Urbana.org Least of These Blog

The Advocacy Gene

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:15:00 -0600

There are a number of places in scripture where the worship of God’s people is odious to God because of injustice in their midst. Amos says “Take away from me the noise of your songs … but let justice roll down like waters.” (Amos 5:25), and God says through Isaiah, “Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts … I want no more of your pious meetings (Is. 1:13 NLT). His remedy for their useless worship gatherings is advocacy:

“learn to do good;

seek justice,

rescue the oppressed,

defend the orphan,

plead for the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17 NRSV, see also Jeremiah 5:28)

Advocacy is in the DNA of those who know and love God. We see the advocate posture in many Biblical stories – Esther, Moses, Daniel – all of whom stood before powerful kings to advocate for an oppressed people. Part of the reason that advocacy is a “genetic predisposition” of God’s people, is because advocacy is one of the chief characteristics of God himself. King David says of God “He is my advocate and will deliver me ...” (I Sam 24:15 NLT), Christ is described as “an advocate who pleads our case before the Father” (I John 2:1 NLT), and the Holy Spirit is actually named “Advocate” (paraclete Gk).

The form of government designed by God in the Old Testament was essentially just a judicial branch. People were to be governed by wise judges who could guard the weak and powerless and ensure the common good, and average citizens were adjured, “do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd” when testifying before a judge (Ex. 23:2). It is not surprising, then, that defending those who are oppressed – advocacy in its purest form – is a basic Christian discipline.

Clement, an early church father, praised the Corinthian church because members of the church were selling themselves into slavery and using the proceeds to purchase the freedom of others. And early Moravian missionaries thought that the best way to bring good news to African slaves in the West Indies was to sell themselves into slavery alongside them. While these acts do not exemplify addressing systemic change, they do display how some Christians have understood our calling to stand with the dispossessed. If we have the Spirit of God inside us, we will take on the nature of the One who delivers from oppression.

My friends in Vancouver held a Pirates of Justice flash mob at a port where cruise ships dock. They wanted to call attention to the exploitation of cruise ship workers. For them, this was as natural a Christian discipline as reading the Bible or fasting.

How do we grow the spiritual practice of advocacy and deliverance without becoming mired in politics or developing a messiah complex? Some young people working for World Vision helped spawn a youth movement called act:s which is designed to mobilize young adults to engage global poverty. They, along with International Justice Mission and Sojourners, are working to animate the spiritual genetics of justice, deliverance and advocacy at Urbana 09. One way to discover how to properly engage oppressive situations is to enter into dialogue with those who are attempting to walk it out – even if imperfectly.

The desire to live out an advocacy calling is simply an expression of acceptable worship. It is an attempt to grow into our spiritual lineage so that we look more like the God in whose image we were made.

“Father to the fatherless, defender of widows— this is God, whose dwelling is holy. God places the lonely in families; he sets the prisoners free and gives them joy. But he makes the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.” Psalms 68:5-6 (NLT)

The Safe Display of the Rare and the Strange

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:22:00 -0600

A circus came through town

Among the feats of fantastical danger and the acrobatical, body-bending wonders

Beyond the animals, dizzying themselves with their caged pacing

and past the stand selling roasted peanuts and hard striped candy

was a tent boasting the rare and the strange within

and for fifty cents you could see it all.

The rare and the strange

on display

so we can gawk in safety.

Inside were little tarpaulin rooms

marked by words begging wondrous stares to peer behind the curtains

“Amazing! Man with two heads,” read one placard

Past the curtain sat a man with a round hairy growth on his neck

and when he moved, the thing on his neck rolled from one side to the next

like a drunk unable to keep his head upright

drawing the attention of onlookers who love to see

the rare and the strange

on display

so we can gawk in safety.

Across from the two-headed man

another sign seduced the crowd,

“Captured from the Amazon – half monkey half woman!”

Past the curtain was a glass coffin

and the people who gathered looked on in bemused horror

The thing inside was dead, covered in hair

And one couldn’t really tell if it were man or woman

Still, the sight did not disappoint the morbidly curious

who’d come to see

the rare and the strange

on display

so we can gawk in safety.

Next to this room was another sign

“Unbelievable power!

The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven!”

We looked expecting to see a preacher who fills stadiums

or the bones of a saint

Behind the curtain was a little girl of seven or eight

dressed in a tattered, dirty white dress with puffy sleeves.

She was black as Iowa dirt, and shuffled on a clubbed foot.

She looked up from the rags and rubbish she sorted with innocence and excitement

Peering at those who had come to see

the rare and the strange

on display

so we can gawk in safety.

III. Poverty: Not in the Congregation

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:30:00 -0600

This is part 3 of a four-part series. Here are links to Part I and Part II.

When God made the heavens and the earth, he did not create slums. His creation was made to be in a state of flourishing, benevolently governed by humans made in his image. Later, God set his affections on a slave race in order to demonstrate to the world his intentions for human shalom-prosperity-flourishing, and set up an economic and social system so that "there should be no poor" among them (Deut. 15:4); they would lend to many nations but would never need to borrow (Deut 28:12). Land would be redistributed on a regular schedule (Lev. 25) and debts were forgiven on a seven-year cycle (Deut. 15) in order to insure no one would be driven so deep into poverty that they could never get out.

In the early days of the church we glimpse once more God's offense at poverty and his intention to establish a poverty-free kingdom.

When Paul and Barnabas went before the Apostles to be certain that their kingdom-building efforts among the Gentiles were not in vain, "They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which is actually what I was eager to do." (Gal. 2:10). Of all the theological issues the Apostles might have emphasized to Paul and Barnabas in the early days of establishing the church, their only concern was that Paul knew the importance of remembering (or caring for) the poor.

The church, like the nation that God established among the former Hebrew slaves, was to be a place where poverty was non-existent, or at least a rare exception. The early followers of Jesus entered into a community without private ownership or personal hoarding. As a result, they lived a reality that did not include poverty:

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Acts 4:32-35 (Also see Acts 2:44).

In order to eradicate poverty from among them, the followers of Jesus not only denounced private ownership and embraced the idea of communal wealth, but they undertook social programs, such as daily distribution of food to widows. Such systems required time, effort, intention, and a layer of management which they dubbed "servants," (diakonos in Greek) or Deacons. These were the systems and structures adopted to insure that “there was not a needy person among them,” (Acts 4:34) or in the words of the Old Testament Law, “there should be no poor among you.” (Deut. 15:4)

The church was an organism which was to express Christ's kingdom on earth. As such, poverty would not be tolerated. John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul and James all addressed issues of poverty and wealth in their teachings which indicated God's intent that his image-bearers might live lives of material sufficiency and radical generosity.

But what of Jesus' statement that, "you always have the poor with you," (Matt 26:11, Mk 14:7, Jn 12:8)? The point of Jesus’ comment was that showing kindness to the poor is something the disciples would have ample opportunity to do, but that anointing Jesus' body for burial was not. The concern about using the anointing money to help the poor was a deception anyway. It was something Judas Iscariot raised because his intent was to take the money for himself (Jn 12:6). His concern was not for the poor. Jesus' statement is not resignation to poverty. His words do not encourage us to accept poverty any more than if he had said "there will always be brothels," would encourage us to accept sexual exploitation. Sin may not be completely eliminated before his return, but this is not license for us to allow evil to flourish.

In God's abundant creation, in the national laws that he established for his people, and in the teachings of Christ and the operation of the early church it is clear - Poverty is anathema for those who know, love and follow the God of the Universe and its existence is an offense to be addressed by his people.

Individualism and the Communal Christ

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:17:00 -0600

When God made the cosmos and everything in it, we see the oft repeated phrase in Genesis 1 and 2, "it was good." It shows up seven times, and the final time the phrase shows up was when God surveyed all he made. Then, he saw that it was "very good." So in this pristine creation of abundant goodness it strikes one as strange that God declares something in the cosmos as "not good." What was "not good" wasn't the fact that evil was a possibility (as implied in the existence of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), nor that God's enemy was allowed to slither around and mess with things. The one thing in all of creation that was "not good" according to the voice of God himself, was the aloneness of man - Individualism.

While it is true that each human person is unique, and that there is affection between Creator and each particular individual, our view of the importance of self – the inflation of the individual and the diminishing of the community - has certainly impoverished the theology of the western church.

Our language betrays the fact that we are among the most individualistic and possessive people on the planet. Westerners (and mainly Americans in my experience) say things like "my doctor," or "my pastor," or "my hairdresser," which, when you think about it, is a little weird; as if these people are owned, and live exclusively to serve me.

It is easier for those of us in the west to live alone than most anywhere else on earth. Extended family and community are woven into to fabric of most cultures in the world and only in bizarre circumstances would a person choose to live, or even be allowed to live, by themselves.

Among the poor it is unsustainable to live alone. Most of the poor live in close (some would say crowded) community. Even street kids live in community. As a matter of fact, one hundred and fifty years ago in America most of us were farmers and we, too, had a more developed sense of community. But In the modernized, privatized, Americanized version of Christian faith, we view decision-making, relationship, and journey with Christ through an almost exclusively individualistic lens.

The idea of Christ as "personal Lord and savior," is relatively new to Christianity; and as I travel about the world I find the phrase predominantly used in the west. The ancient Jewish people, as all ancient peoples, thought of themselves collectively, and their relationship to Yahweh was more communal than it was individual. Within the early church we see whole households (which likely included related as well as unrelated people) converting to Christianity together (Acts 11:14, 16:15, 31, 18:8, I Cor. 1:16). Paul also addressed entire households in his letters, not to mention writing to communities of believers meeting in a city or region. Most cases of the word "you" in the New Testament are plural (again the English language betrays the fact that we only have one word for "you,” mostly used in the singular, unless y’all are southern). And the descriptions in the Bible of the future glory of Christ with his Bride treat the church as a collective entity.

Each individual person needs to answer the question which Jesus put to his disciples, "Who do you say I am?" We must each stand as individuals before our Maker to some degree or other. And it is appropriate to get alone with God in our prayer closets. Even Jesus went off by himself to commune with his Father. But most of us in the west, myself included, have so constructed a privatized, individualized faith, that we have lost something of the communal nature of the Godhead. My conception of heaven, my understanding of salvation, and the idea of sanctification are almost exclusively centered on me as an individual. The Christ who taught us to pray “OUR Father” has a communal understanding of heaven so far as I can see from some of the Kingdom of God parables (which often dealt with a king and his people or a landlord and his stewards). And from the description of the collective Bride comprised a great throng of people from every language and ethnic group. The call to repentance in the New Testament was almost always addressed to communities or collections of people (like Pharisees, soldiers, tax collectors, scribes, the nation of Israel or the city of Jerusalem, in addition to other entire cities). And the idea of spiritual growth, holiness, righteousness and justice are almost always expressed in communal terms.

There’s a whole lot of “one another” terminology in the Epistles and Gospels and the concept of career or even education was rarely something as individualized as it is for modern westerners. TheThe idea of a singular person deciding on their own to become a singular missionary and going on their own to spread the gospel is relatively rare in the New Testament (Philip being wisked off is the exception. There were not "missionaries" by and large, there were wandering mission communities).

We are communal people, created by a communal Godhead – God-Christ-Holy Spirit. Even our western nuclear family construct (comprised of only parents and children – or in some cases parent and child) is a frightfully smaller circle than we find in the lifestyles described in Scripture. Our understanding of the Christian faith, of God, and of ourselves is drastically shaped by an individualistic worldview driven by the concept of ME and MY.

Only by submitting ourselves to the community of Father, Son and Spirit and intentionally fostering interdependent relationships; living, eating, and serving in larger groups than most of us in the west are used to, can we come to more fully understand the God who exists in community and calls whole communities of people into fellowship with the Three in One.

The Pfinances of a For-Profit World

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:12:00 -0600

The drug company, Pfizer, just settled with the U.S. government for $2.3 billion on charges of fraud. Pfizer essentially admitted that they were promoting the use of Bextra for ailments which the drug wasn’t designed to address. In the language of early America – they were peddling snake oil, “Good for what ails you!”

What’s interesting about this case is not that a pharmaceutical company was caught doing something unethical for the sake of greed, it is the notion that one company is so incredibly profitable that can afford to pay 2 billion dollars to settle a lawsuit and still survive another day to bilk others. Pfizer announced profits of $2.8 billion about this time last year. That’s not revenue, that’s pure profit, even after paying a sports-hero salary to their CEO. I repent of all my belly-aching in the last blog about the volume of money running through humanitarian aid organizations. Pfizer made in sheer profit just a little less than the US contributed in 2007 for global humanitarian aid.

Somebody please help me. I am miserable at math and never did very well at macro economics. But it seems to me that there is something terribly wrong with an economic system that allows this to happen. That a single company could earn enough profit to rival the amount of money that the richest country on planet earth provides for the world’s poor seems unfathomable. What’s more, when we penalize this company for the shear avarice, fraud and trickery which helped to produce this profit, they have enough money to consider it simply the cost of doing business.

Is it not simple common sense that power corrupts and that money is a form of power? When we allow such gross amounts of cash to be concentrated in the hands of so few, why would we not expect them to use that concentrated power to gain more, by hook or by crook?

David Batstone in his book, Saving the Corporate Soul, suggests that corporate power should be distributed beyond the scope of the company executives and the share holders – those who stand to benefit most when ethics are placed second to profit. He suggests that other stakeholders (the employees at every level, the communities in which the company exists, and the environment) ought to have some kind of serious influence on decisions. I am sure there are some companies who have done things like this. Certainly employee-owned companies have a measure of this power sharing (though employees can also be excessively motivated by greed – which is why unions are not exempt from a profiteering mindset).

Call me an economic idiot, or even a communist, but is there not enough altruism in our human nature to create a not-for-profit world … or at least something close to it? Why build a system fueled by the power of greed without also creating serious limitations on how much money and control any one individual or set of individuals can accumulate? It’s like paying drug addicts with cocaine for the work they do. There’s got to be a better way.

The Humanitarian Aid Machine

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:19:00 -0600

The Cost of Short Term Missions

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:48:00 -0600

In her article, "The Cost of Short-term Missions," Jo Ann Van Engen shares some good suggestions on how to tighten up the sloppy short-term mission work going on. She also raises several serious criticisms. While I share her concerns and grieve over the gross oversights of some short-term mission trips, I am much more generous in my assessment of the place short-term missions could have for the Church. I will first address two of her key criticisms and then suggest the strategic role I believe short-term missions ought to play in the ministry of the Church.

1. Money

Why not take just a fraction of the millions of dollars being spent on short-term missions to fund an army of locals in that country who could do the work more effectively? Of course, that question must also be asked of long-termers as well.

Why not shut down the Western missionary effort altogether and redirect the money to local agencies reaching their own people within their own cultural framework? Of course there are Westerners in places where there is no local church. And the numbers game is easy to play.

Why not take the money Americans spend on cosmetics (8 billion dollars) and fund a basic education for all the children of the world? Or if we could just redirect the 17 billion that Americans and Europeans spend on pet food each year and provide much needed grain for the world's destitute?

While these numbers should be used to sober us up and jolt us out of our lifestyles of conspicuous consumption, shifting money spent by millions of people from one thing to another is not so neat. The stewardship question is one all agencies (rich or poor) should continually ask. But the financial cost of short-term mission is not a key concern in my mind.

First of all, many short-term missionaries contribute from their personal resources for the trip, sometimes taking on extra work in the months prior to their mission. Second, those that do give to short term missionaries often do so because they have a personal relationship with the person going on the trip. The donor has a prayerful conviction that the trip will serve as a catalyst for change in that person's life. Most of them are delighted to contribute in this way to the person being sent.

Finally, at least one study on short-termers revealed that the giving pattern for those that go on short-term trips changes dramatically. On average, short-term missionaries give twice as much after going on a trip than before going, releasing over the course of their life many times what it took to send them, often to the ministries they engaged on their trip.

For me, the question of money in short-term missions is not so much about trying to reallocate donations away from American short-termers and toward local workers. My friend, Gideon Yung, Regional Secretary for the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students for East Asia puts it this way, "Why are rich countries the ones sending short-term missionaries? Are Christians from rich countries more gifted than those from poor countries?" Obviously not. But the answer is not in sending fewer rich Christians.

Rather we should be encouraging greater faith and creativity on the part of all Christians in order to send those with the gifts and calling no matter their financial circumstances. In fact, I would guess that there is far more short-term missions activity emanating from poor churches worldwide than many Americans are aware of.

Americans should not stop sending short-term missions; we should just follow the example of brothers and sisters in the two-thirds world. They practice the kind of mission Jesus encouraged with his disciples – take very few things along with you, rely on the goodness of God and the hospitality of his people, preach the gospel, heal the sick, cast out demons. Conduct short-term missions in an itinerant, low cost way while trusting God at each juncture. Poor and rich alike ought to be using every means at their disposal to extend the Kingdom and to be a blessing to the nations.

That having been said, I think it would be fair to establish some guidelines for good stewardship. Those of us with many resources are liable to be wasteful if we don't create some helpful boundaries. I think, for instance, that mission trips under two-weeks long ought not to leave this hemisphere given the time, jet lag and money necessary to do so.

We must also be careful not to under-challenge people with these short trips. We need to be bolder in asking why those who are considering going for two weeks are not considering going for two months or two years. And we need to be much more willing to say "no" to the immature that go just because they can or they want the thrill, requiring us to ask hard questions in order to get at motivation.

2. Are receiving countries really served?

I will not argue with the fact that the prime beneficiary of the short-term mission trip is the short-term missionary. But that's not such a bad thing. To me the mission of the Church is to prepare the Bride for eternity. This has an external, numeric dimension expressed in church planting, evangelism, justice to the oppressed, sight to the blind, decent housing, etc. But it also has an internal, qualitative dimension expressed when each member of the Church deepens their relationship with the Bridegroom.

Jesus doesn't just want a BIG Church; he wants a Church of character. That character is developed in significant ways on short-term trips. If I were Jesus, I'm not sure I'd be too excited about marrying the part of the Bride located in North America if she remained insulated from the world and never stepped out in risky, unfamiliar situations for his sake. Pushing North American Christians into places of dependence on God is accomplishing part of Christ's mission. In so doing we are discipling others in just the way he did – through experience –teaching them to obey everything he has commanded us.

Of course this discipleship through experience should not be at the expense of those Jesus has sent us out to serve. When Jesus sent out the 12 and the 72 (probably for no longer than many summer mission trips) there was fruit to their trip beyond their own maturation. They saw Satan "fall like lightening from the sky" as they healed and preached and cast out. All without the benefit of local agencies ready to follow up their itinerant work. Why should we not expect the same from our short-term missions today? I really believe short-term missions can and should be "real" mission.

The problem with most short-term mission trips is not that they expect too much from them but that they expect too little! If short-term mission leaders are gifted and called then the groups they lead can be very effective. I have seen short-term groups go into unreached areas for a month or two and leave behind a few new Christians that eventually become a self-sustaining, self-financing, self-propagating body of believers who send out their own itinerant, short-term missionaries.

Perhaps just as powerfully, I have seen trip participants loan solidarity to the oppressed and dignity to the marginalized. The participants on these trips were not seasoned church planters or community developers. In fact, they were university students from secular campuses. So far as I know, none had Bible School training or missionary "boot camp" experience. They did have three elements I consider key to conducting fruitful short-term missions.

Locally Focused
Each participant had prepared to develop a serious friendship with at least one other local person in the city to which they went. The focus of the trip was relational. Both the local host and the visitor gave themselves to building a relationship. The more participants on a missions trip can remain in one location with the same group of people, the better chance that relationship will lead to incarnational ministry.

Servant Posture:
American students were coached to adopt the posture of a learner and a servant. Their orientation helped them to see that many of their values (i.e. time vs. event) were culturally influenced and not necessarily morally "right" or "wrong." They were encouraged to become a student of the culture they entered, with curiosity, openness and trust.

This quest for cultural understanding prevented them from "writing off" the host culture at the first sign of cultural difference. They sincerely sought to understand the host culture and in the process ended up embracing some host culture values and reevaluating aspects of their own.

Being Over Doing:

The students we send on these trips we pare down to the bone - very few possessions, very little spending money, no cameras, computers and ipods, and an attitude of giving yourself to listening to other people’s stories and sharing with them your time and affections.

Most of the Biblical examples of missions are more like short-term missions than residential missions. After all, Jesus did not even complete a full, four-year missionary term. And most of his ministry amounted to spending only days or weeks at a time in each town with at least as much social time as teaching time. Paul's journeys were itinerant as were Peter's. Roland Allen, a missiologist in the 1920's believed that this non-residential form of missions ultimately served to make the church indigenous. It forced the believers left behind to carry on without expatriates. In certain pioneering settings, I believe that short-term missions should be a preferred strategy.

So what about short-term missions in places where the church is established? As Ms. Van Engen suggests, where the Church exists, short-term mission must be preceded by careful advance work to find out just what true partnership could look like. When the initiative for a short-term project comes from the host country and the trip design is a truly collaborative, holistic process, the result is fruit that lasts: fruit in the character of the missionary and fruit in the quality of their work.

The Unholy Alliance Between Poverty and War

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:29:00 -0600

At the start of our local Fourth of July fireworks extravaganza the National Anthem was played. As the final bars of the song belted out, "... and the home of the brave," several F-16 fighter jets rocketed past just overhead, kicking in their after burners in a display of Air Force might. The crowd roared in exultation. At that moment, I was overcome with a sadness which was hard to shake all through the evening. While I am sure the crowd was not celebrating the weaponry of the aircraft, it was strange to me that the sight of war planes which have been responsible for so many military and civilian deaths would elicit cheering.

Poverty and war co-exist in an unholy alliance. War excites poverty and poverty excites war. The impoverishment of the Rhineland in Germany because of World War I contributed to the rise of Hitler and the launch of World War II. The war in Bosnia created immense poverty and the crisis faced by military action against Palestinians is generating unbelievable desperation. Civil war is the worst. The Liberian civil war created such desperate hunger that the residents of Monrovia consumed all the animals in the city zoo. This kind of poverty, in turn, becomes the combustible mixture which can be leveraged by the right charismatic leader to foment war.

In the current global recession, poverty and war are among the few growth industries. Arms manufacturers and those who make war planes are doing booming business these days. The colossal US military spending over the past eight years was at its highest level in real terms since World War II, most of it done through borrowing. The documentary, Darwin's Nightmare, mentioned in a previous blog, illustrates how the booming arms business is destroying parts of Africa. Poverty and war are symbiotic partners, and the two of them are growing tremendously at the moment.

I'm not one who puts much stock in comparisons which suggest that the amount we have spent on war in the past few years could feed the world six times over, as if we could simply shift money spent on weapons (or fireworks for that matter) to poverty alleviation. While it would be beautiful, realistically money just doesn't move from one place to another like that. Our military expenditures are motivated by fear - sometimes real, sometimes imagined - and you don't free up that kind of money by calculating how much bread you can buy with the cost of an F-16 (though buying bread for the poor might eliminate the need for the F-16 in cases where poverty is fueling hatred). Money simply doesn't shift like that.

I suppose the thing that saddened me was not so much the cost of the F-16s flying overhead as it was the fact that these elaborate and destructive weapons that have played a part in spawning such desperate poverty all over the world would be used as symbols in celebration. The necessity of a military, if such thing is necessary at all, is a necessary evil and should be mourned not celebrated. The sight of such things ought to bring on full-scale grief because they indicate to us that all is not right in this world.

P.S. I eventually shut the comment feature off because I feel as though the dialogue was heading in a direction not intended by the blog post. Comments need to stay on topic and contributed in the spirit of humility and desire to learn together.

The Ethic of Simplicity

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:04:00 -0600

Flipping through the channels on TV one Sunday I came across a televised preacher. Part of his message was that God intends for Christians to be wealthy. The preacher urged everyone to take out their wallets, hold them up, place a hand over the top and proclaim, “You will be full, full, full!”

It is amazing to me that we can completely miss the ethic of simplicity so clearly marked out in Scripture. When John the Baptist was asked what the real fruit of repentance looked like he said, “If you have two shirts, give one to the poor. If you have food, share with those who are hungry” Luke 3:11 (NLT). One could not really repent while hoarding clothes or food according to John the Baptist. In fact, in the same passage the tax collectors and soldiers asked him what they should do to show the fruit of repentance. To each he gave financial answers which involved divesting themselves of the quest for money and things.

Jesus was probably even more straightforward than John the Baptist. Here’s a smattering of the places he used the word “possessions:”

“Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’" Matthew 19:21 (NRSV)

“And he said to them, ‘Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.’" Luke 12:15 (NRSV)

“Sell your possessions and give to those in need. This will store up treasure for you in heaven!” Luke 12:33 (NLT)

“So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions” Luke 14:33 (NRSV).

When Zacchaeus promised to give half his possesses to the poor and repay those whom he had defrauded giving them 200% more, Jesus said, “Today salvation has come to this house” Luke 19:9.

How is it that we have missed this ethic of simplicity, this divestiture of things on earth knowing that our heart and our treasure are bound together? Are some of us who consider ourselves Christian in danger of losing our souls because we have gained the world?

As an American so much of what I am fed by the media (and sometimes Christian teachers) is a hunger for financial independence. I want so much money that I don’t have to rely on anyone. What I am starting to realize is that what I really crave is not just financial independence from others, but financial independence from God. My quest for a big fat bank account, my desire to retire rich, is really an attempt to be free from reliance upon God.

Perhaps the early Christians realized this when they “sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need” Acts 2:44-45 (NLT). And it may be why the writer of Hebrews praises believers because they “cheerfully accepted the plundering of your possessions, knowing that you yourselves possessed something better and more lasting” Hebrews 10:34 (NRSV).

The reason we can so easily ignore these verses and preach a gospel of accumulation for personal benefit is because it would be terribly inconvenient for us to take these verses seriously. To do so would be like attempting to force the camel of our wealth through the needle’s eye of simplicity. Here are some hard questions I am asking myself:

Are my possessions free for anyone to use? If so, why are they still in my closet?
How much of my savings is for a future, known need, and how much is simply insulating me from dependence upon God?
Do I have “the plunder of the poor in my home?” (Is. 3:14)

These are painful questions to anwer, but following Jesus means divesting myself of those things which are vulnerable to moth, rust or fire.

Lord, prevent me from being like the rich, young ruler who walked away from these commands grieved, “for he had many possessions.” Teach me, like Zaccaeus, to give away my wealth and repay those I have cheated so that salvation may come to my household as well.

Correcting Corrections

Sat, 23 May 2009 14:23:00 -0600

The racial disparity in the Wisconsin prison population is among the highest in the nation. For every 100,000 whites in the state, 400 are in jail and for every 100,000 blacks, 4,000 are in jail, so that when you visit a place like the Columbia County Correctional Facility it almost feels like you walk from a 90% white world into a 90% non-white world. This is just one indication that something needs correcting in our corrections system.

This week Janine and I went to spend a little time with a friend, Tony, who has been caught in the revolving door of Wisconsin corrections for years. The thing he needed prayer for more than anything else was depression. It's hard to not be depressed when you are living on the streets (though Tony is now staying with a friend), and it's hard not to live on the streets when so few will rent to someone with a criminal record unless they have lots of cash to put down, and it's hard to put down much cash when you can't even find minimum wage work.

Tony is stuck, and being stuck is depressing and being depressed increases the likelihood of drinking and then doing stupid things. To top it off, some Parole Officers have become jaded - probably not without cause. This makes it feel like Tony's PO is watching, waiting, even hoping to catch Tony in a mistake in order to send him back to jail (like being late for a parole meeting because of being at the doctor or because his bus was late). Sending Tony back to jail is no solution. Seeing his depression healed (which is related to so many other factors) is just one small step to bringing true restoration.

When I was in the Downtown East Side of Vancouver, BC a couple of months ago I watched drugs being traded openly on the streets while cops rode around on bikes just trying to keep everyone safe and out of the rest of Vancouver. There is even a government facility in the neighborhood to help you shoot up safely. The philosophy of the Vancouver city government and of most corrections system is simply that of containment. It is an emphasis on quarantine not vaccine.

Like the Geresene demoniac (Mark 5) the human solution to aberrant behavior is to chain. Jesus comes to heal and restore. It may well be that we will always need to provide places of quarantine. But those of us who carry around the Spirit and authority of Christ have the vaccine. It's time we stop stockpiling Christ’s love and power by remaining in our safe enclaves and move out into places where we can regularly administer the kind of love in action that will bring healing to those whom society would simply quarantine. While Janine and I love hanging out with healthy people, Jesus said those who were well had no need of a physician (Matt 9:12). Our short visit with Tony is way too rare an occurrence in our lives. Could it be that we might help bring a corrective to our corrections system just by who we choose to tangle our lives up with?

Strive First for Kingdom Justice

Sun, 10 May 2009 23:27:00 -0600

Matthew 6:33 says, “But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

I'm asking myself these days what would happen if I really did strive for the kingdom of God above all else - food and clothing are the particular items that Jesus mentions as secondary, but by extension he seems to be saying that yearning and seeking after the kingdom of God should be more captivating and compelling than satisfying any possible human need.

The kids in the video are street children in Mwanza Tanzania. It is a scene taken from the documentary, "Darwin's Nightmare." Poverty has ravaged them, and the issues surrounding their destitution are complex and thorny. There is no easy solution, no clear enemy, no quick fix. Ecological issues, trade imbalances, government forces, the arms business and a half dozen other things conspire to so thoroughly rob these kids of dignity that they are willing to pummel one another in the frenzy to get a stupid fistful of rice. It will take men and women who are commited to seeing God's kingdom come in fullness there above their own comfort.

The New Revised Standard Version suggests that Matthew 6:33 can also be read, "But strive first for the kingdom of God and it's righteousness ..." Because the Hebrew mind so intermingled righteousness and justice, Jesus is calling us to strive first for kingdom justice.

What if striving for kingdom justice among prostitutes trumped striving after a boyfriend or girlfriend? What if striving for kingdom justice on behalf of those who have been dispossessed and pushed off their land took priority over adding on to our homes or moving into a bigger apartment? And what if striving for kingdom justice for these street kids was more motivating than striving after the frozen custard my family and I just indulged? What a scary and wild life we would have if we really did strive after God's kingdom before all else. But the promise is that relationships, and housing and food and all our human needs will be met for those who are hungrier for God's kingdom and it's righteousness than they are for Big Macs and American Eagle clothing and boyfriends/girlfriends.

II. Poverty: Not in God's Nation

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:58:00 -0600

This is part II of a four part series. Part I is here.

When humanity chose oppression and exploitation over caring for one another and for God’s creation, God decided to show the world how things ought to work through a single nation. He chose the family of Abraham to display to the entire planet what a kingdom ruled by his principles might look like.

God waited until this family had become slaves to an oppressive nation that was executing a kind of genocidal population control by killing all Hebrew baby boys (see Exodus 1). God figured that since this slave race knew first hand what oppression felt like, they would be careful not to oppress others.

“True justice must be given to foreigners living among you and to orphans, and you must never accept a widow’s garment as security for her debt. Always remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God redeemed you from your slavery. That is why I have given you this command.” Deuteronomy 24:17-18 (NLT)

Since humans were not responding to our genetic encoding – made in God’s image to govern in such a way as to create and inspire human and environmental flourishing – he gave these liberated slaves specific instructions which they referred to as The Law. If they followed it the world would see how things were meant to be.

“There should be no poor among you, for the Lord your God will greatly bless you in the land he is giving you as a special possession. You will receive this blessing if you are careful to obey all the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today.” Deuteronomy 15:4-5 (NLT).

Imagine it. An entire nation without a single poor person. But God knew our penchant to stray from his principles, and he knew that a nation like this would be such good news to the poor from surrounding nations that there would always be someone in need in the land. So just to be sure we understood that a nation under his laws would not permit poverty to survive for long, he laid out some additional safeguards.

Anyone who loaned money was commanded to forgive any and all debts every seventh year. And every fiftieth year people who had acquired a lot of property, either because of the misfortune of others or because of their own business prowess, were required to give it back to the family from whom they had bought it. This would be a society where there were no super rich or super poor, where everyone was commanded to be open handed with their resources.

“But if there are any poor Israelites in your towns when you arrive in the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tightfisted toward them. Instead, be generous and lend them whatever they need. Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year for canceling debts is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the Lord, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give generously to the poor, not grudgingly, for the Lord your God will bless you in everything you do. There will always be some in the land who are poor. That is why I am commanding you to share freely with the poor and with other Israelites in need.” Deuteronomy 15:7-11 (NLT)

The agricultural and societal laws that God gave to this former-slave nation were designed to guard against greed and exploitation and insure that the weak and powerless were defended by law. Poverty could not exist in a family for more than one generation in such a society, nor would any family have to suffer the terrible illusion that they were independent of God because they had become so wealthy (either by accumulating interest on debts or by accumulating other people’s property).

Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that I need, or I shall be full, and deny you, and say, "Who is the Lord?" or I shall be poor, and steal, and profane the name of my God. Proverbs 30:8-9 (NRSV)

Poverty was not part of creation when God dreamed up the world at the beginning. It came about as a result of the Fall. And when God established a nation of freed slaves, poverty would not be part of their reality if they followed his laws. Unfortunately the slaves forgot what it was like to be oppressed and became oppressors themselves. Poverty remained part of the picture.

God's next attempt to rid us of this scourge came when the Church was born. Stay tuned for Part III.

Social Justice and Evangelism

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:16:00 -0600

It is probably a frightening oversimplification to claim that when the early Church emphasized Jesus' humanity she spawned great social programs and when she emphasized his deity produced great theology. Understanding and expressing the reality of these two natures existing in a single person inspired the historic schisms. To this day we quibble about the deified power of Christ to save and the incarnational power of Christ to serve, as if they were at odds with one another.

This tension between social justice and evangelism - or Christ as Man and Christ as God - is a bit like the tension between LOVE as verb (I love) and LOVE as noun (my love) - it works great both ways, it just depends on what you are trying to say. In fact the noun and verb can have a symbiotic relationship, "A lover loves." I become the noun, a lover, when I consistently engage the act of loving.

I am grieved when Christians feel like an invitation to accept Jesus is the only way to legitimize the protesting of evil or need to throw an altar call in when feeding the homeless, as if confronting evil or doing good were not enough. Jesus held up a Samaritan as the picture of what it meant to inherit eternal life by fulfilling the law of loving your neighbor (Lk 10) even though he had substantial theological issues with what Samaritans believed (Jn 4). Hating evil and loving justice do not need an evangelistic call in order to become valid. Those actions please Jesus all by themselves.

I am grieved when I meet Christians who have no problem protesting unfair wages for migrant farmers but have no desire to call people into a saving relationship with Jesus. How can we see the kingdom come without inviting others to acknowledge the King? Justice flows from a Judge and answering Jesus' question, "who do you say I am?" matters. A friend of mine, Doug Schaupp, observes that it is easier for him to take someone who is good at evangelism and turn them into a lover of justice than to take a socially active Christian and grow them into a good evangelist. That is sad to me.

Separating social justice and evangelism is like getting married and then not living together. Is it better to have the security of a marriage covenant and never see your spouse, or to live together with no real commitment or promise? I want both. Some of us may be more gifted at the prophetic confrontation of evil systems and structures and others at calling people to say yes to Jesus' invitation to trust him for salvation, but we must remain stoutly committed to both.

Jesus as God and Jesus as man, separating those things is heresy.

The Ministry of Condescension

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0600

I met Daryl in a poor neighborhood in Oakland, California. He was homeless and pushing a shopping cart full of pirated DVDs that he was selling. Napoleon Dynamite was only $2.00.

When I encounter certain populations of people, I struggle with a blasted sense of superiority. I hate admitting that, but I know it exists because I recognize paternalism when I feel it in me. Paternalism is that thing that says, "Gee, that poor soul is so much needier than me, I should do something." This is different than compassion. Compassion says, "There's a human being just like me, made in God's image, and suffering." The compassionate make no distinction between themselves and the object of their compassion. Their action comes from a sense of identification with the person in need, not a sense of condescension.

When I stopped to talk to Daryl I made up my mind not to condescend. I wanted to treat him as I would one of the college students or InterVarsity staff with whom I work. Daryl was a believer, though he had the classic smell I have learned to identify with alcoholics. He worked pretty hard at generating a sale. But when he saw I wasn't really ready to buy a pirated copy of Napoleon Dynamite, he seemed content to just talk. After chatting a few minutes I asked if I could pray for him. I realize this could be done with a condescending attitude, but it's the kind of thing I do with lots of people after chatting without "praying down," if you know what I mean - as if their issues somehow make them less a person than my issues.

Daryl didn't answer my question. He simply bowed his head and held his palms open.

I prayed for Daryl. I prayed for him just like he was a seminary graduate. "God, thanks for Daryl. Thanks for the gift you have made him to this world and to this neighborhood. Increase his ministry. Give him strength for today. Pour out the gifts of evangelist, teacher and prophet on Daryl. Use him to establish your kingdom in this neighborhood. Build your church through Daryl, God!"

When I stopped praying I looked up. Daryl's eyes were still closed and his head bowed. Tears were rolling down his cheeks. "Damn!" He whispered under his breath. "I needed that."

I guess you know your prayer hit the mark when someone swears in gratitude after it.

When I am around those who are uneducated, poor, drunk, or drug addicted, I fight with that inner temptation to place myself above them. I fight the prayer that comes from a ministry of condescension rather than the prayer that comes from a ministry of compassion, esteeming and dignifying the person as somebody who is, in essence, just like me.

When I can do that consistently, I'll be a lot more like another homeless man I know - who, though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, just so he could stand alongside us in an act of perfect compassion without a hint of condescension.

Being Fed by the Poor

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:11:00 -0600

I have been attempting to walk alongside Christ this Lent by eating what the poor of the world eat as I consider Jesus' love for the hungry poor. Some of it has been hard just for the shear fact that meals play such a central role in our social lives. Besides the natural place of relationship with my family and household (some of whom are participating in this fast and some of whom are not) there is hardly a week that goes by where I am not sharing a meal with friends or colleagues. I've done what I can to capture the spirit without becoming a jerk or pharisee. Mostly this has meant limiting what I eat when I am with friends. The pain of turning down seconds when I am hungry shows me just what a slave I can be to my cravings.

At the beginning of March I was in Kolkata, India for meetings with leaders from Servants to Asia's Urban Poor. Perhaps the biggest challenge to my Lenten fast was passing the delectable tray of swiss chocolates from the Swiss delegates as it came around the room without drooling on them.

That week the Lenten fast was focused on the poor of Kolkata and I was supposed to eat rice and dal, which I did. But the most ironic part of this fast occured when I was fed by the poor.

We were paired up and sent out into the homes of the poor women who work with Servants for dinner one night. I ate at Shujeta's home. Her grandma moved into the two room concrete enclosure 40 years ago. What you see above is as much of the main room as one can see without using a wide angle or fisheye lens. It was probably a room about 12 feet by 12 feet. The room used for cooking was smaller. Shujeta's extended family has lived there for two generations and their hospitality and genoristy was amazing.

They brought out three courses of incredibly tasty food, and Shujeta (as most Bengalis) would not stop loading my plate each time it emptied until I made a huge fuss and pulled my plate away.

It is beautiful and disturbing that during my attempt to identify with the hungry poor during Lent that the one time I have eaten in abundance was the evening I was fed by the poor. I was humbled to be shown such extravagance by those whom I have been attempting to identify with by depriving myself.

No matter what extent we go to in order to stand alongside the poor, I am convinced that the wealthy can never outgive the poor.