The temple? Destroyed. Jerusalem? Burned. The people were carted off captive, “scattered… with a whirlwind among all the nations” (Zech 7v14).
They returned years later with a lingering, bitter question. The ghosts of kings now enthroned in rubble ask the question. The nation still in ruins asks it. Grasses growing in the temple courts ask. Where priests prayed donkeys brayed the question: “Why?”
The tragedy so large, the devastation so broad, and the pain so deep, they ask: “Why?”
God answers, “the Lord Almighty said, ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other’” (Zech 7v9-10). God answers by reminding them of a command unheeded: to look after the widow, orphans, immigrants, and the poor, those Nicholas Wolterstorff calls “the quartet of the vulnerable” (Justice, p76). This quartet sings of their abandonment.
We were building a list of favorite Bible verses in class. A stoic and stern friend raised his hand. John recited his verse ponderously: “God helps those who help themselves.”
“And what is the reference?” He didn’t know, but was certain it was “in there somewhere.” I asked him to come back next Sunday with the reference so we could all find it. He returned with an announcement: “I apologize, I was certain that verse was in the Bible, but it’s not. Maybe Ben Franklin said it, but not Jesus.”
Zechariah says: “When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen” (v13). God helps those who help themselves? It seems much closer to scriptural truth to say, “God helps those who help widows, orphans, immigrants, and the poor.”
What about when God decides to remain silent? At what point do we trust God is going to intervene and what point do we prepare for when He decides not to?
Hey Craig:
In the case of Zechariah and the Israelites, it was a simple obedience problem, I think. They were commanded to care for the orphan, the widow, the poor and the immigrant, and they did not. I wonder if we wait to hear from God and he is thinking, “Um, why don’t you do what I ALREADY told you to do.”
For more from the #IWasAStranger series go here for “The Republic of Awesome”
http://www.daviddrury.com/2013/04/02/the-republic-of-awesome-a-folk-story-on-immigration-iwasastranger/
I’d be interested to know your definition of “care for.” In the Old Testament it primarily meant “providing for the essential needs of food, clothing and shelter”; you might throw in a little “visiting the sick and those in prison” and some “accepting the stranger.” Today, “caring for widows, orphans, immigrants and the poor” seems to have expanded to providing education, health care, some luxuries, and fairness, sometimes at the expense of the aggrieved. When does compassion become enabling and is God less pleased with those who enable or those who lack compassion?
Tim–I won’t speculate on how much God is “unpleased” with those who “enable freeloading” for instance… I don’t see much in scripture on that… whereas I see a whole lot on the above matters of the quartet of the vulnerable.
I do, think, however, that Jesus answered your question in a way, when asked “Who is my neighbor?” (a clarifying question asked considering who we should give love to), he told the story of the Good Samaritan. I’m not sure who he would be “less pleased” by: a country that has a permanent cycle of entitlement, or a country that has a permanent cycle of oppression. All I know is 1) scripture only talks about the former, not the latter, as far as I can tell, and 2) Jesus is at minimum very pleased by those of us who act like the Good Samaritan and help those who are very different from ourselves. Whether God would all the sudden be disappointed if the Good samaritan provided for the beaten man some education (such as the seminar: “8 Reasons to Avoid the Road to Jericho”) I don’t know. He did pay for his health care in that passage.
The problem with all of this is extrapolating individual ethics to country-wide politics. In the above I’m talking about YOU, Tim, and ME… not about North Carolina and Indiana, or the United States in general.
I agree that the Bible is weighted toward acts of compassion. They seem, however, to be voluntary not mandated. It is God, not the government or even the Church, who sees acts of compassion, weighs their sincerity and rewards and blesses accordingly. They also seem to have limits (like the Samaritan not interrupting his trip but providing for the care of the traveler or the corners of the fields being left for the hungry; not half the field.) I also agree that personal responsibility quickly becomes socialistic when applied beyond the individual.
I hear you.
I would only add that scripture is somewhat silent on socialism, and in fact it is hard to not see some socialistic tendencies in a theocracy like Israel. Alas, the US is not a theocracy, it is a republic built on representative democratic principles.
Of course, HISTORY is not silent on socialism. It doesn’t seem to work well anywhere, and leads to totalitarianism nearly every time, unless it is tempered heavily by democracy as in a few European countries (although even those leave a lot to be desired). It will be interesting to see how China develops over the next 100 years.
Anyway–back to the previously scheduled program: God expects us to care for the widow, the orphan, the poor and the immigrant. Any objections?
No objections from me. for the record I am also in favor of Mom, apple pie and Chevrolets (unless they are subsidized by tax dollars). My only concern with discussions about HOW we help the poor is in what “helps” them. I don’t think it can be argued that our “compassion” here in the states has produced a dependency that isn’t healthy. I’m drawn to those efforts that are more localized. Me helping my neighbor seems to work more effectively than me paying a bureaucrat to do so.
well said.
the book “when helping hurts” is instructive on this point I think
I’m pondered the connection between the individual and corporate here. I’ve heard the church say (since the 60s) “Welfare is the CHURCH’S responsibility–not the states.” And I basically like that idea. At least I liked it until I did the math. In my county, if all the Christian churches–both Protestant and Catholic– took on the care for the poor and aged it totaled more than the total income of every church. There would be nothing left to pay staff, pay the mortgage, or heat a building. Churches have the power to collect voluntary tithes (at about 3% actually) but no power to tax the unbelievers or tax the casual Christians. One might argue that if the state reduced taxes people would flock to give the church 20% of their income but that would be a hard argument to make. Thus I have become more content with government doing the church’s welfare work—at least the government can make all the unbelievers and casual Christians pay too. In accepting this deal I do have to accept a lot of freeloading—as Tom referenced above. That’s the hard part. I have been a hard-working and fairly frugal person (except in buying backpacking and bicycling equipment) though my life and it is hard to see people “get for free” what I would expect people to work for. But I can accept this easier because I’ve reflected quit a bit on how much my churches through my life and my denomination have wasted money too. My childhood denomination once squandered a a million dollars in an investment boondoggle that collapsed, and so did a pension fund. Churches I have tithed to have hired people who did virtually nothing but show up for more than a year, using my tithes to pay their salary. Buildings that were never needed got built, and the furnaces for the whole building were left at 70 degrees all week. So, after reflecting on how the church wastes money So if the church had the power to force everyone who lives in my county to double tithe to them, and then the church took over all welfare programs in my county—I am not convinced they would be unwasteful either. So, I have come to accept that government does this command for the church, and I am sort of delighted that we get to force the 80% of the people in my county who will not attend church this Sunday—to also kick in their fair share. I am not saying this is a “settlement” others need to make—but it is one I have made and it sure makes paying taxes a slight bit easier… I still resent the war-waste taxes but at least I can accept the welfare part as going for something God commanded, howbeit with waste and freeloading. That’s my personal compromise on this issue.
Fascinating thoughts! I liked what you wrote on this subject here:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/church_social_welfare.htm
Your talk of frustrations with how others spend or take advantage of generosity speaks to an inner turmoil i’ve had in giving on a more relational level.
I’ve heard this argument that the principles of scripture are “for individuals” mostly, not “for the church” even… perhaps we have become so individualistic that I hear people saying that not even the church should do this work, but only me… as an individual. In fact, all the things you say about government above have been used as an excuse not to give a tithe to the church, for instance, or not to give to a denomination as a Church.
Yet we find statistically that the poor are in fact more generous than the middle class or the rich.
Odd.