Skip to main content

Focus on Poverty: October 15, 2008



I can’t really talk intelligently about poverty because I have never experienced it. I have heard of it, I have seen it, I have touched it, I have smelled it, but I have never tasted it. Not that you have to experience poverty to be intelligent about it, but furthermore I cannot talk intelligently about poverty because I am uniformed, much to my shame. I am simply another expressionless face in the crowd staring uncomfortably at pictures of boned-flesh, while I thoughtlessly listen to sound bites crowding the air. I know prosperity, that’s all. I have never gone a day without anything essential to life, except if I misbehaved as a boy, then there was no pizza on Sunday night. I know, poor me. But I got a-thinkin’. When we think of poor, we often think of disadvantaged.

Scripture consistently references the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the disadvantaged, etc., but it talks about this to the point where it seems that poverty is actually more advantageous than riches. This thinking would then necessarily infer that wealth is disadvantageous. But, how so? I say, toward a life of true fullness and riches (pun intended). The rich have much, but never enough. The poor, who is content on the other hand, has little, but has more than enough.

Just to clarify, I am not thinking of poverty as epidemic: those who do not eat, those living in AIDS-stricken communities with no access to health clinics, those in regions where clean water is as scarce as food, those in places where life itself cannot survive given the harshness of its conditions. Those are difficult places for me to think about and in knowing they exist I will likely turn away because I can do so little to help.

I am thinking of poverty in the sense of struggle, in the sense that each day is unsure, in the sense that life is threatening, in the sense of daily lack. Vulnerability is a word that would describe what I am thinking of - vulnerability to pretty much anything. It is in this sort of poverty that the fragility of life is a common theme and as a result daily intervention is necessary.

It is those who struggle every day to provide sufficiently for their families and loved ones who have been given a great gift, an eternal lesson - daily provision comes only from the loving Provider. The rich cannot believe that they need anything, let alone someone else to provide for them. As a result the wealthy may be tempted to find satisfaction in themselves, when in fact the very thing that matters in life is neglected the most, the thing that brings greatest satisfaction – solidarity of the soul with God through daily communion with him. For the wealthy this is disadvantage for there is always the dangerous possibility of imitating the rich young ruler, who being earthly rich was spiritually destitute.

I have never thought of poverty as advantageous or beneficial. I suppose concerning the overall well-being of a soul, poverty is a legitimate catalyst of spiritual and personal growth. After all, deep satisfaction comes in life when we find ourselves immersed in the richness that is God. Being earthly poor and heavenly rich seems to be for more advantageous.

God is the defender of the poor and will plead their case. Christ will call all of the rich, the powerful, the privileged into council to answer for their actions. Some will rejoice, some will be ashamed; all, poor and rich alike, will experience a just ruling, the rich will just have to answer for more.

I realize this post is ridiculously idealized, and does not really “Focus on Poverty.” Like I said, I really cant talk intelligently about it, but it is true that though poverty will always be with us. It is equally true that Christ will always be the defender of the poor – in wealth and in spirit. God will plead their cause.

Focus on Poverty asks us to consider the plight of another. So I must become more aware of the poverty that oppresses much of the world today, a poverty I do not understand.

Popular posts from this blog

A response to my beloved mother: part 2

READ THIS POST FIRST MY MOTHER : "I'm a registered Conservative, but my vote counted since they endorsed McCain, so I guess it all depends on who the Libertarian's endorse, and even if it were someone difference, at least you would have had a part in voting for the "most" righteous candidate, and McCain was the one even though he's still not the Christian ideal! Remember, Bill Clinton was a "pro-choice" candidate as well as one who furthered the homosexual agenda, so it wasn't surprising to me that 9/11 happened after his term was up and it's not surprising that the economy is faltering so badly now, and it won't surprise me if Obama continues the downward spiral, even if it is into socialistic policies since that's how Europe has gone since they left off looking to God. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world is doing since the majority have been anti-God for so long and their nations have paid for that for centuries (Dark...

I don't have all the answers, but I do have two cents.

My friend and fellow recovering ex-fundamentalist , I greet you joyously knowing the freedom you have found in leaving fundamentalism, however I am saddened by your departure as a whole from our Lord. I indeed understand the hardship which you have faced is cause for questioning God’s existence, faithfulness, and love to his creation. I would like to respond to you because I feel like I understand your socio-religious background. Let me first tell you my goal is not to re-convert you, but rather to give you a second thought from one who grew up in similar roots, whose posture of faith remains bent toward the gospel. I also grew up in ultra-conservative fundamentalism. If names like Peter Ruckman, Jack Hyles, Arlin Horton, etc, mean anything to you than you will understand. I graduated from PCC. OMG. I cannot believe it, but it’s true. What a crazy place. Fear, guilt, shame, legalism were the name of the game! As long as you “caught the spirit” all of life would be good and God would b...

The Intolerance of Presbyterian Creeds

The bind between American political allegiance and Protestant evangelical conservatism is a key which unlocks the door of much early American civil history especially during the antebellum era through the early 20th century. To be conservative and American meant that you must regard a Protestant form of Christianity, namely the revivalistic, moral gospel which declared a morally conservative view of the socio-political system as king. In fact, not to be Protestant and politically conservative was in line with defaming the stars and stripes. Hart describes a situation in the early 20th century where the state of Utah elected and appointed a Mormon Apostle, Reed Smoot, to the U.S. Senate. Smoot underwent serious investigation from a Senate appointed committee to deliberate upon the ability of a Mormon to function in the place of a Senator given his religious views. The conservative Protestant ethos of the age was skeptical of any other religious conviction in its ability to be “American”...