Eradicating Poverty: Let's Stop "Plugging the Holes" So We Can Repair the Foundation

Tonight, as September 25, draws to a close, I am pondering two crises.

The first is one most Americans are pondering tonight: the failures of investment banks on Wall Street and the proposed $700,000,000,000 federal government bailout. As with everyone, I am staggered by the immensity of the crisis and worried about the implications for both the present and the future. Will the bailout succeed? Who will suffer because resources dedicated to the bailout will not be available for those who live on the economic margins of our society?

The second crisis is much less immense, but no less troubling. Last week I attended a meeting organized by a local New Hampshire state senator to discuss the heating oil crisis and what the state government was prepared to do to help citizens buy enough heating oil to keep their homes warm this winter. In 2007, the average grant given by the state government for fuel assistance was $633. While the hope is to give more this year because of the sharp increase in the price of oil, the reality is that the fuel assistance will not be nearly enough. The 2007 fuel assistance grant would provide approximately 25% of the oil needed to heat a home in 2008-2009. What are people supposed to for the remaining three-quarters of the winter?

As I ponder these crises I am struck by the realization that the responses to each do not really solve anything. Each response attempts to "plug a hole in the dam" but does nothing to repair the various cracks in the foundation that supports the dam and makes it strong. We are hoping to fix the symptoms while we avoid the underlying causes. If we continue this way, nothing will change.

The Episcopal Church dedicated today as a day of prayer, fasting, and witness for the end of poverty in our world. This call relates to the first of the Millennium Development Goals: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. These goals were adopted in 2000 by the United Nations with the hope that they would be fulfilled by 2015. So, we're halfway there and all we're doing is plugging holes while we avoid the real changes that must be made.

In his book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope* Brian McLaren compares the "four spiritual laws of theocapitalism" (money worship) with the four spiritual laws of the kingdom of God economy.

Without going into the details of the laws here, let me list some of the characteristics and qualities of theocapitalism (note, he is not indicting the corporations, but the "spiritual ideology" that drives our society):

• Progress is measured by rapid growth in the short-term. One must do everything possible to achieve the highest growth and increased productivity, whatever the cost.
• Happiness and serenity are found through possession and consumption. We need to own more. We need the latest and best product. We consume as much as possible and throw away the rest.
• Competition is good. Some are going to win and some are going to lose. So, make sure you win.
• Freedom to prosper is more important than accountability. There is no moral code here and no sense of responsibility to anyone other than ourselves.

Compare this with the characteristics and qualities of the "kingdom of God economy" advocated by Jesus:

• In place of economic growth, Jesus offers a new economy based on good deeds for the common good. We are called to a higher concern than ourselves. We are called to dedicate resources to the common good, especially to the needs of the poor and the marginalized. Sustainability is more important than growth. For a biblical example, see Luke 12:13-21.
• Happiness comes not through possession and consumption but through gratitude and sharing. Gratitude, McLaren writes, is "an act of defiant contemplation" because gratitude celebrates what you have, not what you don't have. If I am grateful for what I have, I don't need more to make myself happy. And once I'm happy with what I have, I can share it with others so that everyone receives a portion. For a biblical reference, see Mark 6:30-44.
• Salvation comes not through winning but through seeking justice. "Happy are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled," Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:6). The paradox here is that seeking justice for all, not winning the competition, will finally bring true prosperity to all. For a biblical reference, see Matthew 20:20-28.
• Freedom comes through collaboration, through the rich and the poor coming together to build community. As McLaren writes, for Jesus "both the rich and the poor need saving; one needs liberation from addictive wealth and the other, liberation from oppressive poverty. Part of the work of the kingdom of God is to turn them from their ideologies of exploitation and victimization to a vision of collaboration." For a biblical reference, see Luke 19:1-10.

If we are going to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger it is going to take much more than plugging holes to avert a crisis. It is going to take systemic change, change that begins with individuals and communities who choose to live with a different set of values. We need to see ourselves as sustainers instead of consumers, as collaborators instead of competitors, as sharers instead of hoarders, and as justice seekers instead of self-seekers. We need to work not simply for ourselves but for the common good. We need to answer Jesus' call to repent and live in the divine reality he calls the kingdom of God.

Will we make any real change if we do all of this? I don't know. All I know is that we have a responsibility to try.

*Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Press, 2007, references and quotes above found on pages 189-223.

Responding Faithfully in Difficult Economic Times

Earlier this week I attended a meeting of the Seacoast Convocation of the Diocese of New Hampshire. This is a regular meeting of lay and clergy representing the Episcopal congregations in the Seacoast region of the state.

The primary presentation was the 2009 diocesan budget. That subject, in and of itself, was not particularly relevant to most people, even those who are active Episcopalians in the diocese. The presentation, however, led to an interesting discussion about the state of the economy and how churches respond to this. As with all other institutions and organizations, the chaos on Wall Street, the crisis in home mortgages, the government bailouts, and the concern that things will get worse before they get better has a profound impact on how we plan for the coming year. Will investment income remain stable? Will the giving of our parishioners, which is how most congregations fund their ministries, decrease?

On the one hand, this is an institutional issue and really doesn't have much to do with the intersection of church and society. On the other hand, it has much to do with how Christians, and people of other religions, live faithfully in the world today.

Near the end of the discussion, one lay person made a telling and challenging remark (his intention wasn't to challenge the clergy, but any one who did not hear it as a challenge was not really listening). He said something along the lines of, "I'm looking forward to hearing sermons about the economy and the choices that we as Christians need to make. So many of our problems today are a result of greed. This is a preaching opportunity."

Ironically, it's not too often that clergy hear a plea for sermon topics. That probably has to do more with clergy not asking for input than it does with lay people not being willing to offer an opinion.

What is the preaching opportunity here? His comment about greed in our economic system clearly points to a characteristic of our nation that bothers many. The people who participate in the Seacoast Convocation and vast majority of those who attend our churches are not people making a lot of money from the stock market. Most are middle class people who work each day. Living on the Seacoast, most have been successful, but they look at the nation in which we live and they feel a deep anxiety. The stock market is crashing, investment banks are failing, the government, already deep in debt, is spending billions of dollars in an effort to stop a banking collapse that could bring us into a deep recession. News reports say that we are facing an economic downturn worse than any time since the Great Depression in the 1930s.

On top of that, gas prices are up, heating fuel is higher than ever, and food prices are increasing. As a person told me recently, "People are strapped and don't have any extra, if they even have enough to pay their bills."

So, preaching about greed doesn't necessarily seem appropriate. The people who attend my church are not greedy. They simply want enough money to live comfortably, pay the bills, and have a little extra for recreation and to save for retirement. They want their kids to go to college without accumulating a mountain of debt. They want to help people who are in greater need than they are.

Perhaps the preaching opportunity is to speak to the issue of responsibility. From my perspective, it seems that much of the crisis we live in today is brought about by the growing narcissism in our society. We see the money we earn as being only for ourselves. The resources at our disposal are for our own good. We seek to gain more "wealth" so that we can enjoy life more. We want our taxes to be lower so we can have more for ourselves.

But what about our responsibility to the common good? Do we not have a responsibility to those beyond ourselves? We are not truly independent people who live in a vacuum. We are interdependent. The choices that we make impact others beyond ourselves. If I choose to hold onto my resources for myself instead of sharing them with others, am I not contributing to the problems of today? If I choose to maximize my own treasure, if I choose to see what I have as only for myself, am I not being greedy? Greed does not require me to have a lot. It only requires that I seek to hold onto all I have for myself.

In the gospel Jesus calls us to be responsible for the common good, not our own good. The paradox is that when I take responsibility for the common good, I actually increase my own share of the good that is available for all.

In Luke 12:15-21 we read this parable told by Jesus:

And he said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.” 16Then he told them a parable: “The land of a rich man produced abundantly. 17And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’ 18Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19And I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ 20But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ 21So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.”

People of faith are not called to accumulate possessions. We are called to be "rich toward God." This does not mean that God intends all of us to be poor or to give away everything that we have. I interpret this to mean that we are called to take responsibility for God's creation, which most certainly includes the community that lives around us. Only the "fool" holds onto everything expecting that it is all for him or her. The wise and faithful person shares those possessions with society for the common good.

As the church intersects with an anxious society in challenging and troubling economic times, people of faith can set a different example from the greed that is at the heart of our current crisis. We can choose to look beyond our individual selves by taking responsibility for the needs of others.

That, it seems to me, is the preaching opportunity. What do you think?

Addressing Fear

As a church, how do we address the fears of our children and youth? This question comes to mind because of two items to which I was exposed this morning.

The first was an interview on Good Morning America with Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat. He was promoting his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution -- And How it Can Renew America. I've not read the book yet, so I can only speak to the interview (to see the interview, go to http://abcnews.go.com/gma).

Looking at the convergence of increasing world population, a growing middle class in the developing world using more and more energy resources, and global warming, one of his primary points is that "we need to change leaders, not light bulbs." He is critical of both Obama and McCain in the interview, believing neither goes far enough in pushing us toward new and renewable forms of energy. His answer: innovation in the marketplace.

The second news item this morning was in the Op/Ed section of today's Boston Globe. In an opinion piece written by guest columnist Allegra Goodman, we hear a very different and personal perspective on global warming. She writes about her twelve-year old son's "fatalism" about global warming. Thinking about the upcoming election he said to his mother, "It doesn't really matter as much for you, because you'll be dead...but I'm going to have to live through global warming, and I'm afraid by the time I can vote, it will be too late." Goodman also mentions a conversation with a friend who tells her that "her son can't sleep because he is so anxious about global warming." (Read the full column, at ://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/08/the_dark_dreams_of_global_warming/).

Her concern in the column is addressing her son's fear and anxiety. "What's a parent to do?" An excellent question and one that does not have an immediate answer. Having two teenage children, I can certainly empathize with her anxiety about her son's fear.

Expanding her question a bit: What's the church to do?

When I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s we worried about the nuclear destruction. I was born in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis. I lived through the build up of nuclear arms and the increased "sophistication" of these weapons. Living outside of Washington, D.C., I remember sitting in a high school history class when the teacher said, "If we heard right now that missiles are on their way, there would be nothing for us to do but to go outside, sit in a circle, sing songs, and wait. We would not be able to get away."

What was my church's response to all of this? I don't remember one. The only image I have is of signs in the church leading to the basement that read, "Fallout Shelter." As if the basement of the church was going to save us.

Perhaps the leaders of the church had no response. Perhaps the response was simply, "Trust in Jesus. If we all die, at least we'll go to heaven."

That response does not seem particularly adequate to me. It certainly doesn't address the very present and real anxiety about the future of our planet and of the ultimate survival of both the diverse creatures who live here and of the human race. How might the church address the fear and anxiety of a twelve-year old boy whose world view is fatalistic and pessimistic?

Do we preach about heaven? Do we go to the Bible and read the stories of Jesus walking on the water in the midst of the storm and telling the disciples not to be afraid (see Mark 6:47-51)? Do we say, "Trust Jesus and all will be well"?

I don't deny the foundational truth here. I do trust Jesus and I do trust that, in God's time, all will be well. But to leave it at that feels as if we are addressing the fear and anxiety of children with platitudes instead of hope and with simplistic escapism instead of faithful seeking.

In the face of the fatalism produced by global warming, what's the church to do? It certainly isn't to focus on internal church rules and institutional survival. My only answer today is that we must make people of faith a part of the broader conversation. We cannot allow this to be addressed only by Thomas Friedman, political candidates, and environmentalists. If we take seriously the idea that God created us to be stewards of creation, then we must accept the responsibility of engaging the reality of global warming and living in a way today that sustains our home for the future.

Children living in fear need more than scientific, business, and political answers. They need what a spiritual perspective can provide: faith, hope, and possibility. They need action. They need engagement and participation. They need adults to wrestle with reality faithfully. Whether it's a change in leadership or a change in light bulbs, people of faith need to begin living as good stewards today.

Labor Day and the Common Good

For worship yesterday morning I chose to pray the Collect for Labor Day as the conclusion for the Prayers of the People. Generally, I like to pray a collect at this point that is not generic but speaks to the theme of the sermon, an current issue or event that will be in the minds of the congregation, or that focuses attention on a holiday or holy day that is being celebrated.

I've prayed the Collect for Labor Day many times before, but it struck me differently this time. Here it is:

Almighty God, you have so linked our lives one with another that all we do affects, for good or ill, all other lives: So guide us in the work we do, that we may do it not for self alone, but for the common good; and, as we seek a proper return for our own labor, make us mindful of the rightful aspirations of other workers, and arouse our concern for those who are out of work; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

What strikes you in this collect? I'm struck by the underlying assumption that we are bound to each other, "that all we do affects, for good or ill, all other lives." Living in New Hampshire (the "Live Free of Die" state) I find this statement from the collect compelling. We are not simply a collection of disconnected individuals who happen to live in the same place and time. We are a community of interdependent individuals whose lives impact each other, for good or ill (and, of course, technology allows us to be connected even when we aren't in the same place). So, we pray in the collect that God will guide us so that our work, in whatever form it takes, will not be "for self alone, but for the common good."

This leads to other questions. What is the common good? If the purpose of our work is not to enrich and advance ourselves but to improve the common good, what are the goals of our work? What are we trying to achieve?

Laurent Parks Daloz, Sharon Daloz Parks, James Keen, and Cheryl Keen focus on defining the common good and the type of people who work for it in their book, Common Fire (published by Beacon Press in Boston, 1996). They define the core elements of the common good as follows:

• global scope;
• recognition of diversity;
• and, a "vision of society as composed of individuals whose own well-being is inextricably bound up with the good of the whole." (Common Fire, page 16)

They go on to write that the common good "refers to the well-being of the whole earth community -- its safety, the integrity of basic institutions and practices, and the sustaining of the living systems of our planet home. The common good also suggests broadly shared goals toward which the members of the community strive -- human flourishing, prosperity, and moral development. A recognition of the common good thus casts light on the significance of openness to new learning, critical and systemic thought, and the search for 'right naming' -- images, metaphors, language -- that convey the deepest truths of our common life." (Common Fire, page 16).

The Collect for Labor Day, then, gives us the language (the "right naming") to better understand our purpose as a people created by God. It also articulates a vision of a society in which diverse peoples are not separated by their differences but "inextricably bound up with the good of the whole."

At its best, a faith community embodies the language expressed in this collect. It exposes us to people of diverse backgrounds and opinions who gather around a common table. And, it challenges us to live our lives not for ourselves alone but to consider at all times the needs and desires of others.

"All human beings need identifiable networks of belonging to ground us in a positive sense of place and identity." (Common Fire, page 13) At the intersection of community responsibility and individual choice, the church reminds us that we are not called by God to work solely for our own gain but primarily to dedicate ourselves to the good of all. Because what is good for all, is ultimately good for me, isn't it?