News-Record.com

Last night in our first session of the Kleemeier Forum we spoke about the lost notion of sacrifice in our culture, and we spoke about the need to recapture a commitment to the common good. I want to thank you for the gracious and helpful comments both in the public conversation and afterwards. The text of my remarks will be posted today on the First Presbyterian Church's website (http://www.firstpresgso.org.)

I promised last night to post a couple of scenarios that might provide some means of continuing the conversation. Here are two that I mentioned last night. I'll be interested to learn what you think. Please note that I will monitor the comments morning and evening as time permits. Thank you for your interest. The scenarios follow.

Scenario One

You are engaged in a conversation with a friend, talking about the mission and work of your faith community in trying to provide for the needs of low-income families. The friend says that he believes such efforts are essentially wasted, that poverty is a given in this world, and that the role of the church or synagogue is, after all, to provide spiritual direction and guidance. To bolster his argument he appeals to Scripture, noting that the Book of Deuteronomy says that ?the poor shall never cease to inhabit the land,? and that Jesus himself had said to his disciples, ?You always have the poor with you.?

The first question is: What would you say to your friend?

The underlying questions are:
How do you understand the passage(s) to which he refers (Deuteronomy 15:11; John 12:1-8; Mark 14:3-9)?
Do you understand the notion of the common good as applying in this matter?
Do our faith communities have a responsibility to/for/with the poor? If so, does that responsibility include the responsibility to influence public policy in matters that affect the poor?

Scenario Two

Begin with the assumption that you have no significant financial needs (?wants,? perhaps, but no real needs). You are adequately compensated, your income is sufficient to cover your regular expenses, and you have made reasonable provision for contingencies and the future.

Then, assume that a dear friend dies and, without any prior indication that she would do so, leaves you an after-tax sum of $200,000 from a revocable trust.

The first question is: what would you do with the money?

The second question is: by what criteria would you make the decision?

Some questions that attend the second question include:
Would you regard the decision in any way as an ethical quandary? If so, what ethical principles come into play? If not, why not?
Would Scriptural admonitions about wealth and faithfulness come into play in your decision?
Would consideration of community needs (the ?common good?) be part of the decision-making equation?

Thanks.

My first response to these messages is one of wry amusement. Why talk simultaneously of "Christian ethics" and an "interfaith audience"? Sounds just a little strange to me.

On question 1: It's interesting that the Bible talks of poverty being a permanent problem, but says nothing about trying to solve the problem. Instead, Christianity seems in many places to be a religion designed to keep the poor in their place (as Napoleon said "Religion is what keep the poor from murdering the rich."), and to make them willing to wait for riches after death instead of striving for them in life.

Objectively, I think that the well-off should share their good fortune, and I regularly give to charities that fit my philosophy. They're hard to find, but they exist.

Question 2: I'm not sure how I'd deal with an unexpected windfall of this sort. Partially, because I don't understand the nature of the financial arrangements.

However, I'll say that one of my fantasies for, say, winning a lottery jackpot (bigger wad-o-cash, you see) would be to donate much of the money to educational efforts. My attitude is that education is one of the surest helps for anyone to reach a better life.

Three quick responses to Eric's thoughtful comments:

First, though the setting for the forum is within a Christian community, I do sense that interfaith conversation is very important in such matters, because all of the major religions urge not only compassion for the poor, but call their practicioners to work for justice and genuine community.

Second, Christianity has most certainly been misused and mis-applied to justify disparities in economic status, and that is why I would urge us to reread the texts. The Deuteronomy text cited earlier does say "the poor shall not cease to inhabit the land," but continues with an admoinition to "open wide your hands to the poor." The Hebrew prophets were unequivocal in their calls for justice and fairness, particularly for the oppressed. Jesus warned repeatedly of the dangers of wealth and miserly living. It is not the scriptures, in my sense of things, but their misapplication that creates the problem.

Finally, the charitable contributions he mentions and makes are very important. But all the charitable contributions together are but a drop in the bucket when comparted to what governments could and should do to ensure a measure of economic justice and fairness. Our acts of compassion need to be coupled with demands for fairness on a larger scale as well, it seems to me.

"But all the charitable contributions together are but a drop in the bucket when comparted to what governments could and should do to ensure a measure of economic justice and fairness."

How true! Just imagine the good that could be achieved if the Pentagon were to forego the purchase of 1 nuclear aircraft carrier!

On the other hand, what help could be provided to the poor if the Catholic church (just as a "for instance") would put the cost of a cathedral's constuction into the hands of the poor?

Please explain the connection between your message on the common good and ethics. Thanks.

In response to Eric's query, I would first refer back to the context I set in Wednesday night's presentation, available at the website of First Presbyterian Church . But in brief summary, ethics could be defined as the link between our knowledge of what is good and our doing of what is good. Ethics can be a deeply personal matter, as one considers actions that are congruant with one's own personal moral beliefs. But ethics can also be a matter of great importance to groups as they consider and weigh various options/actions/decisions before them. The presentation spelled such choices out with some greater elaboration.

My contention is that as faith communities, civic communities, states or nations act, whether in setting budgets or in formulating priorities and policies, they do so based on some moral or logical or economic or legal principle. I would contend that one of the most important moral criteria for public life from the outset of our nation has been a strong consideration of the common good. I would also argue that such consideration seems to have received less and less attention in recent years as an ethical benchmark in weighing policy. The recent stress has been much more on the individual and his or her wants, needs, and rights... sometimes to the detriment of the common good. The erosion of the notion of the common good is due in part, I said, to a loss of the concept of stewardship. Thus, I have subtitled the presentations, "Stewardship as an Ethical Commitment."

That's it in a nutshell. There's more on the First Presbyterian website. But I'd welcome further discussion.

Eric's question about the cost of building a cathedral makes me think of what I consider a vital connection between the concept of Sabbath and ethics. Rev. Dunham has defined ethics as "doing good", but when I think about why we've moved away from a focus on the common good in our culture, I have to think it has something to do with the fact that we spend too much time focused on "doing" and not enough time "not doing." We get so caught up in a cycle of work that we never stop to think about why we are working in the first place. The commandment to observe the Sabbath (both in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy, I believe) doesn't just say that you should cease from working. It goes on to say that your family, your male and female slaves (which brings up another interesting issue), and even your livestock should cease from working for one day out of six. So in observing the Sabbath, we are obligated to create a society where others--men, women, rich, poor, animals, and even the land, I believe--can also observe the Sabbath. Therefore, we are called to work for social justice or the common good.

I'm not sure what that says about the ethics of spending lots of money on a cathedral, but I do think that this is how I'd begin a conversation with the friend from scenario #1. Observing the Sabbath both reminds us that we have an obligation to affect social change (because we have the freedom to cease working for one day) and also frees us up from the responsibility to "fix" everything ourselves (because for one day a week, we relinquish control and realize that the world keeps turning without us). So while the "poor" may be "with us always," I'm still obligated to work towards a world in which everyone is similarly liberated and empowered.

I'm still trying to figure out how I'd spend that money though...

Jill's comments about Sabbath are absolutely true. The recovery of Sabbath is so crucial in our frenetic time, for without Sabbath life disintegrates. Properly observed, Sabbath is not just about rest; it is about the ordering of time, about the reclaiming of time, about honoring community, about honoring all members of the community and dealing fairly with them... indeed, about honoring the common good. I thank Jill for her observation

How do you understand the passage(s) to which he refers (Deuteronomy 15:11; John 12:1-8; Mark 14:3-9)?
Do you understand the notion of the common good as applying in this matter?

11For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hands to your brother, to your needy, and to your poor in your land. Deut 15:11

First of all Deut 15:11 is taken a bit out of context here. In Deut 15 is about the Sabbatic year (the 7th year) In this verse it is speaking of what is to occur in the 7th year. At this time all work was to stop in the field and the fruit that came up was to be left for the traveler, the poor , and the wild animals, birds etc.

The slave was to be freed and land was not to bought and sold during that time. This same spirit was to be celebrated in the Jubilee year which is the 50th year, the year after the 7th year of the 7th year (7x7=49).( And you shall hallow the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; and each of you shall return to his ancestral possession [which through poverty he was compelled to sell], and each of you shall return to his family [from whom he was separated in bond service].

Deut 15:11 actually has more to do with the years leading up to the Jubilee year after the Sabbatic year than with the actual Sabbath or 7th day. However all call for a time of rest and restoration be it the 7th day or the 7th year or the Jubilee year.

There is actually a verse that would do better in your attempt to explain social justice and common good and that is found in Leviticus 25:35 it reads as this: And if your [Israelite] brother has become poor and his hand wavers [from poverty, sickness, or age and he is unable to support himself], then you shall uphold (strengthen, relieve) him, [treating him with the courtesy and consideration that you would] a stranger or a temporary resident with you [without property], so that he may live [along] with you.(New Amp)

[I can find no where in the Scripture where the government is responsible for what one writer was attempting to show as social justice and common good. The care of the poor, downtrodden whatever you wish to include is the duty of each of us indivdually and corporately. Some may wish to apply corporately as to the body of govenment but I can't find it in the scripture. It is the body of Christ (the church) that is given that responsibility and we have certainly failed in our doing.]

The giving was commanded by God and as long as the people were obedient in their giving they would be blessed in order to continue giving. (All of this teaching actually stems from the Abrahamic Covenant even though the tithe was spoken of even from the days of Adam. This can be found in reference to the tithes of Cain and Able and how God blessed Able's offering and was not acceptant of Cain's. Ables was given in joy and of his first fruits with no forethought of what he would have left over. Cain's was given after he had considered what he would have left to live on , which is actually the way most people give today.

Both John 12:1-8; Mark 14:3-9) are speaking of the same instance where Jesus is rebuking those who are speaking against the woman who brought expensive perfume and washed his feet with it. They felt the money could have better been spent on the poor. Actually In John it says that Judas Iscariot is speaking as the treasurer of the disciples but he cared little for the poor himself. It was just a way to attempt to bring critic to this woman, much the way people do today.

Jesus rebukes these people for making much ado about nothing and tells them that what she has done will be remembered as long as the good news of the gospel is being preached.(vs 9) In his speaking of the poor he does say that they will always be poor among you but he says that He will not always be (in the flesh) with them. He is not denigrating giving to the poor but reminding the naysayers of the spirit in which they should be giving. (The same spirit as the woman who washed his feet, i.e. in humility and gladness)

But if anyone has this world's goods (resources for sustaining life) and sees his brother and [a]fellow believer in need, yet closes his heart of compassion against him, how can the love of God live and remain in him? (1 John 1-17 Amp version)

2 Cor 9:7-9

7Let each one [give] as he has made up his own mind and purposed in his heart, not reluctantly or sorrowfully or under compulsion, for God loves (He [a]takes pleasure in, prizes above other things, and is unwilling to abandon or to do without) a cheerful (joyous, "prompt to do it") giver [whose heart is in his giving)

8And God is able to make all grace (every favor and [b]earthly blessing) come to you in abundance, so that you may always and under all circumstances and whatever the need [c]be self-sufficient [possessing enough to require no aid or support and furnished in abundance for every good work and charitable donation].

9As it is written, He [the benevolent person] scatters abroad; He gives to the poor; His deeds of justice and goodness and kindness and benevolence will go on and endure forever (Amp version)

I use these scriptures to expand on what I understand concerning the passages mentioned by writer of the original post.

This is the spirit in which our giving should be done. I don't know that it is for the common good of which you are speaking but it is certainly expected of us as followers of Christ.

When we release of that which we have been entrusted by God , who is the owner of all things and the giver of all things, then we will be blessed as well as blessing those who receive.

Giving or tithe is more than just money as most folks think of it. It encompasses our talent,our skills and our time as well.

We can all give of ourselves, and this includes those who are poor in money as well as those who are abundant in money. All are expected to give of what they have regardless of the financial end of things and to give freely and cheerfully , not greedily.

What would I do with the $200,000? First of all 10% or the tithe would not be sufficient . After all most of tip waitstaff in a resturant more than that.

How much, I don't know exactly but I am sure that I would be lead by the Holy Spirit as to the amount to give and where to give it. Since it would be considered first fruits (first seeds) it should not be stored up but planted in such a way as to bring forth another crop.

Planting a part in my local congregation would certainly be first and foremost.

Secondly, planting in missions would be done. (missions can be right here in my town as well as around the world. All are important in their own right)

By giving back to God what he has given me then taking care of my families needs would come next since God expects me to take care of my family. That could be many things, clothes, shelter, transportation, food all taken in the order of need not desire. (It is difficult for us to put need before desire sometimes and it is especially true in times of great receiving. Many times we spend on what we want and not what we need and then suffer later on. Some folks call this buyers remorse. )

Investment is also Biblical and is used to bring forth more with which to bless others. So there would be some investment.

I believe that if I would follow these principles I would be able to enjoy the gift that I had received.

Given that this was a revocable trust given by a friend, the giver would not put any stipulations on it that would in anyway find my use in the described manner objectionable. If there were such objections then the gift would not be taken.

Thank you for enduring this long explanation of what I thought you were asking.

The post from mrproduce indeed gets at the heart of the passages cited by the "friend" in the original scenario. The point was and is that the friend had misused the scriptures as an attempt to lend warrant to his desire to do nothing about the poor.

The Deuteronomy passage, set in its wider context, lays out a clear responsibility to "open wide our hands" for the poor. And Jesus' words to the disciples that the poor would always be with them was not a sanctioning of poverty. It was, as I read it, a reminder that because they were a servant community, dealing with the poor thoughtfully and compassionately would always be part of their task.

Your exposition of those and other texts is solid and helpful, and I thank you for them.

As for whether government has a role, we may disagree about what scripture requires. If one reads particularly the Hebrew prophets, one begins to sense that individual compassion needs to be matched by a concern for social justice. Religious leaders and institutions came under special scrutiny, but so did the rulers of the people. In one translation of the opening verses of Isaiah 10, the prophet says, “Doom to you who legislate evil, who make laws that make victims – laws that make misery for the poor, that rob my destitute people of dignity, exploiting defenseless widows, taking advantage of homeless children.” (Is. 10:1-2)

We do not live in a theocracy, to be sure (although some seem recently to be pushing us in that direction), but it seems to me that the strong emphasis from the prophets on economic justice requires of us more than simply charitable giving; it requires that we be advocates for the poor and the oppressed in the civic arenas as well. It is a "both/and" for me. Faith communities have a responsibility to work for the commond good; so do governments.

At least, that's the way I understand scripture.

Ignoring the poor because "they will always be with us" is a rather negative view of the world and I wonder if the friend would apply that same logic to research for treatment of various diseases.

I believe all human beings seek community - a place where they feel safe, recognized, and valued. If we look at the various communities we all belong to, and we belong to several, you will notice that the community will rally around an injured member. To use a tired but true expression, the community is only as strong as its weakest link.

The poor are a weak link in our community whether we live next door to them or not and their suffering affects all of us if we just look at the big picture. This alone should move our hearts and our hands to do something, to not give up. For the hard hearted or hard of hearing, perhaps they should study the negative economic impact of the poor on our society and how ultimately, it hits everyone's pocketbook directly and indirectly. The individualism of our culture makes this hard to see unless you step out your door and look.

The gift is a hard issue. I can't help but think of the gifts given to the church and our stewardship of these gifts. Do we spend it to have better facilitates or offer more programs for our congregation in hopes of attracting more people in order to perpetuate the faith? Or do we share it with the community of needy individuals with no thought of ourselves? Which is the better form of evangelism? On the one hand I love and appreciate the grandeur of our space and the variety of our programs and on the other hand I am ashamed of the money we spend on ourselves. This applies to my personal spending as well. All I have to do is look at my closet and I am overwhelmed with a sense of shame.

Thank you for you comments. I too have read Ish in regards to passage of law that would bring harm to the poor, the weak , the widow etc. I am in agreement with that. My question has always been however just how far does the government need to go. Do they have an obligation to not only plant the crop but to harvest it and then hand it out to ALL. Or perhaps as was in the case with Ruth and Boaz. He saw her and was moved with compassion and told his labourers to leave some in the field that she might gather it. Do the poor not have a responsiblity as Ruth to go forth into the field of harvest and gather that which is left by the master of the field? Or do they simply line up at the thrashers door for a handout?
Please do not think me harsh toward the poor but I am a strong believer in giving a hand up rather than an hand out. I advocate the saying that it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish for just today.

I was moved by the comments made by Charles in his post concerning the gift. How true it is that we so often take the offerings and build plush buildings and develop program after program to attract people to our church. What kind of people do we draw to the church with all this finery, certainly in many cases not the ones who are in need. Churches have failed in their responsibility toward the community as I stated in my original post. There is much to be learned from the teaching of the Sabbath, the Sabbatic and the year of Jubilee. Contained in these teachings is not only a lesson for those who have much but for those who have little.
The parable of the talents in Matt: 25 14-29 speaks to this as well.

Churches have too long gathered on Solomans poarch and have refused to get off of it. Churches need to leave the confines of the santuary and go, as Jesus commanded into Jerusalem (home)Samaria(region) and unto the world.

Much of the ills of the world would be brought down if WE were to do such. In doing such we would be practicing what we preach. We have talked to death what needs to be done and done little to do anything about the needs.

What an example we would be to the rest of the nation and to the world.

I am not insensitive to the critique of the church's spending too much on itself, as suggested by both mrproduce and Charles. If that is all the church, or any religious organization, does, then we surely have lost our way.

I should add that I have had a very different experience of religious communities, however. The heart of the community I serve is fired by outreach ministries among those who have great needs. I know of many other congregations for whom the same is true. But I know that is not true everywhere.

Vaulted, cathedral spaces were never built for the sake of luxury. They were built to the glory of God, to symbolize the vastness of God, to point people toward the mystery of God. Of course, if that does not move people to consider the needs of the world around them and move them out of the spaces, then a crucial link has been missed between the two great commandments.

Vaulted, cathedral spaces were never built for the sake of luxury. They were built to the glory of God, to symbolize the vastness of God, to point people toward the mystery of God.

That may have been very true early in history however I find now that most are built to the Glory of Man, ie those who have founded them. I have seen too many of these edifices that are preaching the "social gospel" through the name it and claim it for riches gospel. They fly around on private jets and live in mansions while pleading for the poor to support the poor while it is they who are being supported in such lavish lifestyle.

Fortunately like you Pastor, I have had the wonderful opportunity to be part of a congregation that has in it's not yet 3 years of existance, starting with 75 and now at over 300, have planted 3 new congregations in areas of need, cover 2 other ministries (soup kitchen, counselling service also have an international medical missions team working under the covering of our congregation. They were early into the Aceh area after the tsunami and have returned again to once again treat and help those there. When not involved overseas they are working in our local community serving those in need.
I will hope that you not think me bragging. I am only giving God the glory for so richly blessing those who are seeking and following Him.

Thank you for sharing your wisdom and your opinion with me.

Although I think the spending practices of religious bodies is an interesting issue, I want to return to a comment made by Charles: "The individualism of our culture makes [the impact of the issues important to those less powerful] hard to see unless you step out your door and look." (I hope that I captured at least some of what he was saying in this paragraph.) I truly believe that the more powerful people in our society could genuinely understand the impact their actions have on others, they would behave differently.

Since we seem to have general agreement about our obligation to engage in direct service or mission with regard to our financial wealth, I want to issue another ethical dilemma, hoping that Rev. Dunham won't mind.

What responsibility does Greensboro as a community have for examining the causes, context, and consequences of the events of November 3, 1979, which resulted in the deaths of five people? Some people in this community obviously believe that it is necessary to examine the events of that day because they involve issues of race, labor and violence that still need to be addressed today. Others believe that the events should be left in the past and that addressing them now only serves to further divide an already divided community. Still others have different opinions. Given these different opinions, I'm left with a few questions:

Are there any connections between this issue and Charles's explanation for why we don't work toward the common good?

Also, since we seem to be having a conversation about ethics rooted in biblical text, are there any relevant scriptures offering us guidance on these issues of Nov. 3, 1979, and truth and reconciliation?

(In the spirit of full disclosure, I should say that I am the executive director of the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission and am genuinely interested in your responses to these questions. I hope that I am not innappropriately using this forum for this discussion. I think that talking about the Greensboro truth and reconciliation process through the lens of ethics and religion is a helpful exercise.)

I have read with interest the various posts arising from Bob Dunham's presentation last Wednesday (and his scenarios posted here) at the inaugural Kleemeier Forum on Christian Ethics, sponsored by First Presbyterian Church. As a member of the planning group for the Forum, I am encouraged by the dialogue begun here and hope it is the embryonic stages of one of the Forum's ultimate goals--to be a "place" the community (that is, the whole, diverse community) will be able to come to participate in discussions having ethical subjects and overtones. Jill Williams's use of the blog to raise the ethical issues of the events of 11/3/79 is entirely appropriate, in my opinion--exactly the sort of thing we have in mind. In fact, we want the Forum, in the future, to be a place to turn immediately at the time of 11/3- or 9/11-type events in our community.

We would love feedback about this vision and how we can make it happen.

We thank Bob Dunham and all our "posters" for their interest and input in our start-up project. And thanks again to the Kleemeier family for its generous gift to get the Ethics Forum off the ground.

Also, a reminder to all--Bob will move down Elm Street to the Green Bean after the conclusion of the second (and final) evening of the Forum at FPC tomorrow night for further informal conversation. Come join us for dinner beginning at 5:30 and Bob's presentation at 6:30, or we'll see you at the Green Bean afterward, probably around 8:00 pm.

With apologies for the delay in responding to Jill Williams, I do want to say that the events of November 3, 1979 are not only appropriate to this discussion, but exemplary of the kinds of issues that arise when we begin to talk about working for the common good. Especially in light of the conversation and decision at the meeting of the Greensboro City Council last evening regarding the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is important that we begin to see the larger context of the ethics of stewardship.

People of faith are called to be stewards of the gifts of God. Those gifts include not only physical resources, but matters of truth and righteousness and community. A few days ago, Charles said in his post, "I believe all human beings seek community - a place where they feel safe, recognized, and valued." He was describing the deeper and more lasting sense of peace and wholeness that is conveyed by the Hebrew word "shalom." Surely part of our stewardship of God's gifts involves ensuring such shalom in our communities... being agents of the peace God gives us.

This evening at the Kleemeier Forum, we will reverse things a bit from last week's order. We'll begin with conversation, and then I'll conclude our time together at the church with a presentation on the creation of a "stewardship society." During the conversation time, and afterwards at the Green Bean, I hope we will spend some time talking about the relationship between stewardship and the task and work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I look forward to being with you.

I would not look at it as an ethical issue unless she had minor children that were not provided for, in which case I would find some way to make sure the money went to them for their care or was put away for college costs or something because that would be the right thing to do. If that weren't the case, I would use the money to pay off my parents' mortgage so that they could relax in their retirement. I would do this FIRST and then if there were some leftover I would try hard to do something frivolous with it, which for me would be hard because I am very responsible and frugal with money as my family and friends constantly tell me.

P.S. I am writing this response before reading any other responses to be sure I share my gut reaction.

Bob wrote:

Vaulted, cathedral spaces were never built for the sake of luxury. They were built to the glory of God, to symbolize the vastness of God, to point people toward the mystery of God.

Hm. I have often thought that cathedrals, paricularly those built in the Dark Ages, were built on such an obscene scale to show the grandeur and political power of the Church. Certainly, the upper echelons of church heirarchy have rarely been known to scrimp on their own comfort, eh?

Bob wrote:

...He was describing the deeper and more lasting sense of peace and wholeness that is conveyed by the Hebrew word "shalom." Surely part of our stewardship of God's gifts involves ensuring such shalom in our communities... being agents of the peace God gives us.

This word from the Hebrew is very rich in meaning. Very similar to the Hawaiian "Aloha" which literally translates "breath of life." Learning these rich meanings and taking them to heart can help inspire people to build a better, more peacable and nurturing community.

But that's the key, isn't it? Finding ways to inspire people to reach for a better way to live. For me, that inspiration comes from outside the Christian tradition. For a lot of folks, unfortunately, the Christian tradition holds inspiration for things other than peace.

I'm glad this thread on ethics is being maintained, and that Bob is moving it forward. It's needed, and it's a mighty complex web to navigate and understand.

Aloha!