A wise man once said,
“Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.
Everything is permissible, but not everything is constructive.”
That idea has been on my mind lately, for several reasons.
FIRST, a few Olympic athletes have gotten themselves into some hot water for comments they’ve made on Twitter or other social media. On the one hand, are they not free to make whatever statements they want? Sure.
On the other hand, even their sponsoring countries are asking whether racial prejudice (in the case of a Greek athlete and a Swiss one who were each sent home) or simply discourteous comments (in the case of a US athlete who was not sent home) are really the best way to represent their nations or the Olympic spirit.
SECOND, I recently posted an article entitled “Let them eat cake-2012 style”, as well as a follow-up, in which I essentially was raising the question of whether an attitude of suspicion towards the poor who are on welfare was really the best Christian response, particularly when the OT and NT canons hold predominantly benevolent postures towards the poor. In a nutshell, I was, and am, asking whether Christians going on about welfare abusers is really putting our best (i.e., most Christ-like) foot forward.
Both on the blog, and on Facebook, I got a number of responses, some of which took me on (lovingly), questioning whether the poor in the US today are actually comparable to the very, very poor of early Palestine, and restating the concerns about welfare recipients who have TV, cell phones, may use drugs, etc… I remain unconvinced. Sure, I realize there are abuses in the welfare system, that it is an inconsistent and inefficient bureaucracy, that charity or welfare alone do not ultimately eliminate the problem of poverty. But I still ask, if you’re going to make one sound-byte statement about poverty, as Christian, is that really the one you want to make? To quote Regis Philbin, “is that your final answer?”
In fact, as one who grew up in France, I have many good friends there who are agnostic or atheists, yet who hold deep concerns about social justice. And I couldn’t help but wonder… what kind of view of American Christians does our interchange give them? Do they walk away thinking, “wow, I’m so amazed at the generous, merciful spirit of these followers of Jesus”? Or are they more likely to walk away scratching their heads, confused?
THIRD, there has been a lot of noise about Chick Fil A founder’s comments in support of a traditional view of marriage and in opposition to gay marriage. These immediately drew ire from the likes of Boston mayor Thomas Menino ‘unwelcoming’ the company in Boston. And in response, a Chick Fil A appreciation day garnered support among conservative Christians who wanted their voice heard.
I was left with the same feeling. Of all the statements followers of Jesus might want to make to affirm his Kingdom vision, is this really the one that seems the most compelling? I think a number of folks in the blogosphere have, in fact, asked some version of the question, “will the same size crowds show up at the local shelters for the homeless, soup kitchens, free clinics to help the poor, that showed up in support of Chick fil A’s anti-gay stance?”. Also, similarly to my puzzled European friends, I believe it’s our youth who are put off by these exclusionary postures; the same youth who more than ever are motivated to help the poor and oppressed in their own and other countries around the globe.
To me the issue is about faithfulness, not political correctness. I don’t think Christians should be worried about being politically correct. In fact the New Testament suggests that a certain degree of enmity, on the part of the world towards the church (rather than vice versa; e.g., John 15:18), is inevitable, and that becoming too much like the world is risky (e.g., James 4:4).
Moreover, political correctness is often no more than a thin veneer that masks an underlying truth that is entirely different. Singer John Mellecamp said it well when interviewed a few years back about his take on the racial climate post-Obama:
We create the illusion that we are a nation of compassion and understanding and I’m in Philadelphia right now, walking down the street and I don’t see it. I have a house in Savannah, Ga., I don’t see it. We just don’t say the N-word in public anymore. Big deal.
Indeed it is one thing to get all outraged about the use of the N***** word, it’s another all together to really deal with prejudice at its root, in our hearts (cf. Mark 7:21-22).
In other words, it’s quite easy to hop on the bandwagon of the day and proclaim one’s allegiance to “traditional family values” by driving down to the corner and eating a fried chicken sandwich. It’s entirely more difficult to do the hard work of actually living out family values by remaining in a vital, loving relationship with the wife of one’s youth and parenting children with devotion, wisdom, character, patience and no hint of abuse. Both national statistics about conservative Christians and my own experience as a therapist indicate that, on both of these counts, the loyalty to family values runs pretty shallow.
What does faithfulness mean, then?
To me, it simply means that our emphases should match those of the Savior we claim to follow. He actually never said anything about homosexuality, himself. He actually never suggested screening the poor to verify how legitimate their poverty was before helping. So, it doesn’t take complex theology or deep exegesis to come to the conclusion that going on tirades about welfare abusers or demonstrating in opposition to same-sex marriage rights is pretty off the mark.
To be sure, there are psychological reasons religious folks are tempted, on the whole, to be more preoccupied with some issues (like sex or fairness) over other ones (like radical generosity or love of enemies. In his book “Unclean”, my friend and colleague Dr. Richard Beck does an excellent job of bringing together the psychological and theological literatures and developing an analysis of this phenomenon. The following ideas are informed, in part, by his writing.
In Matthew 9, we see that Jesus ran into the same tension between separation/distinctiveness (holiness) and inclusiveness (mercy). The Pharisees were concerned about holiness, purity and boundaries (“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”). For them, concerns about contamination and separateness were tantamount. And to be fair, they did not invent the principle. Holiness is a major theme of the priestly literature (e.g., Leviticus, Deuteronomy).
Today, we see the same when it comes to the politics of sexuality and poverty. The message from a large segment of the conservative Christian voice in the US tends to be one of contamination: “If we ‘allow’ gay marriage, it will lead to the breakdown of our society and weaken the institution of heterosexual marriage” (which is pretty delusional considering that conservative heterosexual Christians have a pretty dismal track record as far as making marriage work, regardless of what gay couples do or don’t do!)… or, “If we enable poor people who are actually drug users or lazy or… by giving too generously, the system will break down… there will more and more free loaders.” As a result, the pull is towards exclusion, towards blocking.
Yet, Jesus did not see things that way. In fact, he thought exactly the reverse. By eating with tax collectors, by coming into contact with prostitutes/loose women, by touching lepers, it was not he who was contaminated. On the contrary, they were purified, healed, liberated. Thus, rather than take up the Levitical message of purification and sacrifice, he privileged the prophetic message of justice and mercy. He rocked the religious world by proclaiming that they should not be all about fear of contamination:
But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’
When you think about it, that’s an incredibly hopeful message. Mercy is more powerful than contamination. Love is more powerful than sin. The world is changed by welcoming and embracing others, not excluding and rejecting them. To me, this means that over-the-top generosity from Christians will do far more good, will be far more powerful than any harm caused by a minority of free-loaders. To me, it means that the loving dialogue and genuine friendship offered to sexual minorities will have a far more “purifying” effect on the soul of the church than any loosening of morals that we might fear.
So, to get back to the earlier quote about Paul, I suppose that it is permissible for Christians to make a stand on anything their conscience, their beliefs, or even their opinions move them to. But, it may not be beneficial or constructive. It may not place Christ and his Church in the best, or the most faithful, light. It may, in fact, downright distort the gospel.
I’m not too fond of the ‘sound-byte approach’ to religion, social issues or politics (though it seems, judging by social media, news outlets , political campaigns, and all other dominant forms of dialogue in our society to be the preferred way). But, if we must tweet, post, or otherwise share snippets about our beliefs, shouldn’t mercy be at the center of those messages? And if we must take a stand or otherwise protest, shouldn’t our cause be for greater inclusion rather than exclusion, for greater solidarity rather than greater separation?
I know, I know… isn’t there a danger that people will misinterpret our mercy and graciousness and take sin lightly? That’s a fair question, one the Pharisees wrestled with and the early church struggled with (you’ve probably already thought of Paul’s analogy of the yeast working its way through the dough). All I can say is take it up with the one who said “I desire mercy”. He seemed pretty comfortable landing on a dominant tone for his ministry. My friend Jim McGuiggan used to ask why we are so afraid of grace and so quickly feel the need to protect it from potential abuses when grace is not our message in the first place, nor ours to protect, but God’s.
Yes, I do agree that we need to honor both holiness and mercy, to such an extent that we are capable of doing so… but, when in doubt, we must choose mercy, every time. As I’ve tried to express before, it’s not so much that holiness and mercy are twin virtues to be held in tension, as they pull against each other. Instead, one is in the service of the other. As I see it, holiness is part of the process of preparing us so that we’ll be ready to do the works of mercy 1.
_________________________________________
1 See for instance I Peter 1:16-25 where holiness is in the service of deep love for one another; II Timothy 2:21 where holiness makes us “useful to the Master and prepared to to do any good work”; Ephesians 1:5 where “He chose us… to be holy and blameless” leads into Ephesians 2:10 “created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” etc…
Dave, how much I agree that we need to be uber-careful with our soundbytes. They represent us, and we often say things that represent us poorly or that cast us as haters. That’s wrong. I have nothing to say about gay marriage as I believe the state should get out of the marriage business and let states declare civil unions as they will.
I wish to take issue only with a few things, as a Christian Libertarian, related to poverty:
1. You are equating “social injustice” with some people having more wealth than others. I disagree vehemently with that. I see no place where Jesus says that a millionaire is inherently less “just” than a factory worker (or tentmaker or fisherman) who is not a millionaire. He cautions the rich, and he warns of the love of money. He also had Judas keep up with the treasury surplus. When Bill and Melinda Gates gave one billion (with a B) dollars to AIDS research, I did not see liberals railing against capitalism then.
2. Americans give more to charity per capita than any other nation on the planet. I can show you the research if you want to see it.
3. Just as Jesus did not ask us to screen the poor, He did not tell us to wield the state for His purposes. Why in the world should Christians force non-Christians to adhere to Christ’s teachings through the state? Europe tried that for centuries. What US liberals call “less than efficient government” I call “massively fraudulent, corruption-laden, back-slapping, vote-buying waste” that helps the poor so poorly that you can hardly see the “safety net” due to the illegal wars, salary increases for gov’t workers, and bridges to nowhere.
4. You wonder if Xians would “line up in soup kitchens, medical clinics, etc.” If the government stopped all welfare and “safety net” program tonight at midnight, I believe you’d see a mobilization of Christians like never before. Instead, we have allowed the state to be our proxy. What a shame.
In essence, I see lots of Christians criticizing people who succeed in the market place of capitalism, calling such success “social injustice,” and calling me a bad Christian (or implying so) if I don’t see the value in wealth redistribution. I prefer to give to charities as I see fit, as I evaluate how they’re spending through good stewardship; I prefer the government to stop wasting my money so that I can give more.
Thanks for reading.
Another great post on very challenging and complex issues! I love to see how your mind works when I read your posts, God has blessed you with great insights.
Regarding the Christian attitude toward poverty, I find myself constantly inspired by the beautiful Old Testament practice (commandment) of gleaning – the idea of not harvesting your entire field to allow the poor to come and harvest some for themselves. God had so many wonderful things to teach us from such a simple idea. First, that the poor were to be respected – they weren’t given harvested grain, they did the work they were able to do. Second, you may plant a field, but God makes it grow, so who are you to be stingy with the fruits of your labor? And of course, at the heart of the practice is mercy – God’s ultimate desire for his people.
I can get discouraged seeing a “Christian” response to social injustice (not just economical disparity but all injustices). We can easily be the Rabbinical story of the Pharisee who won’t save a drowning woman for fear she may be unclean. It’s a missed mark.
I also am unnerved by the “sound byte” approach to beliefs and peoples tendency to spout them every chance you get. It’s a like a bumper sticker. I’ve always felt that anybody who has to express their political allegiance via car is not somebody i want to talk politics with. We can hunker down in defensible positions, when really – Jesus told us to give to Caesar what was his, and God what was Gods. Sure, he was talking about money, but doesn’t that apply to votes as well? That’s not Gods political system, it’s the empires.
Lastly, the frenzy over chic-fil-a had me thinking for different reasons. Buying sandwiches that may support discrimination is a hot issue, but my generation has diamond rings mined by child slaves, chocolate bars with cocoa harvested by slaves, and iPhones built by those under such terrible subjugation it might as well be slavery. What is a Christian consumer to do?
Hey Cole my friend, thanks as always for reading and providing food for thought. A few responses:
(1) I think your comment misses the point of what I’m saying and in so doing proves my point. I am NOT advocating any form of governmental approach to poverty, but that is what a good number of folks will read into my posts. My contention is that by placing too much of our concern and emotion on certain things (like defenses of capitalism, distrust of the poor, on worries about socialistic redistribution, etc…) something subtle is happening. A spiritual formation is going on, a shaping of our souls and our communities. Over time, exactly what social psychologists (e.g., Jonathan Haidt) have observed happens: the “elephant” in us (our unconscious/automatic judgment system) leans in a direction while the “rider” (our rational/explanatory system) tries to provide a cogent (though often bogus) reason for what was essentially an automatic moral judgment. What I’m simply saying is we should be careful about what we allow to get us worked up… in other words to shape our inner man.
(2) Perhaps you live in a different reality than me. I’ve never thought everyone should have the same income or wealth. I’m simply commenting on the despair and struggle I see with my own eyes, hear with my own ears, touch with my own hands… I’m not listening to talking heads. I think the prophets had a lot to say about fair wages. Too many families I actually meet in person can barely get by with both parents working menial jobs. I don’t know all the political and economic mechanisms that will solve that; and I do agree that the church does a valiant, though inadequate job of trying to meet those needs. I just don’t want us to lose our hearts for these human brothers and sisters.
(3) Your comment about coercion is the strongest Christian argument, in my mind against governmental forms of support. Dorothy Day and the Christian anarchists held that government programs such as Social Security were in fact forms of coercion, entirely unfitting to a Christian vision. Of course, she also believed in radical voluntary poverty… I don’t hear the call for the latter so loudly among Christian champions of the free market. She was also a radical pacifist (not for economic reasons but spiritual ones), something that, again, I hear far too little of from the politically conservative crowd.
(4) I don’t think I share your high view (it seems… I am deducing here, I’ll admit) of individualism, including individual income, individual property, individual choice, etc… The Jubilee economy of the Old Testament looms large for me which holds that all men should have access to land ownership but that ownership is never permanent, because the land is God’s (as is all economic success…). So, again, I don’t know how this plays out at a governmental level. But this I know, this basic ethic and attitude towards ownership (and any other form of merit) should be deeply rooted among Christians.
(5) Maybe my faith is too small in God, in his Church, in people, in institutions… You seem willing to take the gamble of cutting back aid to the poor to see that (if) contributions to charities will grow and new charitable efforts will spring up. I know some of this is indeed happening, for instance among silicon valley entrepreneurs who are voluntarily philanthropic, and it IS very exciting. In the meantime, I’m tempted to quote James, “show me your faith by your deeds”, not to you personally but to all of us in the Church. Having (well run as you say) charities so flooded with Christian volunteers/servants and donations from Christians that they have to turn them away… now THAT would be inspiring and quite a Christian response.
Love the dialogue! Peace.
Hey Tyler, indeed the boycott approach raises a lot of questions, doesn’t it. Does one not, in effect, eat at Chick fil A to support one cause while using a smart-phone made by a company that supports the exact opposite view point? On the other hand, when it comes to basic human rights, economic sanctions may be our most powerful voice in defending the oppressed… thorny problem indeed.
Thanks David! I think the secular world knows the Levitical Law more than the church gives credit. Because of the dissonance created by the Mainstream American (Conservative in belief) Church on fastidiously holding some laws while discounting others, the Church as a whole loses some sort of credibility in the eyes of the secular world. The >50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples isn’t helping.
Secondly, civil discourse seems to be dead these days. According to what is portrayed in mainstream media, we’re all either secular humanistic Godless liberals or gun-toting, bible-thumping conservatives. There is no room for another. I firmly believe we are to be “in” the political system, but not “of” the political system. Slicing and dicing people into “us” and “them” is based in over-simplification to a fault and illogical thought processes. We have to have sound bytes because Americans have busied themselves to the point of no longer having time to think, or just engaging in intellectual laziness of having complex nuanced situations (in politics, religion, and everyday life) boiled down and reduced to a mush of a sound byte. No wonder we can’t use our brains anymore– they’re malnourished from our consumption of mush!
Finally, regarding Chick-Fil-A, it is perilously close to idolatry. People have put a fast-food chain on a pedestal as a model of Christian values. Supporting the cause of Christ is not the same as buying a fried chicken sandwich.
We don’t have a Chick-fil-A in our city, so all we can do is find someone to give love and assistance to on this “boycott” day or whatever it’s called. We are so quick to boycott and identify and call down heavenly retribution upon, but s-l-o-w to act when love and mercy are required. Too much of James and John and not enough of Jesus.
I like your point, Brian, about how civil discourse takes time and gets lost in a busy, harried life style. It’s true that if we can leisurely sit, ideally over a home cooked meal in one’s home, and talk long and listen carefully to each other, we can usually gain an understanding and appreciation for the other’s view, even when we don’t agree.
Sons of thunder indeed! I love that about the Gospels… how real they are about human frailties and sinfulness. And yet, with Jesus, grace and patience are freely given. Strangely comforting, and also sad, how little changes under the sun, eh?
And the choir responds with another “AMEN” to the words that you are using to describe what we believe but can not express as well as you are within this blog. Much peace sent your way, dear soul. Much peace.
Once a speaker I heard at South Baton Rouge said something like this: If you are not being criticized for teaching too much grace, you are not teaching like Paul.
Dave, I am afraid I don’t agree with your own assessment of your original post; you say “you are not advocating any governmental approach to poverty.” I’m not convinced. The moment you say “safety net,” “fair wages,” and “poverty line,” you are using terms employed by the federal government to redistribute wealth. Yes, I am aware–and supportive of–God’s injunction to help the poor. That is a matter for the church, and I believe it’s the wrong strategy to quote any scripture when discussing what America should do with safety nets, wage control, and poverty lines.
I, too, know people who struggle to make ends meet while working multiple jobs. Let’s help them voluntarily and convince other Christians to help them, too. And let’s form relationships with them to teach them how to spend money wisely and budget and build an emergency fund. Is that judgmental? Some would say so. I say it’s good stewardship.
Dorothy Day may have advocated radical poverty, and I think there is much merit in living well beneath my means to be able to help others. However, I don’t intend to be a burden to society in my old age, either. Financial planning can allow me to do both–help others and prepare myself.
Peace to you, too.
Hey Cole, thanks for the reminder that certain words carry a valence not simply in the reader’s perception but in the larger social context. I will be careful to choose my words better. When I speak of “fair wages”, I am not so much thinking of a Collectivist vision, but instead have passages like Isaiah 58:3; Malachi 5:3; Deuteronomy 24:15 in mind. Likewise, when I think of “poverty line”, I am not unaware that defining poverty is problematic, I am thinking simply of individuals who are “poor and needy” (e.g., Jeremiah 22:16).
I agree that teaching people life and money management skills is important; I’m particularly impressed with approaches exemplified by people like Shane Claiborne and Larry James (City Square) that first eliminate the “us and them” divide and allow such training to occur more naturally in the context of friendship.
I might ask that despite my inadvertent use of words which may be loaded in our social context, rather than assume I’m pushing a political agenda, you allow yourself to “hear past” your initial reaction… I did, in the first of these 3 articles, specifically make the point that we should not allow the political apparatus or the economic apparatus to set the terms of the discussion, but instead a theological understanding… that’s always going to be the ground where Christians find unity. From there, we can discuss methods, in brotherly, trusting ways that stand in stark contrast to the vitriolic (voir demonizing) tone of contemporary political discourse… you know, “a light on a hill” and all that other kingdom stuff…
Thank you for this post. The question I have most involves the comments you’re getting–the great effort that many Christians go to to exclude government from the justice mandate. Government, albeit imperfectly, should represent our best effort at shaping the conditions of the common good. The Hebrew prophets addressed their remarks on injustice to the kings, the governments of their day. Jesus called the “nations” (collective “peoples”) to act justly by feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc. Yet when faced with this and other mandates in Jesus’ teachings, the typical remarks I get are, “But Jesus didn’t mention government, just churches” or, even more troubling, “Poor people are lazy and undeserving.” The former opt-out which presumes that Jesus was only interested in churches doing justice ignore how little Jesus mentioned the concept of ‘church’ (only once, I believe) but how much he continued the Biblical call to do justice. Churches can only fulfill the justice mandate in a prophetic role without actually implementing it. Creating a just society requires societal mechanisms that they don’t control but can only influence. There’s no doubt that budgets are moral documents. Regarding the view of the “lazy, undeserving poor,” I would challenge anyone who holds that view to look at the person cleaning up after them, those who build their roads and perform the back-breaking work of putting cheap food on our tables. And I would especially invite them to Guatemala where I visited last week where, like in so many places, the poor do so much back-breaking work it’s mind-boggling. There’s much, much more I’d say about the arrogance of the “poor people are poor because they want to be” attitude, but I’ll leave it at that.
Quick response to Cole:
You say that the people have allowed the state to become their proxy, and that you believe it to be a shame. But you speak as if “the state” were some independent entity. The state IS the people. We vote in our representatives, and vote on how much of our money to pool for various undertakings and vote on how to handle those undertakings. That includes social nets and charitable undertakings. The people working in government jobs are people — Christians, mostly (based on national statistics) — who work every day to help carry out these decisions made by the individuals who comprise our country. “The state” isn’t some nefarious big-brother entity. It is US. So suggesting that Christians are shirking their responsibilities because the state has replaced the need for individual charity is inaccurate — many Christians choose to carry out their responsibilities to their neighbors and those less fortunate by pooling their money through their government and arranging to have a broader and deeper impact on people’s lives than they would by serving soup at a soup kitchen. They haven’t ceded their responsibilities to the state — they have opted to carry out their responsibilities by establishing and participating in their government, and ensuring that safety nets exist. Then individual charity can be focused on the areas where that net is weak or can’t cover everyone.
As one who also grew up in France, I am amazed at this article and the similarities between this message and the one I have also been proclaiming these past few weeks….even down to the verse “everything is lawful, but not everything is expedient”. Thanks for putting what I have been saying in much more eloquent words. I could not have said it better myself!!!
Thanks for this, David. Really good stuff. Here are some of my thoughts, if you’d like: http://theboeskool.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/why-the-lines-at-chick-fil-a-made-me-cry/
[...] A wise take on the recent hoopla surrounding Chick-Fil-A. And another one. [...]