A Change of Language

Several (mostly good) things conspired over the last several months to eliminate much of my reading and nearly all of my writing time.  At the same time, some of these conspirators planted a seed in my mind that germinated for the last couple of months and eventually grew into this essay. 

I’ve written in passing a few times that the label “Social Justice Christian” makes me uncomfortable.  At the time, the discomfort was not strong enough to eliminate the phrase or to stop using it completely but it was there and growing.   The discomfort is now strong enough to make me change my language.  I intend to argue that we should stop using the phrase “Social Justice Christian”.  My argument also serves as a confession.  My (though not necessarily your) use of the phrase proves my own arrogance because I did not want to be “that kind of Christian”.  This dual purpose means that this essay will contain the pronoun “I” many more times than normal for my writing, which I hope you will excuse.

Three conspirators let this idea grow in me: something I said, something a friend said, and something I read.

Reflection from a Homeless Shelter Volunteer

Brilliant writers, like Ray Bradbury and Snoopy, can open with, “It was a dark and stormy night.”  Regular folks, like me and presumably you, cannot get away with clichéd openings.  That is a problem because stormy, dark nights are partly what I am writing about.  I write about such nights because I want to reflect on my experience as a volunteer at a homeless shelter – Out of the Cold in Saint John, NB.  Out of the Cold is a winter emergency shelter for homeless men that is in a church parlour.  If safe shelter cannot be assumed, “It was a dark and stormy night,” is not eerie, mysterious, or even cliché.  It is frightening.

†

Birds, Lilies, & Starving to Death, Part 4: Thoughts on Matthew 6:25-34

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.

Birds, Lilies, & Starving to Death, Part 3: Thoughts on Matthew 6:25-34

I want to note two things about my approach to Matthew 6:25-34 and then highlight four themes identified by commentaries, books, and articles. 

 

The first note I want to make is obvious but needed.  Matthew 6:25-34 is part of the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew 5-7.  Understand how I see this larger passage: The Sermon on the Mount is a call to a radical discipleship that is shaped by absolute submission to the will of God. 

Birds, Lilies, & Starving to Death, Part 2: Thoughts on Matthew 6:25-34

I want to bring the problem of evil to the discussion about Matthew 6:25-34.  The problem, How could an all-good and all-powerful God allow suffering, evil, and pain in the world? certainly applies.  Not only does an all-good and all-powerful God seem to allow hunger, he seems to do so after saying he wouldn’t.  I turned to three books – The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis; God, Medicine, and Suffering by Stanley Hauerwas; and, Evil and the Justice of God by N. T. Wright – with my question – Was Jesus wrong to promise that the Father will feed and clothe us?  – and looked for help to answer it.  I will limit myself to two helps from each book. 

Birds, Lilies, & Starving to Death, Part 1: Thoughts on Matthew 6:25-34

Scripture and I do not always seem to exist in the same reality.  The height of this uneasy co-existence is Matthew 6:25-34.  Jesus tells listeners not worry about what they will eat or wear.  Instead, seek the Kingdom.  I get stuck at verses 32 and 33.  Jesus says that such worry is not characteristic for his followers.  The Father knows what we need and will provide it.  Is the Father watching?  People starved to death as I tried to craft a readable opening paragraph.  Even for those who do not die, basic needs being met seems to be an unreasonable dream for many. 

Reflections on the Rich Young Man

The Rich Young Man and I have crossed paths a number of times over the last few weeks.[1]  It is not surprising, then, that I want to reconsider this account from scripture.  In the past, what always struck me about the man was that he sadly walked away from Jesus, who told him to sell everything he owned and give the income to the poor if he wanted to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  Most recently, however, what struck me most was how Jesus responded to his apostles’ questioning about who can be saved.  No one can be saved by her or his own power, Jesus responds.  By God’s power, though, anyone can be.  Jesus’ answer suggests a question: Who is your God?  Our answer to this question should affect how we respond to injustice.

Faith Based Justice Part 5: The Spirit, Has Spoken Through the Prophets

Prophets are important when considering how social justice grows up from Christian belief.  I had a eureka moment a few years ago when Micah 6:8 became a significant part of what shapes worldview.  I had another moment like this a few of days ago when I started thinking about this post.  What I will call The Micah Statement – that God expects his followers to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly – is not exclusive to the prophet Micah.  I can just as easily refer to The Isaiah Statement (1:16-17), The Jeremiah Statement (22:3), The Ezekiel Statement (45:9), The Hosea Statement (12:6), The Amos Statement (5:15), or The Zephaniah Statement (2:3) and communicate the same thing.  Why is this so?  The Creed proposes an answer: This idea did not begin with the prophets.  Instead, they drew from a common source, namely The Holy Spirit.  I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the prophets.  This is why I am an advocate for social justice.

Faith Based Justice Part 4: Jesus was Made Man

I expect that Jesus’ humanity resulted in more enemies than his divinity.  That Jesus did not meet the expectations of a god or of a messiah* should not upset people who thought he was neither God nor messiah.  As a human, though, Jesus ignored social niceties to spend time with the bad folks.  That bothered people because he did not meet the expectations of a good person.  Jesus was made man and showed us, his fellow humans, what humanity is all about. This is why I am an advocate for social justice.     

Faith Based Justice Part 3: Jesus of one being with the Father

Power imbalance amongst people is an unfortunate reality.  Whenever this reality works in my favour, I am in a position to serve someone.  Either I can serve myself and my rights (which I often do) or I can serve an issue or person who does not have this same power (which I less often do).  I suppose a third option is apathy.  

I do not pretend that it is easy to understand how Jesus is both God – in particular the creating God that I wrote about several weeks ago – and a human like us.  Normally, an “it just is” argument would irritate me, but over the next couple of posts we will need to be satisfied with one*.  In this post, I want to consider Jesus’ divinity and, in the next, I will consider his humanity.  I hope that each will let me demonstrate how Christian teaching should help us make the choice to use our power in the service of others.  I believe that Jesus is of one being with the Father and this belief is why I am an advocate for social justice.

Faith Based Justice, Part 1

I often point out that my Christian faith lead me to be an advocate for social justice.  I simply take for granted that this claim means something in particular and that anyone reading the statement knows what that particular meaning is.  Such an assumption is a mistake and I hope to correct it in a new essay series.

Micah 6:8 and Why It Is Not Enough to be a Social Justice Christian

Recently a couple of New Brunswick news websites posted articles about panhandling in two of the province’s cities.  The public posted widely in the comments section of one of these sites.  I have been persuaded, but likely not in the way some of the posters intended.  The posters convinced me that being Social Justice Christians is not enough.  We must also be Compassionate Merciful Christians. 

Jesus Matters. I Did Not See That Coming.

Three groups of people impacted what I think about social justice.  I met the first group while studying in Vancouver.  We were mostly students and called ourselves Micah 6:8.  (The group is still active.)  We ate lunch together on Tuesdays.  It was a good group of folks that challenged me.  I met the second group – The Micah Coalition – after returning to Saint John.  We are mostly pastors, but a few of us laypeople straggle in.  I’m happy to know that there are people in Saint John who want social justice.  The third group, which I also met in Saint John, goes by the name Hope Mission.  It doesn’t talk about social justice too often, but this group of people taught me how to be a Social Justice Christian.  Jesus matters and I did not see that coming.

In Defence of Charity

There is, what seems to me, an odd statement made by some social justice folks.  The statement goes along the lines of, “We need justice and not charity.  Charity keeps people in poverty and a lot of people make a lot of money keeping people poor.  Charity exists to let the givers feel good about themselves and does not help the poor.  We need fundamental change.”  I disagree.

Two Masters? I'm a Christian and a Citizen, Part 3

The state and the church are both responsible to ensure that people are treated fairly.  This implies the possibility that a relationship between the state and church can exist to benefit the wider society.  I argued that this relationship should be based solely on ensuring that social justice is realized.   I then listed some significant dangers that the church should be aware of if entering such a relationship.  Now, I want to assume that the church and state can realize a relationship with the proper focus and that the church has taken the necessary precautions to ensure that it does not fall into sin.  With these two (huge) assumptions in mind, I want to explore what the relationship will look like.  Specifically, I want to ask: How can the church serve the wider society by serving the state?  My contention is that the church best fulfills its role as servant by assisting the state when it is acting within God’s will and by warning the state when it is acting outside of God’s will.  Our tools in offering this service are prayer, understanding the role of Church and the role of state, direct acts of service, and – only as a last resort – confrontation.

Two Masters? I'm a Christian and a Citizen, Part 2

In my last essay, I suggested something that I think is, at least somewhat, radical: the church and state should have a relationship, but this relationship should not allow the church to compel citizens to follow Christian moral teaching.  Instead, the church and state should join forces only when their divine mandates overlap.  The overlap of these mandates is in relation to ensuring that people are not made victims of oppression.  Neither the church nor the state has proven itself trustworthy in how it uses power, so I pointed out that having such a relationship in place makes me nervous.  To calm my nerves, I suggested that the church should have strict parameters regarding how it relates to the state.  In this essay, I want to explore these dangers and parameters more.

Two Masters? I'm a Christian and a Citizen, Part 1

The Church in Canada does not have the moral nor political power that it once did.  Knowing this, Canadian Christians should be asking ourselves some questions.  What role do we have now?  Should we interact with intentionally secular states?  How would we even begin doing this?  Is being a Christian simply a personal matter of faith or can our faith positively impact society?

Some Proposals for a Christian Response to Poverty, Concluding Thoughts and New Questions

I wonder where we can go with these five proposals.  The purpose of the essay series was to explore the church’s response to poverty and uncover some of the information needed to make a decision about what proper responses could look like.  I hope that I painted poverty as a complex issue that is not simply about dollars and cents.  If I am correct about the complexity of poverty, the church’s response must be equally complex.  Serving the poor is not as simple as throwing money at poverty.  

Some Proposals for a Christian Response to Poverty, Part 6b

Yesterday’s proposition made me ask some “What If?” questions.  I decided to deal with these questions in a separate essay.  I’m hoping that splitting these remarks will allow my proposal that the church has an ordained role in society and that it should act within it to be considered purely as an idea to agree with or disagree with.  Once its validity as an idea is decided upon, we can discuss potential problems with implementing the idea and hopefully come to some solutions.  My questions are:

• What if the government does not listen to a prophecy that extols justice and the elimination of poverty? 
• What if someone is guilty of being unjust, but the state is not that someone? 
• What if the church and state become too closely linked?   

Some Proposals For a Christian Response to Poverty, Part 6a

My last essay proposed how the response to poverty fits into the church’s mission and identity.  I now want to propose where the church fits into the response to poverty.  This is an important idea to consider.  It would appear that the church has a diminished role because other groups – whether international governments or assorted NGO’s – address poverty effectively.  Does the church even have a role anymore?  I want to suggest that it does and will therefore define my fifth proposal as: 

When the church takes action to address poverty, it must act within its God-ordained role in society.   

For the sake of clarity, I will split this essay into two parts.  In 6a (which you are reading now), I will present the proposal.  In 6b (which you will undoubtedly return to this blog to read tomorrow), I will present some possible problems with the proposal and suggest potential solutions.