You Always have the Poor with You

The Gospel from the Lectionary for next Sunday (March 13, Fifth Sunday in Lent) is the anointing of Jesus in Bethany from John 12:1-8.Verse 8 is all too often misused as an excuse for not being more generous and compassionate with poor folk. Matthew 26 and Mark 14 record an anointing in the Bethany home of Simon the leper by an unnamed woman, while John records an anointing by Mary in the home of Martha, Mary and Lazarus. Sorting out the differences in these Gospel accounts is beside the point here, but Mark 14 includes an additional telling comment in Jesus’ words that point to the source in Deuteronomy 15.

“You always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me.” (Mark 14:7)

“There will, however, be no one in need among you, because the Lord is sure to bless you. … Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’” (Deuteronomy 15:4,10-11)

I am intrigued that Deuteronomy 15:4 says there will “be no one in need among you,” and verse 11 says “there will never cease to be some in need.” This seeming contradiction reminds us that God expects us to continually care for the poor. If we do, there is no reason for desperate poverty among us, but we can’t become complacent with isolated efforts but must constantly be engaged.

Mark 14:7 confirms this same expectation in the words of Jesus. This one act of extravagant love expressed in anointing Jesus does not preclude ongoing care for the poor. Jesus’ ministry was consistently supportive of poor folk and this line confirms that Jesus knew that was the intent of the instructions in Deuteronomy that he referenced in response to the objection to the anointing. He was certainly not saying that his death marked some kind of boundary after which caring for the poor was no longer mandated. That “there will never cease to be some in need” is intended to be an incentive for generosity toward the poor, not an inhibition, so that “be no one in need among you.”

In our time much political debate has revolved around how much government should be involved in caring for the poor and how much should come from the private sector with voluntary contributions and work. I have had considerable involvement with the Salvation Army and generally concur with their slogan “doing the most good.” However, I also know social workers in government agencies who engage beneficially for many people despite impossibly large caseloads. Having said that, my experience with churches in different parts of the county is clear that few congregations are equipped or competent to address the magnitude of the issues facing poor people in their communities. Even when they work well together, to be effective they must interface with both public and private agencies.

I believe the private vs. public, government vs. volunteer debate is a false dichotomy. At the very least, to have any credibility at all, anyone who suggests reducing government involvement with caring for the poor must be personally involved in and financially contributing generously to private efforts on behalf of poor folk. This is most emphatically true for those who claim faith in Christ.

Deuteronomy 15 is probably the single most concise summary of God’s expectations for caring for the poor. It brings together both personal voluntary generosity with systemic social structures that insure justice and opportunity for those who are struggling. Extrapolating from ancient Israel’ theocratic society to 21^st century democracy is tricky at best, I would suggest that government does have a legitimate, even biblical, mandate to foster justice and compassion for the poor. Psalm 72 puts this squarely in the responsibility of the king, thus of government. Of course, how it is done will vary, but I believe the principle applies.

How Did “Evangelical Christians” Become a Voting Bloc to be Manipulated for Political Power?

This essay is a lament, not an answer to my question.

I was raised and educated in a solidly evangelical context in which Christian discipleship and Scripture were taken seriously. Through the time of the “culture wars,” opposing extra-marital sex, abortion, and homosexuality eclipsed Christian commitment to integrity and compassion, justice and peace. Today even promoting sexual morality has gotten lost in the confusion of political discontent.

Please understand I am not a sexual antinomian. However, I want my life, my faith, my discipleship, and my ministry to be about Jesus not about sex. When someone gives a eulogy at my funeral, I don’t want them to say I was a tireless crusader for the causes of sexual purity. I hope they will be able to say that people recognized that I knew, loved, and followed Jesus. I hope I would be remembered as having aspired to live the prayer of Richard of Chichester (1197-1253) that was so beautifully set to music in the Godspell song Day by Day.

Thanks be to thee, my Lord Jesus Christ,
for all the benefits thou hast given me,
for all the pains and insults thou hast borne for me.
O most merciful redeemer, friend and brother,
may I know thee more clearly,
love thee more dearly,
and follow thee more nearly, day by day.
Amen.

As I have heard political commentators and candidates talking about the strategic importance of “evangelical Christians” for the 2016 US Presidential election, I do not recognize the wonderful people who shaped my faith in Christ. I do not even recognize the sometimes strident crusaders for the causes of sexual morality in the “culture wars.” In the evangelical setting in which my faith took shape, we knew that we were strangers in this world and did not think of the country as the purveyor of our religion. The church was the community for nurturing faith. We who trusted and followed Jesus all around the world in many different countries and cultures had more in common with each other than with our neighbors who shared our nationality and ethnicity if they did not share faith in Jesus. Now “evangelicals” seem angry that the nation does not promote our religion. Rather than being salt and light for the people in our broken world, “evangelicals” bemoan their powerlessness even as they advocate legislation compelling external, behavioral conformity. I am sure such sour attitudes repel people from Christianity.

I heard one political commentator define “evangelical Christians” as those who claim a personal relationship with Jesus and regard the Bible as their authoritative guide for living. By that definition, I would certainly be considered an evangelical Christian, though my political perspectives do not match the “evangelical Christian” voting bloc. I have served congregations in the “mainline” church context for over 35 years in which a personal relationship with Jesus and a life guided by the Bible is welcomed, embraced and celebrated, even by those who would not use the label “evangelical” for themselves. Indeed, what I hear about the “evangelical Christian” voting bloc gives, at best, minimal lip service to a life of relationship with Jesus guided by the Bible. At most, I hear clichés and proof-texts manipulated in support of political machinations that candidates manipulate to garner votes and amass power.

Like many others who grew up in evangelical congregations and studied in evangelical schools, who have personal relationships with Jesus and build our lives around the Bible, I am no longer comfortable identifying myself as an “evangelical,” not because I am any less committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but because the label “evangelical” has come to mean a particular voting bloc manipulated by politicians. If I am identified as an evangelical, people assume all sorts of inaccurate things about me. Being evangelical has lost the sense of proclaiming the Good News (which is the meaning of evangel and gospel) of Jesus Christ. It projects an anger and attitude totally alien to Jesus. (I know the Gospels do sometimes show Jesus’ anger, but it was anger at how sin wounds people and anger at self-righteousness in people. In the Gospels, Jesus is not angry that he doesn’t get his way.)

I am not going to propose a label as an alternative to “evangelical.” I understand that some do not want to surrender a perfectly good word to this destructive distortion; however, labels distort and confuse. What I propose is what I have been aspiring to live and teach, that all of us who have a relationship with Jesus and guide our lives by the Bible, live that out in such a winsome way that those who are spiritually hungry and wounded will be drawn to Jesus. If they are attracted to us or to our congregations, that is secondary and a means to the end of pointing them to Jesus. Of course, we who follow Jesus must all live as citizens of specific countries and societies in which we are called to participate in the name of Christ. While undoubtedly more challenging, authentic Christian faith must be able to be practiced in hostile as well as tolerant societies. To me, living my faith in Jesus doesn’t mean becoming allied with political causes which subjugate our faith, but it means bringing justice and kindness and our humble walk with God into every context in which we live. (Micah 6:8) Our brother and sister Christians may move in different political circles, and we have political disagreements, but we can do that in such a way that the primacy of our shared loyalty to Jesus is obvious to each other and to all around us.