I'm not sure where you are going with this, but it does bring to mind a statement made by one of our rather socially liberal colleagues a few years back at the Diocese of Southern Ohio's Convention. He urged us to vote no on feel good resolutions unless we intended to fully fund them and volunteer our time and talents to see them implemented in our own diocesan and parish bounds. I think he was right in pointing out that so many of the Episcopal Church's attempts to legislate change in others involves only someone else's money and time.
This seems to be a bit of a “gotcha” question, and they often reveal more about the interlocutor than the question asks. Often, these take the stance of being a bit “holier than thou”, so unless one has given everything over to the poor (a la St. Anthony) we should suspend the tone that demands satisfaction. If one has, one is to be congratulated, and may indeed serve as a prophet to call us to account.
My surmise is that, underlying the question, there is a belief that I do not share your particular brand of politics, or political action. That is rather beyond my point. The idea being that the Church should be careful in advocating for any specific public policy designed to “end” poverty for fear of the law of unintended consequences. The clergy, for the most part, are neither economists, nor sociologists, and should be more circumspect in endorsing political solutions. However, they should clearly state that the Church has a moral obligation to work for the eradication of poverty within its own ranks, and then move out into the world. In short, when clergy engage in the former they are participating in the formation and perpetuation of an abstraction, where the latter humanizes the problem and engages the congregation in reflection and action. The Church should always speak of principles, and call the individual into a deeper level of discipleship and engagement.
I can imagine a very honest response to the call for engagement at the human level as being, “I pay my taxes, why should I do more”, and if the Church has given a direct endorsement to public policy that is a fair question. We have given the individual the legalistic demand to care for the poor, and they have done so through the expedient of withholding, therefore meeting the basic demand. The costly response of discipleship, “give over everything”, to the gracious call of Jesus is not heard, nor can it be heard when the legalism of policy is preached. I hold that the issue is not that the Church “will not”, but truly “cannot” as our hands are tied to a legalistic support of public policy, a legalistic view of “helping”, and a fear of offending our congregations. We are immobilized because the problem is so vast, our resources seem so small, and abstractions are easy things to love. As a result, we “pay our taxes”, go to a meeting, grab a bumper sticker, and donate to causes, rather than engaging in the costly work of discipleship. I think we, often, to paraphrase a great wit, “love the idea of the poor, but cannot stand poor people.”
The key is this, of course we should advocate for the poor, but more importantly, we should each hear the call, to lay down our lives for the sake gospel, the salvation of souls and the healing of society.
This becomes poignant for me when I think of our own Church making such a big deal of the MDG’s and the miniscule amount of our budget dedicated to their implementation, and yet spending millions on lawsuits. Now, that is controversial.
Now as to the “what are you doing”? Snarkily, I’m paying my taxes (over $20k on income of significantly less than $100k); I’m paying my tithe; I’m working on a mission in Burundi to enhance food security through the introduction of rabbit raising; I serve on several boards in our community whose work has a positive impact on the poor; I volunteer with Rotary; I serve at the food bank; the parish supports the local missions; I have pushed hands on ministry to the poor; using the discretionary fund, I hire the poor to work around the parish and earn food money and get the dignity of labor; I support Food for the Poor; I preach on the Christian Obligation to those in need; and this year I am arranging with a local mission to give 10% of our garden produce for their use. In terms of works righteousness, I think I am doing quite well, yet, I know, in the words of Oskar Schindler, “I could have done more.” I believe, that I have a heart for the poor, and the parish is developing one as well.
All snark aside, what I am really doing, is trying to be a disciple of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and unworthy as I am (simul justus et peccator), respond with my whole being to the grace of his call to life abundant, here and eternally.
I think the job of the clergy is to equip the laity to be hands-on in regards to poverty (and other engagement with the world). It's not the clergy's job to be "sanctified social workers"; priests are to confect the Eucharist - which feeds US to go teach, evangelize and do the corporal works of mercy.
Hmmmm.... I guess I touched a nerve. But I assure you that this was not intended as a "gotcha" question, but an honest question about how clergy in a denomination known for its wealth and power model ministry to the poor. This is not about politics, and I am sorry that you surmised it to be.
In your response, you cast the poor as an entity separate from yourself and your parish. In other words, you describe the poor as an entity "out there" to be helped, rather than struggling, suffering people to be brought "in here" with you, your family, and your parishioners.
While I don't think priests should be "sanctified social workers," sociologists, policy makers, or economists, neither should they (or the bishops above them) be regarded or regard themselves as local royalty who need not dirty their hands with the poor. They shouldn't "push" parishioners to minister to the poor, but rather model the inclusion of the poor in the parish community.
I hope that you, in your preaching and teaching on poverty, find the courage to offend your parishioners. If the truth offends them, then perhaps speaking the truth is the costly discipleship to which you have been called.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, but it does bring to mind a statement made by one of our rather socially liberal colleagues a few years back at the Diocese of Southern Ohio's Convention. He urged us to vote no on feel good resolutions unless we intended to fully fund them and volunteer our time and talents to see them implemented in our own diocesan and parish bounds. I think he was right in pointing out that so many of the Episcopal Church's attempts to legislate change in others involves only someone else's money and time.
ReplyDeleteGood question! Also applies to issues of injustice, and I think "does not" is more accurate than "cannot."
ReplyDeleteHow are you as a priest in the Church working to solve the problem of poverty? If you're not part of the solution....
Catherine Alexander
Anonymous,
DeleteThis seems to be a bit of a “gotcha” question, and they often reveal more about the interlocutor than the question asks. Often, these take the stance of being a bit “holier than thou”, so unless one has given everything over to the poor (a la St. Anthony) we should suspend the tone that demands satisfaction. If one has, one is to be congratulated, and may indeed serve as a prophet to call us to account.
My surmise is that, underlying the question, there is a belief that I do not share your particular brand of politics, or political action. That is rather beyond my point. The idea being that the Church should be careful in advocating for any specific public policy designed to “end” poverty for fear of the law of unintended consequences. The clergy, for the most part, are neither economists, nor sociologists, and should be more circumspect in endorsing political solutions. However, they should clearly state that the Church has a moral obligation to work for the eradication of poverty within its own ranks, and then move out into the world. In short, when clergy engage in the former they are participating in the formation and perpetuation of an abstraction, where the latter humanizes the problem and engages the congregation in reflection and action. The Church should always speak of principles, and call the individual into a deeper level of discipleship and engagement.
I can imagine a very honest response to the call for engagement at the human level as being, “I pay my taxes, why should I do more”, and if the Church has given a direct endorsement to public policy that is a fair question. We have given the individual the legalistic demand to care for the poor, and they have done so through the expedient of withholding, therefore meeting the basic demand. The costly response of discipleship, “give over everything”, to the gracious call of Jesus is not heard, nor can it be heard when the legalism of policy is preached.
I hold that the issue is not that the Church “will not”, but truly “cannot” as our hands are tied to a legalistic support of public policy, a legalistic view of “helping”, and a fear of offending our congregations. We are immobilized because the problem is so vast, our resources seem so small, and abstractions are easy things to love. As a result, we “pay our taxes”, go to a meeting, grab a bumper sticker, and donate to causes, rather than engaging in the costly work of discipleship. I think we, often, to paraphrase a great wit, “love the idea of the poor, but cannot stand poor people.”
The key is this, of course we should advocate for the poor, but more importantly, we should each hear the call, to lay down our lives for the sake gospel, the salvation of souls and the healing of society.
This becomes poignant for me when I think of our own Church making such a big deal of the MDG’s and the miniscule amount of our budget dedicated to their implementation, and yet spending millions on lawsuits. Now, that is controversial.
Continuing my response...
DeleteNow as to the “what are you doing”? Snarkily, I’m paying my taxes (over $20k on income of significantly less than $100k); I’m paying my tithe; I’m working on a mission in Burundi to enhance food security through the introduction of rabbit raising; I serve on several boards in our community whose work has a positive impact on the poor; I volunteer with Rotary; I serve at the food bank; the parish supports the local missions; I have pushed hands on ministry to the poor; using the discretionary fund, I hire the poor to work around the parish and earn food money and get the dignity of labor; I support Food for the Poor; I preach on the Christian Obligation to those in need; and this year I am arranging with a local mission to give 10% of our garden produce for their use. In terms of works righteousness, I think I am doing quite well, yet, I know, in the words of Oskar Schindler, “I could have done more.” I believe, that I have a heart for the poor, and the parish is developing one as well.
All snark aside, what I am really doing, is trying to be a disciple of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and unworthy as I am (simul justus et peccator), respond with my whole being to the grace of his call to life abundant, here and eternally.
I think the job of the clergy is to equip the laity to be hands-on in regards to poverty (and other engagement with the world). It's not the clergy's job to be "sanctified social workers"; priests are to confect the Eucharist - which feeds US to go teach, evangelize and do the corporal works of mercy.
ReplyDeleteI'm a lay person, for what it's worth.
Hmmmm.... I guess I touched a nerve. But I assure you that this was not intended as a "gotcha" question, but an honest question about how clergy in a denomination known for its wealth and power model ministry to the poor. This is not about politics, and I am sorry that you surmised it to be.
ReplyDeleteIn your response, you cast the poor as an entity separate from yourself and your parish. In other words, you describe the poor as an entity "out there" to be helped, rather than struggling, suffering people to be brought "in here" with you, your family, and your parishioners.
While I don't think priests should be "sanctified social workers," sociologists, policy makers, or economists, neither should they (or the bishops above them) be regarded or regard themselves as local royalty who need not dirty their hands with the poor. They shouldn't "push" parishioners to minister to the poor, but rather model the inclusion of the poor in the parish community.
I hope that you, in your preaching and teaching on poverty, find the courage to offend your parishioners. If the truth offends them, then perhaps speaking the truth is the costly discipleship to which you have been called.
Catherine Alexander