-
Website
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2009/10/repent-for-the-kingdom-of-god-is-near/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
There was one student in particular who had no money left and he really had to use the bathroom. One of the girls in the class gave the boy some money and said, "But I'm not giving you any more." I could hear the sense of entitlement in her voice. I was going to write a longer post on the subject on my own blog, but I don't want to make too big a deal about it or upset anyone in the district I am working in by making too big of a hulabaloo about it.
I just think that teachers unwitingly teach this sense of entitlement all throughout primary and secondary education. The primary reason teachers want to send students to college is to help them "gain more."
This post is a breath of fresh air away from that.
So poverty and affluence would be more like symptoms to this deeper problem. In this situation we ultimately want to solve this deeper problem. Obviously though we could never say something like "its ok that I'm affluent and concerned (however mildly) with increasing in affluence because my heart is in the right place" or "its ok to be in dehumanizing poverty if you look to God and are content and happy." Thats like saying that its ok to be feverish forever as long as you don't have a virus. Its ridiculous.
Recently I have had to read an article on approach family therapy (regarding even what seems like personal issues) by looking at the relationships between different members of the family and roles within families (including extended families of course). So if a woman comes to a therapist because she has nightmares, they might not concern themselves much with the content of the nightmares, but look at what relational/structural dysfunction might exist within relationships she is connected to. The article even mentioned how alcoholism could be viewed as a symptom of a deeper issue. I found this helpful as a simile.
Like alcohol, we can see how money and materialism is addictive, so even if it is a symptom of a deeper issue, in this instance you would still want to "treat" the symptom. You would still ultimately might need to abstain from mammon for your own healing. This is somewhat penitential, because we don't need to view abstinence as the ideal, but a method of treating the addiction, or of breaking a pattern. Money, property, possessions aren't inherently bad but they can be very bad for us b/c we continue to have terrible, sinful, dehumanizing relationships with them.
About your other questions... We engage in this for all our sakes. Ultimately this addresses all of our liberation and healing, though the "oppressor's" "liberation" (I know you are uncomfortable with the idea of seeking our own liberation. Is there a better word here?) can only happen in penitential submission to the oppressed's. The poor would be the most obviously benefitted first. It's just "good news" to them, but our own healing is at stake as well. The only reason I emphasize this is because we already generally have an attitude of "helping" the poor. We just tend to think that our own well-being is somehow in conflict with theirs. So in giving things away we are concerned with being "taken advantage of" or we worry about our own livelihood being in competition, that our well-being might be compromised. I'm trying to turn that upside-down, to explore how our livelihood and health is subject to theirs.
We generally already think about doing things for the sake of the poor, but we haven't really internalized the fact that the poor do more for us in terms of our humanity and soul than we do for them (we can help their physical needs, but as they embrace their own liberation and dignity and we are willing to be subject to that, they save our souls) . Anyone involved in charity has glimpsed that. I have often talked with people about how we are benefitted and grew after visiting impoverished places on short term missions trips. This is true, and good, but at the most basic level we still see ourselves as being in a better position (better in terms of healthier) than those we serve, and because of that we aren't willing to challenge some of our deepest assumptions about what kind of relationship we should have with the "less fortunate." I don't frame the question as being for "our sakes" because it isn't for the poor's sake, but because we need to fully confront the issue that our humanity is at stake before true healing and relational health can be explored. Otherwise we will continue to make the poor into our own image. To try and "help" the poor in a way that pressures them to adopt the perspective that causes extreme poverty and sinful affluence and furthers dehumanization and dysfunction.
of course I admit that I am still exploring these issues. There are some things I am convinced of, there are some things that I am unsure of, and there our some issues that I think need to be considered (for example, as a female I do think I have to consider what it means for me to be liberated from a marginalized position. I think submission still plays a huge role even from that place, but I don't know that I could ever be in the position to say that about anything more than speaking of a female's liberation. I'm really not sure...).
I think you (Mark) and Sarah are both right about the positive effects for the affluent and for the poor, and the potential for establishing better relationships. But do we really do it trying to achieve these effects? Or judge the rightness of our action based on how it affects these areas of concern? Aren't we doing it as passionate followers of Jesus who want only to walk with him closely, our lives mirroring his?
Take the lines from Luke 6 just before the line Sarah quoted in her article: That's not really about affluence, but it doesn't seem to suggest that poverty is the problem either. Then Jesus continues:
That doesn't seem to be predicting (or promoting) good relationships with others, at least not primarily, since it sounds like he's commending them for being hated. But then there's that phrase "on account of the Son of man." For Jesus' sake.
I just think we can't really explain behavior like this in terms of psychological or economic or social benefits. Truly following Jesus has always had the tinge of madness to it, hasn't it? (Didn't they even say he had a demon?) Doesn't it have to be a result of a passion for Jesus himself?
also, just to mention b/c I think its related... even when I use salvation language to talk about this stuff, I am doing that within the context of recognizing the Lordship of Christ and understanding his identification with them. I'm not trying to misplace who my service and allegiance is ultimately to. I just want to identify what I think that really means, b/c many people talk about loving and serving Jesus, but when looking at many Christians' life I wish they would really identify what that means, what we are being called to.
If we're following Jesus in his poverty, though, I wonder how penitence fits in. I agree that such a shift in our way of living will challenge our assumptions of entitlement and help us recognize our sin and encourage penitence (as well as helping the poor and encouraging solidarity with the "least"). But Jesus embraced this life himself, and he is the one we are following, and did he do it primarily for penitence?
Or is there an even deeper purpose?
1- it emphasizes our need to repent from (not just ask forgiveness for) the ways we have furthered an oppressive system
2- it specifically asks us to change
and 3- it recognizes the need for practices that embody our repentance and help us break out of the habits and pattern of sin.
This is peculiar to our position, because we need to repent. But penitence isn't the purpose, the purpose is becoming more like Jesus.
Let me explain further how I use this word... I think it implies a more extreme response than just feeling sorry for something wrong and then doing something right. Again I would liken this to alcoholism. I don't think alcohol is wrong, and I think its fine for people to drink moderately and enjoy it, but it is usually wise for an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol, even though its good to drink moderately. In this case choosing to abstain is akin to a penitential act.
Usually when I've talked to people about issues of oppression, prejudice, or materialism, we have been quick to discuss how possessions aren't bad, the idea that submitting to someone who is oppressed is like "reverse-oppression" or "reverse-racism," and how we need to seek equality so we should come to agreements or began engaging on a purely horizontal level.
Ideally, I think this is what being family and one in Christ would be like, but I don't think we can get there without having a more penitential perspective. When I say "we" I mean those who have grown up with the entitlement perspective of power (whether through social/class status, money, ethnicity or gender... or a combo of any of these). Nothing is black and white, there are times when I'm effected by our historically-oppressive culture as a female, and there are times when I realizing I'm hurting someone else by using an elitist lens or engaging with a black person or poor person from an empowered position. In the latter, even when I feel like I'm trying to help the person I need to humble myself and try to adopt a different lens to rid myself of my "bad eye." In the former I still feel called to respond graciously and even submissively at times, but I often still try and do that in a way that is empowering, not simply accepting. I can only really understand what is empowering for me in that space though, because I actually have that lens. In this case I would not be embracing penitence, but simply looking to how Jesus shows me how to engage and love my enemies. In the latter case, I would still be trying to model myself after Jesus, but to be conformed to him I would have to repent and a penitential response may be necessary.
Jesus didn't necessarily model penitence, but his life calls those who sin to repent. I think from a place of unjust power this feels penitential, and accepting that helps us see Jesus' way.
Francis' "Testament" began with "The Lord gave to me, Brother Francis, thus to begin to do penance; for when I was in sin it seemed to me very bitter to see lepers, and the Lord Himself led me amongst them and I showed mercy to them. And when I left them, that which had seemed to me bitter was changed for me into sweetness of body and soul. And afterwards I remained a little and I left the world. And the Lord gave me so much faith in churches that I would simply pray and say thus: "We adore Thee Lord Jesus Christ here and in all Thy churches which are in the whole world, and we bless Thee because by Thy holy cross Thou hast redeemed the world."
He was called to do penance, and then "left" (which is the very gospel word for "forgive"or "let go of" and so be free of the way of the world, "sin' of "falling short of the mark") the world." So "Lady Poverty" became his way of "Perfect Joy!" It was then that he realized why he was called to such "repentance," ---- it way the way of Joy. As another saint said, "To be poor-- to rely on God alone, and then comes peace." And then we are free to love (and act on that love) not from a higher position, but from below, the very place all of us receive God's love, for his love is here, with us all, his love shared amongst us in flesh and blood, even love is all from God-- "we love because first God loves us."
Isn't there a point at which we are given some grace and release from all this?
Let's just say I do my darndest to release all of who I am and have for the sake of God, self, and the poor. I try to study and research the most faithful ways to shop and purchase. I make pacts and promises to myself to tithe and give offerings. I only shop within walking distance from my house. I open my home up to the community. Anyone can access my time and call on me for a listening ear or a helping hand. I take a job that makes less money. I don't have health insurance or a retirement fund. I don't save. I buy groceries from local farms. I recycle. I share cars. I ride the bus or walk when at all possible, I internally beat myself up because I know I've participating in an oppressive system, I feel guilty for doing anything fun or creative because it requires spending money and time....I do all these things and then they don't really seem to amount to much in world wide scheme of things.
Community members keep on challenging me and say that "at best" we're still living out of our sense of elitism. Neighbors still think I'm rich. I'm paralyzed to act or think or say anything for fear of being non-penitent or selfish or not faithful.
And so, fasting from shopping or the computer or television was once a joyful but now just feels like a burden because it is seemingly not making a difference to me or to God or neighbor.
At what point can we say to ourselves and to each other, "what you're doing here is good and faithful"?
Jesus' words as he began his preaching were (as Sarah noted in her title) "Repent, for the kingdom of God has come near." The repent part is crucial, in our turning from oppressive and self-destructive ways to follow Jesus' teachings and example. But Jesus' example was not a life of penitence. It was a life of freedom and the miraculous power of God. That's what should draw us. That's what we're repenting and turning to, to the incredible life he showed us was possible.
That's the second (and more important) part of his message: "The kingdom of God has come near." If our desire is to experience this, a much fuller life than wealth or any human power can give us, then our question is not "have I done enough yet?" but "How did Jesus do that?! Can I do that too?" Like Peter, wanting to step out of the boat and walk on water with Jesus.
To give a more specific and perhaps more practical example, I tried to present Jesus' teachings on work and income in this light, focusing on what we're called to turn to, what Jesus is offering us, in this series of articles here: "Come to me, all ye who labor for a living" (and part 2 and part 3).
And I can see why people don't often see grace in the idea of such a "state of being." The concept of a life of penitence fits well with the social and economic critique that shows how dependent and entwined we are with the oppressive systems around us. That does seem like something we can struggle all our lives to extricate ourselves from (all the while admitting we will never be completely free). But is this the good news Jesus lived and preached?
Jesus' call to repent always included the possibility of immediate forgiveness and freedom from the fault we discover binding us. Because he offered it as a gift. By God's power, God's grace. And he showed us that the life of the kingdom could be lived right now, also a gift to us. The call to repent always included the offer of the kingdom of God now, in this moment. "Repent for the kingdom of God has come near."
Compared to that, a life of penitence may seem more heroic, but not more grace-filled. Or more Christlike.
First of all, I believe we already have been given grace and are released. That is foundational to me. I always feel a bit wary with these kinds of discussions because someone ultimately always frames the issue in terms of working for or accepting grace. My understanding is that I am empowered to embrace the Kingdom of God (which I long for) because of grace. I can do that free from the anxiety of trying to prove myself, or of making myself acceptable before I receive love because of grace. I can try very hard things and not try hard things and still wake up everyday and not be totally despondent because of God's grace. I honestly don't usually say all of that because I have heard people use grace as an excuse so often. I don't think grace excuses us, it can only empower us and give us a proper foundation for action. (The fact that I don't care to develop a clear understanding of heaven and hell and how you get to either may have something to do with my acceptance of that kind of statement. I haven't been convinced yet that the Bible is clear in this area, and I don't understand Jesus or the early Christians as seeming preoccupied with this idea. To me Jesus warned us of the natural consequences of our actions, possibly in conjunction with judgment specifically against those who should know better and still preach a message against God's Kingdom. That's as far as I care to speculate right now, and it doesn't concern me when it comes to my own flesh being weak. I'm sure God can see my longing and so I operate from grace.)
I don't think it is all that valuable to operate from a place of anxiety/fear when it comes to this kind of things. When you talk about internally beating yourself up, or feeling guilty I get the impression that you are operating from anxiety. Do you long for faithfulness? Do long to be conformed to Christ's mind? Do you have any sense of what God's Kingdom is like, think it is beautiful, and long for its full embodiment? (I understand that we can want to want those things and lose that longing at times. I am not trying to be judgmental in asking those questions). This is what I understand as my proper motivation. It is true that I still sometimes feel anxiety and fear. I hear voices and believe that I must conform to them in order to feel loved. Sometimes this is what those voices believe, and sometimes I have to let those voices know that that is what I hear from them, but I still suspect that in the end, I am the only one in the position to judge whether I am ready to embark on something or not, and I am ultimately the only one responsible for my sense of guilt or acceptance from God. This is not to say that other people who may speak words of guilt or shame to us don't need to be addressed, but it is to say that just because I feel guilty doesn't mean the vision or recommended action isn't good. It just means that I need to attend to myself and deal with some of the issues that cause me to operate out of anxiety.
Again, I hesitate to say that, because this isn't a "before I act I have to have perfectly pure motives" type thing. I have acted even when I felt guilty and I think sometimes that it is better than if I didn't act. Sometimes it is worse. I couldn't be prescriptive here, you have to judge for yourself and within community.
One final thought in response to your post. Its true that all those things you mentioned may not make any difference in your relationships with your neighbors. A lot of those things probably make little difference to many of them. For example, having a grey water system in my house was a great social justice-y, "radical" thing to do but it made one of our housemates (who is fairly marginalized in our community) incredibly uncomfortable. This guy comes from a poor broken family and currently struggles with a disability and addiction. He is also pretty arrogant at times, incredibly defensive, machismo and rude. So when he communicates his discomfort with things like a grey water system it is often in a pretty offensive way. Does that mean I ignore him and continue to push my agenda (as good as my agenda is)? In this case, I'd say probably not. Even though I would challenge him and set boundaries when we discuss our differences and problems with each other, I still need to try to submit to his voice and show him respect. In this case I suspect that pushing my own agenda would probably not be a good idea.
Here is the reason... I am, by society's standards (and often, at my dismay, I think by my own and my community's standards) more respectable than he is. He is constantly having to defend his sense of respect and empowerment. In my relationship with him, I really don't need to do that. As I've engaged him I've realized more and more that I rest in a secure, empowered position calling him to conform to me. That doesn't really do him much justice. There is a lot of areas that we both need to grow in, but an area I could grow in is listening to him and letting myself experience cultural and time discomfort as I try and understand his experience. Again, this doesn't mean I just let him walk all over me. We have to maintain a sense of self that is choosing to submit. I'm not forced to do these things, I choose to do them (as much as I am able) because I recognize it as being good. Sometimes I see that the best thing to do is to challenge him. I think he actually really appreciates that... for him it can represent me engaging him as an equal to challenge him. So again, none of this is prescriptive. It would be really easy if it was, but it more has to do with a posture and awareness of when the power dynamics are changing in a situation. With this guy, I'm often in a place of security in the sense of feeling accepted, knowing that I won't be asked to leave the community, and knowing that I generally have everyone's support when I talk to him. We are trying very hard to communicate to him that he has that same security, but I have to be honest that it isn't always where we operate from and so then I have to try and reorient my position and hear him when he tells me that (in his often brash way).
Anyway, I hope that makes some sense. I know your experience will be different as you deal with different people. I just want to be careful of assuming that anything that is "good" is necessarily the right way to establish a sense of humility and equality in our relationship with people.