What the Poor Need Most
March 2, 2011
Joe Carter
During the late 1970s and early 1980s I spent two extended periods living below the poverty line. The first experience came as I entered the first grade. My father was a chronically unhappy man who was skillful and ambitious, yet prone to wanderlust. Every few months we would move to a new city so that he could try his hand at a new occupation—a truck driver in Arkansas, a cop in West Texas, a bouncer at a honky-tonk near Louisiana. We were always on the move, always a few weeks away from the next paycheck. At the lowest point we had nothing to eat but a half-loaf of Wonder Bread, a five-gallon bucket of unshelled peanuts, and tap water. That lasted for a two-week period in August that stretched across my seventh birthday. 
Eventually my father settled down, found steady work, and we inched our way slowly toward the lower rungs of the working class. This period of financial tranquility lasted until I was eleven, when my father walked out on my mother, my younger brother, and me. Brokenhearted and dead broke, we packed the car and moved again, my mother having acquired the nomadic tendency to run away from adversity. (By the time I graduated high school, I had changed schools thirteen times.) Single parenthood tipped the scales and we slipped, once again, beneath the poverty threshold. We survived with the aid of food stamps and government housing until my sophomore year, when my mother remarried and our lives returned to a level of economic normalcy.
I’m always hesitant to share this story because we in America tend to have a knee-jerk sympathy for the “down-and-out.” There are, however, many times, as in my family’s case, when pity is completely unwarranted. A lifetime of foolish decisions by my parents, rather than a dismal economy or lack of opportunity, led to our being poor. We reaped what they had sown.
But while being poor can be difficult, it isn’t the tragedy that many might be inclined to believe. From an early age I knew that while many people had more than I did, others had it much, much worse. That lesson was seared into my conscience while sitting in a pew watching Baptist missionaries present a slideshow detailing their latest mission trip. The images of true poverty gave our tiny congregation a glimpse into the everyday life in Ethiopia, a time of famine when a few slices of white bread and a bucket of unshelled peanuts would be considered a feast. I was struck by the realization that as little as we had, these people had less. I was white-trash Texas poor; these people were Africa poor.
Looking back, I realize that many would have looked on me as I looked on these African children—as objects of pity. Though they were much like me, I had put them in the category of the Other. It was almost as if these families, who didn’t even have a mobile home and a broken down Buick to call their own, were a different type of Christian. As the Dutch prime minister and theologian Abraham Kuyper wrote in “The Problem of Poverty”:
There cannot be two different faiths—one for you and one for the poor. The question on which the whole social problem really pivots is whether you recognize in the less fortunate, even in the poorest, not merely a creature, a person in wretched circumstances, but one of your own flesh and blood: for the sake of Christ, your brother. It is exactly this noble sentiment that, sad to say, has been weakened and dulled in such a provoking manner by the materialism of this century.
Kuyper wrote these words in 1891 for the material-obsessed middle-class of The Netherlands. Yet In our own country even the poor are dulled by materialism. Many of our poor have more possessions than the rich young ruler whom Jesus told to sell all he had in order to find salvation. How many of those in poverty in America would give up all they had? Even my family—white-trash Texas poor as we were—would have been hesitant to part with our bounty.
The problem of poverty, at least in America, is not just that it makes it difficult for people to fulfill their material needs, but rather that it blinds us all to what we really need. After all, what the truly destitute—those without food and shelter—need most isn’t a handout or a redistribution of wealth. What they need is for Christians to heed Jesus’ command. As Kuyper points out,
For deeds of love are indispensable. Obviously, the poor man cannot wait until the restoration of our social structure has been completed. Almost certainly he will not live long enough to see that happy day. Nevertheless, he still has to live, he must feed his hungry mouth, and the mouths of his hungry family. Therefore, vigorous help is necessary. However highly I am inclined to praise your willingness to make sacrifices—and this is possible through God’s grace to many of you—nevertheless, the holy art of “giving for Jesus’ sake” ought to be much more strongly developed among us Christians. Never forget that all state relief for the poor is a blot on the honor of your savior.
The fact that the government needs a safety net to catch those who would slip between the cracks of our economic system is evidence that I have failed to do God’s work. The government cannot take the place of Christian charity. A loving embrace isn’t given with food stamps. The care of a community isn’t provided with government housing. The face of our Creator can’t be seen on a welfare voucher. What the poor need is not another government program; what they need is for Christians like me to honor our savior.
I can attest to that truth from my own experience. What my family needed, what I needed, was not just a handout—either from the state or the church. We needed true, Godly charity.
So why do I still find it so difficult to give of my money, of my time, of my self? Why are the “deeds of love” that Kuyper called indispensable so easy for me to withhold?
I can’t blame it on poverty. Today, I’m comfortably ensconced in the middle-class with free time and disposable income that I waste with embarrassing regularity. Yet even when I was poor I was wealthier than 95 percent of the rest of the planet. I still had a duty to provide aid to those who were even less fortunate; Jesus didn’t excuse me from my obligations because I seemed to lack wealth.
In Christ’s day, the Jews were instructed to give to the Temple and to the poor as part of their service to God. Jesus praised the poor widow who gave two mites, having “put more into the treasury than all the others.” The others gave out of their wealth, but she gave out of her poverty.
Jesus never said that the widow shouldn’t have given because she had little to spare. Instead, he praised her obedience. If the widow and the poor can give then how much more can those of us in temporary financial straights—the starving artist, the penniless college student, the struggling young parents—give of our abundance?
Some day I will stand before my Creator and he'll ask why I didn't feed my brother when he was hungry or clothe my sister when she was cold. Shall I tell him, “I couldn’t give, Lord, I lived in poverty”?
Unlike the poor widow, I'm rich in possessions and could give out of my wealth. But she gave out of abundance—an obedient heart and love for her neighbor—of which I remain truly impoverished.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things. His previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
Comments:
3.2.2011 | 6:54am
Brian says:
Persistent poverty in a society is not a sign of failure of the government, but of failure of the Church, failure of Christians. Amen. As we see the coming day when the non-essential functions of the federal government come to an end, all Christians should be preparing to take over those social functions that the federal government never should have had primary responsibility for in the first place. Unfortunately, that would require Christians to get their hands dirty, complicate their clean, consumerized lives, and really connect with poor people. For that reason, I'm not terribly hopeful that it will happen in the timely manner that it should. How many conservative Christians (like myself) understand the ramifications of their "smaller government" beliefs? Progressives like to caricature conservatives as cold-hearted, ready to see more and more poor people go unhelped as the federal government stops helping them. If conservative Christians would think it through, in light of both Scriptural witness and the example of generations of Christians before us, I pray that more and more of them would start now to pick up the slack, and serve the poor like we've been commanded to.
3.2.2011 | 7:38am
ferd says:
Thank you Joe. This was a delight to read..but more so. It will change my life.
3.2.2011 | 8:14am
Jamie says:
The Apostle James said in James 2.14-26, that a religion that gives starving people kind words, but not material food, is an evil, false Christianity.
To be sure, "poor" in some ways is a relative term. But there is a bottom line. One which we see when people literally lose their lives, because of basic physical necessities; like food, shelter, and today, medical care.
To be sure, you were never quite starving to death yourself. But a few weeks living on bread and peanuts is pretty close. Indeed consider this: you might have eventually sufferered significant undernourishment, and even starvation ... if not for government food stamps. Perhaps you owe your life to government social care in fact.
Today, government programs have taken up the old religious call for "charity" ... and often do a much better job at it, than many pious religious "Christians." Who are eager to give us many kind words and sermons - but no physical assistance. Even when we are likely to die from lack of it.
Today for example, many "Christians" oppose foreign aid; even when indeed, the physical lives of many Africans and others, are on the line.
And many here oppose Obama's medical program, for the poor, especially. Even though once again, the lives of millions, once again, are at stake.
To be sure, "poor" in some ways is a relative term. But there is a bottom line. One which we see when people literally lose their lives, because of basic physical necessities; like food, shelter, and today, medical care.
To be sure, you were never quite starving to death yourself. But a few weeks living on bread and peanuts is pretty close. Indeed consider this: you might have eventually sufferered significant undernourishment, and even starvation ... if not for government food stamps. Perhaps you owe your life to government social care in fact.
Today, government programs have taken up the old religious call for "charity" ... and often do a much better job at it, than many pious religious "Christians." Who are eager to give us many kind words and sermons - but no physical assistance. Even when we are likely to die from lack of it.
Today for example, many "Christians" oppose foreign aid; even when indeed, the physical lives of many Africans and others, are on the line.
And many here oppose Obama's medical program, for the poor, especially. Even though once again, the lives of millions, once again, are at stake.
3.2.2011 | 8:31am
Paul says:
Good article. One thing that bothers me, though, is the fact that most of the middle class's "abundance" is financed by debt. It is not really an act of charity to give to the poor out of money you already owe to someone else. The absurdity of the situation for me is highlighted when I receive solicitations to give to charity with the option to pay by credit card.
3.2.2011 | 8:56am
Dan says:
I will write more later as I pray and reflect on this topic.
Three points;
1) One observation I have is that the poor give all the time. They bring into their houses the family that needs help, the left-out child of their relatives. The now homeless cousins, etc. Any time making personal contacts with the poor will note this readily.
2) The consefvative lexicon lacks a word for "community." It has individual expectations, part of the Reagan cowboy/ "rugged individualist" mythology it maintains. And it has the word "government" to which it assigns a sacramental execution of violence in a gleeful manner. Any other function of the government to offer assistance is routinely met no longer with a sense of oblesse oblige but with a sense that the agencies and entitites are morallly bankrupt. One line of thought went so far as to say that the government "stole" charitable opportunity from the individual (as if). The Glenn Beck-type story eschews any role of government (or even Church) that is doing work for the poor.
"Community" is a lacking term in conservative circles. In early Christian life, the "community" had meaning, had lots of different social classes integrated into its worship and social life ( as opposed to the largely economic apartheid of American worship today), and function with biblical evidence of "social action" from the institution of the diaconate to care for the poor, to Paul's fund-raising drive among his established communities for the Church of Jerusalem. Conservative social thought becomes bankrupt when it fails to identify how a local, geographically defined group of neighbors should respind to poverty and need as a "community."
3) The poor are not "nice." I suspect they never were. Medieval poverty and ancient Roman poverty likely had all the same elements of substance abuse, mental health problems, and self-sabotaging behaviors. We are not called to love the "good" poor, but to recognize, in a way poorly defined by the Church today, that the poor is Christ. As such, we are to love them as we love Christ.
Thanks for the essay. I will keep it in mind today.
Three points;
1) One observation I have is that the poor give all the time. They bring into their houses the family that needs help, the left-out child of their relatives. The now homeless cousins, etc. Any time making personal contacts with the poor will note this readily.
2) The consefvative lexicon lacks a word for "community." It has individual expectations, part of the Reagan cowboy/ "rugged individualist" mythology it maintains. And it has the word "government" to which it assigns a sacramental execution of violence in a gleeful manner. Any other function of the government to offer assistance is routinely met no longer with a sense of oblesse oblige but with a sense that the agencies and entitites are morallly bankrupt. One line of thought went so far as to say that the government "stole" charitable opportunity from the individual (as if). The Glenn Beck-type story eschews any role of government (or even Church) that is doing work for the poor.
"Community" is a lacking term in conservative circles. In early Christian life, the "community" had meaning, had lots of different social classes integrated into its worship and social life ( as opposed to the largely economic apartheid of American worship today), and function with biblical evidence of "social action" from the institution of the diaconate to care for the poor, to Paul's fund-raising drive among his established communities for the Church of Jerusalem. Conservative social thought becomes bankrupt when it fails to identify how a local, geographically defined group of neighbors should respind to poverty and need as a "community."
3) The poor are not "nice." I suspect they never were. Medieval poverty and ancient Roman poverty likely had all the same elements of substance abuse, mental health problems, and self-sabotaging behaviors. We are not called to love the "good" poor, but to recognize, in a way poorly defined by the Church today, that the poor is Christ. As such, we are to love them as we love Christ.
Thanks for the essay. I will keep it in mind today.
3.2.2011 | 9:23am
jason taylor says:
Why is it "unwarranted" to pity someone for something that is their fault? I thought undeserved pity was the point of Christianity.
3.2.2011 | 10:36am
Michael says:
Thanks for another article worth thinking about and thinking through, Joe. It works well with last Sunday's gospel reading and with yesterday's devotional from James.
3.2.2011 | 10:56am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
@Dan,
Yes and no. Many of those who call themselves conservative today have no place for community, but true conservatism is all about family and community. Many of those who are today's self-styled conservatives are nothing of the sort. They are economic libertarians or, worse, Randian objectivists. The real problem in America is that true conservatism's voice is drowned out by liberalism, libertarianism and objectivism, with proponents of the latter two having given conservatism a bad name by usurping and perverting the meaning of the term.
What America needs desperately is a strong voice for true conservatism, that puts family and community ahead of both the nanny state (liberalism) and the individual (libertarianism and objectivism).
Yes and no. Many of those who call themselves conservative today have no place for community, but true conservatism is all about family and community. Many of those who are today's self-styled conservatives are nothing of the sort. They are economic libertarians or, worse, Randian objectivists. The real problem in America is that true conservatism's voice is drowned out by liberalism, libertarianism and objectivism, with proponents of the latter two having given conservatism a bad name by usurping and perverting the meaning of the term.
What America needs desperately is a strong voice for true conservatism, that puts family and community ahead of both the nanny state (liberalism) and the individual (libertarianism and objectivism).
3.2.2011 | 12:13pm
Jon Rowe says:
Mr Carter,
Thank you very much for a heartfelt article. After reading many articles in FT about capitalism and wealth, it's nice to read something about the other side of the spectrum.
Thank you very much for a heartfelt article. After reading many articles in FT about capitalism and wealth, it's nice to read something about the other side of the spectrum.
3.2.2011 | 12:13pm
martin duggan says:
I would like to know more from Joe Carter how he became the man he is today, an intellectual who has also been a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant.
3.2.2011 | 12:20pm
JoAnn says:
@ Dan on Point # 2: I suspect the writer of this article is himself at least a moderately conservative person, and here he is writing about the need for community. Yet you don't seem to give him credit for it or even to notice it. Maybe many conservatives mention the need for community all the time, but you aren't able to recognize it. We do call on each other to give more of ourselves, to act personally for the poor. Statistic after statistic shows that conservatives give far more to charitable organizations by far than progressives tend to. Perhaps you aren't able to recognize our mention of community because we don't associate either community nor charity with governmental responsibility. It's just something we each should do, and not something that we should be FORCING other people to do through taxation. That would be doing violence to another's free will to choose the good. The ends do NOT justify the means.
3.2.2011 | 12:52pm
JoAnn says:
@ Jamie who said "Today, government programs have taken up the old religious call for "charity" ... and often do a much better job at it, than many pious religious "Christians." Who are eager to give us many kind words and sermons - but no physical assistance."
The fact that you think the government does a better job of running charities than local churches and organizations shows that you have likely never been very poor in America. The WIC line in my town has a three hour waiting period any time you step in the door. The Pregnant Woman Medicaid system has a seven month waiting list before you can see a doctor. The disability program is just rediculously managed and makes no sense whatsoever and you will search long and hard to find an employee there who knows their job and is willing to help you without being rude. Free does not equal better managed.
As for giving kind words rather than substance goes... I think it takes both. Substance does not correct the problem causing poverty. It takes kind words to do that and it is something a government program can never give. We can give substance to other countries, but it will only make them dependent upon us if we don't share the Gospel with them, and that is something our government will never do.
The fact that you think the government does a better job of running charities than local churches and organizations shows that you have likely never been very poor in America. The WIC line in my town has a three hour waiting period any time you step in the door. The Pregnant Woman Medicaid system has a seven month waiting list before you can see a doctor. The disability program is just rediculously managed and makes no sense whatsoever and you will search long and hard to find an employee there who knows their job and is willing to help you without being rude. Free does not equal better managed.
As for giving kind words rather than substance goes... I think it takes both. Substance does not correct the problem causing poverty. It takes kind words to do that and it is something a government program can never give. We can give substance to other countries, but it will only make them dependent upon us if we don't share the Gospel with them, and that is something our government will never do.
3.2.2011 | 12:59pm
Dan says:
Joann,
The "conservatives give more" meme gets to be challenged. I am pretty sure the correct statistic bears down that secular conservatives and secular liberals give little. Religiosity is the factor and religious liberals and conservatives give similarly.
The "conservatives give more" meme gets to be challenged. I am pretty sure the correct statistic bears down that secular conservatives and secular liberals give little. Religiosity is the factor and religious liberals and conservatives give similarly.
3.2.2011 | 12:59pm
Elizabeth says:
My family was ushered into unfavorable circumstances by the early death of my father (at 37). My mother was left with seven children ranging in age from newborn to 10. We were helped over many years by financial contributions from people who knew us. Because we were aware of who was helping, we children felt accountable, in a good way, to our benefactors. We didnt' take the help for granted. As our financial situation improved we were challenged by our experience to share our security with others less fortunate.
It's time for a refresher course on susidiarity and distributism.
It's time for a refresher course on susidiarity and distributism.
3.2.2011 | 1:17pm
MasterThief says:
@Dan:
Conservatives do believe in community - we call it "civil society." Civil society is a specific type of community, where association and funding are not compelled, as with the government, but *voluntary.* People choose to associate and to give of their time and talents. This was the original form of Christianity. This was the Church St. Luke describes in Acts. Not a "special interest" seeking a cut of tax money, not bound up into government, but a group of people who shared a common belief and a common purpose, and who chose to act and live accordingly.
Conservatives do not "assign" violence to government, nor do we do so "gleefully." These things just are. All government is, in the final analysis, based on violence, force, and power. Every law, every regulation, every private contract, whether between individuals or nations is - and must be - backed up by men with guns ready to compel others to obey them. Any other way, and society degenerates, and eventually implodes, into the great Hobbesian war of all against all. And yet concentrate too much of this power to impose violence in the hands of any one person or group and the inevitable result is tyranny. This is because government is only as moral as the human beings who make it up - which is to say, not very moral at all. As J.R.R. Tolkien explained through the allegory of the One Ring, even those who would use power and force to do good will inevitably find themselves corrupted by that power. We don't believe that government is "morally bankrupt." We simply know that human government has no incentive to be moral, and very strong incentives to further itself at our expense. (Public choice economics provides the hard data and economic theorems to back us up.)
There's a reason Jesus said that we must give to Caesar (government) what belongs to Caesar, and to God what is God's. God creates and inspires civil society, but as the authors of the Declaration of Independence recognized, governments are instituted among men - human beings. Two very different obligations, to two very different masters. This means that "conservatives" (I'd prefer the term "classical liberal") get a bad rap for being heartless - why else would we resist what is so self-evidently "good" for our neighbor? But that is because we understand what modern liberalism has forgotten. The government doesn’t love us, the government cannot love us, and ironically, we would be probably better off if the government did not try to.
Conservatives do believe in community - we call it "civil society." Civil society is a specific type of community, where association and funding are not compelled, as with the government, but *voluntary.* People choose to associate and to give of their time and talents. This was the original form of Christianity. This was the Church St. Luke describes in Acts. Not a "special interest" seeking a cut of tax money, not bound up into government, but a group of people who shared a common belief and a common purpose, and who chose to act and live accordingly.
Conservatives do not "assign" violence to government, nor do we do so "gleefully." These things just are. All government is, in the final analysis, based on violence, force, and power. Every law, every regulation, every private contract, whether between individuals or nations is - and must be - backed up by men with guns ready to compel others to obey them. Any other way, and society degenerates, and eventually implodes, into the great Hobbesian war of all against all. And yet concentrate too much of this power to impose violence in the hands of any one person or group and the inevitable result is tyranny. This is because government is only as moral as the human beings who make it up - which is to say, not very moral at all. As J.R.R. Tolkien explained through the allegory of the One Ring, even those who would use power and force to do good will inevitably find themselves corrupted by that power. We don't believe that government is "morally bankrupt." We simply know that human government has no incentive to be moral, and very strong incentives to further itself at our expense. (Public choice economics provides the hard data and economic theorems to back us up.)
There's a reason Jesus said that we must give to Caesar (government) what belongs to Caesar, and to God what is God's. God creates and inspires civil society, but as the authors of the Declaration of Independence recognized, governments are instituted among men - human beings. Two very different obligations, to two very different masters. This means that "conservatives" (I'd prefer the term "classical liberal") get a bad rap for being heartless - why else would we resist what is so self-evidently "good" for our neighbor? But that is because we understand what modern liberalism has forgotten. The government doesn’t love us, the government cannot love us, and ironically, we would be probably better off if the government did not try to.
3.2.2011 | 1:18pm
Dan says:
Conservatism is all about family. True. It discusses subsidiarity though as a weapon againsts any activity that involves taxes and looks big. Most conservative blogs have no discussion of community, community's executive arms (beyond a BSA food drive), or what to do if economica of scale drive activities to larger organizational structure?
Conservative thought is all about "against" when it comes to discussions of poverty.
Clearly, inexperience in dealing with the poor is evident, a concept that differs substantially from just giving money. A lack of substantial thinking on this is evident in the limited deftness of managing critiques of conservative attacks on impoverished communities. The thought that one can rip substantive income and means support to impoverished families because such means are declared as "demonic" because they derive from government sources while never indicating from where the next assistance will be derived is but one example of this defective and limited thinking.
Additionally, no answer is given the fact that, despite tax cuts and decreased services since the 1990's and weldare reform, no substantive increase in support to other non-profits who help the poor has resulted. In fact, most agencies in 1999 felt pretty challenged from the impact of welfare reform.
These are the challenges of conservative thought. Some positive plans need to be elucidated. Not just "anti-"
Conservative thought is all about "against" when it comes to discussions of poverty.
Clearly, inexperience in dealing with the poor is evident, a concept that differs substantially from just giving money. A lack of substantial thinking on this is evident in the limited deftness of managing critiques of conservative attacks on impoverished communities. The thought that one can rip substantive income and means support to impoverished families because such means are declared as "demonic" because they derive from government sources while never indicating from where the next assistance will be derived is but one example of this defective and limited thinking.
Additionally, no answer is given the fact that, despite tax cuts and decreased services since the 1990's and weldare reform, no substantive increase in support to other non-profits who help the poor has resulted. In fact, most agencies in 1999 felt pretty challenged from the impact of welfare reform.
These are the challenges of conservative thought. Some positive plans need to be elucidated. Not just "anti-"
3.2.2011 | 1:18pm
Dan says:
Conservatism is all about family. True. It discusses subsidiarity though as a weapon againsts any activity that involves taxes and looks big. Most conservative blogs have no discussion of community, community's executive arms (beyond a BSA food drive), or what to do if economica of scale drive activities to larger organizational structure?
Conservative thought is all about "against" when it comes to discussions of poverty.
Clearly, inexperience in dealing with the poor is evident, a concept that differs substantially from just giving money. A lack of substantial thinking on this is evident in the limited deftness of managing critiques of conservative attacks on impoverished communities. The thought that one can rip substantive income and means support to impoverished families because such means are declared as "demonic" because they derive from government sources while never indicating from where the next assistance will be derived is but one example of this defective and limited thinking.
Additionally, no answer is given the fact that, despite tax cuts and decreased services since the 1990's and weldare reform, no substantive increase in support to other non-profits who help the poor has resulted. In fact, most agencies in 1999 felt pretty challenged from the impact of welfare reform.
These are the challenges of conservative thought. Some positive plans need to be elucidated. Not just "anti-"
Conservative thought is all about "against" when it comes to discussions of poverty.
Clearly, inexperience in dealing with the poor is evident, a concept that differs substantially from just giving money. A lack of substantial thinking on this is evident in the limited deftness of managing critiques of conservative attacks on impoverished communities. The thought that one can rip substantive income and means support to impoverished families because such means are declared as "demonic" because they derive from government sources while never indicating from where the next assistance will be derived is but one example of this defective and limited thinking.
Additionally, no answer is given the fact that, despite tax cuts and decreased services since the 1990's and weldare reform, no substantive increase in support to other non-profits who help the poor has resulted. In fact, most agencies in 1999 felt pretty challenged from the impact of welfare reform.
These are the challenges of conservative thought. Some positive plans need to be elucidated. Not just "anti-"
3.2.2011 | 1:43pm
mcon says:
A few would like to connect politics in this discussion.
What is to be done with institutionalization of poverty by one or two parent families that ignore the education of thier children and who set every bad example possible for their children.
Parents that teach their children to be angry victims of society instead of good students who graduate from high school and to look forward to additional education. Parents to teach their children to be very violent, to lie, steal and cheat. Parents that teach their children to expect, depend and demand government provide for their needs. Parents that do now work and teach their children not to work.
Wasn't it Paul that said "if you don't work, you don't eat"? Children grow up learning and practising the above are then surprised that they cannot get a job, not that they really want one, but choose a life of losing behavior that results in unemployment, crime, death and lifelong poverty. What do you do with this problem? Whatever is the answer, what we have been doing is not the answer and a drastic change is needed.
What is to be done with institutionalization of poverty by one or two parent families that ignore the education of thier children and who set every bad example possible for their children.
Parents that teach their children to be angry victims of society instead of good students who graduate from high school and to look forward to additional education. Parents to teach their children to be very violent, to lie, steal and cheat. Parents that teach their children to expect, depend and demand government provide for their needs. Parents that do now work and teach their children not to work.
Wasn't it Paul that said "if you don't work, you don't eat"? Children grow up learning and practising the above are then surprised that they cannot get a job, not that they really want one, but choose a life of losing behavior that results in unemployment, crime, death and lifelong poverty. What do you do with this problem? Whatever is the answer, what we have been doing is not the answer and a drastic change is needed.
3.2.2011 | 1:48pm
Shelton Pounce says:
Seriously people, does everything have to turn into the same, tired old political discussion?
I drive a 17 years-old clunker that eats oil and coolant, and fills the cab with dizzying fumes. An hour long commute in the Texas summer with no a/c is no picnic. I was in general complaint mode about this when my priest reminded me that owning my car in the village he served in Africa would have made me not just the richest man there, but the richest man of that village of all time. It is so easy to get lost in our material culture, regardless of which rung on the capitalist ladder we stand. We need constant reminders, such as this article, to re-focus our perspective through the lens of Christ. Thank you Mr. Carter.
I drive a 17 years-old clunker that eats oil and coolant, and fills the cab with dizzying fumes. An hour long commute in the Texas summer with no a/c is no picnic. I was in general complaint mode about this when my priest reminded me that owning my car in the village he served in Africa would have made me not just the richest man there, but the richest man of that village of all time. It is so easy to get lost in our material culture, regardless of which rung on the capitalist ladder we stand. We need constant reminders, such as this article, to re-focus our perspective through the lens of Christ. Thank you Mr. Carter.
3.2.2011 | 1:55pm
Jamie says:
Actually, it's not even true that religious communities give more in charity. They might give more in dollar amounts. But 1) lots of the dollars Christians give, is given to their own church. And most of that is simple operating expenses - for a service they use. Then too especially, 2) lots of secular liberals, are voluntarily in underpaid jobs; jobs that help the community. Instead of trying to make money, they are working at lower wages for various Social Services agencies and so forth. In effect, a lot of secular people are not just giving dollars; they are giving their time, their lives, to helping the poor.
In contrast, conservatives are far less giving. For example, they imagine their giving is voluntary ... so they don't have to. Even though we might ask: Is religious giving "voluntary"? Read the countless passages in the Bible where you are commanded to give "sacrifices," "fruits," and so forth. Here conservatives have misconstrued the Bible ... to assist their Greed.
JoAnn:
I have been around poverty all my life; on the giving and receiving end. In five different countries. Though I see that religious organizations were once more effective than secular ones - at the grass roots, under-the-highway-overpass level - government services today are vastly, vastly more effective. Through means-testing and far more systematic programs, the amount of good they now do is vastly greater than what our churches offer. Indeed, we needed a Health Program - to do what Religious programs were not doing at all.
Keep in mind by the way, that much of the Health Program was designed to go over and above what religious programs have done to date; to do the things religious programs were not doing.
In contrast, conservatives are far less giving. For example, they imagine their giving is voluntary ... so they don't have to. Even though we might ask: Is religious giving "voluntary"? Read the countless passages in the Bible where you are commanded to give "sacrifices," "fruits," and so forth. Here conservatives have misconstrued the Bible ... to assist their Greed.
JoAnn:
I have been around poverty all my life; on the giving and receiving end. In five different countries. Though I see that religious organizations were once more effective than secular ones - at the grass roots, under-the-highway-overpass level - government services today are vastly, vastly more effective. Through means-testing and far more systematic programs, the amount of good they now do is vastly greater than what our churches offer. Indeed, we needed a Health Program - to do what Religious programs were not doing at all.
Keep in mind by the way, that much of the Health Program was designed to go over and above what religious programs have done to date; to do the things religious programs were not doing.
3.2.2011 | 1:59pm
Jacob says:
Jamie
Please give an example of what charities the government has handled better than Christian churches. (Social statistics wont be on your side my friend.)
jason taylor
Unsurprisingly you (like most of your fellow secularists) seem to know next to nothing about what Christianity actually stands for.
Jesus never commanded us "go out and pity thy neighbor"...he said LOVE.
I've never ever ever ever felt an ounce of love from someone who pitied me (and most people who have pitied me were smug leftists..coincidence? Not to take away from the rich usually abortion loving republicans who have done the same!)
They may have been loving after they got done pitying me, but never during the moment of being pitied have I ever felt loved.
God is commanding us to make each other feel loved...not feel good about ourselves! I could be dying from cancer and my love to and from family members could be the complete opposite of how I would feel..the two have nothing to do with each other!
In my humble opinion love and happiness have no causal relationship in this world, what you're noticing is merely a correlative connection.
Please give an example of what charities the government has handled better than Christian churches. (Social statistics wont be on your side my friend.)
jason taylor
Unsurprisingly you (like most of your fellow secularists) seem to know next to nothing about what Christianity actually stands for.
Jesus never commanded us "go out and pity thy neighbor"...he said LOVE.
I've never ever ever ever felt an ounce of love from someone who pitied me (and most people who have pitied me were smug leftists..coincidence? Not to take away from the rich usually abortion loving republicans who have done the same!)
They may have been loving after they got done pitying me, but never during the moment of being pitied have I ever felt loved.
God is commanding us to make each other feel loved...not feel good about ourselves! I could be dying from cancer and my love to and from family members could be the complete opposite of how I would feel..the two have nothing to do with each other!
In my humble opinion love and happiness have no causal relationship in this world, what you're noticing is merely a correlative connection.
3.2.2011 | 2:33pm
Artaban says:
"Actually, it's not even true that religious communities give more in charity. They might give more in dollar amounts. But 1) lots of the dollars Christians give, is given to their own church. And most of that is simple operating expenses - for a service they use."
Jamie, how many religiously vowed individuals do you know? I don't know how anyone with actual relationships with such people could say what you have and look themselves in the mirror without shame. My first two years teaching as a conservative Catholic at an inner city school, I was making half what your "secular liberals...voluntarily in underpaid jobs" (at the public school across the street) made.
But the three sisters from the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Theresa's order) made far less than I. Do you know they can pack all their worldly possessions in a pack smaller than a standard backpack? I've seen it.
I've seen a parish priest pay for a small apartment and food for two students that were abandoned (overnight) by their last remaining parent.
I'd also dispute your extravagant claims concerning the "vastly, vastly more effective" government services. Oh sure, if the measure for success is money "given" away, the government wins hands down--how could they not, when they tax us so greatly, and the Church must rely on donations?
What criteria are you using as the basis for your claim?Government also wins when we measure money lost to fraud. In my state of Missouri, the government is trying to reclaim $6.4 million in fraudulent unemployment claims for the last fiscal year. Churches can't afford that type of waste or theft.
Why did our small Catholic school spend $4,000 less on high school education per student than the neighboring public school, yet have higher rates of graduation and higher ACT & SAT scores? We served the same demographic.
Why have the massive government programs failed to make even the slightest dent in alleviating the percentage in poverty in this country, though they've been trying since the Johnson administration. Heck, if some liberals (who post on this site) are to be believed, poverty is worse than it previously was.
I dare you to back up your claims with facts.
Jamie, how many religiously vowed individuals do you know? I don't know how anyone with actual relationships with such people could say what you have and look themselves in the mirror without shame. My first two years teaching as a conservative Catholic at an inner city school, I was making half what your "secular liberals...voluntarily in underpaid jobs" (at the public school across the street) made.
But the three sisters from the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Theresa's order) made far less than I. Do you know they can pack all their worldly possessions in a pack smaller than a standard backpack? I've seen it.
I've seen a parish priest pay for a small apartment and food for two students that were abandoned (overnight) by their last remaining parent.
I'd also dispute your extravagant claims concerning the "vastly, vastly more effective" government services. Oh sure, if the measure for success is money "given" away, the government wins hands down--how could they not, when they tax us so greatly, and the Church must rely on donations?
What criteria are you using as the basis for your claim?Government also wins when we measure money lost to fraud. In my state of Missouri, the government is trying to reclaim $6.4 million in fraudulent unemployment claims for the last fiscal year. Churches can't afford that type of waste or theft.
Why did our small Catholic school spend $4,000 less on high school education per student than the neighboring public school, yet have higher rates of graduation and higher ACT & SAT scores? We served the same demographic.
Why have the massive government programs failed to make even the slightest dent in alleviating the percentage in poverty in this country, though they've been trying since the Johnson administration. Heck, if some liberals (who post on this site) are to be believed, poverty is worse than it previously was.
I dare you to back up your claims with facts.
3.2.2011 | 2:39pm
Deacon Jim Stagg says:
Thank you, Joe Carter, for your striking article.
We, too, grew up poor, but my mother managed to feed the town drunk at our back door....in private. She did this because she was a Christian; "liberal", "conservative" and "libertarian" were simply words in another realm, to her.
I do wish that comments such as I have read above were more founded on truth than on supposition. Statistics are not always applicable, but would be helpful. For instance, the comment about health care requirements needed to be met by the government belie the substantial amount of free service tothe truly poor provided by Catholic hospitals. The author of that comment neglects to note that increased government interference with health care limits the ability of Catholic hospitals to provide such care.......especially if that "care" includes abortion and contraceptive services. The result of such interference may result in the actual closing of Catholic hospitals.......where then do the poor go for help?
My wife is a member of the St. Vincent dePaul Society (I cannot, as a deacon). We frequently work with families on a person-to-person basis. I recommend STVP membership to all practicing Catholics who wish to be among the sheep at the Last Judgement.
Thanks again for you powerful insight.
We, too, grew up poor, but my mother managed to feed the town drunk at our back door....in private. She did this because she was a Christian; "liberal", "conservative" and "libertarian" were simply words in another realm, to her.
I do wish that comments such as I have read above were more founded on truth than on supposition. Statistics are not always applicable, but would be helpful. For instance, the comment about health care requirements needed to be met by the government belie the substantial amount of free service tothe truly poor provided by Catholic hospitals. The author of that comment neglects to note that increased government interference with health care limits the ability of Catholic hospitals to provide such care.......especially if that "care" includes abortion and contraceptive services. The result of such interference may result in the actual closing of Catholic hospitals.......where then do the poor go for help?
My wife is a member of the St. Vincent dePaul Society (I cannot, as a deacon). We frequently work with families on a person-to-person basis. I recommend STVP membership to all practicing Catholics who wish to be among the sheep at the Last Judgement.
Thanks again for you powerful insight.
3.2.2011 | 2:43pm
arty says:
While I'm generally in sympathy with Carter's position, I think Jacob wilfully misunderstands jason taylor's point. As Christians, as some point, we have to remind ourselves that God's grace ande mercy aren't earned or "deserved," from which I'd conclude that we ought to err on the side of mercy here in this life, too. You aren't obligated to give booze to an alcoholic, but too much talk to "deserving" is just as dangerous.
3.2.2011 | 2:58pm
Steve Cornell says:
Joe,
I felt a bit of my story as I read this. Second oldest of 11 children, moved 9 times (always the new boy in school), struggled financially through out my childhood and youth (dad was even a cop at one time), food stamps, welfare, stayed in a Church basement for several days, etc....
As the oldest son of seven boys and four girls, I was always aware of the material challenges. This affected my approach to financial security in ways I only understood after being married and having my own family. I get tense when I think things are "tight" but I have never known the kind of struggle my parents faced.
I became a Church planter in 1985 which meant limited resources. Today the Church is large, well-staffed and abundantly supported. We do not encounter many poor in the college town where we minister (although most college students feel they're poor). We support the Rescue Mission in the city and dispense a relatively minimal amount of benevolence money.
We deal more with people who can't pay their bills due to marital crisis or irresponsibility. Rarely are they without food. When we require financial counseling and perhaps a restructuring of needs and wants, we often face resistance or even offense. How dare we recommend a different way to spend the money they want us to give them! But the apostle required things for widows who desired the care ministry of the Church.
As you know, the entitlement mentality is huge. I fear government has been a primary source for this attitude. But when people come for help we must decide how best to help them beyond their pressing needs. We are presently preparing for a strategic involvement in South Africa to build orphanages for the aids orphans. The humanitarian nightmare there is beyond comprehension. Yes, the least of these! Alien, widow, orphan, etc... Not sure most on welfare truly qualify.
Thank you for this reflection.
I felt a bit of my story as I read this. Second oldest of 11 children, moved 9 times (always the new boy in school), struggled financially through out my childhood and youth (dad was even a cop at one time), food stamps, welfare, stayed in a Church basement for several days, etc....
As the oldest son of seven boys and four girls, I was always aware of the material challenges. This affected my approach to financial security in ways I only understood after being married and having my own family. I get tense when I think things are "tight" but I have never known the kind of struggle my parents faced.
I became a Church planter in 1985 which meant limited resources. Today the Church is large, well-staffed and abundantly supported. We do not encounter many poor in the college town where we minister (although most college students feel they're poor). We support the Rescue Mission in the city and dispense a relatively minimal amount of benevolence money.
We deal more with people who can't pay their bills due to marital crisis or irresponsibility. Rarely are they without food. When we require financial counseling and perhaps a restructuring of needs and wants, we often face resistance or even offense. How dare we recommend a different way to spend the money they want us to give them! But the apostle required things for widows who desired the care ministry of the Church.
As you know, the entitlement mentality is huge. I fear government has been a primary source for this attitude. But when people come for help we must decide how best to help them beyond their pressing needs. We are presently preparing for a strategic involvement in South Africa to build orphanages for the aids orphans. The humanitarian nightmare there is beyond comprehension. Yes, the least of these! Alien, widow, orphan, etc... Not sure most on welfare truly qualify.
Thank you for this reflection.
3.2.2011 | 4:28pm
Dan says:
Wait...I think the "conservatives are far less giving" meme needs equivalent challenges.
That too is not true.
Religious conservatives and religious liberals should all be pleased at the fact their comrades in the pews (no matter how many "you ain't orthodox" slurs are tossed) are actually giving too.
That too is not true.
Religious conservatives and religious liberals should all be pleased at the fact their comrades in the pews (no matter how many "you ain't orthodox" slurs are tossed) are actually giving too.
3.2.2011 | 4:37pm
Dan says:
I think it is facile to suggest the Holy Mother Church does a good or better job than Holy Mother City/State/Nation.
Medical care supplied by the federal government saves the lives of children born with genetic illnesses. Let's start there. An important beginning.
Children born with genetic or other congenital illnesses can receive excellent care as soon as they are born, and if they are born near the courtesy of an academic pediatric center, are often afforded the finest care ever on the planet.
Second, considering the extreme luxury wealth available today for entertainment (I think of the household Wii/cable/internet/iPod/music/Nintendo DS realm), I am unsure that I am going to begrudge the welfare system the pennies it extracts to support itself.
The military...well they take the biggest chunk of change. Nobody dares suggest they should get less, except when it comes to the soldiers' post-traumatic mental health problems, drug addictions, or rehab care. Then...well, you know, those should all get the Grover Norquist approach to government services.
Medical care supplied by the federal government saves the lives of children born with genetic illnesses. Let's start there. An important beginning.
Children born with genetic or other congenital illnesses can receive excellent care as soon as they are born, and if they are born near the courtesy of an academic pediatric center, are often afforded the finest care ever on the planet.
Second, considering the extreme luxury wealth available today for entertainment (I think of the household Wii/cable/internet/iPod/music/Nintendo DS realm), I am unsure that I am going to begrudge the welfare system the pennies it extracts to support itself.
The military...well they take the biggest chunk of change. Nobody dares suggest they should get less, except when it comes to the soldiers' post-traumatic mental health problems, drug addictions, or rehab care. Then...well, you know, those should all get the Grover Norquist approach to government services.
3.2.2011 | 4:41pm
Dan says:
Where conservatives are absent...is actually on the front lines of working with the poor.
This is the deficit that impoverishes the conservative thought and language on the topic of poverty. No experience.
This is the deficit that impoverishes the conservative thought and language on the topic of poverty. No experience.
3.2.2011 | 5:47pm
Steve Cornell says:
Dan,
I think you better do more homework. Liberals talk a big talk about the poor (for political posturing). Just check their charitable giving records compared with conservatives. Naive people drink their cool-aid as the media is in overdrive to convince people that the democratic party is the party of the less fortunate. Smoke and mirrors! I am not fooled by the rhetoric. Check the facts.
I think you better do more homework. Liberals talk a big talk about the poor (for political posturing). Just check their charitable giving records compared with conservatives. Naive people drink their cool-aid as the media is in overdrive to convince people that the democratic party is the party of the less fortunate. Smoke and mirrors! I am not fooled by the rhetoric. Check the facts.
3.2.2011 | 6:57pm
norman ravitch says:
In traditional societies poverty is an inherited status which cannot usually be overcome. But in our society poverty issgenerally the result of vice. If in a traditional society Jesus said "the poor you have always with you," what might he say about poverty in our society?
3.2.2011 | 10:36pm
Jo Ann D. says:
If it were simply a matter of 'render to Caesar' it might not be so bad. But "Caesar" is demanding more than is rightfully his and squandering it. Meanwhile, many fall through what under-achieving programs there are.
3.2.2011 | 11:02pm
edmond says:
I work with the poor and have been doing so for many years. I find that the problem
of poor people is two fold, internal and external. Internally, poor people have been convinced or convince themselves that they were meant to be poor and therefore it is difficult to rise above their status much less their mindsets. Externally, many are poor because many who live in abundance are greedy. I won't mince words here, I call it as I have experienced it. Furthermore, dole outs are not the answer and in fact compount the poor attitude of self-pity. Here are some success factors which we have found transforms poor communities into self sufficient and dignified people. If you give them
opportunities, you must micro-manage them to succeed. Your continued presence
is the most effective driver. Lastly, if and when your beneficiary succeeds, make him mentor to other poor communities. You can't argue with success.
of poor people is two fold, internal and external. Internally, poor people have been convinced or convince themselves that they were meant to be poor and therefore it is difficult to rise above their status much less their mindsets. Externally, many are poor because many who live in abundance are greedy. I won't mince words here, I call it as I have experienced it. Furthermore, dole outs are not the answer and in fact compount the poor attitude of self-pity. Here are some success factors which we have found transforms poor communities into self sufficient and dignified people. If you give them
opportunities, you must micro-manage them to succeed. Your continued presence
is the most effective driver. Lastly, if and when your beneficiary succeeds, make him mentor to other poor communities. You can't argue with success.
3.2.2011 | 11:14pm
Rick says:
As Kuyper points out,
"The government cannot take the place of Christian charity. A loving embrace isn’t given with food stamps."
I had no idea they had "food stamps" in the Netherlands in the 1890s. I thought that was some liberal Democratic invention of the New Deal or later. Well, I learn something new every day!
"The government cannot take the place of Christian charity. A loving embrace isn’t given with food stamps."
I had no idea they had "food stamps" in the Netherlands in the 1890s. I thought that was some liberal Democratic invention of the New Deal or later. Well, I learn something new every day!
3.2.2011 | 11:54pm
Joe Carter says:
***I had no idea they had "food stamps" in the Netherlands in the 1890s.***
Oops. Closed the blockquote in the wrong place. That's now fixed.
Oops. Closed the blockquote in the wrong place. That's now fixed.
3.3.2011 | 5:50am
Faith says:
Excellent article, I especially appreciated the reminder about the widow's giving, and our responsibility as Christians. There are Christians struggling the world over, not just in poverty, but also in persecution. You can check out more about this at Voice of the Martyrs.
One idea that doesn't make much sense to me is that the government shouldn't be helping the poor, and that the responsibility for all poverty in the nation rests on the shoulders of Christians. This idea REALLY doesn't make sense, especially if you think of nations that have, say, a 3 percent Christian population. I agree that we should give, bless and help wherever we can, but we shouldn't feel guilty that there is still poverty, or that there are government programs to help. "The poor you will always have," Jesus said.
One idea that doesn't make much sense to me is that the government shouldn't be helping the poor, and that the responsibility for all poverty in the nation rests on the shoulders of Christians. This idea REALLY doesn't make sense, especially if you think of nations that have, say, a 3 percent Christian population. I agree that we should give, bless and help wherever we can, but we shouldn't feel guilty that there is still poverty, or that there are government programs to help. "The poor you will always have," Jesus said.
3.3.2011 | 4:39pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
I'm sympathetic to what Joe is saying, and basically agree, but if we look at the history of the world, what is it that has taken more people out of poverty than anything else? Capitalism. I've read George Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty" several times, and that really changed my view of "how the world works." When we talk about the poor what exactly are we trying to do with our Christian charity? Is it not to alleviate suffering? And to preach the Gospel?
I’m afraid that much charitable effort makes the giver feel better but doesn’t appreciably change the situation of the needy. As Joe said, it was his parents’ choices that drove them into poverty. If you do not change the pre-conditions that allow for the creation of wealth, i.e. the mindset, worldview, attitudes and actions, you will simply get more poverty. Too many people who do charity work, organizations and the like, are practical materialists: change the material conditions and you change the material conditions, supposedly.
This is false whether that money comes from government or more directly from individuals or non-profits. In many cases giving someone something for nothing actually makes the situation worse, e.g. the black family in America.
Of course this is all very complex because you are dealing with sinful human beings. So because governments in Africa won’t change it is necessary to help the victims of their greed and corruption. But look what is happening in China. The communist government embraces capitalism in a big way, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, *and* Christianity is exploding in that country as well. One day they may even get their liberty as well.
I’m afraid that much charitable effort makes the giver feel better but doesn’t appreciably change the situation of the needy. As Joe said, it was his parents’ choices that drove them into poverty. If you do not change the pre-conditions that allow for the creation of wealth, i.e. the mindset, worldview, attitudes and actions, you will simply get more poverty. Too many people who do charity work, organizations and the like, are practical materialists: change the material conditions and you change the material conditions, supposedly.
This is false whether that money comes from government or more directly from individuals or non-profits. In many cases giving someone something for nothing actually makes the situation worse, e.g. the black family in America.
Of course this is all very complex because you are dealing with sinful human beings. So because governments in Africa won’t change it is necessary to help the victims of their greed and corruption. But look what is happening in China. The communist government embraces capitalism in a big way, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, *and* Christianity is exploding in that country as well. One day they may even get their liberty as well.
3.3.2011 | 8:12pm
Rick says:
And, of course, there is always the pitfall of our comfortable sense of self-righteousness and superiority when we help the needy...when we sacrifice ourselves for the "wretched of the earth". Beware! It's an irresistible trap! I witnessed it one time when I encountered a group of the Sisters of Charity at, of all places, the Price Club in Redwood City, California.
I had recently returned from my last tour in the Peace Corps. I had been working with handicapped children in the shantytowns surrounding Casablanca. We worked with families that had eight or ten kids, one of them disabled from polio or some other problem, and no more family income than their dad could raise selling vegetables in the street. That is, if the police didn't seize his cart because he didn't have the proper license to sell vegetables, and which he could only get if he had enough money to bribe an official.
Now I was back home, finished with my "poverty tourism", and living in the back of a retired army officer's garage (I did yard work to pay the rent). I was well into my thirties, and desperately trying to establish myself with some "normal" kind of work. That's why I was reasonably well-dressed that day at the Price Club. I had even put on a tie with my dress shirt and khakis. I was job-hunting.
I spotted the Sisters of Charity, in their characteristic cotton saris with the blue hem, loading 50-pound bags of rice and potatoes into the back of their station wagon. They had obviously made a shopping run from their center in San Francisco to the nearest Price Club. I stopped and began to help load bags into their vehicle. Two of them simply ignored me, but one, after a few seconds, turned to me with a withering gaze of sheer contempt on her face. There was not a word, but the message was clear: I was a despised, "wealthy" middle-class American--simply because of my appearance. It was a blatant expression of class hatred that would have warmed the heart of any radical Maoist. How could she know that I came from a family of dirt Okies, and that my own mother migrated out to California as a young girl to pick fruit during the Great Depression?
I hasten to add that I didn't make any generalizations from this one misguided nun. I wasn't raised Catholic, but I have known two nuns in my life, both Dominicans. I served with one in the Peace Corps. (She was on leave from her convent.) The other was a classmate at San Jose State. Both of them became treasured, life-long friends.
I had recently returned from my last tour in the Peace Corps. I had been working with handicapped children in the shantytowns surrounding Casablanca. We worked with families that had eight or ten kids, one of them disabled from polio or some other problem, and no more family income than their dad could raise selling vegetables in the street. That is, if the police didn't seize his cart because he didn't have the proper license to sell vegetables, and which he could only get if he had enough money to bribe an official.
Now I was back home, finished with my "poverty tourism", and living in the back of a retired army officer's garage (I did yard work to pay the rent). I was well into my thirties, and desperately trying to establish myself with some "normal" kind of work. That's why I was reasonably well-dressed that day at the Price Club. I had even put on a tie with my dress shirt and khakis. I was job-hunting.
I spotted the Sisters of Charity, in their characteristic cotton saris with the blue hem, loading 50-pound bags of rice and potatoes into the back of their station wagon. They had obviously made a shopping run from their center in San Francisco to the nearest Price Club. I stopped and began to help load bags into their vehicle. Two of them simply ignored me, but one, after a few seconds, turned to me with a withering gaze of sheer contempt on her face. There was not a word, but the message was clear: I was a despised, "wealthy" middle-class American--simply because of my appearance. It was a blatant expression of class hatred that would have warmed the heart of any radical Maoist. How could she know that I came from a family of dirt Okies, and that my own mother migrated out to California as a young girl to pick fruit during the Great Depression?
I hasten to add that I didn't make any generalizations from this one misguided nun. I wasn't raised Catholic, but I have known two nuns in my life, both Dominicans. I served with one in the Peace Corps. (She was on leave from her convent.) The other was a classmate at San Jose State. Both of them became treasured, life-long friends.
3.4.2011 | 10:19am
Jessie says:
I'd say that Christian charities,don't have a monopoly even on "love." It seems clear to me that elements of liberalism, originate in deep respect and love for the dispossesed, the poor, the hungry, the sick. Much of Liberalism comes directly from Jesus, in fact.
At times it is hard to love the poor, to be sure. But? We might remember that some of us were once in their shoes ... and through no fault of our own. And remember that someone - a nun, a social worker - stepped in to help us.
While just as others helped us? We help others in our own turn.
"Love your neighbor as yourself"? And support them? Indeed, we were once other's poor neighbors; every child is helpless, and is supported by parents and others.
And our poor neighbors today? We were all there ourselves. In fact, in a sense, they are our selves.
At times it is hard to love the poor, to be sure. But? We might remember that some of us were once in their shoes ... and through no fault of our own. And remember that someone - a nun, a social worker - stepped in to help us.
While just as others helped us? We help others in our own turn.
"Love your neighbor as yourself"? And support them? Indeed, we were once other's poor neighbors; every child is helpless, and is supported by parents and others.
And our poor neighbors today? We were all there ourselves. In fact, in a sense, they are our selves.
3.24.2011 | 5:02pm
Torsten Nenzen says:
Church-people certainly have failed to manifest God's practical love and compassion for the poor and the needy. Although church-people around the world should learn from both God's perfect instructions in the holy Bible, from good examples, and also from bad examples from the most decadent and morally confused nation in the world, Sweden (worldvaluessurvey.org, kyrkor.be), church-people are not. Church-people remain uncompassionate and unloving. And because church-leaders do not want to wake up and repent, God uses some secular governments to intervene towards socio-economic equity. But in regards to the cold hearts of many church leaders, also in USA (http://hawaii.kyrkor.be), no secular government can intervene.
4.10.2011 | 4:58pm
Tito Her back says:
I drive a 17 years-old clunker that eats oil and coolant, and fills the cab with dizzying fumes. An hour long commute in the Texas summer with no a/c is no picnic. I was in general complaint mode about this when my priest reminded me that owning my car in the village he served in Africa would have made me not just the richest man there, but the richest man of that village of all time. It is so easy to get lost in our material culture, regardless of which rung on the capitalist ladder we stand. We need constant reminders, such as this article, to re-focus our perspective through the lens of Christ. Thank you Mr. Carter. The "conservatives give more" meme gets to be challenged. I am pretty sure the correct statistic bears down that secular conservatives and secular liberals give little. Religiosity is the factor and religious liberals and conservatives give similarly.
5.31.2011 | 7:35pm
Bruggeman Rhonda says:
What is to be done with institutionalization of poverty by one or two parent families that ignore the education of thier children and who set every bad example possible for their children. Religious conservatives and religious liberals should all be pleased at the fact their comrades in the pews (no matter how many "you ain't orthodox" slurs are tossed) are actually giving too.
