Category: Upward Mobility

Dangerous Sunday Morning Devotion: Can’t benefit from the milk if your can’t handle lactose

8/16/2015

"So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites" (Exodus 3:8; cf. 3:17; 13:5).

"Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way" (Exodus 33:3).

A while ago, I was reading a novel about the investigation of a mysterious plane crash. It was a great read. Enjoyed it immensely. It was entitled Crashers, written by Dana Haynes. “Crashers” is the name given to Go-Teams who are sent in immediately to investigate airline plane crashes, leading experts from specific fields vested in determining the cause of the crash, so it never happens again. In the midst of the storyline, a character, not necessarily religious, ponders a rather curious thought that got me thinking about the church and the poor. She said,

"Land of milk and honey . . . Bloody lot of good it does if you can’t handle lactose and you’ve got diabetes to boot."

The book’s character was referring to the biblical concept of a Land of milk and honey, an Exodus reference about the Land of Promise, the Land of Gift, as “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exod 3:3, et al.). This land was the promise made to the Israelite slaves, captive and abused under Egyptian rule, namely, that God would deliver them from Egypt and bring them to a new land flowing with milk and honey. Obviously, this was good news. Mostly the references to milk and honey simply mean the land would be fruitful agriculturally (the milk) and productive (the honey). The land would be a benefit to the incoming inhabitants. It would be workable, sustainable, a land that would allow a measure of self-sufficiency for the Israelites, who believed God and followed Him into that land.

But, the second part of the Crasher character’s thought--Bloody lot of good it does if you can’t handle lactose and you’ve got diabetes to boot—moved me to the numerous Bible references in Exodus and other exodus-related texts concerning the weak, economically vulnerable, and the poor who would be co-occupants of this land flowing with milk and honey (e.g., Exod 22:22, 24-25; 23:3, 6; cf. Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17; 10:18ff ; 16:19; 24:17, 18; Prov 23:10, 11; Jer 7:6, 7; Amos 4:1-2, etc.). It is so true, that if one is lactose intolerant, one cannot enjoy the benefit of milk. Nor, can honey be useful to someone who has diabetes. Bloody lot of good it does them.

It is so true, that if one is lactose intolerant, one cannot enjoy the benefit of milk. Nor, can honey be useful to someone who has diabetes. Bloody lot of good it does them.

Similarly, the poor and other economically vulnerable populations are exactly in this bloody fix: the poor and economically vulnerable are unable—because they lack access to power, to jobs, to resources; social barriers, educational gaps, demographic separation; gender bias and racism; unfair legislative policy, unjust local zoning laws; and, the presence of violence in their community—to enjoy what the land has to offer. The economically vulnerable and the poor cannot utilize the milk and they lack the ability to enjoy the honey (or, cannot be productive for the lack of abilities and barriers).

Now, of course, I do understand that many people are poor of their own doing—let’s get that out of the way. And, I point out, there are many who are wealthy and affluent who are so not of their own doing as well, but are so despite who they are as people or what they can and cannot do. As for sin, I take it those who are poor and non-poor are of the same, both equally sinners. Yes, of course sin can lead to poverty—and it, as well, can lead to wealth. And, please understand it can be someone else’s sins that make others face the conditions of poverty. So let’s stop with that game and offer a Christian response to assist those who are poor to move out of poverty and stop generational poverty. Let’s actually grasp our Christian obligation to address the causes of poverty. Now with this all said, I’d like to move to a second thought I have from the book Crashers.

Christian Crashers teams that address issues of poverty

The exodus line from Crashers got me going--Land of milk and honey . . . Bloody lot of good it does if you can’t handle lactose and you’ve diabetes to boot. My stream of consciousness kept flowing. In the real world of plane crashes the book’s story described, I was impressed how the gathered experts would be called in to act and move toward a crash and the airplane debris, examining the crash, determining the cause or causes, and put things in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. I like this analogy.

Would it not make sense that such a team—or teams—of Christians (and even inviting non-Christian experts, as well, where needed and appropriate) to descend on areas of poverty and examine the blight and determine the cause or causes, and put things in place to ensure it doesn’t continue (or at least to begin to ameliorate the incidence of poverty)? (Now, wouldn’t that be a worthwhile endeavor to fund!)

It is interesting, in the Bible’s story of Exodus, there is a shift between the first promised move toward the Land flowing with milk and honey at the beginning (cf. Exodus 3:8) and the latter part of the story in Exodus 33. In the latter chapters of the book of Exodus, we discover that even the Israelites themselves were idolatrous—not just the Egyptians. This idolatry was a threat to their future and prosperity. Yet, they would still be able to enter into the Land flowing with milk and honey (it was a promise); but God would not go with them because they had become a stiff-necked people (a reference to idolatry). The Israelites would inherit the land as promised, maybe even benefit from it, but God would not go with them.

So, it is in some way the same for the people of God in today’s world to inherit the blessing of God, but actually be without God’s presence. Very similarly, non-poor Christians can enjoy the blessings of God’s creation, yet be without God (because their affluence and lifestyle is idolatrous). They can look and sound like God’s people, but not truly, since they live idolatrous lives. And without repeating myself from a host of other posts, it is clear from the Biblical data and the gospel itself that Christians are to be associated with the poor and should be concerned about the affects of poverty. Although true of most economic cultures, yet especially true in a culture that promotes upward mobility, Christians ought to be concerned for those who cannot benefit from the blessings of the Land (i.e., the economic social and demographic location) and be active (as a Go-Team) that addresses the causes of poverty. Local churches harnessing Go-Teams to deal with the issues of nearby poverty is a remedy (and repentance) of our idolatries.

But who and where are these experts? Now that’s a good question. I am thinking of the human capital many nonpoor congregations have where there would be experts from the social service world, business, education, psychology, urban development and redevelopment, economists, bankers, medical experts . . . natural, Christian Go-Teams. Crashers. Christian crash teams that could go into a community affected by poverty, investigate the causes, and develop and implement actions that would ameliorate the causes of poverty and provide the means for the poor to benefit from the blessings of the land.

0 Comments

Connect to poverty Fridays: facts suggest unequal access

8/14/2015

0 Comments

Children who live in poverty are

1.5 to 3 times more likely to die in childhood
2.7 times more likely to have stunted growth
3 to 4 times more likely to have iron deficiency before school begins
1.5 to 2 times more likely to be partly or completely deaf
1.2 to 1.8 times more likely to be partly or completely blind
about 2 times more likely to have serious physical or mental disabilities
2 to 3 times more likely to die from accidental injuries
1.6 times more likely to catch pneumonia

One might, at first glance, think these statistical conclusions are somewhere overseas, on some foreign soil. However, these statistics actually come from the State of Connecticut (Facts about Homelessness in Connecticut, Child Poverty Council State Plan). When people talk to me of equal opportunity—that is everyone in American has the same opportunity to be up-ward mobile, to experience the American dream, to fulfill the benefits of our constitutional rights to the pursuit of happiness, I wonder what playing field are they playing on?

“Everyone should just pull up their bootstraps and get to work, then they won’t be dependent on government or charity.”

How many times do I hear this or something akin to it in words and attitude? Problem is, some people don’t even have boots; and some don’t even live long enough to put on these mysteriously, magically appearing boots. (As if everyone is born with these boots.) But enough of the clichés. Fact is we all certainly not on the same playing field; some experience major setbacks, obstacles, and barriers that prevent them from playing the game well, even on the field they have. (Sorry for another cliché and metaphor, but you get the point.) Children—at least the children that make up these demographic profiles—do not have the same level of access to the advantages of our own constitutional rights and economy.

To put it in biblical terms, there are unjust situations within our communities that prevent children from growing up, getting an even start out in life, that oppress their abilities to access the same advantages of other children. Might this be what Isaiah meant when he rebuked Israel?

“So as to deprive the needy of justice
And rob the poor of My people of their rights,
So that widows may be their spoil
And that they may plunder the orphans” (Isaiah 10:2).

In light of facts like those listed above, we, too, should hear the prophet’s words, “Now what will you do in the day of punishment?” (Isaiah 10:3a). Perhaps, considering what you will do in these days can be a remedy for our indifference and privileged arrogance and the blight of those living with disadvantage.

If these blogs and teachings benefit you in some way, please consider supporting the ministry of Christ Presbyterian Church in The Hill. Our church plant and ministry in the Hill is dependent on the kind and generous financial support from outside the Hill. The Hill is one of Connecticut's poorest and under-resourced, self-sustaining neighborhoods; we will be dependent on outside support for some time. Please consider supporting us with a one time donation or join us as a financial partner in ministry.

You may donate online through our website or send a donation to our anchor church marked for CPC in The Hill @ 135 Whitney Ave, New Haven, CT 06510 (checks are to be made out to Christ Presbyterian Church or simply CPC; and in the memo please indicate Hill/CA). For more information or to receive our Hill News Updates, please contact me, Pastor Chip, through this email address: ChipCPCtheHill@gmail.com.

0 Comments

Barriers militating against an open discussion on evangelism

8/6/2015

0 Comments

We do not typically approach the subject of evangelism and social action impartially, but with political, demographic, and religious preconceptions and biases. Opening up a conversation to re-assess the nature of evangelism is difficult, especially when social action and issues of poverty are injected into the discussion. The intent of Wasted Evangelism is not to debate the subject, or to review the history of the various positions regarding evangelism and social action, but to offer an exegetical and biblical theological approach to the question, Can social action be evangelism? It is important, nonetheless, to recognize there are barriers that can militate against an open discussion on the subject of evangelism and social action.

For many, the meaning of evangelism is self-evident because of its association with “proclamation” activities (e.g., preaching, proclaiming, witnessing, etc.). Evangelism’s etymological relationship to the term “good news” (i.e., the evangel) can box one into defining evangelistic activity as passing on information, that is, to tell, preach, or share the news of Jesus Christ—that is, to evangelize. For many conservative evangelical Christians defining evangelism any other way causes the gospel (i.e., the news) to lose its meaning, robs the people of this important information, and diminishes the work of salvation in Jesus Christ. Evangelism’s strong association to the news of the gospel suggests to some that anything outside verbal, cognitive-based activities is a threat to the fundamentals of the faith.

Additionally, those who have the highest interest in evangelism are often those least interested and least skilled in critical, theological reflection. Since evangelism is understood as a self-evident activity, rarely is the subject examined exegetically or evaluated theologically, but is usually consigned to matters of practical theology (e.g., missions, preaching, personal witness, church outreach programs, and church growth). (Meaning is often confused with application.) This, then, does not promote biblically relevant criteria to precede the discussion and, thus, limits the possibility of new, creative, and potentially sound understandings of biblical evangelism.

Within evangelical circles, to advocate that social action can be evangelism is challenging, for such subjects as poverty and the poor are often relegated to the private sphere. Therefore, anything related to the public arena of rights, laws, and taxes or the confronting of social or governmental systems on behalf of the poor are often associated with the “social gospel” and the theologically liberal church. Although historically the church was deeply involved with issues of poverty, a “great reversal” took place between 1900 and about 1930. Evangelical fundamentalists turned away from their social responsibilities as a reaction against the social gospel that was perceived to be aligned with liberalism, which had diminished Bible infallibility and inspiration and weakened biblical views of sin, hell, salvation, and the deity of Jesus. When civic and political social concerns became suspect in the minds of evangelical academics and popular revivalists, social action responsibilities took on a minor role for much of the evangelical Christian community. Anything associated with the social gospel was considered a distraction and, to some, a betrayal to the fundamental essence of the gospel (i.e., the information, that is, the news of Jesus Christ). This history spills over into any contemporary discussion on evangelism and social action.

There are also demographic barriers to an open discussion regarding the association between evangelism and social action. Over the last seven decades, people have been moving out of urban centers and into the suburbs, including Christians and their churches. The twin demographic forces of urban flight and suburban sprawl contribute to the evangelicals’ disassociation with issues of poverty and the poor. As a result, this social transformation helped reinforce a one-dimensional understanding of the gospel [see note below], which determines, for many, the nature of evangelism. Suburbanization of American society has moved much of the evangelical communities of faith outside populations affected by poverty. Rather than church communities promoting social action on behalf of poorer communities, the (upward) mobility of American families toward the suburbs demand that suburban churches serve a socializing and stabilizing function. Not a very likely set of social forces that will generate social change on behalf of the economically vulnerable hidden outside their neighborhoods and unknown within their circles of friends and acquaintances.

The barriers reviewed here are not exhaustive, but are limited to those most relevant to the arguments and conclusions of the studies found in Wasted Evangelism. To overcome these barriers, these studies focus our attention to the text of Scripture, particularly the Gospel of Mark, as a basis for entering into a discussion on the biblical relationship between evangelism and social action.

*From the "Introduction" to Wasted Evangelism.

[Note] A one-dimensional gospel indicates solely a person/God dynamic relationship; whereas a multi-dimensional gospel includes the person/God dynamic and, also, creation/God, person/creation, and person/person. Wasted evangelism considers the multi-dimensional gospel more representative of a biblically sound narrative definition of the gospel.

0 Comments

Dangerous Sunday Morning Devotion: Can’t benefit from the milk if your can’t handle lactose

Christian Crashers teams that address issues of poverty

Connect to poverty Fridays: facts suggest unequal access

Barriers militating against an open discussion on evangelism

Author

Archives

Categories

Pages

More Pages

Even More Pages