Posted by Rachel on: 06.27.2007 /
Here is the final installment in our series of posters from artist-provocateur Tim Nyberg
In his book God’s Politics, Jim Wallis shares this anecdote:
I often do a little Bible quiz for audiences I’m speaking to. I ask this question: “What is the most famous biblical text in America about the poor?” Every time, I mean every single time, I receive the same answer. “The poor you will always have with you!” they shout out…
How do modern Americans interpret this text? We simply use it as an excuse. “The poor you will always have with you” gets translated into “There is nothing we can do about poverty, and the poor will always be there, so why bother?”
Leave a Reply
Comment by: David H
1 06/27/07 8:05 PM | Comment Link |I have heard that interpretation used in sermons and seen in worked out in political and economic policies perpetuated by the United States. The cause is the same now as it was when God led the Jews out of Eygpt. It is that I can’t be “rich” unless I make someone poor; I can’t have too much unless someone has too little.
Taken in the context of Deut. 15, the statement is a reprimand to those under the covenant of the law. Immediately before saying the poor will always be with you are the rules and regulations for Jewish society that tell how to make sure there is no poverty in Israel. Given that context, the references made by Jesus in Matthew and John are also reprimands to those questioning the act of the woman who annointed Jesus’ feet. The Jews may have never kept the Jubilee and the teachers of the law had come up with interpreations that allowed usury. While on earth Jesus constantly met those who were abandoned by that society. So helping the poor wasn’t really at the heart of the protest about that use of perfume. Yes, the poor will always be with us because we will always permit (even embrace in the name of God) the exploitation that permits poverty.
Changing attitudes in the larger society may not be possible, but for followers of Jesus it should begin with believing and then acting to prove that even if what God said (and Christ repeated) is true, that doesn’t let us off the hook. Both made it pretty clear that my job is not to accept the situation, rather I am to oppose it in word and deed. The question isn’t whether I can fix the problem, it is whether I will accept my responsibility and feed at least one person who is hungry. The issue isn’t whether my church or my society will do something, the issue is what will I do.
Comment by: Karlene
2 06/28/07 1:36 PM | Comment Link |Middle and upper class people often have an attitude of blame toward the poor. They figure that if you work hard enough and have good character and make the right choices you won’t be poor, so if you are poor it’s your own fault. And since you got yourself into this mess, why should anyone help get you out of it? Christians often put a spiritual spin on this blame - that God will bless you if you obey God’s commandments, so poverty is some sign of disfavor with God and is therefore just punishment.
Poverty is much more complicated than the summation of each individual’s personal decisions. Addressing poverty isn’t a simple matter of getting lazy people to work. This week I’ve had two conversations with middle class Christians who were disdaining people in poverty. One was criticizing lack of self-discipline and ‘weakness’ for alcohol. The other was criticizing laziness and a perceived unwillingness to get a job. Both people are hard working, middle class folks who just don’t comprehend the culture of poverty or the tremendous difficulties in breaking out of generational poverty.
What will it take to change people’s attitudes? I hope to learn more answers to this question. My own attitude started to change when I started studying the prophets and then when I got involved at the local mission. A combination of education and experience with people helped to transform my attitude over time. If we just accept these attitudes within our communities and do not address them, we won’t see them change.
Comment by: David H
3 06/28/07 8:46 PM | Comment Link |I recently read a study of American societal trends. It concluded that very few Americans actually suceed in climbing above their social status. However, for the poor it is almost certain that you and your children and their children will maintain their place in society. There are a host of reasons, but the bottom line is they are overwhelming. One observation from the study was that it takes a great deal of hard work and good luck to possibly escape your situation. But it may take only one problem (whether it is death, disease, addiction or plain bad luck) for you to fall below your current status. Bottom line, in this land of boot-strap success stories: it is much more common for people to trip and fall.
Comment by: Rose
4 06/29/07 10:50 AM | Comment Link |David could you tell me where to find the study you refer to in comment #3?
Thanks
Comment by: David H
5 07/2/07 10:39 AM | Comment Link |Rose, I regret that I can’t seem to track back to it. I found it several months ago after hearing a professor appearing on an NPR-type talk/call-in show with Barbara Ehrenreich, who has written several books about American poverty, the most famous of which had her spend a year living as a minimum-wage earning single-mom. I Googled the professor because he was saying that there were studies indicting that class lines were still very rigid in the United States and that led to the study I referenced. But I can’t even remember his name now, nor the name of the show on which I heard him. Sorry.