Century of the Self: The Limits of Hope

“The Century of the Self” is quite a documentary.  It raises a number of questions and provokes self-examination.  We are persuaded to not only ask about our own identities, but to also reflect on our social agendas and our politics.  Organizations like Hope for Charlotte are engaged in stimulating wholeness within our city and Charlotte has a growing tradition of grassroots efforts toward ends such as this.  “The Century of the Self” helps us to think about the challenges these individuals and groups face in bringing about just and right changes in our city.  Some of those challenges will hopefully be discussed here.

Robert Reich, former aide to President Clinton, said something profound toward the end of the documentary.  He said that the fundamental problem with our politics is that there are two visions of humanity.  One sees humans as irrational beings with massive subconscious desires that must be placated and controlled (Freud and Bernays).  The other sees humans as rational beings capable of discourse and worthy of respect.  He envisions politics that are not run by the elite, but by the general populace through rational discussion.  Here’s the question: Is there any substantial and sustainable hope for all citizens to be involved in this type of discussion?

We have to think through what it would take for most citizens to be rationally involved in our democratic way of doing and being.  First of all, how many people that you know and love actually take more than 15 minutes to think about politics or social issues?  An interest must be sustained in order for us to actually get somewhere.

Secondly, what medium will we use to have these discussions?  Phoning in to a live NPR show and airing our opinions doesn’t really do it.  Watching 30 minutes of CNN or Fox News and standing around the cooler with a minority of people who actually watch those channels doesn’t really do it.  In fact, most of the mediums we use for political discourse (maybe including this blog) don’t compel us to come out of our homes and gather with one another.  Most of our stories are now shared through radio waves and digital journals.  Our transparency is disembodied and impersonal.  The number of people we can smell and touch that know our longings for Charlotte, our families, and the world is slowly dwindling.

Finally, what skills/abilites are needed to engage in rational discussion?  Does everyone have the skill to discern between just and unjust, merciful and unmerciful?  Does everyone have the ability to do their own research and the ability to then share it among real people who may make them feel dumb?  Does everyone have the critical thinking skills necessary to participate in reasonable conversations?  Does everyone have the time to get involved?

Maybe we do need an elite after all.  Maybe we are all rational and worthy of respect, but we are not all called to change the system.  Limits of desire, culture, and gifts really exist.  What are your thoughts?

Lupton Discussion: Ch. 15 Making the Neighborhood Work

Lupton gives us two vignettes. One was of how teenage pregnancy is low in his community because of their neighborhood’s commitments to each other. The other was of how their neighborhood came together to catch and prosecute a thief that stole from several of the neighbors.

What I like about these stories is that they give a contrast to the program based approaches that so many of us have. Because neighbors trust each other, they agree on how they’ll deal with certain situations. They call each other and are there for each other. They have a loyalty to the cause—which is the peace of their neighborhood.

I guess this is where the really hard work comes in as a neighborhood.
How well do you know your neighbors?
What have you done to receive them in your home or spend time with them in or around a park?
What do you know about them besides gossip?
Have you ever constructed a plan in case of emergency?
Have you ever attended a neighborhood meeting?
Is your posture about housing prices one of consumerism or redemption?
Do you think about how life could be better for your neighbor? Do you even care?
Do you pray for your street?

Even as I write these questions I realize how difficult it is for me to thin like this. It’s counter intuitive but it’s right on the mark from a kingdom perspective. May we all encourage either toward righteousness and good deeds. And may we continue to beg the Holy Spirit to renew our minds and hearts toward living as if we were not the only things that mattered.

So You Really Want to Change a Bad Neighborhood: Lupton Chapter 14

 Great questions.  The first list is what a volunteer tacitly wants to know when serving a ministry.  The second list is what a ministry wants to know when a volunteer comes through the doors. 

1.  Will my investment make any real difference?
2. Am I really helping or is this just to make me feel good?
3. Will this be a personally meaningful experience?
4. Does this ministry really get at the root causes?
5. Will you value my time?
6. Do you just want my money or do you really want me involved?
7. Is the ministry cost-effective?
8. Are you open to change if I offer solutions or improvements?
9. Will you deal with me responsibly and follow through on your commitments?
10. Will I get feedback on how the mission is going?

 

1. How much staff time will it consume to put you to work?
2. Will your volunteering cost more than it’s worth?
3. Will the ministry actually get any money from you?
4. How much will hosting you pull us away from our mission?
5. Is this about you having a meaningful experience or about serving the poor?
6. Will you share your contacts/networks with us?
7. Are you more concerned with measurable results than being faithful?
8. What is your agenda, really?
9. Can you serve without feeling the need to take over?
10. Will you attempt to control me with your money

 

These lists collide at points.  Time and good experience versus faithfulness and effectiveness.  Money and networking versus usury and manipulation.  Personal versus systemic.  But I love that Lupton writes them out for us.  Let’s face it, we all have agendas.  They all need to be checked and known as best as we can.  Some of us want to be used well.  Some of us want to feel better about the way we spend money.  Some of us want to lead and some of us just want to really better the mission. 

 

I think both sides should have this conversation with each other—a lot.  It can bring understanding and honesty that only aids the mission. 

 

But I’d like to add some two more questions to the both sides.  Call them 11. and 12. for both lists.

 

1. Do you love the neighborhood and its neighbors, or do you love the idea of your place as servant or leader?

 

This question reveals an others centeredness and our commitment to the beauty of a place.  Love of a neighbor and neighborhood precedes its restoration.  No one sacrifices for something that they hate.  But people will give there lives for what they love.  My favorite exposition of this is in from G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy where he describes the run down neighborhood of Pimlico and what it needs first. 

 Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing — say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.   

Second question:

 

1. Do you really want relationships or do you want to just do a good job?

 

In the present state of mercy and justice ministries, there is a stated value to make our service about relationships and not just deeds.  Some volunteers state they want to be in “relationship” with the poor.  I’m not sure that this value needs to be pursued with as much vigor as we once thought.  Social capital is hard to come by when working cross-culturally and cross-socio-economically.  Deep distrust remains—from both sides.  The cost may be too heavy for that risk at first. 

 

In the South especially, we have a pathology that says if we are friends or close, then everything is OK.  If we can be nice to each other, then all is well.  That’s a lie.  As I’ve talked to poor folks, they often aren’t looking for another friend (sometimes poor communities have tons better social networks than the burbs).  They are looking for comrades in a mission of betterment or development.  Fellowship is secondary to mission.  Friendship comes as we fight for justice and peace.  Fellowship of the foxhole, if you will.  So we need to ask the question of whether or not “relationships” are the end, or the mission is the end.  So I ask this 12^th question a little differently than the others.  It’s not an either/or.  It’s not a right/wrong.  It’s an expectation.  You may want a relationship with someone who doesn’t want one with you.  Or visa versa.  Doing a good job is a kingdom service.  Having an easy relationship with someone different than you can be too.  But it’s not necessary to work toward the peace of a neighborhood.  Colleagues for good and co-belligerents against injustice can be good enough.  

 

Lupton Discussion: Ch. 13 Going Deeper with Development

“Dignity, not pity, will work every time.”

I know many of you are reading the blog more than the book. If you are doing that, please read chapter 13. First metaphorically, then in live-bodied detail, Lupton tells the story of moving from individual betterment to community-wide development.

And here’s where my earlier comments about imagination and dreaming come in again. We can do this. Food co-op’s are possible; so are community restaurants. It’s really doable. We need some dreamers and some social entrepreneurs. The money will follow the vision and the community’s commitment.

Now I’m not sure the dignity will work every time…but I do think we should how leave pity for something more beautiful, more enduring.

May God give us the sanctified imaginations and emboldened courage to work for better ways.

G

Lupton Discussion: Ch. 11: Servants or Friends

Well, there is a first-time for everything. I’m going to disagree with Lupton here.

Lupton makes a distinction between the biblical metaphors of servant and friend. But that’s not the problem. Those distinctions are clear enough. The problem comes when he’s advocating the abandonment of one for the other. After a short history of the abuses in using the language “servants” of God, he makes the case that Jesus preferred this language because “he knew that servants would always become lords but friends would not.” Now he quotes a heart-warming passage in which Jesus calls his disciples friends and “no longer servants” to make this point more clearly. Now the problem is that the rest of Scripture uses both metaphors—in a celebratory manner. Jesus calls himself servant. Paul, the same. In fact, slave. Then he calls all who call upon Christ, servants/slaves. It is the nature of any Lord. The problem is not that we should stop thinking of ourselves as servants of the King, but that we she think more rightly about the nature of servant hood in the kingdom. For that matter, the nature of friendship, slavery, and lordship.

Lupton’s instincts for the manner of servant hood remain spot on—he gets the upside down nature of the kingdom. And it’s moving. But the problem with us not getting is not semantic. Nomenclature is not our error, but embodiment. The solution to our need for clearer biblical servant hood will never be abandonment in name or metaphor. It will be in our living out the principles of the Kingdom that has a King. A professor of mine would often say about arguments like these: Abusus usum non tollit. Not sure how tight the translation is, but I understand it to mean “abuse does not take away use.” Or better, “abuse is not corrected by disuse but by right use.”

OK so why all the semantics. Well, it’s born out of a real and right and biblical desire for a new and more beautiful way. Lupton longs for us to treat each other with dignity and respect. Lupton longs for and hopes for and works for followers of Christ to embody the beauty of the kingdom in action AND manner of action. These instincts are right, true, good, and beautiful. I applaud him for these.

But its never good to abandon biblical metaphors. Servant-hood and its language needs to be redeemed. And we need Lupton’s voice and others to draw the distinctions—not between servants and friends—but between faux-servants (mis-servants) and real servants. He has the prophetic instinct and power to do so—and we’d all listen if he did.

Lupton Book Discussion: Ch. 10: The Problem of Parking

The church and the community are in conflict about the use of land.   Parking lots or houses?  Lupton talks about this in S. Atlanta.  But it’s happening everywhere.  Something is deeply wrong.  He gives no solutions, but he gives guiding principles.

 “A community devoid of the influence of the Church will surely suffer from a lack of spiritual vitality.  And a church alienated form the people who live around it can hardly bear faithful witness to its creed.” 

Then he ends with the question of who will make the first move.  I’m a churchman, a pastor.  From my perspective, the question is whether or not I believe we are called to minister in the time and space of our own community.  Are we so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good?  Practically, do we know and use the businesses in our community?  Do we know names and issues and the drama of our neighbors—good and bad?  Ironically, isolation is the hallmark of the digitally-connected age.  Back porches are elaborate and front porches are gone.  We don’t even have to face our neighbors because we don’t have to get out of cars to park in the garage.  Isolation—is not just the absence of community…it precedes that absence with an attitude that we don’t need each other. 

Lupton Discussion: Ch. 9: Occupying the Higher Ground

I deeply appreciate Bob Lupton’s humility in this chapter.  Many years ago he was convinced that creating a neighborhood of low income houses was the way forward for his community.  Standing on the higher ground, he fought off the “yuppies’” attempt to force him to sell the land and build a neighborhood of middle to high income homes.  He “knew” he was standing on the side of justice. 

Fast forward several years and the area is crime ridden and bringing violence to the community.  It was a mess and they began to fix it by evicting perpetrators and rehabbing the houses to create a mixed income neighborhood. 

Funny enough, I first visited Bob Lupton about 6 months after the rehabbing.  It was “the paradigm shift” of their ministry.  No more low-income-only housing.  Mixed income neighbors in a mixed income neighborhood.  It’s wild to think that isolating the poor in single neighborhoods as a matter of public zoning and policy is almost vacated in most cities in our area now.  It seems to some degree, governments have learned that this is a bad idea.  That said, I don’t think it has hit the private sector yet.  Gated communities and small variations in housing costs still reign.  People want to be around people with their same economic values.  There is a market for it.

So what is the moral value here?  I hope that it doesn’t sound odd when I answer the question with the word/concept—beauty.  When you stroll or roll around Charlotte, tight-landscaped, large homes, with well-wrapped trees have become the model of beauty in a home and neighborhood.  We tear down old buildings to put up well-designed stores with just the right amount of pine straw and parking.  And the facades look clean and careful.  With all that said, one might say that Charlotteans care too much about beauty—cars, clothes, and homes.  But I think just the opposite is true.  They don’t care about beauty enough.  Beauty is a moral category.  Like the wonderful parental instinct that tells a child they are acting “ugly:” wrong behavior is a lack of beauty.  So we need to re-evaluate beauty again.  Why have we assumed that Wisteria Lane meets the Truman Show is idyllic beauty?  Where is our view of diversity—economic and cultural? 

It’s odd, we like neighborly beauty the same way the desperate patient likes plastic surgery.  It’s a lot of effort for a faux-beauty.  Face-lifts are like facades on houses. 

 So what’s the solution?  Well, just like we need a redeemed view of beauty for women—where stretch marks for those who’ve had children are celebrated and not condemned.  We need a redeemed view of beauty that will look at smaller houses with older cars as something to be celebrated.  If we are convinced that these things are beautiful, then we will value them—with our checkbooks.  There will be market for it.

Lupton Book Discussion: Ch. 8: On Doing Good

The chapter ends like this: Perhaps the best giving is the kind that enables the poor to experience the blessedness of giving. It’s a beautiful summary of the concepts of reciprocation and development that he’s brought up so far. I think he’s right and his principle of not doing anything for anyone that they can do for themselves is a good one-generally. His examples are fabulous and my hope is that we’ll be challenged by them.

First he tells the story of a food co-op that emerged from a free food pantry. Now there are four, serving 120 families, each of the staffed by those in their own community. Beautiful.

Now the one I really love is the second. A real estate entrepreneur, bought, re-hab-ed, and transformed a neighborhood. He added mixed income, cleaned up parks, and made it a safe, inviting place to live. Then he used his considerable experience and salesmanship to bring a Publix to the community. Employment, quality food at a low price, stability to the local economy, and beauty. Now that’s what I’m talking about.

Some of you reading this blog have tons of expertise and capital and people resources to make these kinds of things happen. Go for it!

But let’s come to grip with what Lupton says will keep us from this better way. First, he says, good feelings. Second, ease. Frankly, working for the poor is always easier and more immediately than working with the poor. Less complication. Less mess. Unfortunately, less dignity for both parties: one party suffers the indignity of perpetual neediness; the other suffers the indignity of perpetual arrogance.

I’d like to add a third though. I think there is one more “thing” that gets in the way. Our lack of imagination. We do not dream enough. We do not contemplate with creativity. We do not hope and imagine. I’m not sure anything is more important than this. So many of you are entrepreneurial, so many are risk takers, so many know the delay of gratification for the future. I’m convinced if we could dream of better ways to create, sustain, and restore holistic community, we could commit to it. We need to mull some more-letting the Spirit blow through our hearts and minds and dreams.

Let me give you an example: Hope for Charlotte has been considering purchasing a house or duplex to help with the extraordinary need for transitional housing in Charlotte. He told the idea to real estate person who said, “Why don’t you try this out with a few rentals first. See what you need and learn you lessons before raising a couple hundred grand for the housing?” Then I got to thinking, why don’t we rent it in a middle income neighborhood or on a street that would be a delight to live in for anyone? Shoot, why don’t we make it as nice as possible-even nicer than anyone would hope. Then empower the home renter with incentive rental rates and all sorts of other support. And that’s 15 minutes of dreaming with Jeremy Sorzano, our executive director.

So let’s do the dangerous thing-dream, imagine, hope, and then work toward that end.

I think a better approach to this is to think of ourselves as the recipients of the incarnation-recipients of God’s loving and just kingdom. And now believers in that kingdom are gathering to bring that love and justice to bear on the world. The second verse of the famous mini-hymn “They will know we are Christians by Our Love” really helps here.
We will work with each other, we will work side by side
We will work with each other, we will work side by side
And we’ll guard each man’s dignity and save each man’s pride
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
Yeah, they’ll know we are Christians by our love.

Our manner is to be less about being incarnational and more about working side by side to guard dignity and pride (of course not hubris, but good pride).

This is why Lupton is so revolutionary. He demands respect-not of and for himself alone…but for those with whom he interacts. We need to be on guard for the transactions of dignity and respect that occur in our attempts at ministry. We need to trust that the kingdom has the power to come and bring healing and development (theologically speaking healing and sanctification) to people holistically.

Here’s the challenge. Think of the ministries that we do that require no exchange of dignity and lets try to figure out how to make the more developmental. Any ideas?

Lupton Book Discussion: Ch. 7 Betterment to Development

What a chapter.  Bob Lupton has hit the mark on balancing compassion and justice.  He starts with a two categories: Betterment and Development.  (for those who are used to my teaching on this, use the words Emergency and Empowerment ministries).  But I think I like Lupton’s better.  Betterment: improvement done by an outside source.  Development: self-improvement done by one’s own community.   The former is necessary sometimes.  It almost always feels better for the “giver” in the situation.  It’s easier all the time.  It is more efficient in the short run.  You can do it in a single workday.  But it’s not as good as we might think.  Betterment is too temporary and sustains a cycle of give-not give and take.  It’s not companionship, but parenting, benevolent dictatorship.  It’s not necessarily empowering but is almost always resulting in enablement.  As Lupton says, “betterment improves circumstances; development improves capacity.”

For years, I was taught that to go and be among the poor was what is called “incarnational”-referring to Christ taking on flesh for his people.  This is a great way to talk about our posture-humbling, present, and speaking the same language.  But it has an unfortunate undercurrent for us-it places the “giver” or “minister” in the place of God…typically creating a messiah complex.  Unintentional-but subliminally and all-to-often it creates God complexes. 

I think a better approach to this is to think of ourselves as the recipients of the incarnation-recipients of God’s loving and just kingdom.  And now believers in that kingdom are gathering to bring that love and justice to bear on the world.  The second verse of the famous mini-hymn “They will know we are Christians by Our Love” really helps here. 

We will work with each other, we will work side by side
We will work with each other, we will work side by side
And we’ll guard each man’s dignity and save each man’s pride
And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
Yeah, they’ll know we are Christians by our love.

Our manner is to be less about being incarnational and more about working side by side to guard dignity and pride (of course not hubris, but good pride). 

This is why Lupton is so revolutionary.  He demands respect-not of and for himself alone…but for those with whom he interacts.  We need to be on guard for the transactions of dignity and respect that occur in our attempts at ministry.  We need to trust that the kingdom has the power to come and bring healing and development (theologically speaking healing and sanctification) to people holistically. 

Here’s the challenge.  Think of the ministries that we do that require no exchange of dignity and lets try to figure out how to make the more developmental.  Any ideas?

Lupton Book Discussion: Ch. 6 Helping John

The classic question for urban ministries workers: What do I do about the guy on the street who asks for money?  This is such a complicated question-because the same words can be asked by a slew of different people with different motivations and different desires.  Some are asking to know an efficient way of dealing with their feelings of guilt and discomfort.  Others ask with hearts aflame with compassion but with little sense of what it might take to hear some of the answers.  Others are asking for clarity about responsibility as if it were a philosophical question alone.  Some are just asking because they don’t know what to do and are not yet sure if they want to do anything at all. Lupton’s answer: Due diligence.  Self-admittedly he says that it’s not satisfying.  And we’d all agree.  I guess the answer has to be more than a desire for the immediate remedy of an awkward situation.  I couldn’t agree more. 

As I’ve thought about the question, I’ve come up with at least two rails to ride on:  Call them the Macro and Micro rails (or make up another two names if you’d like.)  Unfortunately, the questions have to be answered in with other questions.  So here they are.

Macro: What does the thrust of your life look like in these situations?  Do you know your city’s places for care?  Do you know the process one would have to go through to get help?  Do you know which soup kitchens are open when?  Do you have a sense of what is needed in your community?  And more largely, how have you voted?  Do you know those whose policies will actually help people and their communities?  Are you informed of the issues that hurt the poor?  Do you care about them?  A friend of mine used to say that I don’t want you to work at a soup kitchen after work if at work you just cut a deal with predatory lenders.  That’s the Macro rail

Micro:  Do you know the person?  His name?  Her story?  Have you listened to what’s going on?  Do you know them as neighbors, friends, fellow congregants, or just strangers?  Do you spend the time of due diligence to free folks not to lie to you?  Do you have any relationships that can help you with these kinds of questions? 

I’m not sure that these are all that helpful of answers…or further questions.  But I do think they give us rails to run on.  And here are the other rails.  Wisdom, prayer, hope, and love.  Biblically speaking, it’s unjust to help someone continue in his or her lies and deception.  But Biblically speaking, it’s not always wrong to suffer injustice for the sake of love of neighbor.  Somewhere between those tensions of grace is where we must live.