Tim Høiland
19Jan/12Off

Wilderness, grace and the journey to the common good

Seeking the common good is something that most Christians, at least in theory, consider integral to the faith. But what does it actually look like? Where do we find inspiration or instruction for the journey? And where will the journey take us?These are the questions Walter Brueggemann explores in Journey to the Common Good (Westminster John Knox). As a world-renowned Old Testament scholar, he sets out to locate the answers in three places:

  1. Exodus, which sheds light on the journey from anxiety to neighborliness;
  2. Jeremiah, an invitation to choose life over death; and
  3. Isaiah, which helps us move from loss to restoration.

I won’t attempt to do justice to his arguments here, but each of the three is an important way of understanding the journey to the common good.

I found the section on the Exodus particularly meaningful. In the Exodus, we see how those living lives dominated by anxiety and scarcity aren’t likely to seek the common good; they’re going to be too busy simply trying to survive. After God uses Moses to lead his people out of “the anxiety system” of Egypt, God miraculously provides manna (or “wonder bread,” as Brueggemann calls it), demonstrating divine generosity and abundance.

But as the biblical narrative makes clear, the people of God didn’t find it easy to move from the culture of scarcity to the culture of abundance overnight. That’s because having left the anxiety system of Pharaoh, they found themselves not in an ideal place of safety, security and comfort, but rather in the wilderness. Brueggemann writes:

“Wilderness” is a place, in biblical rhetoric, where there are no viable life support systems. “Grace” is the occupying generosity of God that redefines the place. The wonder bread, as a gesture of divine grace, recharacterizes the wilderness that Israel now discovered to be a place of viable life, made viable by the generous inclination of YHWH.

Brueggemann goes on to argue that for us today a similar “departure” is required -- if not from a literal Pharaoh, then from adherence to whatever twenty-first century anxiety systems we find ourselves in. If we buy his argument that living in a culture of anxiety and scarcity all but precludes the pursuit of the common good, then the flip side is that when we experience God’s generosity and abundance (“our daily bread,” you might say) and recognize it for the grace that it is, we are freed up like never before to be good neighbors and to seek the common good.

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy,” says Jesus. “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

The journey to the common good takes us from scarcity to abundance, and from abundance to the practice of neighborliness. The challenge for all of us, then, is to cultivate lives of neighborliness right here in the wilderness. It may not be a place entirely to our liking, but it is a place of viable life, “made viable by the generous inclination of YHWH.”

Do we truly believe that the wilderness in which we live can be a place not of scarcity but of abundance? How does that shape our understanding of the journey to the common good?

[Photo credit: Thomas Dwyer/Flickr]

6Oct/11Off

Until Justice & Peace Embrace (Part 2/3)

Yesterday, in the first part of this series, I summarized Wolterstorff's appropriation of the world-formative Reformed/neo-Calvinist tradition, how it is both similar to and different from the liberation theologies of Latin America, and how Scripture calls us to shalom -- a world-formative vision related to, but beyond, both. Now for some of shalom's ramifications, again in relatively bite-size chunks.

The rich & the poor
During the colonial era, Wolterstorff writes, it was the norm for Westerners to view poverty in other countries as "a natural condition for certain kinds of people." After World War II, however, there was new-found excitement about the possibilities of development (the field of work, incidentally, to which I belong). Wolterstorff writes of that enthusiasm:

All that was needed was technology and capital; both of these could be painlessly supplied by us. A new self-serving explanation! But development has not occurred as we expected. The poor are with us in greater numbers than ever before. And now we can no longer ignore their existence.

So if not colonial feelings of superiority, nor naive enthusiasm about quick-fix solutions that don't cost anyone anything, what does Wolterstorff propose? Well, first, he echoes the liberation theologians in saying that God has a special concern for the poor. To support this claim, he points to a series of passages from the Gospel of Luke (1:46-53; 4:16-21; 6:20-21; 7:18-23), and concludes with conviction but nuance:

If we consider Jesus to be God incarnate, and these teachings from the book of Luke to be God-authorized, as I certainly do, then we cannot but conclude that God has taken sides with the poor... On the other hand, the poor are not romaticized: they are not praised; they are blessed. And, yes, they can turn aside the blessing. Blessing is pronounced on those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Not all the poor do so.

God-given rights
Scripture teaches that every human being is made in the image of God, and that's what forms the basis for Wolterstorff's insistence on affirming the rights of the poor. "I want to say, as emphatically as I can," he writes, "that our concern with poverty is not an issue of generosity but of rights." Therefore, if we don't care about the poor, "we are violating the God-given rights of the poor person." He goes into more detail about the definition of rights, and the duties that correlate to them, but in the interest of both time and space I won't spell that out in detail here.

Nations & nationalism
If one desires to be an instrument of shalom, one must be concerned about the power of nationalism. Nationalism, Wolterstorff says, is basically "a nation's preoccupation with its own nationhood." A sense of woundedness, of having been wronged, is often at the root of a rise in nationalism. And it's not long before that kind of nationalism becomes, as he puts it, cancerous:

When a nation suffers from nationalism unchecked, the life of its members is twisted and distorted, and the nation becomes a menace among nations because it accepts no standards for international peace and justice. It acts solely in its own self-interest, breaking treaties when it sees fit, waging wars when it finds the advantage, thumbing its nose at international conventions and organizations. National self-assertion is the only goal. All that restrains it is a balance of terror... We in our century have seen, and continue to see, that there is nothing more destructive of shalom than such nationalism.

But for Christians, the alternative is clear -- or it should be:

What unites us as bearers of the image of God is more important than what divides us as members of nations.

I'll have a third and final post in this series, probably next week, taking a look at Wolterstorff's thoughts on what shalom looks like in a city; the relationship between justice and liturgy; and his call for scholars and academics to embrace the world-formative vision.

3Feb/10Off

What to do with hungry, thirsty strangers

You know you've been there. We all have. You’re walking down the street, minding your own business, and then it happens.

“Excuse me sir, can you spare some change?�

Just like that.

Then what?

If you’re like me, a lot is going through your mind: thoughts of supporting destructive habits, or making them lazy, or dehumanizing them, or maybe rationalizations: “I’m not rich� or “Okay, fine, I am rich but I’ve worked hard for what I have.� These all seem to coalesce in that moment of truth, along with some incredibly inconvenient verses from the Bible about sheep and goats and the real sin of Sodom and real worship and real religion, and how our so-called faith is worthless if we disregard real needs by spiritualizing them. It’s information overload. And if the Bible is true, the stakes are high.

This sort of thing has happened to me a lot lately. Last night I was on my way into the grocery store a few blocks away from my apartment and it was snowing. A man came up to me in the parking lot, showed me 90 cents in change, explained that his car broke down and that he needed money for a cab. I gave it to him. His name was Robert.

This evening, while walking home from work a man stepped out of the shadows and asked me for change. I apologized and said I didn’t have any. I did. It was a lie. I didn’t ask his name.

Why did I give ten bucks to Robert but left the nameless man on the sidewalk without as much as a dime? Why did I once buy a pair of train tickets for people I had just met but countless times have done my best to ignore or quickly refuse other, far simpler, requests? Why, while I'm at it, did I not tell Robert to hop into my car? Why didn't I take the nameless guy to Subway or McDonald's and ask him about his day? Why do I get so uncomfortable when people are so candid about their needs? Could it be that I've been conditioned to mask my own?

Now, I’ve read the books. I’ve studied Scripture. I’ve prayed about it, thought about it, discussed it here and there. I’ve taken classes in economics, community development, even theology of poverty, for crying out loud. I’ve absorbed a lot of information but still, every time someone asks me for money, it’s an instant, scrambled decision.

When I do give, I try to exchange names and a handshake - you know, to level the playing field, to keep the dignity. At times I've asked them to “pay it forward� when they can. Sometimes I bring Jesus into it - which seems like the right thing to do since he has everything to do with it - but doing so can also feel a bit forced and condescending, as if there are strings attached to grace.

When I don’t give, I try to avoid eye contact. If that fails, I pat my pocket, shrug, and act disappointed. I might pick up the pace, look busy, or think about how I can make up for it by reading my Bible, or by reminding myself that I have a degree in international development and will help plenty of other people soon enough.

While living in Cambodia I got to know a remarkable Dutch woman who embodies compassion, working for a Christian development organization and adopting several Cambodian kids over the years. Once I asked her what she does when a stranger on the street asks for change, which happens, incidentally, all the time. She said that each time, she just listens to the Holy Spirit and takes the next step, whatever it is. I believe her and slightly envy her, because to me, other voices tend to compete loudly in such moments, and the Holy Spirit line just seems like something I'd say as a good Christian cop-out.

Later, a friend in Lancaster told me he decided to contribute regularly to the rescue mission  downtown, and when asked for money he’d point people there. The idea was that this would eliminate the problem of not knowing where the money will go, while also not failing to meet real needs. It was a better approach than any I’d come up with, and a clear demonstration of my friend’s concern for those in need, but I worried that I'd just use the idea as a way of outsourcing compassion to professionals.

So, I pose the question: do you have a consistent approach in these situations, when you're put on the spot with a request for some change? If so, how did you get there? What experiences led you there? In all of the Bible’s teaching about money and greed and compassion, have you found a consistent pattern as it relates to this? How do you balance competing arguments for and against looking a stranger in the eye, reaching into your pocket, smiling, and giving them whatever you have?

And perhaps trickiest of all: how do you keep it rooted in love?