one thing you and I can all do. We can adopt a more selfless focus, based on what we see in those who live in these unique communities of faith. We can then proceed to simplify our lifestyles for the sake of those in need. While this choice will not be the same for all of us it will require each of us to take stock and ask some hard questions that we ought to be asking more than ever. 

Finding Our Way Back to the Mission of Jesus

In my personal conservative (white) background the mission of Jesus was understood in almost entirely private and individual terms. We were called to preach the gospel to the lost and then to call on them to come to Jesus personally. That was it. Everything else was just an "add-on" (not part of the gospel or necessary) since this private spiritual message is what really mattered. Over the last several decades I have come to question this assumption very deeply. I question it because it simply doesn't fit into the narrative of the four Gospels, the message we see in the life and mission of Jesus. Recently a story in Luke 4 reminded me of this point afresh.

¹⁴ Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. ¹⁵ He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

   ¹⁶ He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, ¹⁷ and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

   ¹⁸ “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, 
   because he has anointed me 
   to proclaim good news to the poor. 
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners 
   and recovery of sight for the blind, 
to set the oppressed free, 
   ¹⁹ to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

   ²⁰ Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. ²¹ He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

I believe we need to find our way back to the mission of Jesus. This plainly includes announcing good news to people as individuals. But notice who is in view when the "good news" is proclaimed in this story by Jesus. It is the poor! And notice that prisoners are also in view here. Plus, verse 19 mentions "the year of the Lord's favor." This is Jubilee. The concept of Jubilee is almost entirely missing in the gospel that I have heard over the years from white evangelicals like me. Jubilee has implications for all of public life. I have begun to rethink all of this very deeply. If Luke 4:18 is not a mission statement then I do not know what one is. 

The gospel does proclaim forgiveness of sin but it also proclaims release and renewal. It focuses the good news on the poor and those in prison; i.e. the weak and powerless. Jubilee is a time when old debts are canceled and people are given the chance to start over. (If America wanted to really help poor and hungry nations in bondage we could proclaim a Jubilee year and give them a new start!) This good news just cannot be limited to private spiritual needs if this text is read canonically; i.e. in the light of the whole Bible. 

It is time for us to find our way back to the gospel mission of Jesus! Let the conversation begin by addressing the inequalities that permeate our churches, towns and nation. If we remain silent the stones might cry out the true good news since we have hidden it for so long. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

 

Religion & Liberty: A Magazine Your Should Read

I admit my own bias but one of my favorite magazines is Religion & Liberty, published by the Acton Institute. You can get a print subscription but you can also read issues online. The most recent issue features a great interview on "Rethinking Mission to the Poor." This is vintage Acton thinking expressed by the kind of people who have made a real difference working with the poor. Check out the current issue at Acton's magazine site.

While you're there check out the November-December issue for 2010. You might recognize the guy on the cover. I hope you will enjoy the interview they did with me. I was very pleased with the finished product and how they told my story through this interview. 

I am very pleased to serve Acton as a partner by being a Senior Advisor. In this role I represent Acton to evangelical leaders and seminary professors. I am pleased to say that the job is delightful and the work is a lot of fun for me. It fits with my missional-ecumenism vision wonderfully. This is why my most recent book, The Unity Factor, is also published by Acton. You can get it for a very good price in the Acton bookshop online.  

Acton's web site is well worth your time. Check out all the resources and the wealth of great material on freedom and economics. 

Africa and the Free Market

I’ve engaged more than a few Christians in public forums on the problem of poverty in Africa. No continent has more problems with true poverty and caring for the desperately poor than Africa. It has, up to now, resisted almost every effort to change this situation. But the times are changing, slowly but surely.

A new report from the African Development Bank says that Africa’s middle class will triple to more than one billion people in the next half century. This will not close the huge gap between Africa and Asia but it will bring good news for huge numbers of Africans who presently face a very grim future.

This same report provides a bright outlook on African growth—it predicts the gross national product of Africa will expand by more than 5% per year.

Understand that Africa has never experienced such economic optimism. It has been no more than an afterthought in the global economy until recently. This is now clearly, slowly changing. If the leaders of African nations, and this is the real wild card in this scenario, seize this moment then change could be even deeper and longer lasting. If they revert to past failures and corruption then the people will suffer for generations to come.

There is honest debate about how large Africa’s middle class really is at the present. Some say that it is as low as 2% of the total population. Regardless of what reports you believe their is hope for new African economic growth. Small business is being fostered by investment and micro-loans, something Christians are doing with much success.

China and India have lifted more people into the middle class than any two nations in the world, at least all over the last two decades. The reason this has happened is that both countries have embraced global markets and promoted more economic freedom. China is a long way from being a truly free nation. India is the world’s largest democracy. Both nations have lured global manufacturing but Africa could seize this moment and offer cheaper labor and service than Asia and thereby grow faster. Will it? Time will tell.

A great deal of this growth depends on politics and good leaders. While we give to support the poorest in Africa, which Christians should do, let us also work for expanding the economy of this needy continent. To do so is simply good economics linked with freedom and real compassion.

Justice, the Kingdom of God and Reading the Bible

A recent article on the Christianity Today web site brought considerable surprise to many. The article revealed that a recent poll sponsored by LifeWay Research found that owning a Bible is quite different from reading it. Most polls, surveys, and studies that have examined the Bible's influence in America have looked at views of its inspiration and various methods of interpretation. Gallup, for example, has routinely asked Americans how literally the Bible should be taken. But almost no research has looked into what happens when people actually read the Bible. This new research, conducted by Baylor University, indicates that reading the Bible on one's own makes a real difference but the difference is one that some did not see coming.

First, frequent Bible reading does have some predictable effects. It increases opposition to abortion as well as to homosexual unions. It also boosts a belief that science helps reveal God's glory. It also diminishes hopes that science will eventually solve humanity's problems. But unlike some other religious practices, reading the Bible more often has some other (much less expected) effects. Christianity Today suggested that these effects are more akin to liberal political beliefs than conservative ones. They also noted that the research shows us that this is true even when you account for factors such as political beliefs, education level, income level, gender, race, and religious measures (like which religious tradition one affiliates with, and one's views of biblical literalism). You can read the whole story for yourself.

Frequent Bible reading influences one’s views about criminal justice, opposition to the death penalty, national security, the war on terrorism, the environment and a number of related (not so politically conservative) issues. And the way Bible reading influences how people think about these issues is what shocked some readers. The more someone reads the Bible, the more likely he or she is, for example, to believe science and religion are compatible. But some of the most interesting findings related to moral attitudes. "How important is it," the survey asked, "to actively seek social and economic justice in order to be a good person?" As you might expect, those with more liberal political leanings were more likely to say it's very or somewhat important. But those who read the Bible more often were more likely to agree. Indeed, they were almost 35 percent more likely to agree at each point used on Baylor University’s five-point scale. Christianity Today adds, “That may be bad news for Glenn Beck, who last year told believers to leave their churches if they hear ‘social justice’ language being used.” (I’ll say no more about Glenn Beck resisting the temptation to tell you what I really think about him!)

These results do not surprise me at all. I talk to younger Christians almost every day. I can tell you that they think for themselves and that they read their Bible for themselves. (There are dangers here, I acknowledge, since evangelicals read their Bible without concern for the larger church and the ancient faith!) But these Bible readers also ask great questions that most political conservatives either ignore or trash in the public diatribes of our day.

The reason I believe this is happening is that a new concern for justice is growing as Christians read the Bible more holistically. When open minded people really read the Bible, and do not simply listen to their politically conservative churches tell them how to think about every single issue, they find real surprises in the Scripture. And they are willing to think outside the box much more than my generation.

Clearly, one of the overwhelming concerns of the biblical text, and of Jesus' teaching in particular, is for social justice and the plight of the poor. A growing change in attitudes about this truth is also reflected in the growth of better missiology joined with real concerns about how the gospel addresses personal and systemic sin. When wealthy and middle-class Christians read the Bible with a conservative political perspective they miss whole elements of the gospel itself, reducing the good news to the question of how to get my soul saved and then get into heaven when I die. Apparently new Bible readers who actually bother to listen to the text see other concerns besides those of a politically conservative way of thinking.

In the end this comes back to the issue of discipleship. Put more particularly, are mission, personal discipleship and social justice (all three) intimately connected in the  Bible or are they separate and unequal paradigms? The relationship between these three is very clear when you read the Bible for all its worth and not repeat conservative political mantras. I would submit that even the terms liberal and conservative are rather meaningless if you read the Bible properly. I think the Spirit is up to something here. I am ready to embrace where I believe the Lord is leading us in understanding and applying the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel that I grew up with was racist, elitist and closed to corporate repentance in profound ways. I welcome this recovery of the gospel of the kingdom and await what God will now do with new leaders that I get the privilege of teaching and sharing with almost daily. I am doubly blest to have this joy. These are exciting times in which to live the good news of the kingdom. If you feel otherwise you will likely grow weary and succumb to one or more of the regnant theories of eschatology and culture that fosters pessimism.

What Andreas Widmer Learned About Business and Entrepreneurship from the Pope

Business entrepreneur Andreas Widmer has a truly great story to tell. His new book, The Pope and the CEO, tells this story and makes a hugely valuable point about both business and poverty. Widmer says, “The pope showed me what real leadership looks like. He modeled for me how to pursue our God-given potential. Not coincidentally, this also makes us and those around us better employees, more capable of and more willing to work hard at building a stronger company. That is something that makes both good human sense and good business sense.” Amen!

Andreas Widmer served as a member of the elite Swiss Guard for two years. The guard is a security detail that protects the pope. (I had the opportunity to talk to some members of the Swiss Guard at the Vatican in March and find their work very interesting.)  In this new book Andreas Widmer gives us a behind-the-scenes look into the life and thinking of Pope John Paul II, “the most authentically human person I’ve ever met.” He reveals how these memories shaped and forged his own success, after he served at the Vatican, as a corporate executive.

Papal biographer George Weigel has called Widmer’s story a powerful example of leadership at work. In this new book Widmer recounts his personal experiences in serving Pope John Paul II and then relates the secrets of successful leadership that he learned directly from the pope. Both the story and the secrets are worth the time and the book.

Widmer moved up the ladder of business success and eventually became senior management in a $600 million company.This company, Dargon Systems, developed voice recognition system for computers. When he helped to sell the company he was involved he relates that he learned a hard lesson. The company that bought the business was fraudulent. He says the leaders of Dragon went with their stomach not their heart and they paid for it deeply. He began to think a lot more deeply about business rather than just balance sheets. The result of this process shows powerfully in his new book.

What Andreas Widmer says the pope actually taught him was about the value and importance of entrepreneurship. The pope said that when you look at the market you must focus on the goal, not the system itself. He says the pope taught him that the real human goal of any enterprise was human flourishing and prosperity. These results, flourishing and profit making, rests on three legs: (1) The freedom that comes from participatory government. We must be able to vote and have a say in the direction of our human affairs. (2) A free economy. The law must be “blind.” Everyone is the same before the law. Without this freedom, joined with the “rule of law,” economic association will not work properly. (3) A robust public moral culture. This is the only thing that will check the appetites of the first two. Put simply greedy capitalism is a real problem but the solution is not to attack freedom.

You can watch Widmer talk about these principles and his new book on a recent Wall Street Journal interview. The interviewer should have allowed Widmer to talk more but the second half of the interview is worth waiting for it you take eight minutes to see it. Andreas Widmer is part of the Seven Fund. SEVEN (Social Equity Venture Fund) is a virtual non-profit entity run by
entrepreneurs whose strategy is to markedly increase the rate of innovation and diffusion of enterprise-based solutions to poverty. I am also pleased to say that Andreas Widmer also has a relationship with Acton Institute.

The Great Reversal

Historians have long written of what they call “The Great Reversal.” By this term they are referring to a time in the early twentieth century when evangelical Protestants turned away from their earlier position about the poor, a position that had a lot more in common with the language I used yesterday about a “preferential option for the poor.”

But thanks to men like John R. Stott the global evangelical Protestant church began to move back to its earlier emphasis in the last few decades of the twentieth century. This movement is still going on and the younger leaders of churches in North America are calling for this stance more and more. I believe this is a healthy development all around.

Put in theological terms there is an intrinsic link between theology and ethics, thus the way we respond to the persecuted and marginalized demonstrates whether or not we are acting in faith and obedience to Christ.

But is God on the “side” of the poor? And if so what does this mean?

The term “poor” is a comprehensive term in the New Testament. What makes persons poor in the biblical sense is that they have been treated unfairly, unjustly. This is often done by the wealthy and powerful. These are those who cannot help but be anxious about tomorrow (Matt. 6:34) or about what they will eat or wear (Matt. 6:25). The standard wage, a denarius a day, was barely enough to keep a small family at the subsistence level. If such a laborer could not find work for even a few days his family was destitute. This is the context of the Lord’s Prayer and the fourth petition: “Give us this day our daily bread.” It is a prayer for survival!

Jesus came to inaugurate the Kingdom of God and he did it among the poor, the lowly and the despised. This astounded his critics. What Jesus is doing, and thereby saying, is that the wretched life of the poor is contrary to God’s Kingdom purposes. What is amazing here is that Jesus’ Kingdom embraces both the rich and the poor, both sinners and saints (so-called). His mission breaks down hostility between races and classes. This is how we should understand the command to love undoubte4dlyone’s enemies, which has often been called the most characteristic saying of Jesus!

David Bosch wrote:

Luke undoubtedly wishes to communicate to his readers what is today often referred to as God’s preferential option for the poor, but this option cannot be interpreted in any exclusive sense. It does not exclude God’s concern for the rich, but in fact, stresses it for, in both his gospel and Acts, Luke wishes his readers to know that there is hope for the rich, insofar as they act and serve in solidarity with the poor and oppressed. In their being converted to God, rich and poor are converted toward each other. The main emphasis, ultimately, is on sharing, on community (David Bosch, Transforming Mission, 104).

This is what has been rightly called “whole-life discipleship.” Jesus will not save those who reject him as Lord over all of our life, public and private. This is why the Lausanne Committee, under John R. Stott’s influence, has underscored a call to a simple lifestyle from the beginning. And the World Evangelical Fellowship has taken this initiative further by stressing both God’s “preferential option for the poor” and his judgment upon oppressors. Jesus’ own identification with the poor, which is undeniable to anyone who reads the Gospels, is also rightly stressed in these growing movements that have addressed the problems brought about by “The Great Reversal.”

In summary, the poor are not loved more by God than the rich. The “preference” for them is not rooted in their being “better” than any other class or people. The “preference” is itself a display of God’s deep love for all people, especially those who are trampled on and mistreated by the rich and those who oppress.

“God’s Preferential Option for the Poor”

Over the last two centuries wealth has grown in the West. Now it spreads to other parts of the world through a growing globalized economic system. I am a huge proponent of this growth and believe one way of addressing the issues of poverty is through global business and the growth of education and jobs that go along with it. At the same time there are serious dangers associated with wealth, especially in the absence of true virtue.

Yesterday I referred to the way modern Western Christians began to read the Bible statements about the poor metaphorically once wealth increased and more Christians had more income. This problem has resulted in a number of aberrant responses, one of which was Latin American liberation theology.

I refer often to recently published The Cape Town Commitment. I believe it is the most important global mission statement in the twenty-first century. Here is an important excerpt, addressing the dangers of prosperity emphasis from the West, taken from Section IIE of the document:

We affirm that there is a biblical vision of human prospering, and that the Bible includes material welfare (both health and wealth) within its teaching about the blessing of God. However, we deny as unbiblical the teaching that spiritual welfare can be measured in terms of material welfare, or that wealth is always a sign of God’s blessing. The Bible shows that wealth can often be obtained by oppression, deceit or corruption. We also deny that poverty, illness or early death are always a sign of God’s curse, or evidence of lack of faith, or the result of human curses, since the Bible rejects such simplistic explanations

We accept that it is good to exalt the power and victory of God. But we believe that the teachings of many who vigorously promote the prosperity gospel seriously distort the Bible; that their practices and lifestyle are often unethical and un-Christlike; that they commonly replace genuine evangelism with miracle-seeking, and replace the call to repentance with the call to give money to the preacher’s organization. We grieve that the impact of this teaching on many Churches is pastorally damaging and spiritually unhealthy. We gladly and strongly affirm every initiative in Christ’s name that seeks to bring healing to the sick, or lasting deliverance from poverty and suffering. The prosperity gospel offers no lasting solution to poverty, and can deflect people from the true message and means of eternal salvation. For these reasons it can be soberly described as a false gospel. We therefore reject the excesses of prosperity teaching as incompatible with balanced biblical Christianity.

Where prosperity teaching happens in the context of poverty, we must counter it with authentic compassion and action to bring justice and lasting transformation for the poor. Above all we must replace self-interest and greed with the biblical teaching on self-sacrifice and generous giving as the marks of true discipleship to Christ. We affirm Lausanne's historic call for simpler lifestyles.

I titled this blog “God’s Preferential Option for the Poor.” It must be stated, in complete candor, that this expression comes from the published preceedings of a Catholic conference held in Mexico in 1979, right in the midst of the strongest influence of liberation theology. I happen to agree with this way of putting it and thus would like to show you why and what difference this emphasis and understanding might have in reforming the thought and life of churches and Christians.

First, you will note that the statement does not say that God is only interested in the poor. The word used is “option.” This does not mean “optional.” The point here is that in the kingdom of God the poor are the first, though clearly not the only ones, on which God’s attention is focused. For this reason the church should also focus on the poor by demonstrating deep solidarity with them in their plight.

But there is a real danger here. In suggesting that there is “a church for others” (in this case for the poor) instead of a “church with others” we can give money and aid to the poor but not embrace them as Jesus in our midst. All this reflects on what I wrote yesterday about having the genuinely poor inside our churches when we gather.

The point I am making here must not be missed. It is not so much a case of the poor needing the church as it is that the church needs the poor. Why? If we wish to stay close to our Lord then we need to stay close to the poor. The poor are not the objects of our mission or the means but the agents and bearers of our message. God has a predilection for the weak and the abused of human history and we stand with the Son of God when we share in his predilection!

The Gospel of Luke seems to make this point in numerous ways. In the third Gospel the poor are a kind of “all-embracing category for those who were the victims of society” (David Bosch, Transforming Mission, 436). The poor are “marginalized and this marginality comprises all spheres of life and is often so extensive that people feel that they have no resources to do anything about it” (Bosch, 436-7). Women, widows and orphans get the same place in Luke.

There can be no doubt that in both the Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus there is a significant emphasis upon the poor and their plight. Much of this was preserved in the first three centuries of church history. Basil the Great was “an indefatigable champion of the poor” thus a misiologist in our lifetime could write, “the rediscovery of the poor . . . is also a reaffirmation of an ancient theological tradition.” (Bosch, 436).

Traditionally, Western theology emphasizes one’s relationship with the poor in terms of ethics, not of theology or epistemology. I believe theology and ethics cannot be separated in this way. Simply put, once we recognize that Jesus lived among the ,and loved the poor so deeply, we can no longer consider our own relationship to the poor as a matter of simple ethics when it is really a gospel/mission question.

This does not mean that God loves only the poor. He loves the rich too. But the conversion of the wealthy calls them to humble themselves in a way that leads them to turn away from the idols they have made of their wealth (money), race and prestigious positions of power.

The Church and the Poor in Our Midst

My post on Monday, regarding the politics of cutting the federal budget and the dangers of these cuts harming the poor in the process of attempting to balance our federal budget, struck a nerve. For this I am grateful. I have continued to reflect on several comments and responses, from both this site and my Facebook page.

One person wrote on Facebook: “As a Pastor in the U.S. I can state, unequivocally , that if the care of the poor were given to the church in it's present state the poor would cease to exist as a class in one year. They would starve to death the first Summer and freeze to death the first Winter.”

There is a note of cynicism in this comment but it makes the point. People often say, “Let the church help the poor.” I want to ask, “Which churches and how will they do this on such a massive scale?” Show me the way this works and how it would help right now?

The same Facebook friend later added: “Many leaders in my church believe the poor are poor because they are lazy, addicted, you fill in the blank. Unfortunately I believe this condition is prevalent in most churches across the US.”

I completely agree with both of these comments. In fact these comments, and others like them, prompted me to think further about this issue.

When I flew home from Rome in March I sat with a brother from South India. He was coming to the US for a job interview. We talked about his job, his family, his dreams, his ideas about America, etc. After hours of talking I asked him, “The large evangelical church that you attend in the south of India, do you have the genuinely poor in your congregation and are they a part of the regular ministry of your church? Do they actually sit by your family week-by-week and do you really know poor Christians personally?” He answered in the affirmative. I then told him, “Do not expect to find a church in the suburbs of Chicago where this will be true.” And if he found it in the city it would be rare, though more likely in some areas.

I’ve thought about that conversation quite often since March.  At least in the broad sense it is clearly the truth. We have many large evangelical churches with full-service operations (all within a few miles of my home) but I know of only one nearby church of 400-plus worshipers where week-by-week there are quite a few poor people actively attending and sitting in the congregation.

Now I know more than a few churches who give food away and offer modest financial and social help to the poor. But I know none where the poor have a significant role in the life and mission of their church. They do not serve on committees, boards or in leadership.

James 1:26-27 plainly says heart religion that is “pure and undefiled” includes “visiting orphans and widows in their trouble.” Faithful Christians are called to be the guardians of the poor. In this first century Roman context the poorest and weakest were women without husbands and their (often starving) children. (This is still so today, with single mothers being a high percentage of the truly poor in modern society!) Ignatius of Antioch said, “Do not let the widows be neglected; after the Lord, you must be their guardian.” Whether a woman is a widow because of her husband’s death or because of his abandonment of the family it does not matter. She is single, poor and has children in need!

The same Epistle of James urges the “lowly brother to glory in his exaltation” (James 1:9). Those who have the least here on earth will often have then most in the Kingdom of heaven (see James 2:5; Matthew 5:3 and Luke 1:52). In James 2 the writer adds, “Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he proclaimed to those who love Him?” (v. 5). The point seems to be that the poor are more likely to repent and renounce this world for the sake of the kingdom!

But the portion of James that has always caught my attention in this regard did so once again as I reflected on this issue of the poor and our social networks that were designed to help them cope in the wealthiest society in human history. James writes: “For example, suppose someone comes into your meeting [church] dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewelry, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in dirty clothes. If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, ‘You can stand over there, or else sit on the floor’ – well, doesn’t this discrimination show that your judgments are guided by evil motives?”

The reference here to clothes is clearly intended to reveal a sharp contrast in socioeconomic status. It is a natural, normal, human thing to give special preference to those whose social status, political power and potential generosity is very evident. By making those of means our priority we can gain the economic benefits we desire (need). But discrimination here reveals our “evil motives” in many cases. Following this warning is the aforementioned verse 5 about God choosing the poor to be rich in faith.

The Old Testament is filled with expressions of God’s compassion for the poor, the alien and the stranger. Jesus picks these themes up and demonstrates them in his mission. He incarnates God’s love of the poor (Luke 4:18; 6:20) and even speaks of those who love the poor as loving and serving him. “If you have done it unto the least of these . . . you have done it to me.”

The problem we have is that we live in a world where “millions of people enjoy a standard of material wealth that few kings and queens could match” (Newbigin) prior to the last hundred years or so. As a result of increased wealth the way that we interpret the biblical teaching on poverty has increasingly been spiritualized and interpreted metaphorically. The “poor” are the “poor in spirit” thus they are those who recognize their utter dependence upon God. In this sense the rich can be poor. So we slowly moved away from the biblical message about the poor.

Now we are a wealthy society on the brink of huge monetary chaos. We surely need to solve some very big problems. Christians are often at the forefront of making the most noise about how to solve the problem by radical budget cutting. I believe we should urge the Congress and the President to find effective ways to solve our debt problem. What I was saying on  Monday was clear and straightforward – we cannot, or should not, solve the debt problem by balancing the budget in a way that directly harms the genuinely poor who need our help more than ever.

Earlier, I quoted a Facebook response to my Monday post in which the writer notes that many of us believe, “the poor are poor because they are lazy, addicted, you fill in the blank.” I am profoundly convinced that this observation is true. I know people scam the system and often are those who live debauched and immoral lives. They use the provisions of our federal and state system to draw income they should not receive. This calls for further reform. But this illustration, though clearly true, is far less true than it was before the Clinton era reform of welfare in the 1990s! But such stereotypes only need one or two human faces to support a conclusion about the evils of government aid to the genuinely needy.

The strongest evidence says that most of the poor are poor because of the cycle of poverty, the lack of basic job skills, the presence of drugs, the impact of bad schools, etc. But one of the unseen, and rarely spoken about, reasons is mental illness. The poor have little or no access to mental health care. The result is that many studies now estimate that the vast majority of the poor (an increasingly large numbers are military veterans) suffer from treatable illnesses.

Let me provide one illustration that I know firsthand. I have a diagnosed case of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). I have written about it here on several previous occasions. I get what medical treatment I can, which is minimal but it does help. At one time this strange illness was rather cruelly called “The Yuppie Flu.” Why? Because the patients that the doctors saw, and this was before we even knew this was a viral illness, saw the symptoms only in people who fit the category of yuppies. The assumption was that no one who was poor had this illness. This myth was long ago shattered. The real problem is now recognized – many poor people suffer from the CFS but cannot get a proper diagnosis, much less care or treatment. They feel overwhelmingly tired, un-refreshed by sleep and “flu-like” all the time. They assume that this is normal since this is what they’ve known for years and they cannot go to the ER for CFS treatment. If they did they would get no help!

I am not a proponent of the specific type of health care program passed by Congress in a more recent moment of euphoria. But I do believe we can do much better for the poor if we had the will to do right. I believe our stereotypes and misplaced values have caused us to lose our way as a society and the resulting budget debates will likely harm the poor more than ever. This is why I look at all the talk about budget cuts, and the promises to slash government spending, much more carefully than I did a few years ago. Then I comfortably refused to notice the poor and needy who are all around me.

My Struggle with The GOP’s Hard Stance on Social Services

The Republican Party opposes the continual escalation of government with a passion. (The consistency of this stance is debatable historically but I’m not addressing this matter in this particular post.) How will we stop the ever rising debt that we have created and save our federal government from financial collapse? The answer, if we are honest, is anyone’s guess. Both parties have delayed for so long that the dangers are profoundly real. They will not go away this week or next. One scenario has us bailing out on our debt. Others have towns and cities, even states, going into bankruptcy. What this will do is almost beyond imagination. I personally stand to lose my small pension and be very adversely impacted.

Having said this I cannot agree with the irresponsible way many in the GOP speak about cutting certain social services for the poor. Let me explain.

About 60% of the elderly in nursing care rely on Medicaid to pay for their services. And at the beginning of life about one-third of all births are covered by Medicaid. I have a forthcoming blog, in a few days, about the concerns of a consistent pro-life position. Somehow I cannot grasp how cutting this needed support will help to save lives! To defend pro-life and cut essential services for the poorest Americans seems inconsistent to my mind.

When I listen to some conservatives talk about cutting government spending I wonder if some of them actually know any really poor people. What about those who need help to feed their children and food stamps are a lifeline? And what about special-needs kids who have a divorced mom who cares for them? They could not make it without the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition assistance the government provides. These people are our neighbors. A society that allows them to fall into deeper poverty, and their children to not get basic assistance, is one that cares very little about justice or mercy. I personally do not want to live in such a society.

When the GOP talks about cutting government programs I urge you to ask, “How many of these important programs are involved in these cuts?” Yes, the economic reality of the moment is grim. And one in seven Americans is living in poverty. Religious and other charities are in deep trouble and cannot do the whole work that is needed. Food banks report as much as a 50% shortage right now.

In a recent appeal to deal with the present budget crisis Rep. Paul Ryan (R. WI), who is a Catholic, suggested that we cut food stamps by 20%, which some estimate would turn away as many as 450,000 poor women and children from WIC nutrition assistance. The plans offered over the past few weeks by various GOP leaders would also cut as much as $1.5 trillion from Medicaid payments, again based on some reports. The same plans speak strongly about tax-cuts that would include as much as $3 trillion for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Look, I am well aware that we need real economic stimulus and this means helping business. (I especially want to help small-business, which is till the backbone of our economy!) I am thus opposed to almost all additional taxation, again for reasons that relate to how you can actually improve an economy. I am persuaded that President Obama’s forms of stimulus have done little or nothing to help us recover. But must we solve our current problems by hurting the most needy among us? Listening to some of my most conservative friends this sounds exactly like what they do believe.

The standard conservative line is that government aid programs trap people in a poverty cycle and this will not provide them what they truly need – a good job. On a certain level I agree, if the person can be trained and helped to get a job. But on another level I think we dare not solve the bigger problems that we face by hurting the poor even more in the process. Somehow we must see that this doesn’t serve the best interests of the weakest people in our country.

The church preaches a message of love. Love is caritas, or sacrifice. The question here is simple and complex: How does caritas inform government and social services? Some seem to think that it has nothing to do with it at all. I am not among them even though I am such a strong advocate of the “free market” and deeply oppose socialism as an economic model.

Clearly, we must address the national debt. We have put this off for too long. But I am deeply suspicious of both parties at this point. We had some outstanding ideas offered from a non-partisan committee that both parties rejected months ago. (I wrote about this at the time too.) I do not see either party really serious about the problems we currently face. They both seem intent on winning the next election so they posture accordingly.

My point, however, is that it is wrong to use this present crisis to destroy the public safety nets that are already in place to assist the genuinely poor. Could some wealthier citizens forego new/old tax breaks to help those who have almost nothing? Could we seriously trim the breaks that we afford to many in the upper 2% of our society? At risk moms and children deserve more from those who call themselves Christians, regardless of their party affiliation.

Stephen Schneck, the director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America, urges Catholics to write letters to Congress to remind our legislators of three things:

1. Budgets must protect human life and dignity.

2. Needs of the hungry and homeless, those without work or poor, should come first.

3. Government and other institutions have a responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families struggling to live in dignity in difficult times.

I find those three appeals a simple basic expression of caritas. Can Christians argue otherwise and not compromise the very nature of what they profess in public?