Get E-Mail Updates

A More Excellent Way

It is often pointed out that some of the places most lacking in hope are not the industrial wastelands or the bleak landscapes shorn of beauty, but the places where there is too much money, too much high culture, too much of everything except faith, hope, and love.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

- Bishop N.T. Wright
Surprised By Hope, p. 232

Much of our contemporary political discourse is taken up with one question: how do people of faith speak in the public square? Framing deliberative democracy in this way places too much emphasis on epistemology and often exhibits an overly anxious concern about the establishment clause.

Scholars like Princeton University professor Eric Gregory, however, are turning the conversation in a much-needed direction: What kind of citizens are we producing? Are we pastoring churches, leading corporations, and guiding schools that cultivate loving, justice-minded citizens, or are we churning out individualistic consumer citizens who measure the success of all our institutional arrangements by the metrics of efficiency, competition, rational choice theories, and the guiding "invisible hand" of Adam Smith?

To be candid, I appreciate the low-priced consumer goods, technological innovations, and the (occasionally) efficient allocation of market mechanisms. But how far is too far? When frigid, career-oriented, cost-benefit analysis drives our decisions, I submit, we have gone too far.

College students pull all-nighters for term papers and prepare endlessly for job interviews, but complain when church runs a little too long. Professionals shuffle appointments around on BlackBerries and datebooks to accommodate networking events, but find it hard to make time to cultivate healthy friendships and romantic relationships. Lest I come across as too detached from my observations, let me hasten to add that I often find it easier to invest discretionary money in mutual funds than to give charitably.

Perhaps I am not alone ... perhaps I am. But I suspect that the powers and principalities of consumerism and market morality dominate and over-determine all of our lives, especially our civic imagination.

Maybe, there is another way. A more excellent way. What if a deep Christocentric love for justice, wholeness, and peace forged -- and fortified -- our identities as citizens? What if we understood ourselves, not as assets or liabilities on a balance sheet, not even as human resources, but as dual citizens who exercise our democratic citizenship according to the person-prioritizing ministry of the Spirit-kissed prophet from Palestine?

If we vote, organize communities, intervene in public policy discussions, and -- if we so choose -- govern as dual citizens driven by a love for concrete human beings, a love that reflects the social bonds within the Triune God, maybe, just maybe, we might show our fellow citizens, believers or not, a more excellent way to serve.

Andrew Wilkes is a former Sojourners policy and organizing intern and second-year student at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: neuro_nurse

03-05-2009 @ 10:23am

"I'm not sure what you mean by this."

Are you kidding?

by: xfree9

03-10-2009 @ 4:59pm

Nope. Not kidding. Why are you judging somebody by how much they have as possessions? Wealth is a measure of possessions. I don't think more highly of the poor or the rich. I think of people as individuals, not portions of something larger, though that they may be. They are equal in God's eyes. No exceptions.

by: neuro_nurse

03-10-2009 @ 7:32pm

Throughout this exchange, my impression has been that you seem to have a deficiency in your ability to perceive situations and perspectives other than your own.

It's really not that complicated.

Try, if you can, to imagine yourself as being poor. Now do you see wealth inequality as a problem?

For someone who is wealthy, wealth inequality is not a problem

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:25am

I don't think the poor person should just "be happy." I do not want the poor person to be poor. I do not want anybody to be poor. I'm talking about wealth inequality as a societal problem, not a personal problem. My mistake... I didn't make that clear.

What I have made clear is my concern for the poor, needy, and lacking in life. I'm simply not in favor of political means to accomplish those goals. You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary (though failing to point out a place i can voluntarily live that has no taxes, which kinda defeats the idea of it being voluntary unless such a place exists); this is fine. Most citizens don't mind paying taxes because they believe they have some sort of gain from it. I, on the other hand, do not believe that taxation is the best way to "gain" in society. So we disagree. No big deal. Lots of Christians disagree.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, right? Maybe it'll all be sorted out in the afterlife.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:26am

"Throughout this exchange, my impression has been that you seem to have a deficiency or unwllingness to understand situations and perspectives other than your own."

Likewise.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:35pm

"That's the pot calling the kettle black."

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean the kettle isn't black.

by: neuro_nurse

03-11-2009 @ 2:51pm

"What I have made clear is my concern for the poor, needy, and lacking in life."

Really? Because it seems to me that this is the first time on this thread that you've mentioned any concern you personally have for the poor. (yes, I read your blog and have commented on it already)

"You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary"

You are misrepresenting what I have said

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 7:24pm

"College students pull all-nighters for term papers and prepare endlessly for job interviews, but complain when church runs a little too long. Professionals shuffle appointments around on BlackBerries and datebooks to accommodate networking events, but find it hard to make time to cultivate healthy friendships and romantic relationships."

Perhaps if church or church leaders offered something worthwhile, the complaint about a service running long would disappear. A 2-hour service with content doesn't seem long; piffle is too long regardless of how much time you spend at it.

As for the comment about professionals, why single them out? Perhaps the professionals you know are experiencing problems with friendships and romance, but the networking events and the friendships issue need not be an either/or, nor is it exclusive of working class or even unemployed persons.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 7:36pm

Or maybe it's the left that has contributed to the materialism by devoting all its energy to the even provision of stuff, without regard for the provision of freedom or understanding?

LV

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 8:16pm

AMEN to that!

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 8:22pm

How is using our vote to control and manipulate society to the way we ourselves would prefer a "better way"? How is using the public square to "produce citizens" in the likeness of our preferences a "better way"? And how can we love human beings apart from each human's individuality, not simply their value as part of a community?

Wilkes asks, "Are we pastoring churches, leading corporations, and guiding schools that cultivate loving, justice-minded citizens...?" This is an awesome question to ask, as far as it goes. But insert the rest of it, "... or are we churning out individualistic consumer citizens who measure the success of all our institutional arrangements by the metrics of efficiency, competition, rational choice theories, and the guiding "invisible hand" of Adam Smith?" and what you get is a pitting of two things against each other that need not be. It's like asking, "Are we for dogs, or are we for cats?" The opposite of dog is not cat... only a three-year old believes such.

The things he pits against each other are not inherently incompatible. Economic efficiency, competition, and the "invisible hand" (not the sarcastic quotation marks) are not antithetical to love and justice. Anybody who believes such is unfamiliar with that which Wilkes criticizes.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 8:58pm

At this point, I'm reminded of the line from Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". Adams is describing Earth as a planet where most of the people are unhappy much of the time and goes on to observe that (quoting from memory here) "a number of solutions had been proposed for this problem, but most of those solutions involved the movement of little green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the little green pieces of paper that were unhappy."

To some of you this might sound like an indictment of capitalism, but if you think about it it could just as easily apply to the current President's economic stimlus bill, which also moves a lot of little green pieces of paper around.

If you say that people cannot have dignity unless they have roughly equal incomes (especially in a society where the overwhelming majority of people already have adequate food, a roof over their heads, and at least a couple changes of clothes) is this not every bit as materialistic as an ad that says life is worthless unless you drive a Porsche?

LV

by: neuro_nurse

03-02-2009 @ 9:37pm

"I don't value the poor man down the street because he's poor, but because he's an individual made in the image of God, designed for community, and made to be loved."

Out of curiosity, in what ways do you show your Christian love for your poor neighbor?

It's easy for people who are comfortable to claim they value the poor just as much as the rich.

I believe that actions speak louder than words.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2443

by: oalston

03-02-2009 @ 9:43pm

This is an excellent piece, a very practical call to Love during this time of Lent!

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 9:50pm

A 2-hour service with content doesn't seem long; piffle is too long regardless of how much time you spend at it.

I think you missed the point -- he was speaking about engagement and priorities. To borrow the cliche, do we take the time to smell the flowers?

As for the comment about professionals, why single them out?

They're the most visible and who, really, drive the culture.

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 9:59pm

That's not even an issue -- I grew up with an extremely materialistic father who wanted me to get all the things he was unable to, but that had no appeal to me. For that reason I'm convinced that it's the people on top who need to "get more" -- or at least, more than the next guy -- who primarily have that problem and resent those at the bottom end who, albeit silently, demand equal opportunity (not necessarily outcomes).

From Luke 3:14:

Then some soldiers asked [John the Baptist], "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely - be content with your pay." Note that he was speaking to people already in authority, not the poor.

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 10:16pm

Economic efficiency, competition, and the "invisible hand" (not the sarcastic quotation marks) are not antithetical to love and justice.

Actually, they certainly can be if we're not careful, which is the point. There's nothing inherently wrong with having things in and of itself, but if we seek our identity through our superior status ... that's where we get into trouble. Equality is a very threatening thing to folks at the top, which is why there was so much resistance to, say, the civil-rights movement.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 10:54pm

A movement that asserts its identity by seizing wealth from others isn't necessarily any better.

And there's more than one way for those "at the top" to protect their turf.

LV

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:01pm

"I thought wealth inequality was only a problem for those who aren't wealthy."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:02pm

"It's easy for people who are comfortable to claim they value the poor just as much as the rich."

Yup. Very much agreed here. I

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:03pm

We agree. But Wilkes made an either/or statement, and I was saying they aren't inherently contrary to each other.

Those who resisted civil rights were not about equality... that's kinda obvious, though.

I think we're agreed on something!

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 12:51am

So a good question arising from this would be, "Where do you set your priorities?" and "How do you engage those priorities faithfully and morally?" Personally, I believe if you are joining forces with the government to pursue ends by which you are failing on your own, that is immoral, unless of course that has to do with equality, justice, and civil rights.

by: xfree9

03-10-2009 @ 4:59pm

Nope. Not kidding. Why are you judging somebody by how much they have as possessions? Wealth is a measure of possessions. I don't think more highly of the poor or the rich. I think of people as individuals, not portions of something larger, though that they may be. They are equal in God's eyes. No exceptions.

by: BlueDeacon

03-03-2009 @ 3:18am

Well, what other ends are there?

by: neuro_nurse

03-10-2009 @ 7:32pm

Throughout this exchange, my impression has been that you seem to have a deficiency in your ability to perceive situations and perspectives other than your own.

It's really not that complicated.

Try, if you can, to imagine yourself as being poor. Now do you see wealth inequality as a problem?

For someone who is wealthy, wealth inequality is not a problem

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 4:04am

Peace.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:25am

I don't think the poor person should just "be happy." I do not want the poor person to be poor. I do not want anybody to be poor. I'm talking about wealth inequality as a societal problem, not a personal problem. My mistake... I didn't make that clear.

What I have made clear is my concern for the poor, needy, and lacking in life. I'm simply not in favor of political means to accomplish those goals. You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary (though failing to point out a place i can voluntarily live that has no taxes, which kinda defeats the idea of it being voluntary unless such a place exists); this is fine. Most citizens don't mind paying taxes because they believe they have some sort of gain from it. I, on the other hand, do not believe that taxation is the best way to "gain" in society. So we disagree. No big deal. Lots of Christians disagree.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, right? Maybe it'll all be sorted out in the afterlife.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:26am

"Throughout this exchange, my impression has been that you seem to have a deficiency or unwllingness to understand situations and perspectives other than your own."

Likewise.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:35pm

"That's the pot calling the kettle black."

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean the kettle isn't black.

by: neuro_nurse

03-11-2009 @ 2:51pm

"What I have made clear is my concern for the poor, needy, and lacking in life."

Really? Because it seems to me that this is the first time on this thread that you've mentioned any concern you personally have for the poor. (yes, I read your blog and have commented on it already)

"You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary"

You are misrepresenting what I have said

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 7:24pm

"College students pull all-nighters for term papers and prepare endlessly for job interviews, but complain when church runs a little too long. Professionals shuffle appointments around on BlackBerries and datebooks to accommodate networking events, but find it hard to make time to cultivate healthy friendships and romantic relationships."

Perhaps if church or church leaders offered something worthwhile, the complaint about a service running long would disappear. A 2-hour service with content doesn't seem long; piffle is too long regardless of how much time you spend at it.

As for the comment about professionals, why single them out? Perhaps the professionals you know are experiencing problems with friendships and romance, but the networking events and the friendships issue need not be an either/or, nor is it exclusive of working class or even unemployed persons.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 7:36pm

Or maybe it's the left that has contributed to the materialism by devoting all its energy to the even provision of stuff, without regard for the provision of freedom or understanding?

LV

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 8:16pm

AMEN to that!

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 8:22pm

How is using our vote to control and manipulate society to the way we ourselves would prefer a "better way"? How is using the public square to "produce citizens" in the likeness of our preferences a "better way"? And how can we love human beings apart from each human's individuality, not simply their value as part of a community?

Wilkes asks, "Are we pastoring churches, leading corporations, and guiding schools that cultivate loving, justice-minded citizens...?" This is an awesome question to ask, as far as it goes. But insert the rest of it, "... or are we churning out individualistic consumer citizens who measure the success of all our institutional arrangements by the metrics of efficiency, competition, rational choice theories, and the guiding "invisible hand" of Adam Smith?" and what you get is a pitting of two things against each other that need not be. It's like asking, "Are we for dogs, or are we for cats?" The opposite of dog is not cat... only a three-year old believes such.

The things he pits against each other are not inherently incompatible. Economic efficiency, competition, and the "invisible hand" (not the sarcastic quotation marks) are not antithetical to love and justice. Anybody who believes such is unfamiliar with that which Wilkes criticizes.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 8:58pm

At this point, I'm reminded of the line from Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". Adams is describing Earth as a planet where most of the people are unhappy much of the time and goes on to observe that (quoting from memory here) "a number of solutions had been proposed for this problem, but most of those solutions involved the movement of little green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the little green pieces of paper that were unhappy."

To some of you this might sound like an indictment of capitalism, but if you think about it it could just as easily apply to the current President's economic stimlus bill, which also moves a lot of little green pieces of paper around.

If you say that people cannot have dignity unless they have roughly equal incomes (especially in a society where the overwhelming majority of people already have adequate food, a roof over their heads, and at least a couple changes of clothes) is this not every bit as materialistic as an ad that says life is worthless unless you drive a Porsche?

LV

by: neuro_nurse

03-02-2009 @ 9:37pm

"I don't value the poor man down the street because he's poor, but because he's an individual made in the image of God, designed for community, and made to be loved."

Out of curiosity, in what ways do you show your Christian love for your poor neighbor?

It's easy for people who are comfortable to claim they value the poor just as much as the rich.

I believe that actions speak louder than words.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2443

by: oalston

03-02-2009 @ 9:43pm

This is an excellent piece, a very practical call to Love during this time of Lent!

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 9:50pm

A 2-hour service with content doesn't seem long; piffle is too long regardless of how much time you spend at it.

I think you missed the point -- he was speaking about engagement and priorities. To borrow the cliche, do we take the time to smell the flowers?

As for the comment about professionals, why single them out?

They're the most visible and who, really, drive the culture.

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 9:59pm

That's not even an issue -- I grew up with an extremely materialistic father who wanted me to get all the things he was unable to, but that had no appeal to me. For that reason I'm convinced that it's the people on top who need to "get more" -- or at least, more than the next guy -- who primarily have that problem and resent those at the bottom end who, albeit silently, demand equal opportunity (not necessarily outcomes).

From Luke 3:14:

Then some soldiers asked [John the Baptist], "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely - be content with your pay." Note that he was speaking to people already in authority, not the poor.

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 10:16pm

Economic efficiency, competition, and the "invisible hand" (not the sarcastic quotation marks) are not antithetical to love and justice.

Actually, they certainly can be if we're not careful, which is the point. There's nothing inherently wrong with having things in and of itself, but if we seek our identity through our superior status ... that's where we get into trouble. Equality is a very threatening thing to folks at the top, which is why there was so much resistance to, say, the civil-rights movement.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 10:54pm

A movement that asserts its identity by seizing wealth from others isn't necessarily any better.

And there's more than one way for those "at the top" to protect their turf.

LV

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:01pm

"I thought wealth inequality was only a problem for those who aren't wealthy."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:02pm

"It's easy for people who are comfortable to claim they value the poor just as much as the rich."

Yup. Very much agreed here. I

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:03pm

We agree. But Wilkes made an either/or statement, and I was saying they aren't inherently contrary to each other.

Those who resisted civil rights were not about equality... that's kinda obvious, though.

I think we're agreed on something!

by: neuro_nurse

03-05-2009 @ 10:23am

"I'm not sure what you mean by this."

Are you kidding?

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 12:51am

So a good question arising from this would be, "Where do you set your priorities?" and "How do you engage those priorities faithfully and morally?" Personally, I believe if you are joining forces with the government to pursue ends by which you are failing on your own, that is immoral, unless of course that has to do with equality, justice, and civil rights.

by: BlueDeacon

03-03-2009 @ 3:18am

Well, what other ends are there?

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 4:04am

Peace.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 7:24pm

"College students pull all-nighters for term papers and prepare endlessly for job interviews, but complain when church runs a little too long. Professionals shuffle appointments around on BlackBerries and datebooks to accommodate networking events, but find it hard to make time to cultivate healthy friendships and romantic relationships."

Perhaps if church or church leaders offered something worthwhile, the complaint about a service running long would disappear. A 2-hour service with content doesn't seem long; piffle is too long regardless of how much time you spend at it.

As for the comment about professionals, why single them out? Perhaps the professionals you know are experiencing problems with friendships and romance, but the networking events and the friendships issue need not be an either/or, nor is it exclusive of working class or even unemployed persons.

by: nuclearferret

03-02-2009 @ 7:24pm

"College students pull all-nighters for term papers and prepare endlessly for job interviews, but complain when church runs a little too long. Professionals shuffle appointments around on BlackBerries and datebooks to accommodate networking events, but find it hard to make time to cultivate healthy friendships and romantic relationships."

Perhaps if church or church leaders offered something worthwhile, the complaint about a service running long would disappear. A 2-hour service with content doesn't seem long; piffle is too long regardless of how much time you spend at it.

As for the comment about professionals, why single them out? Perhaps the professionals you know are experiencing problems with friendships and romance, but the networking events and the friendships issue need not be an either/or, nor is it exclusive of working class or even unemployed persons.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 7:36pm

Or maybe it's the left that has contributed to the materialism by devoting all its energy to the even provision of stuff, without regard for the provision of freedom or understanding?

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 7:36pm

Or maybe it's the left that has contributed to the materialism by devoting all its energy to the even provision of stuff, without regard for the provision of freedom or understanding?

LV

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 8:16pm

AMEN to that!

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 8:16pm

AMEN to that!

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 8:22pm

How is using our vote to control and manipulate society to the way we ourselves would prefer a "better way"? How is using the public square to "produce citizens" in the likeness of our preferences a "better way"? And how can we love human beings apart from each human's individuality, not simply their value as part of a community?

Wilkes asks, "Are we pastoring churches, leading corporations, and guiding schools that cultivate loving, justice-minded citizens...?" This is an awesome question to ask, as far as it goes. But insert the rest of it, "... or are we churning out individualistic consumer citizens who measure the success of all our institutional arrangements by the metrics of efficiency, competition, rational choice theories, and the guiding "invisible hand" of Adam Smith?" and what you get is a pitting of two things against each other that need not be. It's like asking, "Are we for dogs, or are we for cats?" The opposite of dog is not cat... only a three-year old believes such.

The things he pits against each other are not inherently incompatible. Economic efficiency, competition, and the "invisible hand" (not the sarcastic quotation marks) are not antithetical to love and justice. Anybody who believes such is unfamiliar with that which Wilkes criticizes.

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 8:22pm

How is using our vote to control and manipulate society to the way we ourselves would prefer a "better way"? How is using the public square to "produce citizens" in the likeness of our preferences a "better way"? And how can we love human beings apart from each human's individuality, not simply their value as part of a community?

Wilkes asks, "Are we pastoring churches, leading corporations, and guiding schools that cultivate loving, justice-minded citizens...?" This is an awesome question to ask, as far as it goes. But insert the rest of it, "... or are we churning out individualistic consumer citizens who measure the success of all our institutional arrangements by the metrics of efficiency, competition, rational choice theories, and the guiding "invisible hand" of Adam Smith?" and what you get is a pitting of two things against each other that need not be. It's like asking, "Are we for dogs, or are we for cats?" The opposite of dog is not cat... only a three-year old believes such.

The things he pits against each other are not inherently incompatible. Economic efficiency, competition, and the "invisible hand" (not the sarcastic quotation marks) are not antithetical to love and justice. Anybody who believes such is unfamiliar with that which Wilkes criticizes.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 8:58pm

At this point, I'm reminded of the line from Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". Adams is describing Earth as a planet where most of the people are unhappy much of the time and goes on to observe that (quoting from memory here) "a number of solutions had been proposed for this problem, but most of those solutions involved the movement of little green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the little green pieces of paper that were unhappy."

To some of you this might sound like an indictment of capitalism, but if you think about it it could just as easily apply to the current President's economic stimlus bill, which also moves a lot of little green pieces of paper around.

If you say that people cannot have dignity unless they have roughly equal incomes (especially in a society where the overwhelming majority of people already have adequate food, a roof over their heads, and at least a couple changes of clothes) is this not every bit as materialistic as an ad that says life is worthless unless you drive a Porsche?

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 8:58pm

At this point, I'm reminded of the line from Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". Adams is describing Earth as a planet where most of the people are unhappy much of the time and goes on to observe that (quoting from memory here) "a number of solutions had been proposed for this problem, but most of those solutions involved the movement of little green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the little green pieces of paper that were unhappy."

To some of you this might sound like an indictment of capitalism, but if you think about it it could just as easily apply to the current President's economic stimlus bill, which also moves a lot of little green pieces of paper around.

If you say that people cannot have dignity unless they have roughly equal incomes (especially in a society where the overwhelming majority of people already have adequate food, a roof over their heads, and at least a couple changes of clothes) is this not every bit as materialistic as an ad that says life is worthless unless you drive a Porsche?

LV

by: neuro_nurse

03-02-2009 @ 9:37pm

"I don't value the poor man down the street because he's poor, but because he's an individual made in the image of God, designed for community, and made to be loved."

Out of curiosity, in what ways do you show your Christian love for your poor neighbor?

It's easy for people who are comfortable to claim they value the poor just as much as the rich.

I believe that actions speak louder than words.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2443

by: neuro_nurse

03-02-2009 @ 9:37pm

"I don't value the poor man down the street because he's poor, but because he's an individual made in the image of God, designed for community, and made to be loved."

Out of curiosity, in what ways do you show your Christian love for your poor neighbor?

It's easy for people who are comfortable to claim they value the poor just as much as the rich.

I believe that actions speak louder than words.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2443

by: oalston

03-02-2009 @ 9:43pm

This is an excellent piece, a very practical call to Love during this time of Lent!

by: oalston

03-02-2009 @ 9:43pm

This is an excellent piece, a very practical call to Love during this time of Lent!

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 9:50pm

A 2-hour service with content doesn't seem long; piffle is too long regardless of how much time you spend at it.

I think you missed the point -- he was speaking about engagement and priorities. To borrow the cliche, do we take the time to smell the flowers?

As for the comment about professionals, why single them out?

They're the most visible and who, really, drive the culture.

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 9:50pm

A 2-hour service with content doesn't seem long; piffle is too long regardless of how much time you spend at it.

I think you missed the point -- he was speaking about engagement and priorities. To borrow the cliche, do we take the time to smell the flowers?

As for the comment about professionals, why single them out?

They're the most visible and who, really, drive the culture.

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 9:59pm

That's not even an issue -- I grew up with an extremely materialistic father who wanted me to get all the things he was unable to, but that had no appeal to me. For that reason I'm convinced that it's the people on top who need to "get more" -- or at least, more than the next guy -- who primarily have that problem and resent those at the bottom end who, albeit silently, demand equal opportunity (not necessarily outcomes).

From Luke 3:14:

Then some soldiers asked [John the Baptist], "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely - be content with your pay." Note that he was speaking to people already in authority, not the poor.

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 9:59pm

That's not even an issue -- I grew up with an extremely materialistic father who wanted me to get all the things he was unable to, but that had no appeal to me. For that reason I'm convinced that it's the people on top who need to "get more" -- or at least, more than the next guy -- who primarily have that problem and resent those at the bottom end who, albeit silently, demand equal opportunity (not necessarily outcomes).

From Luke 3:14:

Then some soldiers asked [John the Baptist], "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely - be content with your pay." Note that he was speaking to people already in authority, not the poor.

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 10:16pm

Economic efficiency, competition, and the "invisible hand" (not the sarcastic quotation marks) are not antithetical to love and justice.

Actually, they certainly can be if we're not careful, which is the point. There's nothing inherently wrong with having things in and of itself, but if we seek our identity through our superior status ... that's where we get into trouble. Equality is a very threatening thing to folks at the top, which is why there was so much resistance to, say, the civil-rights movement.

by: BlueDeacon

03-02-2009 @ 10:16pm

Economic efficiency, competition, and the "invisible hand" (not the sarcastic quotation marks) are not antithetical to love and justice.

Actually, they certainly can be if we're not careful, which is the point. There's nothing inherently wrong with having things in and of itself, but if we seek our identity through our superior status ... that's where we get into trouble. Equality is a very threatening thing to folks at the top, which is why there was so much resistance to, say, the civil-rights movement.

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 10:54pm

A movement that asserts its identity by seizing wealth from others isn't necessarily any better.

And there's more than one way for those "at the top" to protect their turf.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

03-02-2009 @ 10:54pm

A movement that asserts its identity by seizing wealth from others isn't necessarily any better.

And there's more than one way for those "at the top" to protect their turf.

LV

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:01pm

"I thought wealth inequality was only a problem for those who aren't wealthy."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:01pm

"I thought wealth inequality was only a problem for those who aren't wealthy."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:02pm

"It's easy for people who are comfortable to claim they value the poor just as much as the rich."

Yup. Very much agreed here. I

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:02pm

"It's easy for people who are comfortable to claim they value the poor just as much as the rich."

Yup. Very much agreed here. I

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:03pm

We agree. But Wilkes made an either/or statement, and I was saying they aren't inherently contrary to each other.

Those who resisted civil rights were not about equality... that's kinda obvious, though.

I think we're agreed on something!

by: xfree9

03-02-2009 @ 11:03pm

We agree. But Wilkes made an either/or statement, and I was saying they aren't inherently contrary to each other.

Those who resisted civil rights were not about equality... that's kinda obvious, though.

I think we're agreed on something!

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 12:51am

So a good question arising from this would be, "Where do you set your priorities?" and "How do you engage those priorities faithfully and morally?" Personally, I believe if you are joining forces with the government to pursue ends by which you are failing on your own, that is immoral, unless of course that has to do with equality, justice, and civil rights.

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 12:51am

So a good question arising from this would be, "Where do you set your priorities?" and "How do you engage those priorities faithfully and morally?" Personally, I believe if you are joining forces with the government to pursue ends by which you are failing on your own, that is immoral, unless of course that has to do with equality, justice, and civil rights.

by: BlueDeacon

03-03-2009 @ 3:18am

Well, what other ends are there?

by: BlueDeacon

03-03-2009 @ 3:18am

Well, what other ends are there?

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 4:04am

Peace.

by: xfree9

03-03-2009 @ 4:04am

Peace.

by: neuro_nurse

03-05-2009 @ 10:23am

"I'm not sure what you mean by this."

Are you kidding?

by: neuro_nurse

03-05-2009 @ 10:23am

"I'm not sure what you mean by this."

Are you kidding?

by: xfree9

03-10-2009 @ 4:59pm

Nope. Not kidding. Why are you judging somebody by how much they have as possessions? Wealth is a measure of possessions. I don't think more highly of the poor or the rich. I think of people as individuals, not portions of something larger, though that they may be. They are equal in God's eyes. No exceptions.

by: xfree9

03-10-2009 @ 4:59pm

Nope. Not kidding. Why are you judging somebody by how much they have as possessions? Wealth is a measure of possessions. I don't think more highly of the poor or the rich. I think of people as individuals, not portions of something larger, though that they may be. They are equal in God's eyes. No exceptions.

by: neuro_nurse

03-10-2009 @ 7:32pm

Throughout this exchange, my impression has been that you seem to have a deficiency in your ability to perceive situations and perspectives other than your own.

It's really not that complicated.

Try, if you can, to imagine yourself as being poor. Now do you see wealth inequality as a problem?

For someone who is wealthy, wealth inequality is not a problem

by: neuro_nurse

03-10-2009 @ 7:32pm

Throughout this exchange, my impression has been that you seem to have a deficiency in your ability to perceive situations and perspectives other than your own.

It's really not that complicated.

Try, if you can, to imagine yourself as being poor. Now do you see wealth inequality as a problem?

For someone who is wealthy, wealth inequality is not a problem

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:25am

I don't think the poor person should just "be happy." I do not want the poor person to be poor. I do not want anybody to be poor. I'm talking about wealth inequality as a societal problem, not a personal problem. My mistake... I didn't make that clear.

What I have made clear is my concern for the poor, needy, and lacking in life. I'm simply not in favor of political means to accomplish those goals. You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary (though failing to point out a place i can voluntarily live that has no taxes, which kinda defeats the idea of it being voluntary unless such a place exists); this is fine. Most citizens don't mind paying taxes because they believe they have some sort of gain from it. I, on the other hand, do not believe that taxation is the best way to "gain" in society. So we disagree. No big deal. Lots of Christians disagree.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, right? Maybe it'll all be sorted out in the afterlife.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:25am

I don't think the poor person should just "be happy." I do not want the poor person to be poor. I do not want anybody to be poor. I'm talking about wealth inequality as a societal problem, not a personal problem. My mistake... I didn't make that clear.

What I have made clear is my concern for the poor, needy, and lacking in life. I'm simply not in favor of political means to accomplish those goals. You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary (though failing to point out a place i can voluntarily live that has no taxes, which kinda defeats the idea of it being voluntary unless such a place exists); this is fine. Most citizens don't mind paying taxes because they believe they have some sort of gain from it. I, on the other hand, do not believe that taxation is the best way to "gain" in society. So we disagree. No big deal. Lots of Christians disagree.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, right? Maybe it'll all be sorted out in the afterlife.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:26am

"Throughout this exchange, my impression has been that you seem to have a deficiency or unwllingness to understand situations and perspectives other than your own."

Likewise.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:26am

"Throughout this exchange, my impression has been that you seem to have a deficiency or unwllingness to understand situations and perspectives other than your own."

Likewise.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:35pm

"That's the pot calling the kettle black."

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean the kettle isn't black.

by: xfree9

03-11-2009 @ 1:35pm

"That's the pot calling the kettle black."

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean the kettle isn't black.

by: neuro_nurse

03-11-2009 @ 2:51pm

"What I have made clear is my concern for the poor, needy, and lacking in life."

Really? Because it seems to me that this is the first time on this thread that you've mentioned any concern you personally have for the poor. (yes, I read your blog and have commented on it already)

"You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary"

You are misrepresenting what I have said

by: neuro_nurse

03-11-2009 @ 2:51pm

"What I have made clear is my concern for the poor, needy, and lacking in life."

Really? Because it seems to me that this is the first time on this thread that you've mentioned any concern you personally have for the poor. (yes, I read your blog and have commented on it already)

"You obviously deny taxation is nonvoluntary"

You are misrepresenting what I have said