Five: The Extra Mile, pt. 1

A lot has been said lately in our national dialog about concern for the poor (or at least the poorer than you). There’s a raging debate about “spreading the wealth around.” Is it Socialism? Is it good, compassionate fiscal policy? I even heard a guy on the radio expounding on how the book of Acts espouses the same principles and could be considered a Socialist text. This guy was, of course, an avowed atheist of the ilk that likes to quote Bible verses as proof that American Christians are hypocritical. And that got me thinking…

DISCLAIMER: Just about everything in this post is mostly for me. I am not writing to anyone external, I am writing to myself. If you find yourself in the same boat, so be it. And I don’t think I am doing ANYTHING right on this topic in my own life. Think of this as sermon to me, at the end of which I responded to call to repentance and said “yep, that’s me. I suck.”

The early church in Jerusalem for a time had a very communal approach to life. There isn’t definitive evidence that the extreme level of sharing they were practicing extended to every community of faith, but it IS very clear from Church history that concern for the needs of others – especially “the poor” was paramount. Paul even recounts Peter, James and John’s only instruction to him, when they gave him the right hand of fellowship (a phrase we really ought to revive) was to “remember the poor“.

The debate now is fascinating – many Christians have come to believe that a government that cares for the needs of the “poor” or “poorer” (however you define that) by means of taking money from the “rich” (however you define that) is a righteous form of government, and making sure our leaders push through that agenda is more important than any other moral issue. Many Christians believe helping the poor should be the work of the Church, so government should stay out of it and leave the giving to us. Inexplicably, many of the people in camp #2 fight for less taxation and then do very little or nothing at all to directly help the poor (beyond small donations to their local church or some other “distance giving” activity). Which makes the people in camp #1 think the gov. should take their money so they would be forced to do the right thing.

A Savior on Capitol Hill

Okay – brief break from the assignment to myself (See the last posts). ‘Cause it’s political time – might as well get caught up in ELECTION FEVER (as Craig Ferguson puts it). And yes, I stole the title of this post from Derek Webb.

It’s that time again to look to Washington for salvation – from budget crises and overseas terrorists. I wrote before a post called The Politics of Faith about our sometimes obsession as people of faith with political heroes. I won’t rehash it all, but I do want to approach this from another angle…

The hip thing these days is to mock and ridicule the “other side” in politics. This creates an environment where it is tempting to get into wars of words and witticisms, both on TV and around the water cooler. The question, then, becomes “what should people of faith do in such an environment?” Is it our responsibility to determine which candidates are best for our country from a moral and even a spiritual perspective and attempt to thoughtfully defend those candidates around the office and the lunch table? Shouldn’t we be the people who advocate forcefully for candidates that hold to Judeo-Christian principles? Shouldn’t we try to convince people who they should vote for?

It’s a dilemma to be sure. On the one hand, we would like to see things go “our way” (whatever you have determined that to be). But many of us also live in environments that are hostile to our worldview, and choosing our political candidate based on that prism opens us up to heated attack and even ridicule. In a place like Seattle, I am even seeing a trend amongst Christian-types – a concerted effort to rationalize the dispensing of certain moral criteria in order to support candidates that will gain them a little more credit with co-workers and friends.

 

Who would Jesus vote for?

That’s what we’re trying to figure out. Some of us say he would vote Democrat because of social justice, and anyone who elevates other moral issues above helping the poor is not a real Christian. Some of us say he would vote Republican because of abortion and gay marriage and anyone elevates helping the poor above these issues is not a real Christian. Who would Jesus really vote for?

Four: Tell.

Tell.

Is there any word in English that has a more negative connotation than “preach”? Okay, I can think of a few (and no, I am not going to list them here – the internet is forever). But no one ever says “I wish someone would preach at me.” Movies that are too heavy-handed in promoting an agenda are called “preachy.” When I was a kid there was even a song by Madonna (sing it with me…”papa don’t preach…he’s been good to me”…HA! Now that is stuck in your head!).

So I will use the word tell. But I mean preach. In a less negative context. I hope.

 
 

Three: Redemption

There’s just no way to get around it. I have to talk about Dog the Bounty Hunter.

Now Dog is not always what you would call a sympathetic character. He dresses oddly. He makes baffling hairstyle choices. He and his entire family are arguably three fries short of a happy meal. He vacuums for fun. He has been recorded using racial epithets (an item near the top of the list of  “public persona unforgivable sins” – a list that does not seem include cheating on your wife or driving while drunk. But I digress).

Dog and the Fam.

There are a million things I could say to mock Dog. Most of them are far too obvious to make it worth the time. And for the record, I am not a hard-core Dog-fan, Dog-defender, Dog-catcher, Dog-pound member, whatever you want to call it. I couldn’t tell you when the show is on or what channel. But since confession is good for the soul, I have to admit that on at least four occasions, I have been flipping by that channel and been drawn into an hour of Dog-watching. And he always makes me want to cry.

Let the mocking begin.

Â