Jesus was not wrong in his promise. He was describing a radical vision for community in the Sermon on the Mount and describing the high ethical standard expected of this community. Imagining a world without hunger can only be described as radical when compared to what Jesus saw around him and what we see around us. The Father knew that Jesus was making a radical promise. The Father has an intended tool to fulfill his promise. I propose that the tool is the community Jesus described, namely The Church.
What can we say, then, about the (unfortunately) not extraordinary hunger that exists in our world, country, and city when the church also exists in this same world, country, and city? The only answer I can suggest is that the church, as a whole, misses this part of its mission.
It is impossible to take Matthew 6:25-34 seriously without believing in the reality and destructiveness of sin. People are created as free and moral agents. A free and moral creature has the ability to disobey God’s command to love our neighbour. The church is made of people. Sin in the church, therefore, should not surprise us (though it should make us weep). Such sin results in the type of power imbalances that allow for starvation.
I hesitate to use the phrase “power imbalance.” It allows us to blame someone else. After all, I have relatively little power. The CEO, the religious leaders, the political leaders, and the musicians have legions ready to act.[1]
Reveling in my lesser role is arrogance, though. Humility requires considering the power that I have and take for granted. One way to do this is to understand purchasing power (i.e. How do I spend my own money?). Whether a movie is rated R for nudity and scenes of violence or PG for goofy humour should not be the only determinate in entertainment spending. Buying Frisbees and crayons purchased at absurdly low prices for church youth events may not be ministry.[2] There are other taken for granted powers that so-called regular people should consider, but I will leave these considerations to others.
I also hesitate to use the word “sin”. I do not want to leave an avenue for someone to suggest that a starving person is getting what is coming to him or her. I also do not want to suggest that above has anything to say about destructive natural events when there is no apparent guilty party. I only want to point out that much sin includes culpability and culpability can lead to someone else’s hunger.[3]
Drawing a direct line between (my) sin and (your) hunger to end a series that points to the goodness of the Father is both sad and disingenuous, so I will not do so.
Do not forget that Jesus’ story does not only include proposing a high ethical standard, but also proposes a way to meet this standard and provides redemption when we fail. If sin is part of the hunger problem, then resurrection is part of the hunger solution.[4] Redemption, repentance, and discipleship are key to answering our question.
What does the resurrection suggest about the church’s co-existence with hunger? To borrow a phrase from Wendell Berry, we should “Practice resurrection.”[5]
As a body of believers we do no good for the hungry or for God if we do not acknowledge the reality of hunger. If I am correct that hunger is at least partly caused by injustice, we cannot acknowledge hunger without acknowledging sinfulness. Such acknowledgement requires that we lament: cry out for justice, scream that something is wrong, and repent when we are that something.[6]
Grieving injustice is not enough. We need to learn an alternative, such as generosity. Is my concern rooted in that I am accustomed to a fairly high standard of living and that I am judging God’s provision by this standard? It is not unreasonable to assume that some of the extraordinary hunger that exists is the result of my living too “well”. If this is true, learning a new worldview and world-approach is key.
Good ideas are a good place to start but a bad place to end. Brunner points out that how difficult hunger is apologetically. All he can suggest is for Christians to try to be more “economically-concerned-for-others-disciple(s)”[7] If we do not actually work to alleviate hunger, it is hard to say that we are concerned for the needs of others or that we are oriented towards generosity instead of consumerism.
We are a Kingdom people. The church claims (among other things) that Jesus offers a new way to live. Perhaps when we read Matthew 6:25-34, the question should not be, “Is Jesus right?” but instead, “Do we believe him?” Believing brings privilege and responsibility. Imagine what it would be like to live in the fulfilled Kingdom and use this as our starting point when serving those who are hungry. Shall we live as if hunger can be eliminated? I think it is worth the attempt.
[1] I am intentional in grouping these together. I’ve been a willing audience member at concerts, political rallies, and religious gatherings that all required the same behaviour from the crowd in order to be successful.
[2] I am borrowing here from a paper I wrote in seminary about the church and the working poor. I am also being very careful to single out purchasing mistakes I have made.
[3] It is also possible that not ministering to people who experience the inexplicable natural events should be considered “sin”, but I am not confident enough to say this with much force.
[4] Dewi Hughes, Power and Poverty, 11-14.
[5] Wendell Berry, “Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front”, http://ag.arizona.edu/~steidl/Liberation.html.
[6] The following lines from the U2’s “Crumbs from your Table” help me to cry out: You speak of signs and wonders, but I need something other. I would believe, if I was able. But I’m waiting for the crumbs from your table.”
[7] Frederick Dale Brunner, Matthew: A Commentary – The Christbook Matthew 1-12, 330.
No comments:
Post a Comment