Poems of Dom Helder Camara

Bishop of Rio de Janiro, he believed that the power of the church should be used for the poor, and worked toward this end in Vatican II.  He led the Pact of the Catacombs, a group of priests devoted to the poor.  He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but the government of Brazil stood in his way.

His greatest work, however, were his poems in which he expressed his deeper life before God.  He wrote seven thousand poems in his life, and the far majority of them have not been published.  Here is a handful. 

Become an expert
in the art
of discovering the good
in every person.
No one
is entirely bad.
Become an expert
in the art
of finding the truthful core
in views of every kind.
The human mind
abhors total error.

There are those

whose being 

is possession.

There are those

whose essence

is giving.

If you disagree with me,
if you have something to give me,
if you are sincere
and seek the truth
as best you may,
honestly, with modest care,
your thought is growth
to mine, correction,
you deepen my vision.

Hope without risk

is not hope

which is believing

in risky loving,

trusting others

in the dark

the blind leap

letting God take over.

When on judgement day
the angels call the artists in
they will be so proud
of their share
in God the Father's power
of creation,
that the Son
will find it hard
to judge them strictly
because poets especially
remind him of his Father.

Lord,

isn't your creation wasteful?

Fruits never equal

the seedlings abundance.

Springs scatter water.

The sun gives out

enormous light.

May your bounty teach me

greatness of heart.

May your magnificence 

stop me being mean. 

Seeing you a prodigal

and open-handed giver,

let me unstintingly,

like a king's son,

like God's own.

Hear, O Lord
my special prayer
for my people,
the voiceless ones.
There are thousands
and thousands
of human creatures
in the poor countries
and in the slums
of the rich countries
with no right
to raise their voices
no possibility
of claiming
of protesting
however just
are the rights
they have to uphold.

-All poems taken from the volume Dom Helder Camara: Essential Writings, most are from the original volume The Desert is Fertile.

A Brief Biblical Theology of Generosity

Biblical theology is the ideas that the Bible itself contains.  In every section of the Bible, generosity is commanded, lauded and displayed.  Rare is such an ethical theme so consistently and regularly upheld.  Here is a sampling of this theme, and some of the strong affirmations:

1.       Creation—Psalm 104

Psalm 104 is a text about the creation of the world that offer different details than Genesis 1 or 2, and so belongs in the conversation with these texts.  Here, a picture is given of God creating an ordered world, in which every creature—even the sun and moon—are given what they need, food, water and shelter.  Human rule is seen as working to sustain this order of providing and preserving creation.  The wicked at the end of the psalm are those who deny this order, who hoard and keep for themselves resources which were meant to keep all of creation running.  In Psalm 104’s ideal creation, every creature is a part of the natural order of sustenance and amble resources.

2.       Patriarchs—Genesis 18-19

Abraham is seen as the ideal man of faith, who obtains wealth because of his trust in the One God, the Most High, the Creator.  But this wealth is also tested.  In Genesis 18, Abraham sees three men (secretly messengers from Yahweh), strangers, passing by in the middle of the desert.  Abraham insists on giving them “a little bread and water”, which becomes a feast of mutton and loaves.  This hospitality is seen as Abraham’s regular generosity for strangers.

Sodom, on the other hand, abuses strangers, harming both the immigrant and the one who offers the stranger hospitality.  Sodom is therefore destroyed for their abuse.

3.       Law—Deuteronomy 15

The law had in place a regular system of forgiving debts, which included restoring land back to the original family to whom it was given.  A warning is given with this to be generous to the poor, even if the time of forgiveness was nigh.  Generosity is tied to economic prosperity for the whole nation, because if they are generous then “there will be no poor among you.”  Generosity is always an option, and always a character trait that one should practice, for “the poor will never cease in the land.”  Or is this the Mosaic recognition that the people of Israel will not heed the law, and so economic disparity will exist as long as people withhold help from their neighbors?

4.       History—I Samuel 25

Nabal (“fool”, possibly a name given the man in later retellings) is a wealthy man having an annual sheering feast with his men.  David, an innocent homeless man with his men make a polite request to take part of the feast, as he has been protecting Nabal’s livestock.  Nabal refuses, choosing to insult David instead.  David wants to take vengeance on Nabal, killing him and his men, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, offers gifts and generous words to David, causing him to repent from his anger.  The next day, Nabal dies of a heart attack.  Refusing charity is seen as foolish and resulting in death.

5.       Prophets—Isaiah 58

The later Isaiah is speaking to a nation recently re-settled into the land.  They wonder whether they should continue their practice of fasting each Friday, to request Yahweh deliverance from their oppressors, and restoration.  Yahweh replies that their fasting is pointless as long as they continue to oppress the poor by not being generous to them.  Once they have granted justice and peace to the poor, then God will give their fasting and prayers due consideration.

6.       Wisdom—Proverbs 28:8, 27

Proverbs has a theme about poverty and giving to the poor running throughout its pages.  We can see one theme in these two verses.  The act of charging interest on debts is a way of gouging the poor, and those who use this practice of oppressing the poor, as well as any other oppressive practices, will be judged by God to be unworthy of their wealth.  Those who will be blessed by God are those who regularly generous to those who are in need, and they will receive the wealth of the oppressor.

7.       Wisdom—Job 31

Job, like Abraham, is seen by many as a righteous wealthy man.  But what makes him righteous?  His actions of treating his servants well, and especially his generosity to the needy.  He adopted orphans and would never have a meal without sharing that meal with the poor.  His great wealth was matched by his great generosity.

8.       Jesus—Luke 12

In a lecture that is collected from various places in Q and Luke’s own source, Jesus warns his disciples against  a variety of greeds.  He gives a parable warning that preparing for one’s retirement without equal generosity to the poor, can lead to a premature judgment by God.  Wealth is not the answer to one’s problems, but God himself. The normative disciple is to surrender his possessions to the poor, in order to obtain God’s storehouse of wealth instead.  And the disciple is to be generous, not worrying about where one’s basic needs would be met, for God would supply the disciple with all he needs, even as He provides for all creation.

9.       Jesus—Luke 16

Jesus gives two parables (from Luke’s special source), speaking of the relationship of the wealthy to the poor.  In the second parable, the rich man ignores Lazarus, the poor beggar outside the wealthy estate.  The wealthy man is punished because he did not share his comfort with Lazarus who was suffering horribly.  Rather, Jesus says that wealthy people should be like the unjust steward, who sees the poor and suffering as those who will obtain God’s favor, and so should make friends with them by freely surrendering their wealth, which is not theirs to begin with, but God’s.

10.   Acts—Acts 4:33-37

The natural response to Jesus’ teachings about economics, is for many of the wealthy in the early church to surrender their wealth to be redistributed among the poor of their church.  This is the cause of God’s great blessing on the church.

11.   Paul—Galatians 2:7-10

Although Paul did not support the law being given to the Gentiles to follow, he did agree with James that one law should be commanded of all disciples, Jew or Gentile, which was generosity to the poor.

12.   James 5:1-6

The wealthy among the congregation is seen as worthy of God’s judgment because instead of sharing their ample resources, they were hoarding them, not practicing “true religion” or obeying “the royal commandment” to love their neighbor as themselves.

13.   John—I john 3:17; 4:20

The elder encourages the church to give to the poor.  If we have the ability to be generous, but do not, then we do not display the kind of love God had for us, and so we do not have God’s love or grace.  God’s grace is on display in those who meet the needs of those around them.

Throughout the Bible, the choice is clear.  If we have some wealth, money, land, estate, connections, food, livestock or other resources, then it is natural and loving to give to those in greater need than we.  If we do not do this, we are outside the system of God’s grace, mercy and generosity and we will not be partakers of God’s grace, but rather the focus of His judgment.  Even as those who do not forgive will not be forgiven, those who are not generous to the poor will not receive the generosity of God. 

Monoculturalism Destroys the World

Everyone wants to battle prejudice. To label people by their group, to stereotype an individual by who they look like or false ideas about their group is a horrendous crime. However, sociology teaches us that this is not a crime that we can just point at and jeer, but rather it is a sin within our own hearts. There is not a single person who has ever lived who has not made a determination of another’s personality, goals or vices based solely on one’s looks, one’s accent, one’s clothes or the people one is friendly with. Labeling on insufficient evidence is hardwired within us, and we will all stumble because we assume that our current experience with a person is based on a previous experience or story of an experience with someone we put in their same category. To confront a bigot, all we have to do is talk to the mirror.

It is for this reason that many Western societies have targeted certain areas of prejudice. We have laws against some forms of racism and sexism. We decry homophobia and religious bigotry. And so we should. Because to limit one’s rights or ability to survive due to one’s beliefs, one’s sex, one’s race or one’s sexual orientation is wrong. Every adult, without exception, should be allowed to make their own decisions about how to meet their needs, as long as it does not harm another. If one person has the money for an apartment, then all who can afford it and not harm others should get the same apartment. If one person can sit in a bar to drink, then all should be allowed. This is what Martin Luther King Jr. died for.

There is far to go in these focuses. Yes, an African American has been elected president, but thirty six percent of all abortions in the United States are on minorities, and 40 percent of all prisoners are African Americans. Yes, women are now able to succeed in almost any occupation men used to hold a monopoly on, but women still only make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Most people have the freedom to worship as they please, but any Muslim appointed to a high government position will soon have to resign because of false allegations that they have associated with terrorist groups. With prejudice, the work is never done.

With as much work as must be done on the bigotry that has been targeted, there is a problem with speaking of racism, or sexism or whatever other focus one has. For every prejudice our society focuses on and tries to wipe out, a hundred are ignored and five more are created. Yes, our society has made great strides in sexism, but assumptions are publicly made daily about the poor who receive welfare—that they are lazy, are cheating the system, are taking advantage of the government. Racism has changed and in some ways gone underground, but social workers can manipulate and control the lives of the mentally ill because the mentally ill have been deemed unable to care for themselves, even when they are not under a court-ordered commitment. People are allowed to worship as they please, but people who have pot for their own use are thrown into prison, although they have harmed no one—not even themselves.

The list of prejudices go on and on—the homeless are treated like criminals for not having a place to sleep, an immigrant is treated like an idiot for having an accent, someone who criticizes democracy or capitalism is held at arm’s length, distrusted, a person over 80 is treated as unable to make their own life decisions. Why is this? Not because we haven’t been taught about tolerance. Simply because our teaching of tolerance has been limited to only a few categories. Thus, we who are white males feel guilty at just glancing at a young black man, but we can openly speak hatred against the same man if we find out he is homeless and speaks with an African accent.

The issue is not racism, or sexism or any other -ism of limited scope. Our prejudice is against those who are unlike ourselves—of any other culture that is unfamiliar and uncomfortable. When one person or a group of people make a values decision that is different than one we would make—whether or not it would hurt another—that person is wrong and potentially dangerous. The different are not allowed to rule the society, because they will not uphold the cultural standards, whatever they may be. No matter how we try to attack bigotry, as long as we limit it to just a few issues, we will always fall behind our own unknown prejudices. I believe that our problem is not racism or homophobia—rather it is monoculturalism. The limitation of the “acceptable life” to only a few choices.

Our problem is not simply a lack of education. Certainly Americans would be more tolerant if they learned more about cultures, religions, and a variety of cultural mores and habits. But knowledge is not the answer to a monocultural outlook. The prejudice against women persisted for centuries because there was a mutual agreement between the sexes to not interfere with each other’s way of life, mores and areas of influence. Only when they began to live as equals, interfering with each other’s lives was there the beginning of understanding and a breaking down of the wall of sexism. The prejudice against African Americans persisted (and will continue to persist) as long as there is separation in neighborhoods, schools and cultural blocks. Only when there is a free and equal mixing between races will understanding and true hope come about.

And we cannot solve monoculturalism by just mashing neighborhoods together, because in the war of culture, the more dominant culture will always win, simply because they have more resources. The dominant culture will be quite "rational" when they dismantle the cultural values and visions of the non-dominant cultures.  And if rationality does not work, then brute force always does.  A homeless camp on private property, although neat and orderly, will be dismantled and all possessions stolen by a local government.  A neighborhood association will fine a house that holds to a different cultural standard from the houses around it.

I believe that the answer to monoculturalism is living in other cultures, being humble in a situation apart from that which we grew up. When I visited India, after living my whole life in Southern California, I was confronted and ashamed by some of the things I did which was acceptable in my own society. I learned that not only were different races, religions and languages acceptable, but so were different ways of thought. When I began to live among the poor, I learned that there was much that I had an instant revulsion to—dumpster diving, for one—that was not only acceptable, but actually a moral benefit to society.  We who are a part of a dominant culture need to live as a minority culture to understand how to recognize and protect minority cultures.

Only if we live humbly among different cultures will we learn to accept other cultures. Only if we are forced to confront our prejudices face to face with those who we appreciate but run in the face of our prejudices will we change.

Obey: A Four Letter Word

Yes, Andre, whatever you say O Giant One

My friend Styx and I were driving in the snow, just leaving a store where we picked up some food for the homeless folks in our church, keeping folks safe and warm and fed another day.  Yep, we are good people, and we don’t care who knows it.

Suddenly, blue and red lights flash behind us, and we are being pulled over by a local officer.  I’m wondering what I could have done wrong... as far as I could see, everything was legal.  The officer comes up to the window and politely points out that my friend didn’t have his seat belt on.  Styx is in a rage, almost shaking, but he keeps it to himself as he gives his ID number.  When the officer walks away, he fumes, “Really?  Don’t they have anything else better to do?”  He is almost shaking in rage. 

After the officer comes back, he gives Styx a ticket and explains that he won’t have to pay anything if he takes a safety class. As we drive away, Styx says, “Let me know that this is no big deal.”  I assure him that it isn’t, but that doesn’t lessen his rage.

Let’s face it, none of us likes to get caught doing something wrong.  We especially don’t like it when a wrong is over-punished, like Styx getting a 350 dollar ticket when he forget to put a strap across his shoulder. Recently, I’ve been reading what the Bible has to say about the ten commandments, and many have been shocked at how frequently the death penalty is used for the smallest infraction of the laws.  Like the man picking up sticks on the Sabbath and he is stoned to death.

Sometimes obedience is a problem because we think particular laws are useless or pointless.  An oft-repeated law in the OT is the rejection of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.  Who would have thought of  that?  And if a society is okay with eating meat, what’s wrong with that?  Some rabbis interpret it as a separation between meat and dairy, but that doesn’t seem to be the point to me.  What IS the point?  Why should we go out of our way to obey such an arbitrary command?

In the end, obeying a bunch of arbitrary commands seems downright silly or even immoral.  Keeping the Sabbath holy seems okay until we are telling kids not to play on the Sabbath, or going hungry because a crisis happened and we couldn’t prepare food ahead of time.  Few people know that in the same section of Scripture that places a taboo on incest and homosexuality is a taboo on having sex with one’s wife while she is on her period. I mean, the idea is kind of gross, but they are married, so who can complain?  And what harm is there in other sexual taboos?  Bestiality is a form of animal abuse, and pedophilia is child abuse, rape is violence, but other kinds of sexual taboos… really, where’s the harm?

In the end, many people want to label sins as “stuff we do to hurt other people” and “nobody’s business”.  Obedience depends on whether we are harming others or not.  If we are loving people, all is good.  Otherwise, we shouldn’t bother.  If a person uses drugs, no harm, no foul, unless they do actual harm to another, like steal or neglect their child.   Everything should be dependent on love.  If no one is harmed, the no one should complain.

Living with God

The funny thing about sin, though, is that it has more to do with our relationship with God than anything else.  The ten commandments and all the laws that follow under those ten categories have to do with a community living under the sight of God, in the presence of God.  They are laws that don’t necessarily say, “This is how we live together”, but more like “God’s house, God’s rules” whether they make sense to the people or not.  God’s people couldn’t eat shellfish not because it could make them sick, but because, in that context, it was “gross” to God.  God was displeased by it.  Just like in my house we don’t have alcohol on the property and no one drinks there.  It’s because we have some who struggle with alcoholism, and we don’t want to tempt them.  This doesn’t mean that people can’t drink in other houses.  Or that loving people don’t drink—I don’t believe that.  That’s just how we work it in my house.

Often there are things that disgust others that we have no problem with.  Our spouse might find eating meat horrifying, but we don’t have any problems with it.  It would make sense that we not eat met in our house, out of respect and love for our spouse, although we might occasionally sneak out and grab a hamburger when she’s not around.  As long as our relationship is honest and respectful, there’s nothing wrong with that.  But if we insisted that our spouse watch us eat meat, or participate in eating meat, or to have the smell of cooked meat in the house, we are forcing the one we love to share in that which is abhorrent to her.

When we join God, we are married to Him.  As soon as we begin living together, we begin negotiating our lives with Him.  He will insist that we change some aspects of our lives, and we agree because we love him so.  We don’t want to disgust Him, even if we see nothing wrong with it.  So we make terms of living together, and we work these terms out together.

The problem is that some people think that the terms they live with God must be replicated by everyone else, as if everyone’s marriage must come to the same terms.  But how can we determine another’s relationship?  If we do not participate in a relationship, what right do we have to tell them how it should work?  Yes, we can look at another’s relationship and offer wisdom (if asked) about what might work or not.  But in the end, it is that couple, that pairing of God and that particular person, that must determine their own terms.  We might see how a couple might fail unless something changes, but in the end, that’s between them.

Learning to love

Let’s say that all “sin” or wrong-doing did have to do with harm to others and that all positive action has to do with loving others, including God.  Part of the problem we have with this is: What is real “harm” and what is only superficial?  What is really love?  And can’t something be loving in one context, but not another? Can’t something be loving in most contexts, but not all?

And how are we to know?  Let’s say that we have a toddler who only wants to love.  He would give useless gifts to those around him.  Do little deeds that ultimately mean nothing.  Perhaps he would command people to do pointless tasks, because he thinks that’s really loving, even though it’s not. We find it cute, but the actions of a toddler don’t really add up to love, no matter how much he tries.

Even so, we are all toddlers.  We all fail to understand what is truly love.  This is what happened to the law.  So much added to it that the people failed to understand the basic point.  Many people today couch the idea of love in the context of economic terms, that if we do what is good for the economy, we are doing what is good for everyone. 

Sometimes I feel that Jesus is the grown up trying to explain things in simple terms so us toddlers to love could understand.  He lays it out very simply and starkly sometimes: “Do good to those who harm you.” “Sell your possessions and give to the poor.” “Deny yourself.” “You cannot worship both God and wealth.” “Do not commit adultery.” “Do mercy.”  We sometimes find excuses to not follow these straightforward commands. We make ourselves busy with what doesn’t matter, so we don’t have to obey.  But really, we are just acting like disobedient toddlers who don’t want to do what is good for all of us.

Some of us need laws

While I was sitting next to Styx, all I could think of was how I agreed with the seat belt laws.  When I was in high school, I wrote a five page report about the proof that seat belts save lives.  I included the chances of death without a seat belt and how much more likely it is for a person with a seat belt to not die in the case of an accident.   But that didn’t change my habit of not wearing a seat belt.  Just knowing what was right and good doesn’t change our habits.

What did change my habit was when my state made wearing a seat belt compulsory.  On the day it became law, I began to click it around me and I have never turned back.  I appreciate the law because it was a simple tool to help me save my life for the sake of my wife and my children.  I probably would never have done it myself, without the law in place.

Even so, I don’t think I would have learned compassion or sacrificial love without Jesus telling me to do it.  I had a couple people ask me how I am such a compassionate person, and I responded to them honestly (which isn’t always the best idea): “I’m not compassionate.  I don’t really care that much.  I help people because Jesus told me to.  Someone asks me for help and my first response is to say no because I’m too tired or too busy already or don’t feel that they really deserve it.  Then I am reminded that I do this work not because I want to do it, but because Jesus does.  I’m here to represent Jesus and even though I might not give to this person, Jesus would.  So I’ve got to do what Jesus says, even if it doesn’t make sense to me.”

Some people might call this a servant mentality.  Some people might think that I’m so obedience-minded that I’m not open to really loving people.  I might agree.  But obedience is the path God gave me to learn to love.  I wish I was naturally loving.  But at least I’m on the path.  Perhaps others can approach love more flexibly and open-mindedly.   But I’m on the path that works for me.

So I’d say don’t complain about God’s rules and laws.  Perhaps they are doing some people some good.  And remember, that Jesus also gave us a law not to judge others.  That very restriction could be the path of freedom to everyone.

Childish

“Silent sea, tell this to me: Where are the children that we used to be?”

“At picture shows where nobody goes and only the heart can see.”

-Dan Fogelburg

I have to admit that I’m still childish. 

I work hard, I’m married and have kids and somehow I’m raising these kids.  Maybe my wife is really raising them behind my back, because I don’t know that I’m ready to be a grown up yet.

It’s not that I’m impolite or careless.  But I choose to live my life in a way that is full of childish assumptions.

I believe that being nice to people is the way to go.  I think that compassion and kindness, especially to those in need, is the best thing for everyone.  For me and for the people I’m being kind to.  I think that being kind is better protection than carrying a gun.

I think that if we work hard, we can do whatever we want.  I don’t think we can all be NBA stars, but I think we could all play basketball well, even if we’re in a wheelchair.  I believe that if we want to be a writer, an artist, a politician, a professor, a video game programmer… whatever… we can do it.  Especially if we aren’t looking to be paid for our work.

I believe that studying and reading will still get me ahead in life.  Although I’m 48, if I read a book  on the bus, people ask me if I’m a student, because only a student must read the tomes I do.  No, I read these tomes because I think that I can help myself, my family and others whom I know if I read them. 

I think that people can still marry for life and love for life.  My wife and I are still novices at it, only being married 24 years, but we think we can go the distance.  And I think we can all do it, if we really put our minds to it, really listen and really care.

I believe that my Daddy will take care of me.  My human dad is great, but I’ve found that my heavenly Daddy is better at taking care of me when I’m in trouble.  Because of that, I can step out and take some chances that other people wouldn’t, knowing that my Daddy’s got my back.  Like giving everything I have to the poor and having homeless folks stay in my house with my family and I.

There are many childish beliefs I have done away with:

I don’t believe that we can always see the good in doing good.  But I believe that if I obey the good I will be rewarded.

I don’t believe that there are good guys and bad guys.  But I believe that people who act bad can become good.

I don't believe that we can live without mistakes, but I believe we can live without compromise to hate or greed.

I don’t believe that the police are here to protect me.  But I believe that I am protected.

I don’t think that me being nice means that others will be nice to me.  But I think that being nice is good in and of itself.

I don’t  believe that reasoning by itself convinces anyone of anything.  But I believe that following my convictions is essential, no matter what anyone else says.

I don’t believe that I’m right all the time.  But I do believe that love is always right.

I don’t hope in my government, in getting a job, in other people, in my family, in my political ideals, or in anything on earth.  But I do believe that there is reason to hope, despite how pointless it all seems.

Some think I’m cynical.  

Rather, I have given up on being grown up.  

I’ll stick with being childish.  It seems to work for me.

I'm Good. No, Really.

Evil is bad.  No matter how often this trope is reversed, almost every novel, TV show, movie and Facebook video reminds us of this. That evil is bad.  Just in case we forgot. 

Evil leads to bad things.  Bad things we want to avoid.   Things like prison, STDs and getting punched in the face by Superman.  We get that idea.

That doesn’t mean that some people don’t do bad things.  There is still greed and hypocrisy and hatred and selfishness.  Partly because people who do these things think that the real world isn’t like the fictional world.  And partly because in a quirk of mental gymnastics people think the bad things they do are good.  A thief I knew thought that since he was stealing from a big corporation, they had insurance and so no one was hurt and he was feeding people (as well as his drug habit).  We like to be good.  And if we can’t be good, then we can be a Rebel Against the Evil Empire, which is Good. 

We like to be considered good to such a degree that we create structures to make us good when our actions are perhaps a bit shady.  Even Jesus did things that looked evil to outsiders, but it was really good.  So we give ourselves narratives of our goodness, so that we can assure ourselves that our actions are really good.  And if we ever doubt ourselves, or (God forbid!) someone attacks us as evil, then we can assure ourselves and them that we are really good by rehearsing our narrative of goodness.  These narratives are as old as history itself, and we repeat these stories because they resonate with our moral  beings.

Let’s take a look at a few of these stories of moral highness:

1.       Good of Justice

Evil is out there.  There are bad guys and bad governments and bad corporations and bad hamburgers.  And bad deserves to be punished.  Evil shouldn’t be left on its own to continue to exist.  Evil should be stopped.  Or at least delayed while we beat in its face for a little bit.  Evil left uncontrolled, unpunished leaves a hole in our soul.  If Scar isn’t beaten up by Simba, then he must be eaten by the Hyenas.  It’s a rule of the universe.  So if a cop shoots someone, that’s okay because he’s shooting a bad guy and bad guys must be stopped.  If Obama allows drones to be released, that’s okay because he’s taking out the terrorists.  And if I beat up my brother in law because my sister tells me that he hit her, well, he had it coming.  

In that moment I am Batman.  I can do no wrong.

Of course, the problem is we are human so we don’t know everything.  The cop might not be shooting a bad guy.  Maybe he’s shooting a mentally ill guy who is scared of cops and runs when he sees them.  Obama might be taking out a bad guy.  Or he might have missed and hit a wedding instead.  Or he might have taken out the bad guy and his kids and the kids’ friends who were having a BBQ in the terrorist’s back yard (Some terrorists belong to families.  It’s true.)  And I didn’t really check out my sister’s story, so it might be possible she might have stretched the truth.  And since I didn’t ask my brother-in-law’s side, it might be possible I was wrong. 

I'm still Batman.  Just maybe the Adam West variety.

The other thing is maybe punishment isn’t the best thing I could do.  If I kill the bad guy, even if he really is bad, then he won’t do bad any more.  And he can’t change his mind to do good, either.  How many of us have done bad things?  Maybe every single one of us.  Just maybe.  And if Karma was as quick as a John Lennon song, then how many of us would still be around to raise children to not do what we did when we were young?

2.       Good of Truth

I like it when people tell me the truth.  It makes me feel good.  When people lie to me, I don’t feel good.  I turn into a dark storm, ready to strike lightning.  Kinda like Thor.  But let’s go back to truth.  Truth is good.  Let’s stick with what I like.

And if we know big Truths, then they are even better.  If we know, for instance, that the earth revolves around the sun, it’s good for people to know.  If we learn that illnesses are caused by small animals in our bodies, it should be published.  And if we learn that Tesla was actually a racist and kind of a jerk, we should tell everyone.  And they will appreciate us all the more for letting them know.  And if they don’t, well, at least we told the Truth.  And the Truth will be affirmed by future generations even if our peers don’t understand or appreciate it. And I bet we can find someone on the internet to believe us.  Then we’ll know we were right all along.

Three members on my "Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is the Antichrist" site!

Of course, we can get carried away with our Truth-telling.  Some of us might yell at people because they are not accepting our Truth.  Or we might call them names like “imbecile” or “rampallian” (if feeling particularly Shakespearean).  We might consider that they are worthy only of damnation in the lowest circle of hell.  We might very well want them out of our sight and possibly out of our existence for not believing in an instant the Truth that took us 20 years to discover.    

You might think that I’m talking about religious fanatics.  Well, yes, that’s the case.  I’m a religious fanatic, so I know how they think.  But I’m also talking about political fanatics, conspiracy theorists, science nuts, and people who have a theory about the new Avengers movie.

Let’s face it, we can get pretty irrational about our Truth and we can treat an unbeliever somewhat similar to the person who raped our dog and carved his initials in our favorite block of cheese.  And we feel completely justified because Truth is more important than being kind or caring.

Isn't it?

3.       Good of Community

Almost all of us belong to some kind of community and we love that community.  It’s our real home, the basket in which all our eggs rest. Our community could be our nation, our religious group, our internet movie discussion group, or our chess club.  Any place that we feel most comfortable in and feel like we would be lost without.

Then the Enemies come.  These are the ones who attack our community, and destroy all we hold dear.  They could be terrorists, but they are just as likely to be insiders who climb up the ranks with the real intention of undermining all we find good in our home.  Criminals are bad, but the worst are those who take our comfort zone and destroy it with their different ideas of how reality works. 

Officer, arrest that vandal!

So we must do what we can and protect our community.  We might protect it with guns, or with words or with viral videos that show just how bad these Enemies are.  We are not scared of these Enemies.  Rather, these bad guys should be scared of us, because we aren’t here to play games.  We are Bruce Willis, Bruce Lee and Bruce Campbell all rolled up into one.  In other words, we are Chuck Norris with a light saber.  No one can stop us.  We are here to protect our own.

More often than not, however, we are not attacking bad guys at all, but just some other guys who are trying to protect their home, their comfort zone.  It just so happens that they have a different idea of what that home should look like than we do.  And maybe they have better resources to make our home (because the community is really all of us) the way they want it than we do the way we want it.  And when we attack them, perhaps instead of protecting our home, what we are really doing is destroying our home.  When we freeze the budget or insult our leaders or block up the streets with angry protesters or spread unsubstantiated rumors about a neighbor or circulate flyers announcing our hate, we are changing our home.  We have changed it from a safe place into a place of anger and violence.  And we might be able to say that “they” started it, but we participated in it.  We kept it going.  And that’s not really good.  Especially when lies are told and lives are ruined.  And our community will not be our home.  It will never be the same again.

At last we'll have some peace and quiet...

4.       Good of Grace

But what if we were just nice to each other?  All the time?  What if, instead of having a good ethic or a good concept or a good community we were just good?  Instead of acting FOR the good, what if we just acted like we WERE good?

What would that look like?  Well, we would have to look at the person in front of us, really think about them.  Not think of them as an object or a sales person or a bad guy or a medical worker or an anonymous internet person, but just a human being with thoughts and desires and hopes just like we do.  I don’t mean that they necessarily have a fetish for donuts, but that they want respect just like we do.  They want to connect to people.  They want to eat good food and sleep in a comfortable bed.  They want to be nice to children and puppies. They enjoy a great movie and great sex and that euphoric feeling of awe we get when we look at a star-filled sky.  They give love to those who love them and they get angry when someone is mean to them.  They sometimes say the wrong things and sometimes they lose control.  But they try their best and want to be a good person.  Just like us.

Even this guy.  Especially this guy.

So why don’t we treat them like we would want to be treated?  With respect.  With safety.  With grace.  When someone is hungry, why don’t we give them something to eat?  When someone is sad, why can’t we sympathize with them?  Maybe even make them laugh for a minute?  When they are happy, why can’t we be happy with them?  Without jealousy, without reminding them of the unfortunate circumstance that’s right around the corner?  Why can’t we help someone live in the moment, making the moment as rewarding as possible?

We have a number of excuses:

• They did something bad to me, so I don’t want to reward them for it.

Perhaps if we teach them to reward bad behavior with good, they’ll learn to do good?  Or if that’s too idealistic, at least we can be the person who always brings good out of bad.  We love those people.  Can’t we be like them?

• They are bad people.  I would only be enabling them.

You can’t enable someone by laughing with them.  You can’t enable them by giving them a hamburger.  You can’t enable them by forgiving them.  You can’t enable them by honestly benefiting and blessing their life.  All you can do is show them that there’s a different way to live.

• They belong to a bad system, and to do good to them is to do good to the system.

The person in front of you isn’t a system.  She is a person, just like you.  And I hate to tell you, we are all caught up in bad systems.  Us human beings haven’t perfected the art of creating good ones yet.  In the meantime, doing good to the person in front of us can only benefit us all.

You evil man!  You grabbed my back!

Being good, meeting needs, loving the unlovable, forgiving a bad act, restoring the corrupt, enabling everyone to pay it forward.  Yes, there might be short term consequences.  But there’s no loss in the long term.

The real good is to always be generous, to always love, to always give respect, to always be kind.   It’s the only thing that really counts.  

And maybe Sherlock.  Now THAT's good!

Twelve Ethical Principles I Believe In

1.  I believe in freedom
To grant everyone the God-given freedom they have to make their own choices, even if poor

2.  I believe in tolerance.
Accepting that others believe differently than I and act differently than I, while I'll still stand firm in who Jesus gave me to be.

3.  I believe in responsibility
Whatever results from our actions, I resolve to deal with the negative results and make them positive

4.  I believe in community
In whatever community I live in, I resolve to live by the principles of that community, even if uncomfortable or difficult.

5.  I believe in faithfulness 
I will keep my word and my loyalties in relationship

6.  I believe in doing no harm 
In as much as I am able, I will never, under any circumstances, damage another.

7.  I believe in the Golden Rule
I will treat others with the same amount of respect, love, care, compassion, and consideration that I would be treated.

8.  I believe in compassion
I try to put myself in the other person’s need, and then try to meet it

9.  I believe in generosity
I try to never keep anything for myself that someone else needs more

10.  I believe in self-sacrifice
I meet other’s needs even if it means to sometimes not meet my own

11.  I believe in courage
I will stand up for Jesus and His gospel in all situations, especially with other believers

12.  I believe in grace
In as much as God gives me the grace to do so, I will always give a person another chance.

Karma and Grace

i.

God has made every one of us with two distinct moralities, battling like two dogs after the same bone.

 The morality of Karma sees every person as unequal.  Some deserve more reward, some deserve more punishment, but all deserve uniquely.  It is the task of Karma to protect, to preserve, to provide equality.

The morality of Grace sees every person as the same.  All have the same requirements to survive, to thrive, and grace gives.  Grace sees lack and responds with compassion and then action.  Grace is charity unhindered.  It is the task of Grace to nourish, to empower, to provide opportunity.

Karma and Grace are in all of us.  We all want to punish those whom we see are the worst offenders in our world.  We all want to assist those who we see are most in need in our world.  We all judge, we all empathize.

All moral arguments are based on who or what deserves which treatment.

ii. 

The sinner stands before us,

Having broken the greatest of all

Having destroyed all sense of decency

Having ruined all that is good.

Karma tells us:

“He deserves nothing good!

He was born in sin,

No good dwells in him

Surrender him to the judgment of God

Get him out of our sight!”

Grace tells us:

“We are no more deserving than he

To grant mercy is to be like God

Forgiveness allows us to be forgiven

Welcome, feed and encourage.”

We receive what we give

iii. 

Employers see the world in terms of karma:

“Work well for me and you will be granted pay.

Work poorly and you will be fired.”

Religions see the world in terms of karma:

“We all deserve God’s punishment.

If others do us wrong, their punishment is rightly deserved.”

Parents see their parenting in terms of karma:

“Obey and you will be granted some limited freedoms.

Disobey and face wrath.

Harm my kid and you will die.”

Governments see the world in terms of karma.

“Break the law and you will be punished.

(unless the law is broken by the lawmakers).”

Jesus sees the world in terms of grace.

“Judge not lest you be judged.”

“The merciful will have mercy.”

“Forgive and you will be forgiven.”

“Welcome the prodigal.”

How would our religion, government, jobs and parenting look different if we are following Jesus?

Peacemaking 101

Responding To Those Who Did Us Wrong

“I can’t believe he did that!” “What a jerk!” “They are morons!” We often feel like this when people have hurt us, whether on purpose or carelessly. When we are hurt, we act in different ways—perhaps we want to run away, perhaps we want to lash out, perhaps we want to pretend it never happened, perhaps we want to “talk it out.” Jesus and his followers say that the way to respond to those who hurt us is to attempt to make peace, instead of hostility. The way of peace is to listen, confront and to accept. How to do this is explained below:

Stop ourselves from being hostile. (Romans 12:17, 21)
When we have been wronged, we often want to respond in kind or to hurt the other person in some way. Sometimes we want to just separate ourselves from the one who hurt us and never come back. Sometimes we want to lash out at the person, verbally or even physically. The first thing we must do is to ask for God’s strength to be “slow to anger”, and to not respond with punishment.

Check our principles for judging (Matthew 7:1-2)
We have to decide if we have the right to judge the one who hurt us. Are we judging them by God’s standards of right and wrong, or our own? Are we assuming what their motivation was, or do we know? Do we have our facts straight? To help with this process, you might want to look at another tract, “Judging With a Right Judgement”.

Check our motivation for responding (I Corinthians 16:14)
In everything we do to another, if we do it according to the Lord, we do it for the benefit of the other person. Do we want to respond to the hurt in order to hurt in return? Do we want to just make ourselves feel better? Do we want the other person to admit they did wrong? Do we want to insist upon our “rights”? None of these motivations are according to the Lord. Instead, if we respond to someone who hurt us, we want to help them to grow in the Lord or to allow there to be reconciliation between us.

Ask the other person for their perspective and listen (James 1:19)
Rather than being hostile, which is an easy out, our first task is to listen to the other person’s perspective. Most of the time, we will find, that people either didn’t intend to hurt us at all, or they were responding to a misunderstanding of our words or actions which caused them to be hurt. If we can understand what they were really doing, then we can better evaluate how to prevent such a situation happening again.

Speak about how we were hurt (Matthew 18:15; Luke 17:3; Galatians 6:1)
We need to let the person who hurt us know how they hurt us and what they did. This step is essential, for the person might not know that they have done anything wrong, or not know that they have hurt anyone else. Even if it seems like it is obvious, we need to tell them. We should try not to say, “you did this wrong”, but talk about the actions that hurt us, and anything Jesus and the apostles say about that kind of action. When we speak about our hurt, we need to be brief and to be gentle, hoping for reconciliation.

Listen again. (Matthew 18:15-16)
We need to give the other person a chance to respond to our statement. Perhaps they will want to reconcile, perhaps they will want to say how we misunderstood what they intended. Of course, they may also want to excuse their behavior and claim that they were right to hurt. Whatever the response, we need to give them the opportunity to show how they really feel about their action.

Accept any attempt at repentance and reconciliation.(Luke 17:3-4)
If the person who did wrong makes some attempt at correcting their wrong, we should accept them. We must not look for a particular formula of apology or reconciliation. If the person, in some way, admits a wrong they have done, and is looking for the relationship to be restored, then we need to do our part and try to restore the relationship. This is the case, even if they have hurt us time and time again!

If they don’t want to reconcile, then get someone else involved. (Matthew 18:16)
If either party of a hurt doesn’t want to reconcile—either because one thinks they haven’t done anything wrong, or because one doesn’t want to forgive a repented wrong done—then someone who is of the peaceful Holy Spirit and is objective in the situation should come in to attempt to restore the relationship. That person should be able to listen to both sides fairly and to determine, according to Jesus, what could be done.

If trust isn’t possible, bear with each other (Galatians 6:2)
If the two of us were unable to completely resolve the conflict, then the teaching of Jesus is that we are still to love each other and care for each other. That doesn’t mean that we need to be “best friends”, but we need to be able to live together and at times serve together in the community. Perhaps, over time, the issues will be resolved.

Work something out to prevent the situation from happening again. (Matthew 18:15-17)
The ones involved in the hurt should make some kind of informal (or sometimes, formal) plan to prevent the hurt from happening again. This should almost always involve action on both sides, in order not to cause another to fall away from God or His ways (Mark 7:42-50). If one party refuses to reconcile, then a separation may be necessary until they are willing to.

If the way of Jesus’ peace sounds appealing, but too difficult, consult with your local pastor to gain spiritual strength and counsel, or call the number below.

In as much as we are able, let us be at peace with everyone.

Paul and Economics

Paul the apostle, the ancient missionary and theologian, has appeared on a 21st century university campus! With his good friend, Don, a professor of ancient Hebrew literature, they speak the truth of the ancient Christians to students who ask Paul questions!

Adam: (A student of business) So, Paul, I was wondering what you do here in the 21st century.

Paul: What I “do”? I’m not sure what you mean.

Adam: I mean, are you hired by Professor Don, here? Or do you have some other job?

Paul: (A bit flustered) Well, I assist Don whenever he needs me to. I’m not sure what you’re hinting at.

Adam: Sorry, I’m not trying to hint. I just know that in your letters you were very serious about people having jobs.

Paul: Having jobs?

Adam: Professor Don, I’m sure you know the passages…

Don: (Smiling) Of course. First and Second Thessalonians. Second Thessalonians is most specific in the phrase “If you do not work, you do not eat.” And also in First Timothy, those receiving from the church must not be “busybodies” but actively working. However, I hardly think…

Adam: (Also smiling, interrupting Don.) Exactly. I am sure, Paul, that you do not want to take advantage of our good professor, here. You said that you did not do ministry unless you were working with your hands. Besides, you should be thinking about your future. Don’t you want your own place?

Paul: (Now also smiling as well.) Very interesting, son. So you see my arrangement with Professor Don as in opposition against my standard of work for God’s people. If I was living according to the standards of your society, I might say that I am in “retirement”. Would that be acceptable?

Adam: I suppose. But then you would be a draw on society, because you never put anything into it.

Paul: Providing a foundation to the Gentile church was not enough, eh? Were it not for me, you would have very little of what you “church” today.

Adam: Well, that is… true… I guess…

Paul: (Still smiling, enjoying Adam’s discomfort.) Look, son, I think I know your real point. As far as you can see, I am just a homeless man, perhaps insane, receiving free room and board from the beloved professor at no cost to myself, right?

Adam: I wouldn’t know if you were homeless….

Paul: Come, that must be your assumption, right? Otherwise why would I show up at a classroom door, looking for a handout?

Don: I want to clarify, however, that Paul is working for me. He assists me greatly in translating the Hebrew Bible and ancient Aramaic texts.

Adam: So why not just pay him, so he could have his own place and pay for his own food? Why have him be dependent on you? Why not just let him go?

Paul: I think I understand your questions, now. Let me try to answer them in order. First of all, about the passages I wrote. I was not writing that everyone must have a “job” with an employer, a salary and income tax. The Roman economy didn’t really work that way. If you had a “job” like one would have today, we would call that having a “patron” and you would work for him exclusively, doing as he commands, and he would provide your living for you. Or you might work day labor, in which you might work for a different person every day. In my previous life, I worked as a tent maker, which meant that I was an entrepreneur, or a self-employed businessman. Most people were self-employed in some way, since they worked their own family farms. This was less so in the larger cities, but there was really very little work that you would call “employment” in the ancient times.

Adam: All this to say….?

Paul: That my command to work had nothing to do with being independent, or “having a job.” A person could work in the fields, they could work in some way for the church, they could “volunteer” for twenty hours a week. But they had to work somewhere.

Adam: Or else they couldn’t eat? You would take away their food?

Paul: (Laughing) Oh, no. You see, in the first century, the only “welfare” system in the Roman cities was the Christian church. They would have mercy on anyone who was poor and assist especially those who were needy in the church. I was saying that the ones receiving regular assistance needed to be working to sustain themselves, if they can. If they can’t, then they needed to be working some other way. God made us to work, not to just think that because we have some special knowledge or authority that we can be provided for by others.

Adam: And by work, you mean….

Paul: Doing something productive, especially something that provides their own food and clothing.

Adam: So you had no one sponging off of anyone in the early church.

Paul: Well, I wouldn’t say that. After all, I wrote about this issue a number of times because there were many people who wanted to just live off of the church for no good reason. Part of this is because of the many apostles we had.

Adam: I thought there were only twelve?

Paul: Oh, no, many more than that. Timothy, Barnabas, Apollos, Junia, and many hundreds others were all apostles. And there was a command of our Lord that said that they were to be provided for by the church—“The worker is worthy of his hire,” he said.

Adam: So they were working?

Paul: Yes, they were teachers, educators. And for their knowledge of Jesus, the church would give them room and board. They wouldn’t usually stay very long in one place—perhaps a year or so. Then they would move on and teach about Jesus somewhere else. And the church would provide for them for their teaching.

Adam: But weren’t you an apostle like that?

Paul: Certainly. And I had every right to draw my room and board from the church for my teaching.

Adam: But you didn’t?

Paul: Barnabas and I felt from the beginning that the privilege that Jesus gave us was being abused by many people. So we refused to take advantage of it during the main part of my ministry. Later, when I was under house arrest, I was forced to accept the hospitality of the church.

Adam: You mean the hospitality of your jailors.

Paul: No. Do you think Roman jailors cooked and cleaned after their prisoners? No, it all had to be done by the friends and family of the accused. In my case, it was the church.

Adam: But the norm in the church was to have people work?

Paul: As it is appropriate to their skills. However, I want to challenge one assumption you made. You assumed that every person or family in the church should be economically independent?

Adam: That is what is appropriate, I would think.

Paul: But we were in no ways independent. Especially economically. It was so important that we all work because every member of the church depended economically on everyone else.

Adam: You mean like a commune?

Paul: No, not like that. Most of us had our own living places, but many wealthy people had a number of people working for them and living with them. In the ancient times, having people work and live with you is what is meant to be wealthy. But most people just live in their family units.

Adam: So how were they dependent on each other?

Paul: Economics were not as stable as you have in this country, in this time. Any little thing could destroy a family’s or a community’s ability to support themselves. Perhaps a family farm could be destroyed by insects. The provider of a family could have a dry spell of day labor. A city might be withered by a drought. Or war might ravage a community.

Adam: I thought the Romans mostly brought peace.

Paul: The Pax Romana was mostly for the advantage of the aristocratic Romans, not the common folk. They didn’t involve themselves in local skirmishes, unless it got in the way of Roman rule. But the point is this, in an insecure environment, with anyone being vulnerable to poverty or loss, the church community was always there to assist those in need, especially if they were of the church.

Adam: So if someone was in sincere need, you would help.

Paul: “Sincere” need? We usually knew enough about each other’s lives that we didn’t need to assume that the need wasn’t “sincere”. This was one of the main witnesses of the church—we would help people, not assuming that their misfortune was judgment from God or as a result of their sin, but we would assist out of charity. Everyone needs help sometimes, and it was the task of those who did not suffer misfortune to be there for others.

Adam: Well, I am glad that the church is a bit more economically savvy, now than it was in the ancient past.

Paul: Economically wise? In what way?

Adam: You were just saying that the church provides charity for anyone in need. This system creates laziness and dependence and an unstable economic system. And you were initiating the very system that the Reformation had to do away with—paying for a priestly class that provided nothing to the community.

Paul: Ah, like your pastors today, you mean?

Adam: A pastor today is paid by the excess of a particular community. If a community isn’t fiscally wealthy, they don’t get a pastor. And the pastor is paid because of his or her superior education. So they had to prove their place. Not just show up and say, “I’m an apostle” or a monk or whatever, and expected any stranger to provide for them.

Paul: And this is superior, why?

Adam: Because the church isn’t providing assistance to those who are just taking advantage of the system. This supports the economy of the country, it is not a drain from it.

Paul: So everyone only receives that which they deserve?

Adam: That is correct.

Paul: So no one lives off of charity?

Adam: There are some people who live off of the government. However, eventually, the government will stop giving to those who don’t deserve it.

Paul: I hope so.

Adam: You do? That’s good. I was afraid that you’d be some kind of socialist…

Paul: I hope the government steps out of welfare so the church could step in.

Adam: What?

Paul: It is the church’s witness to the world, to provide charity that no one else provides. It is the demonstration of God’s care to give food to those who are not able to provide for themselves. And that without a large administration, a book of policies or hired workers.

Adam: But you would create a class of unproductive people in society. It would destroy the economy!

Paul: Not at all. Rather, you would have a group who would provide work for people that would be in accord with their ability. Remember, we began this discussion talking about work. It is a principle of the church that everyone should work, should be productive, but that the church should provide charity to everyone in need.

Adam: And you will create a class of people who only do “god work” a spiritual glut.

Paul: You are so concerned about unproductive people. Yet the economic system you support seems to have many people whom I consider unproductive. Pencil pushers, over-qualified decision makers, people who never make food or assist another person, but they only make money or paperwork appear out of thin air. The church would create a class of people who would work to build God’s kingdom. Build a class of people who will be followers of Jesus and not just speakers of Jesus.

Adam: Just as I said, lazy people—unproductive.

Paul: Is it unproductive to know people well enough to be able to meet their needs? Is it unproductive to visit people in the hospital or in prison? Is it unproductive to be friends with the friendless, to provide hope for the depressed? Is it unproductive to create places where the sick can rest in peace instead of on the street? Is it unproductive to grow food and give it to the poor? Is it unproductive to help the “sinners” of society to repent and depend on God’s grace? Is it unproductive to pick up food from those who cannot use it and give it to the needy? Rather, it is a work of honor. And even if it does not pay in this world, those who do this work in Jesus’ name will be rewarded by Him on the final day.
Adam: But you don’t understand. Such a society would economically self-destruct! There is nothing there to provide economic security—just like you were saying about the ancient economy.

Paul: If we have a whole sub-structure of society that is based on work toward mutual need and charity, it would be supported by God’s grace and power. Such a society would never need to worry about their needs because God would provide for them daily and make sure that everyone would be provided for, as long as they share with whoever is in need.

Adam: This is magic, not sound economic principles.

Paul: It seems to me that your capitalism is based on magic. Your “invisible hand” directs economic prosperity, as long as everyone is promoting their own economic self-interest. That’s the theory. But the reality is that you have to have a sub-structure of people perpetually in poverty to support your economic system. You must have a two-tiered structure—the poor struggling for survival behind the scenes, all the while supporting the “middle class” of the West, who are really the ruling aristocrats of today. The immigrants in your country, those who can only afford to work “under the table”, those who work below a living wage in your fast food restaurants and bargain stores, as well as the millions around the world who work on farms and factories— they are all the backbone on which your economic prosperity is dependant on. If you paid them for their work, rather than for the education level of their work, then your whole economy would collapse. The structure is only beginning to creak now, but soon it will fall throughout the world.

Adam: So you are a socialist, as I thought.

Paul: No. A socialist believes that the government should provide for those in need. I don’t think that we need to make demands of the rich. Rather, the Lord makes a request of those who have more than they need, and they obey if they follow the Lord. I am a Christian. I trust in God to provide for me, and do as he commands. That is my real work, to obey the Father through Jesus. And I believe that every Christian should do the same.

Adam: That is just too simplistic to be a real economic system.

Paul: Whatever you want to think. But the reality of it is that God is in control of His people. He knows what work He wants them to do, and we do it, if we are listening to Him. And part of that work is to provide both sustenance and work for those who are in need. Everyone takes their turn. Everyone, at some point, has more than what they need, and so they provide. Everyone, at some point, is in need of assistance and so they receive help.

Adam: I will never need help from anyone.

Paul: Oh, yes you will. And when it happens you will wish that you were a part of a community that assists you instead of treating you like it was your own fault. And when that day happens, cry out to the Lord. Perhaps he will help you. Or perhaps he will respond to you as you do to the needy now.