This post is the work of my good friend (and also my first guest-blogger) Jack Conroy, Ph.D., Retired Assistant
Professor of Theology. Thank you Jack for your contribution to this blog.
A Contemporary Challenge to the Gospel Call for Charity
Matthew 25:31-46 has been well
known as being the Scriptural root of organized charity. In it we have the Son
of Man who sits on a glorious throne before all the nations and separates
everyone as a shepherd separates sheep from goats. The sheep have the honorific
location on his right and the goats on his left. What is the rationale? Four
times in the pericope the rationale is given: response or non-responses to
hunger, thirst, being a stranger, lack of clothing and alienation because of
prison. Why would anyone feed others or give drink or any of the other
activities listed? The “punch line” is verse 40: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of
mine, you did for me.” We have two issues: a) the recipients are the “least.”
This implies that there are people who are at the bottom of the social scale,
and these have needs that for some reason are not being met. And b) the Son of
Man/King identifies with these least, so that one responds not just to an impoverished
individual, but to the Son of Man; of course, the reader knows that the Son of
Man is Jesus himself, who gave himself for all of us. This affirms that the
“least” of human beings have the same dignity as Jesus. It is a primary reason
that people will give of their wealth to those less fortunate.
We were
fortunate to have a Kenneth Burns film on the Roosevelts shown recently for a
full week. Perhaps the most interesting element focused on Eleanor Roosevelt;
she was the first advocate for government to take a positive role in the
alleviation of the suffering in our society. She was not portrayed as a
religious person acting out of a gospel mandate. She just sensed a need and
then worked to respond to that need, whether it be food or drink or clothing.
Her influence on FDR reflected itself in the multiplicity of government
programs where the economic life was not segregated from the political life.
We find
ourselves today in a world Eleanor would not have imagined. The problem is that
about 42 million people in the US live below the poverty level. That’s about 13
percent of our population. Now there exist many programs to respond to this
reality, including food stamps, rent assistance, utility assistance and free
medical and dental services provided by various governmental agencies. The
difficulty is that the variety of programs have in some cases created a
multi-generational reliance on government instead of on a culture of work.
Thomas Piketty has written a book called Capital
in the Twenty-first Century that draws from extensive research the
conclusion that inequality in the world is growing, and that with the larger
number of impoverished people in the system, social instability is a potential
result. He drew the conclusion that it was this inequality that produced the
French Revolution, and suggests that other revolutions could be in the offing.
So, here’s
the problem:
- Our biblical roots demand response to those who are “least.”
- Reliance on individuals did not solve the problem, historically, so Government stepped in.
- Many have become reliant on the Government and, for a complex set of reasons, find they don't need to—or are unable to—work.
- They become angered at the system since they remain in poverty and consider revolution to be the answer.
Where’s the solution?
This, I propose, is a field of
research that could be effected through an intellectual team of theologians,
economists and business-school scholars. Great universities have focused their
research on science and technology. Here
is an area where co-operating scholars operating together might come up with a
socially acceptable solution that would provide guidance for those who see
Matthew 25 as a springboard for solving the problem of what happens to “the
Least.”
No comments:
Post a Comment