Some may be offended by my description of homeless culture, because I am giving to them a cultural norm which, in some ways, seems immoral. Some may feel more distant from the homeless than they were before. Some may feel justified in blaming the homeless for having the culture they do. What I have tried to do is to explain why they have this culture, not to justify it, but to explain it. Yes, some of these cultural mores are strictly immoral, no matter how I may explain why it seems necessary to the homeless.
However, to blame the homeless for these cultural mores is to neglect our own cultural excuses for immoral behavior. Why do we think that if a person is unable to pay a utility company that they should be charged more? This is not only immoral, but idiotic. This would make sense if the person was refusing to pay, but if they are unable to pay, why charge them substantially more? Because, in our society, money is the base commodity of value. This means, first, that to charge someone is to communicate the value of something, whether it be an ice cream bar or a late payment. But this means that those who have less money are fundamentally less valuable, and so they have less say as to how society runs than those who have more money, who are clearly more valuable. This is a value of American middle class and upper class society, and it is basic to how it works. This leads to immoral actions because it is a fundamentally immoral principle. We can justify it by explaining economic theory or the development of politics in American society, but we cannot justify it.
The fact is, Jesus and the gospel stands apart from every culture. Every culture, from the standpoint of the gospel, has positive points and negative points. Every culture has their ethical aspects and their immoral aspect. From Jesus’ perspective, one culture has no real right to judge another culture, because they are both blind to their own immoral presuppositions.
For this reason, Jesus’ first public word is to repent and believe in the gospel. We need to look at our own culture and see the repentance we need to do, more than point at other cultures and complain about how immoral they are. We need to recognize what Isaiah recognized, “I live among a people of unclean lips.” Our culture has corrupted us by their own evil standards and thus we have participated in the everyday evil of our culture. It doesn’t matter if you are homeless or wealthy, white or black, immigrant or citizen, European or Asian or American or Hispanic or Slavic or Indian (East or West)—every culture is immoral, every culture has its good points. We can analyze them objectively against either a common standard or God’s standard as communicated by Jesus, but we cannot say that our culture is better than theirs. Nor do we have a right to swallow up one culture because of its immoral aspects or because of its incompatibility with our own.
Rather, we need to encourage all cultures to follow Jesus. Yes, we want people to believe in Jesus, but we also need for the world to realize that Jesus points us to a better way for us to live with each other. Not everyone will believe in our theology about Jesus. This doesn’t mean we need to write them off as human beings. Not only do we need to give them assistance when they need it, but we can show them the way of Jesus as a way of life.
An excellent example of this is Alcoholics Anonymous. Almost every principle of the 12 steps are actually principles of Jesus that are re-contextualized to secular language for addicts. It speaks of dependence on God, repentance, reconciliation, community, accountability, forgiveness and even evangelism. It is not a complete gospel of Jesus, but it is a contextualized semi-gospel that speaks to and revitalizes a hurting sub-culture. A gospel of Jesus, as marginalized as it is, as weakened as it is, is still powerful enough to bring healing.
When most people approach homelessness, they do one of two things. Most will just try to meet the most basic needs that are easiest to fulfill. This helps the homeless in their day-to-day needs, but it does not, in reality, alleviate their poverty, nor bring real transformation.
The second approach is to try to make the homeless middle class. This approach is done by both Christians and non-Christians alike because our cultural values and beliefs are actually stronger than our gospel values and beliefs. We don’t see Jesus’ gospel as actually redeeming the homeless in the needs they have, and so we offer them the middle class, which specifically meets what the middle class thinks the homeless needs most, which is, interestingly enough, accommodation to the values and standards of the middle class.
That which is most frightening to the middle class is that the homeless might not want their values, that they are fundamentally of a different culture. So they want to train them to be like the middle class, and give them “mentors” or teachers to train them to be middle class. I think this is in error, for they will be teaching them not only the positive aspects of the American middle class values—hard work, following laws, etc—but also the weak aspects of the middle class—self-reliance, importance of the nuclear family, a skewed money value.
Rather, we need to do as Jesus said. We need to first evaluate our own culture by the gospel, repent of our own wrong values, before we can tell others how they should rightly live their lives. (Matthew 7:5—“First take the beam out of your own eye and then you can see clearly to take the speck out of theirs.”) We need to repent of our own cultural blindness.
Then, when we approach the homeless or any other culture, we must attempt to give them the values of the gospel and not our own cultural values. We can offer them the deliverance of Jesus, not the deliverance of our powerful, but oppressing, society. We must separate our culture from our gospel, to offer a pure, undefiled religion that comes from God and not our values that mix in.
Then, when we truly understand the gospel apart from our values and have repented of our immorality, can we translate that gospel into the language and culture system of another culture. When we have gone through the process of cultural repentance and gospel conversion ourselves, then we can understand what it means when we ask others to do the same. And when we do so, we do not do it on the basis of a culture that feels that they have a “burden” to replicate their culture, as if their culture is what saves. Rather, we offer the gospel as those who are poor ourselves, and in desperate need of the salvation of Jesus ourselves. We come, not from a place of power, but a place of humility, seeing our own weaknesses and seeing Jesus as the real answer.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
What Does It Mean To Be Homeless?
This question seems obvious. Clearly, homelessness is being without a home. But what is a “home”? And what does it mean that someone doesn’t have one? The problem with using a term like “homeless” is that it means so many different things. And one must solve the problem of what a thing is before we can begin discussing how to solve it. If you have five people and they all mean something different about homelessness, then how can they agree how to solve it?
Homelessness is inadequate shelter
The broadest way the term “homeless” is used is for those who have inadequate shelter. These are people who may have a family taking care of them and a roof over their head. But they are considered homeless because they don’t have adequate shelter. These are folks who have a job or is physically and mentally able to get a job, but perhaps they sleep on a couch, or they live in a shelter or they sleep in a vehicle with a bed. Many of these people may not consider themselves “homeless” because of the stigma attached to it, but they are technically homeless because they don’t have even a room to live in.
Homelessness is no shelter
A more precise use of the term “homeless” is for those who have no permanent shelter whatsoever. These are folks who may sleep on the street, in a park, in the forest, in a tent, under a bridge, in a car or wherever else they can sleep. Some of these homeless are without shelter for a week, some for a month, some for years. Some of the homeless are young, some are families, some are women, and about half are single men. More than seventy percent of these homeless get off the street in a matter of months. But the important characteristic of these folks is that they have no where else to go. A very small percentage may have chosen homelessness as a lifestyle, but most were forced on the street because they had no other choice.
Homelessness is a culture
What is often forgotten by most is that homelessness describes not only a physical condition, but a social reality. Over the years, a distinct set of cultures emerged for those who have lived on the street in a long term capacity. Others, especially youth, have participated in homeless culture, while not actually being without a place to live, dressing like the homeless and participating in the homeless community. Some of the characteristics of homeless culture is: dependence on others, especially other homeless, to meet one’s needs; alternative labor such as dumpster diving or canning; not participating in the social structures of broader society, such as many holidays or formal religion; and open sharing with those in need. To be homeless, for many on the street, means a participation with the community of the homeless, a subculture and a family for those without family.
Homelessness represents extreme poverty in the West
In the West, especially the United States, homelessness is a symbol. It is a representation of extreme poverty in the West. Even as the famine-starved child is a symbol for the poverty of developing countries, so the haggard homeless man is the symbol in the United States. Homelessness is seen as the lowest one can hit in the West. If one becomes homeless, they are at the end of their rope—there is no where else to go but up.
Homelessness is rejection
Because the homeless are the symbol of extreme poverty, they also represent failure. Either homelessness is a failure of society, or it is the failure of an individual. Because many do not believe in the failure of their society, they choose to believe in the failure of every single individual who became homeless. Thus, because poverty is often seen as a failure as a person in the West, the homeless are rejected as inadequate people. The homeless can be seen as an object of pity or an object of scorn, and either response lessens them as equal human beings.
What does it Mean to End Homelessness?
All of a sudden there are a number of goals to realize. It is not just about getting people housing. Rather, it is putting a potion of a fractured society back into a proper place. Not only does there need to be healing of the homeless, but a healing of society. Not only do physical needs need to be met, but we need to learn to be more culturally inclusive. Ending homelessness is not as simple as it seems on the surface. Instead, it seems that how we end homelessness is a test for our society. How we approach the homeless is a test of just how broad and intelligent our compassion is. Keep reading this blog to discover possibly the most inclusive plan to end homelessness ever. I think.
Homelessness is inadequate shelter
The broadest way the term “homeless” is used is for those who have inadequate shelter. These are people who may have a family taking care of them and a roof over their head. But they are considered homeless because they don’t have adequate shelter. These are folks who have a job or is physically and mentally able to get a job, but perhaps they sleep on a couch, or they live in a shelter or they sleep in a vehicle with a bed. Many of these people may not consider themselves “homeless” because of the stigma attached to it, but they are technically homeless because they don’t have even a room to live in.
Homelessness is no shelter
A more precise use of the term “homeless” is for those who have no permanent shelter whatsoever. These are folks who may sleep on the street, in a park, in the forest, in a tent, under a bridge, in a car or wherever else they can sleep. Some of these homeless are without shelter for a week, some for a month, some for years. Some of the homeless are young, some are families, some are women, and about half are single men. More than seventy percent of these homeless get off the street in a matter of months. But the important characteristic of these folks is that they have no where else to go. A very small percentage may have chosen homelessness as a lifestyle, but most were forced on the street because they had no other choice.
Homelessness is a culture
What is often forgotten by most is that homelessness describes not only a physical condition, but a social reality. Over the years, a distinct set of cultures emerged for those who have lived on the street in a long term capacity. Others, especially youth, have participated in homeless culture, while not actually being without a place to live, dressing like the homeless and participating in the homeless community. Some of the characteristics of homeless culture is: dependence on others, especially other homeless, to meet one’s needs; alternative labor such as dumpster diving or canning; not participating in the social structures of broader society, such as many holidays or formal religion; and open sharing with those in need. To be homeless, for many on the street, means a participation with the community of the homeless, a subculture and a family for those without family.
Homelessness represents extreme poverty in the West
In the West, especially the United States, homelessness is a symbol. It is a representation of extreme poverty in the West. Even as the famine-starved child is a symbol for the poverty of developing countries, so the haggard homeless man is the symbol in the United States. Homelessness is seen as the lowest one can hit in the West. If one becomes homeless, they are at the end of their rope—there is no where else to go but up.
Homelessness is rejection
Because the homeless are the symbol of extreme poverty, they also represent failure. Either homelessness is a failure of society, or it is the failure of an individual. Because many do not believe in the failure of their society, they choose to believe in the failure of every single individual who became homeless. Thus, because poverty is often seen as a failure as a person in the West, the homeless are rejected as inadequate people. The homeless can be seen as an object of pity or an object of scorn, and either response lessens them as equal human beings.
What does it Mean to End Homelessness?
All of a sudden there are a number of goals to realize. It is not just about getting people housing. Rather, it is putting a potion of a fractured society back into a proper place. Not only does there need to be healing of the homeless, but a healing of society. Not only do physical needs need to be met, but we need to learn to be more culturally inclusive. Ending homelessness is not as simple as it seems on the surface. Instead, it seems that how we end homelessness is a test for our society. How we approach the homeless is a test of just how broad and intelligent our compassion is. Keep reading this blog to discover possibly the most inclusive plan to end homelessness ever. I think.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
How Jesus Anawim Works
There are equal and opposite extremes between the gospel and culture: assimilation and complete rejection. Most churches are somewhere in the midst of some compromise between these two extremes. The Amish are at one extreme, rejecting all of culture until it can be found to be acceptable to the spiritual life of the community. However, even in the Amish there are cultural assumptions that are not biblical, such as a farming lifestyle as well as clothing fashions that might be more than a hundred years old, but they aren’t two thousand years old. Even so, some churches or youth groups seem to be completely assimilated, yet if there is any preaching of God’s word, then even the most liberal churches are a compromise between the gospel and modern culture, not true assimilation.
Culture, of course, is itself a compromise between traditionalism and new ideas. Any culture, as traditional as it seems, is an evolved form from the old ways of doing things and more recent. Perhaps a culture—such as hidden societies untouched by the world—seem so ancient to us. But every culture, without exception, is touched by human innovation. The more humans that touch the culture, the more innovation, but innovation and creativity is a part of every culture.
And with every innovation, there is a traditionalist portion of a culture that is disgusted by the innovation. It is not simply a disagreement about the innovation—it is an out and out revulsion. As if the innovation is the one item that would undermine the basis of the traditional culture. Sometimes the traditionalists—those who distrust innovation—are right. Some innovations really do undermine traditional culture. Some ideas are so radical, so in opposition to where a culture has been, that the older culture would no longer be comfortable in the newer one, should the innovations really take hold. In this way do the traditionalists rise up in opposition to certain innovations. Of course, traditionalists are not opposed to all innovation—only those that undermine the basic values of their traditional culture.
And innovation does not always win the day. Culture always progresses, but not always in the direction of new innovation. In fact, radical innovation often creates a backlash of traditional values, creating a pendulum swing. Should the battle be strong enough, then a culture war develops, battle lines are drawn and the whole world is seen to be on either one side or the other.
A compromise culture is usually created near the center of the battle lines. Thus a new set of values, philosophies, systems and cultural icons are created out of the previous battle. This new cultural consensus becomes the new tradition. When the next radical innovation comes, then it is this synthesis that feels attacked and creates the new battle lines.
In church culture, it seems that the traditionalists hold sway, but this is far from true. There are many innovationalists within church culture. The traditionalists in the church often have the older resources to have a louder voice, but innovationalists also have a strong voice, however weaker it is than the traditionalists. In this manner, the church can be an active participant in both sides of the culture wars.
The traditionalists seem to be more the heart of the church, because they have been able to use the cultural trappings of the church for longer periods of time. They have traditional songs and their interpretation of Scripture has been repeated so many times that it is the assumed “correct” interpretation of Scripture. What must be remembered, however, is what the Christian innovationalists repeat ad nauseum: that the traditionalists were once the innovationalists of old. That they do not, nor ever have had, a monopoly on “truth.”
This may seem to the innovationalists that their truth is equal to the truth of the traditionalist. In a sense, that is so—they could both be equally wrong. And they probably both are. Because, as different as they seem they are fundamentally the same—they are both swayed by the repeated a priori assumptions of their party, rather than seeking for truth in a semi-objective manner, recognizing their own weaknesses as seekers of God’s values as well as their oppositional parties.
The difference between the church and the rest of the world is the third group that is neither traditionalist nor innovationalist—or, one might say, they are both. These are the group that interprets the various culture battles via the word and acts of Jesus. Not necessarily by the “Bible” in general. The Bible is to vast, too varied of opinion, too complex in values to really pinpoint. But Jesus, as a single, but powerful force in the Bible, is much easier to read and understand. When interpreted against himself alone, his words and deeds act as a single testimony that continually speak to and challenge the church, as well as the rest of the world.
And within the church are those who do not align themselves with either the traditionalists or the innovationalists, but with Jesus alone. This group would instinctively see the weaknesses of both groups and so could not stand behind either. Because they would separate themselves from the culture wars and instead, in standing with Jesus, mount a lifestyle “attack” on all sides.
The innovationalist sees the Jesus follower as traditional, because they would accept a few of the values of traditionalist that they could not accept, simply because Jesus also held those values. However, Jesus is so radical, that He is seen as innovative to all cultures. Jesus is the promoter of the undermining of all systems—whether traditional or innovational. Jesus seeks to welcome the cultures that both the traditional and the innovational rejects. And Jesus does not participate in culture wars, for He is on a crusade for love of all people, which no cultural warmonger could ever support. For all war—whether martial or cultural—is a compromise of universal love.
Thus, those who focus on Jesus alone as their Lord—not the traditional Jesus, but the radical Jesus of the gospels—act as a third group in neither the traditional nor innovational parties. And this third party is what preserves the world, keeping them from destroying each other in the latest cultural war. The third party may suffer much themselves—as they accept suffering and persecution even as Jesus did—but they never fully disappear from this world. For every Jesus follower that disappears, one or two more takes his or her place.
The Jesus follower can be seen as traditional, because Jesus is the basis of all his or her values. Thus, like a traditionalist, the Jesus-follower can seem text-based and stagnant, without interest in any real change. However, since Jesus is such a radical that He has influenced the world without the world ever really accepting Him, standing for Jesus’ values and beliefs is always innovative, always outside the box. To delve deeper into Jesus’ principles of life is to automatically be seen as the outsider, the unacceptable to both the traditionalists and the innovationalists.
This is not the only manner in which the Jesus party is an outsider. The Jesus party, in following the example and principles of Jesus, is also a pursuer of the outcast. The outcast—the “sinners”, the “poor” the “needy”—are those who are seen as unacceptable to either the traditionalist or the innovationalist. Both cultural groups for one reason or another might want to adopt an outcast group, but only to bring them into their cultural agenda. Should the outcast group reject the assumptions of either the traditionalist or the inovationalist agenda, then the outcast individual remains outcast and the outcast society remains a viable cultural entity, separate from both sides of the culture war.
At the onset, it seems that the Jesus party and the outcast group are natural allies, as they have been both rejected by the main cultural forces. However, the Jesus party and the outcast societies do not share the same hopes or values any more than the Jesus party and the two main cultural groups do. The outcast societies (every broad society has at least one, often a number of them) are the children of their own sociological and cultural forces: disenfranchisement, dehumanization, sense of victimization, and a longing for being accepted for who they are. It is this last sociological force that draws the Jesus party and the outcast together: the Jesus party have a desire to accept the unacceptable and the outcast have a need for acceptance.
Nevertheless, it is a tenuous alignment. The Jesus party sees their hope in Jesus and want the outcast to seek Jesus as they do—His live, principles and His self as the center of their being. The outcast are constantly doubtful that they are being accepted for who they are, rather than for what they could be in Jesus. And those of weaker faith in the Jesus party end up standing in one cultural party or another, finally throwing their hands up in opposition to the outcast because, in the end, they believed in change more than in Jesus. But the strongest in the faith of Jesus remain with the outcast in patience and hope, because change or love is not in their hands, but in the hands of the all-powerful Spirit.
Because of this, the mainstream culture—involved in one way or another in the culture wars—don’t know what to make of the Jesus party. On the one hand, they identify with the outcast, which makes them one with the outcast. On the other side, they provide the best examples of love and society working despite differences that any culture has ever seen. Some become so oppositional against the Jesus party that they are openly attacked. Mostly, however, the Jesus party just does their work in quiet—quietly changing the world, quietly undermining all the premises of culture war.
A quiet revolution of culture, that will never completely take over the world. It remains at the edges, where it belongs.
Culture, of course, is itself a compromise between traditionalism and new ideas. Any culture, as traditional as it seems, is an evolved form from the old ways of doing things and more recent. Perhaps a culture—such as hidden societies untouched by the world—seem so ancient to us. But every culture, without exception, is touched by human innovation. The more humans that touch the culture, the more innovation, but innovation and creativity is a part of every culture.
And with every innovation, there is a traditionalist portion of a culture that is disgusted by the innovation. It is not simply a disagreement about the innovation—it is an out and out revulsion. As if the innovation is the one item that would undermine the basis of the traditional culture. Sometimes the traditionalists—those who distrust innovation—are right. Some innovations really do undermine traditional culture. Some ideas are so radical, so in opposition to where a culture has been, that the older culture would no longer be comfortable in the newer one, should the innovations really take hold. In this way do the traditionalists rise up in opposition to certain innovations. Of course, traditionalists are not opposed to all innovation—only those that undermine the basic values of their traditional culture.
And innovation does not always win the day. Culture always progresses, but not always in the direction of new innovation. In fact, radical innovation often creates a backlash of traditional values, creating a pendulum swing. Should the battle be strong enough, then a culture war develops, battle lines are drawn and the whole world is seen to be on either one side or the other.
A compromise culture is usually created near the center of the battle lines. Thus a new set of values, philosophies, systems and cultural icons are created out of the previous battle. This new cultural consensus becomes the new tradition. When the next radical innovation comes, then it is this synthesis that feels attacked and creates the new battle lines.
In church culture, it seems that the traditionalists hold sway, but this is far from true. There are many innovationalists within church culture. The traditionalists in the church often have the older resources to have a louder voice, but innovationalists also have a strong voice, however weaker it is than the traditionalists. In this manner, the church can be an active participant in both sides of the culture wars.
The traditionalists seem to be more the heart of the church, because they have been able to use the cultural trappings of the church for longer periods of time. They have traditional songs and their interpretation of Scripture has been repeated so many times that it is the assumed “correct” interpretation of Scripture. What must be remembered, however, is what the Christian innovationalists repeat ad nauseum: that the traditionalists were once the innovationalists of old. That they do not, nor ever have had, a monopoly on “truth.”
This may seem to the innovationalists that their truth is equal to the truth of the traditionalist. In a sense, that is so—they could both be equally wrong. And they probably both are. Because, as different as they seem they are fundamentally the same—they are both swayed by the repeated a priori assumptions of their party, rather than seeking for truth in a semi-objective manner, recognizing their own weaknesses as seekers of God’s values as well as their oppositional parties.
The difference between the church and the rest of the world is the third group that is neither traditionalist nor innovationalist—or, one might say, they are both. These are the group that interprets the various culture battles via the word and acts of Jesus. Not necessarily by the “Bible” in general. The Bible is to vast, too varied of opinion, too complex in values to really pinpoint. But Jesus, as a single, but powerful force in the Bible, is much easier to read and understand. When interpreted against himself alone, his words and deeds act as a single testimony that continually speak to and challenge the church, as well as the rest of the world.
And within the church are those who do not align themselves with either the traditionalists or the innovationalists, but with Jesus alone. This group would instinctively see the weaknesses of both groups and so could not stand behind either. Because they would separate themselves from the culture wars and instead, in standing with Jesus, mount a lifestyle “attack” on all sides.
The innovationalist sees the Jesus follower as traditional, because they would accept a few of the values of traditionalist that they could not accept, simply because Jesus also held those values. However, Jesus is so radical, that He is seen as innovative to all cultures. Jesus is the promoter of the undermining of all systems—whether traditional or innovational. Jesus seeks to welcome the cultures that both the traditional and the innovational rejects. And Jesus does not participate in culture wars, for He is on a crusade for love of all people, which no cultural warmonger could ever support. For all war—whether martial or cultural—is a compromise of universal love.
Thus, those who focus on Jesus alone as their Lord—not the traditional Jesus, but the radical Jesus of the gospels—act as a third group in neither the traditional nor innovational parties. And this third party is what preserves the world, keeping them from destroying each other in the latest cultural war. The third party may suffer much themselves—as they accept suffering and persecution even as Jesus did—but they never fully disappear from this world. For every Jesus follower that disappears, one or two more takes his or her place.
The Jesus follower can be seen as traditional, because Jesus is the basis of all his or her values. Thus, like a traditionalist, the Jesus-follower can seem text-based and stagnant, without interest in any real change. However, since Jesus is such a radical that He has influenced the world without the world ever really accepting Him, standing for Jesus’ values and beliefs is always innovative, always outside the box. To delve deeper into Jesus’ principles of life is to automatically be seen as the outsider, the unacceptable to both the traditionalists and the innovationalists.
This is not the only manner in which the Jesus party is an outsider. The Jesus party, in following the example and principles of Jesus, is also a pursuer of the outcast. The outcast—the “sinners”, the “poor” the “needy”—are those who are seen as unacceptable to either the traditionalist or the innovationalist. Both cultural groups for one reason or another might want to adopt an outcast group, but only to bring them into their cultural agenda. Should the outcast group reject the assumptions of either the traditionalist or the inovationalist agenda, then the outcast individual remains outcast and the outcast society remains a viable cultural entity, separate from both sides of the culture war.
At the onset, it seems that the Jesus party and the outcast group are natural allies, as they have been both rejected by the main cultural forces. However, the Jesus party and the outcast societies do not share the same hopes or values any more than the Jesus party and the two main cultural groups do. The outcast societies (every broad society has at least one, often a number of them) are the children of their own sociological and cultural forces: disenfranchisement, dehumanization, sense of victimization, and a longing for being accepted for who they are. It is this last sociological force that draws the Jesus party and the outcast together: the Jesus party have a desire to accept the unacceptable and the outcast have a need for acceptance.
Nevertheless, it is a tenuous alignment. The Jesus party sees their hope in Jesus and want the outcast to seek Jesus as they do—His live, principles and His self as the center of their being. The outcast are constantly doubtful that they are being accepted for who they are, rather than for what they could be in Jesus. And those of weaker faith in the Jesus party end up standing in one cultural party or another, finally throwing their hands up in opposition to the outcast because, in the end, they believed in change more than in Jesus. But the strongest in the faith of Jesus remain with the outcast in patience and hope, because change or love is not in their hands, but in the hands of the all-powerful Spirit.
Because of this, the mainstream culture—involved in one way or another in the culture wars—don’t know what to make of the Jesus party. On the one hand, they identify with the outcast, which makes them one with the outcast. On the other side, they provide the best examples of love and society working despite differences that any culture has ever seen. Some become so oppositional against the Jesus party that they are openly attacked. Mostly, however, the Jesus party just does their work in quiet—quietly changing the world, quietly undermining all the premises of culture war.
A quiet revolution of culture, that will never completely take over the world. It remains at the edges, where it belongs.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
How To End Poverty 3
Okay, let’s get serious about this. How DO we deal with poverty?
First of all, we need to understand what poverty is. There are two main categories of poverty, which greatly overlap. There is the poverty that is being physically destitute. This is the common kind of poverty we think of: people who are hungry, who have no where to live, who have no warmth, who have no safe drinking water, who are wracked by disease. Those who are destroyed because of their lack of physical needs.
The second is like the first: social poverty. This is a state of separation, of rejection, of outcastness. These are the poor who the mainstream culture of one’s society rejects, for one reason or another. Usually, however, they are rejected because they do not accept some major, unwritten law of the mainstream culture. They are too loud or too quiet. They don’t participate fully in the mainstream’s economic system. They don’t look like or dress like the mainstream. They have different cultural presuppositions.
This second class of the poor soon become the first class. They become destitute due to their social standing. And the mainstream feels good about these poor because, “They deserved it. If only they would…” (fill in cultural prejudice here) “… then they could live better.” So the mainstream convinces themselves that the poor are worthy to be poor and they deserve their benefits and judgments.
Another result of this cycle is fear. When one culture separates from another, then they tend to fear each other. The mainstream begins to see the outcast as the root of many of the evils of their society and the outcast sees in the face of every mainstream person the last mainstream person who abused them. This fear becomes prejudice and that prejudice becomes a cycle of mutual destruction.
How do we end this cycle?
First of all, the mainstream culture needs to associate with the outcast culture. If this happens, then the mainstream culture will realize, over time, that the outcast culture aren’t so bad after all. Perhaps they act differently, and hold some different opinions, but that doesn’t make them bad people. That even if they may not be as “good” as those of their own culture, then at least they shouldn’t be feared. Once we get past the fear, then we can perhaps get to the point where representatives of the two cultures could actually assist each other and support each other.
The difficulty is, how to get the two sides to overcome their fear? They need two things: 1. A neutral ground where they both feel safe to meet. And 2. A mediator that understands the cultural presuppositions of both sides and is willing to teach both sides about the social needs of the other without putting down either side.
If we end cultural superiority, then we will end most poverty. If the mainstream and the ruling elite understand the life and worldview of the poor outcast, then we are ready to welcome each person as they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)