Who Are the Strangers?

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’” ~Matthew 25:35-40 NIV

Have you ever thought about who the strangers Jesus talks about in Matthew 25:31-46 are?

The entire passage is profound in what it demands of Christ-followers. The “goats” and “sheep” both appear to be the folks that have accepted Jesus as their Lord and King. The people being judged are Christians. And they are separated out according to their actions regarding the most marginalized and vulnerable in our society – the poor, the sick, the oppressed, the “strangers.”

Who are the strangers?

Dictionary.com defines “stranger” in part: “an outsider;” “a person who is unaquainted with something;” and “a person who is not part of the community, as a visitor or guest.” I would submit that any one of these does a good job of describing the gay or lesbian or trans person who encounters a Christian in America today, at least or especially in conservative or traditionalist circles. But are they really being invited in?

In my experience as a transgender Christian, no. Even though I identify as part of the Christian community, a member of the body of Christ, I feel like an outsider and I'm treated that way. For instance, I used to have a close friend who now shuns me for my “blatant lifestyle of sin,” even though I strive to follow Jesus to the best of my ability, and have been celibate for six years. Similarly, I find almost nothing I can relate to in GotQuestions treatment of Gender Dysphoria (GD). (I hope to break that down in a future post.) I wrote to them about it, and when I questioned their use of condemnations against homosexuality to condemn GD, they refused to answer. Part of inviting someone in is to listen to them, to hear what they say and recognize the validity of their experience, whether you agree with it or not. Too often, that doesn't happen.

Inviting the strangers in doesn't mean you have to agree with them. It just means you embrace them as Jesus' loved little ones, and trust Him to transform their lives. That's His job. Ours is to open the door.

But based on the many Christian doors that have slammed shut in my face, I'm guessing there will be a lot of Christian goats on Judgment Day.

Jesus, Republicans, and Charity

A man who calls himself the "Playful Walrus" brings up a number of issues in this post. I’d like to respond to several of them, but it will take some time to do it, and more than one comment. 

The first I’d like to discuss is this: “Conservatism generally (if not all individual conservatives) promotes … private charity…. These are all very much part of what Jesus taught and affirmed.”

 

and

“Jesus ordered His followers to take care of the poor, not the government. He didn't advocate stealing from the rich to "care for the poor".  He told a rich man to sell everything he had and give it to the poor himself, not to sell all he had and give it to Rome for redistribution.”

and

“Leftists, including some Democrats, cite God as Creator and Jesus' acceptance of prostitutes and others marginalized by society during his earthly ministry, His message of forgiveness, His "cast the first stone" and "take the plank out of your own eye" statements, His commands to take care of the needy, His "turn the other cheek" statement, and His willingness to be beaten and crucified as examples of why Republicans and conservatives are wrong and why Christians should support Democrats in their efforts to:

-expand government social spending…”

He makes a good point here, linking Jesus’ teaching to charity. In fact, it is probable that conservatives do give more than liberals. (I say probable because: a. the study linked to is from a conservative think tank, so may be corrupted by agenda; b. it does not appear to be peer reviewed or confirmed by other studies, at least through my brief google search; and c. I don’t think it adequately accounts for variables such as career choice, where liberals may be more engaged in helping the disadvantaged through paid labor.) However, what jumps out is that religious people give more than non-religious people, and that extends across political lines. In my own community, my church and a number of others provide or support soup kitchens and camping places for homeless people. The Catholic church supports a homeless shelter, including some small houses for families. So he is right: conservatism does promote private charity – but so does liberalism, and religion in general. 

But what did Jesus really say about government caring for the poor? In talking to the rich man, Jesus instructed him that selling his goods and giving to the poor was what the rich man needed to gain the kingdom of heaven – there was no connection to government. It was for his (the rich man’s) own sake. When asked if it was lawful to give tribute to the government, He said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” When he was taxed, he didn’t protest, or try to weasel out of it – he sent Peter to get tax money from a fish’s mouth. 

But even with all the good it does, can private charity successfully address our society’s need?

-          - Following the social spending cuts in my state during Newt Gingrich’s “Contract on America,” a wave of mentally ill people were cut off from the medications and support they needed to stabilize and improve their lives. Unable to hold a job or provide for themselves, or even to effectively navigate society, they became homeless, and many of them remain homeless to this day, wandering the streets in filth, starvation, and deepening desperation. Christian charity did not step in to fill the gap.

-        -   My partner has worked extensively with autistic children in early childhood intervention programs. She has helped a number of them mainstream, others become socially functional. In this she has worked with a both government agency, and with a private NPO funded primarily by private donors and foundation grants, with limited government grants; and while she believes the NPO is more effective, and a lot more fun to work for, the government agency serves more people, and the NPO is constantly struggling to stay afloat.

-       -   After her first husband abandoned her and their two small children, my sister was left with no means to support herself and her children. My family was going through its own hard times, and we were unable to provide enough for food or rent. She needed housing assistance and food stamps to get by. Over the course of the next 10 years she survived a second, abusive husband (he did 6 years for child abuse) and ongoing poverty, and had a third child. Using Pell grants and other state funding, while also working part time to support her family, she earned a bachelor’s degree in history and went on to work as an archeologist for the Forest Service, making a valuable contribution to conserving our nation’s heritage. 

I’m reminded of the old saw, “Give a person a fish, feed her for a day; teach her to fish, feed her for a lifetime.”

Private charity is a good thing. It makes a valuable – even essential – contribution to American society and well-being, and it can do more. (In “Radical: Taking back your faith from the American Dream,” David Platt makes an impassioned plea for Christians to – to put it mildly – increase their contributions to the less fortunate throughout the world. It’s worth a look.) However, the preamble to our Constitution states that the purpose of our government includes to “promote the general welfare.” Social spending, including education, housing and food assistance, health care, and so much more, is not only an essential function of government, it is in keeping with our Christian values as a nation – whether we are conservative or liberal, or fall somewhere in between.

The 23rd Psalm

A Christian Scientist forwarded this breakdown of the 23rd Psalm and I really like it, so I share it here. He didn't know who wrote it, so I don't know either; if anyone knows, share it with me and I'll attribute it to hir.

Psalm 23: A Psalm of David (KJV)

The Lord is my shepherd; - that's relationship
I shall not want. - that's supply
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: - that's rest
He leadeth me beside the still waters. - that's refreshment
He restoreth my soul: - that's healing
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness - that's guidance
for His name's sake - that's purpose
Yea, though I walk through the valley of death, - that's testing
I will fear no evil; - that's protection
For Thou art with me; - that's faithfulness
Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me. - that's discipline
Thou prepareth a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: - that's hope
Thou anointest my head with oil; - that's consecration
My cup runneth over. - that's abundance
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: - that's blessing
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord - that's security
For ever. - that's eternity

Limbaugh vs. Fluke

By now, surely nearly everyone in the United States has heard about Rush Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke, the college student who testified on the federal contraception mandate for health insurance.  The flap began with the objections of certain religious organizations, such as the Catholic church, to providing coverage for contraception under the new federal mandate, and the ensuing all-male hearing on it before the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee. I find this stand of some churches deeply ironic*, but fine – my feelings about their policy positions are irrelevant in this instance. What is relevant is the freedom this nation guarantees to its religious institutions, the benefit to and obligation of society to ensure the availability of health care for its members, and equal treatment of every individual under the law. 

So grant a religious exemption from the contraception mandate, under the condition that any institution which chooses this exemption provide a “cash bonus” in every woman’s pay package that is adequate to pay for the contraception she needs on the open market. The church then is free from supporting a “sin” it dislikes, while the contraception needs of its employees are met fairly. Then the “sin” is born by the individual, should she choose to spend her bonus in this way, and not by the religious institution.

The harsh rhetoric on both sides is a socially destructive waste of time.

* Denial of contraception increases the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, driving the demand for abortion up. Prohibition of abortion drives supply down. The natural result is an increase in the price of abortion, with providers stepping in to enjoy the rewards of higher prices. Women with resources leave the country to get safe, legal abortions in countries where it's legal. Desperate women seek back-alley abortions, with all the health risks that entails. Women without resources birth unwanted children into a life of poverty, neglect, sometimes abuse, and often, eventually, a life of crime. (See "Freakonomics," by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner.)

Dancing With God

Some time ago I read an article titled “5 Lessons From the Dance Floor,” which drew an analogy between ballroom dancing and one’s relationship with God.  I found it inspiring, and since I enjoy ballroom dancing it touched a chord. I copied the five basic ideas down, and since then I’ve carried those in my wallet. Every once in a while I pull them out and review them. Today, I thought I’d explore them anew here. I don’t remember the details, the author, and so on, so I’ll just paraphrase what I remember, and what it means to me now, and hope that it brings blessings to any who read.

Lesson 1: Let Him lead.

On the dance floor, things get ugly if I try to lead. It’s my job to follow, and to be as responsive as possible to all the little signals my partner sends me. Often these are subtle – a light pressure on my back, or the bend of a wrist – but the more in tune I am to pick up on this, the more graceful we are as a couple. I have more fun, and a great sense of teamwork. It’s like that with God, too – when I relax and follow His lead, joy springs alive throughout the day and into the night.

Lesson 2: Trust Him.

Can I successfully follow my partner if I don’t trust him? I need to have faith that he won’t crash me into one of the other couples on the floor, or drop me during a dip. In turn, that faith allows me to respond more fully, experience more richly. I need to trust God, too – and know that He will never drop me, never leave me without the resources to meet every need, every crisis, every eventuality. When I go forth in the morning trusting God, bad things happen less often; and when they do happen, I shift to a place of peace and confidence, even in the midst of pain and chaos.

Lesson 3: Don’t anticipate.

I’ve been guilty of this one a lot – guessing my partner’s intention, for instance going into a spin before I get the signal, before he’s ready. It doesn’t work. I need to wait for his signal, wait for his timing. So it is with God. Things happen best on His time. An example is this blog – it’s been around a long time, and it hasn’t reflected what I wanted to say, because I anticipated; I knew I wanted a political blog, but I didn’t yet know what I wanted its voice to be. I knew I wanted to express my faith, assert my views, hurt no one, and hopefully bring a higher tone to the blogosphere and our national political discourse, but how do I do that? I don’t know it all yet, but this post, the first in a year, feels right.

Lesson 4: Be strong.

Have you ever danced with a wet noodle? When I hold my frame strong, rather than let my arms hang limp, I’m more sensitive to being led. Likewise, when I have confidence in God’s leading and all-power, when I hold strong with Him, good things happen. 

Lesson 5: Lean toward Him.

It’s easy to lean back against your partner, but I find that keeping balance on the balls of my feet enables me to move more gracefully and maintain better balance and responsiveness. This causes me to lean toward my partner. To know God, to love Him, we need to lean toward Him. The more I lean toward Him, the easier I respond to His lead, the more I feel the comfort of His presence.

There you have it. I’m sure I’ve gotten a number of these very different from the original article, but that’s okay – this is what it means to me now. It’s the basic ideas, I think, that are most helpful and important. I hope it makes your day a little brighter.

I found the comparison of these two arguments, for and against marriage equality, telling:

Zach Wahls...

And...?

If this is the quality of the debate on Iowa HJR6, it's kind of scary that it passed.

In light of our Constitution, seems to me that the argument in "Opposition to Civil Marriage" really should have provided added impetus to oppose HJR6.