If you are reading this to perhaps catch an original thought from myself; today is not the day my friend. Today I would prefer to write about a book that has helped change my mentality of urban poor. I went down to Chicago this past week to help the poor and learn from them. This book was read in preparation of the event. The book is "Theirs is the Kingdom" by Robert D. Lupton. Through Robert Luptons self reflections and honest quips about his life and experiences, I have challenged pre-conceived beliefs that I have previously had about the urban poor. First, let me acknowledge that I have no experience being poor, not even close (although I am in college, I always have enough food to eat and a roof over my head).
"...because (I) realize (I) have not yet seen life through their eyes. (I) don't know how it feels to be chronically jobless with no legal capacity to support a wife or family. (I) don't understand how strong young men get trapped in a permanent pool of unneeded labor at the bottom of our economic system. And (I) wonder: how does it feel to be both disdained by society and impotent to achieve within your culture even the most basic position of respect - the head of the household?"
(a quote from Roberts, and just assume if you see any more quotes in this post that they are also from him). I have a heart for the poor, but is it a faulty one. I give to the poor, but do I let them give back to me? Do I belive they have anything to give back to me? Can I learn something from them? Roberts puts well into words my arrogant attitude that I didn?t even realized I had.
"I have resources and abilities to cloth the ill-clad, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless. These are good works that our Lord requires of us. And there is blessedness in this kind of giving. But there is also a power that allows me to retain control. My position as a helper protects me from the humiliation of appearing to need help. Even more sobering, I condemn those I help to the permanent role of recipient. When my goal is to change people, I subtly communicate: Something is wrong with you; I am okay. You are ignorant; I am enlightened. You are wrong; I am right. If our relationship is defined as healer to patient, I must remain strong and you must remain sick for our interaction to continue. People don?t go to doctors when they are well. The process of "curing" then, cannot serve long as basis for a relationship that is life producing for both parties. Small wonder that we who have come to the city to save the poor find it difficult to enter into true community with those we think needy."
But yet how necessary this is. Anyone can serve the homeless a meal or two. One does not loose their pride in that. It is in walking along side and being a friend, even associated with, is quite a different story. That sad thing is many don?t even take time from their busy schedules to serve the needy, let alone befriend those in poverty.
"But when I am honest with myself, I must admit that I cannot fully care for one who is suffering without entering into his pain. The sick must be touched if they are to be healed. The weak must be nourished, the wounded embraced. Care is the bigger part of cure. Yet I fear contagion. I fear my life will get out of control and I will be overwhelmed by the urgent affairs of others?I resist the Christ who beckons his followers to lay down their lives for each other. His talk of a yoke, a cross, of bearing one another?s burdens and giving one?s elf away is not attractive to me. The implications of entering this world of suffering as a "Christ-one," as yeast absorbed into the loaf of human need, are as terrifying as death itself. Yet this is the only way to life. The question is, will I choose life?"
But it?s not my problem. Many chose that life. A lot of the people are mental and are happier being homeless. All are excuses, all prevent us in facing the facts. Do you know what the average age of poverty is? It's 9 years old. Quite far from the stereotypical crazy old man with a beard like you see in the movies. There is many people who are homeless that you would never know it by looking at them. They don?t smell like whisky and don?t talk to someone who?s not there. What are you and I doing about that nine-year-old? You know what I do? I volunteer in homeless shelters and serve perhaps on average six or seven times a year. Is six times all it takes to help me sleep at night? What can I be doing more than just serving? How can I get involved in their life? Can I invite them over to dinner? You see, I don?t want to be a hypocrite. Let?s face it, you don?t love the poor if your not doing anything about poverty. And for people like me who work occasionally to help out?do we have the right heart? Do we truly love them or is it situational love. I was reading from the same book about a group of un-welcoming neighbors who fought to prevent cheaper housing (the cheaper housing was to help those burdened by poverty in the community) from being built across the street. Why? Because they did not want to see their property value decrease. These were not bad people, just your ordinary next door neighbor. But many were NIMBY?s. NIMBY?s will serve at the soup kitchen and give money to the women ringing the Salvation Army bell outside Jefferson and 18th street. But, they have a policy about how close the poor can get to their lives. The NIMBY policy means "Not In My BackYard". How sad that so many of us will go to the poor, but we don?t want the poor coming to us.
It?s their fault. They made the bad decisions? they are living with the consequences. Although I doubt many would be so blatantly harsh, I recognize that there is truth in that statement. But I wonder if a faulty system is also a big part of this? Did everyone have the luxury of being taught that they need to be good stewards of their money? Perhaps they were never taught that need comes before want? Some think that this is innate in a human being, but what if it?s not? What if those hurting are hurting more from a fallen system in a fallen world?
"Welfare. Such a positive word as Webster defines it. But its meaning has changed in recent years. It has become despised. It evokes feelings of anger and resentment. It is the generic term for a system that destroys people. Take people who are able and strong. Place them in the wealthiest land on earth. Surround them with unparalleled opportunity. Then pay them not to work, not to strive, not to achieve. Pay them to accept nonproductively as a way of life. Agree to subsidize their families with food, shelter, health care, and money if the fathers will leave. Do this for two or three generations and see what you produce. You will have a people who are unmotivated and dependent, whose hopes and dreams rise no higher than their subsidies- a people who have lost the work ethic, who have learned that other swill take responsibility for them and who therefore assert little discipline or control over their own lives. You will have emasculated their men, making them expendable and unnecessary to their families? existence. You will have created a generation of pride less, fatherless youth who believe that receiving and taking is better than working and investing. And when you have seen the hope disappear from the eyes of the young, you can be sure you have developed an effective formula for the destruction of a people. We call it welfare."
I do not believe welfare is entirely evil, yet as an individual favoring behaviorist theories (mainly Skinners beliefs), the effects of instant rewards for failure can be quite damaging. Am I suggesting we forget welfare and throw everyone using it out into the street who can?t pay housing? Of course I am?just kidding. No, not in the slightest. But can we not revamp the system. It their not a better way? And in this system, what is our role as the Body of Christ?
"The church ?(is) in a death drift that moves us from serving to preserving. We feel it carrying us along. Our spontaneous fellowship soon becomes a program. Bearing one another?s burdens becomes a budget line item. Self-sacrificing friends become paid professionals with titles (counselor, minister, director) and salary packages, longevity guarantees, and retirement benefits. Our meeting places turn into "holy places" with stained glass, polished oak, and locks. Taking "no thought for tomorrow" becomes sentimental rhetoric as we build bigger barns and amass insurance and endowments and reserve funds against the unpredictable events of our future. But the church has no future. We have only the present. In this present moment we must spend, lavish, and give away our tomorrows for the sake of his kingdom today. In short, we must die. Today. That is the only way to save our lives. The church is called to life at Golgotha. If perchance tomorrow morning we discover that our depleted spirits have a new supply of energy, that the emptied offering plate is full once again, and from sacrificial dreams whole new dimensions of life have burst forth, then we will begin to understand something of what the resurrection is about. In the other side of death, each death, stand our risen Lord. And he beckons us."
Alright, since my blog is pretty much Robert?s blog, due to the amount of his material I have used, I am just going to end my final quote from him:
"Indeed, His (Jesus?) teachings are suicidal for the successful. The downward mobility of the kingdom strikes at the very heart of our earthly strivings. It feels like death to let go of our diligent proportions for the next step up and the investments that insure our tomorrows. Who in their right mind would gamble away a reasonably predictable and secure future on a high-risk, intangible faith venture like the kingdom of God? A balanced portfolio makes more sense. A good mix of earthly investments with enough heavenly stock to carry us if the bottom falls out of the economy. The best of both worlds we might say."
It?s to bad God didn?t leave us that option though:
Matthew 6:24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
