Beyond the dichotomy

In my last post, I promised to explore the concept of nice folk helping poor people, "embodying Jesus" and whatever else they think they're doing. I have touched on this before. But it might be good to delve into it some more.

In 2010, I wrote this post. Now if we spend a split minute asking ourselves which of the key protagonists is the most wretched in the eyes of God, it becomes obvious that it is not the homeless guy.

So on the one hand, we have a shelterless guy who has no access to food, water, sanitation or friendship. On the other hand we have a well catechised professed Christian. Again it might be interesting to ask which of the two is the most pitiable, or the poorest, in God's eyes.

This Faithless song lays it out quite well:

You look fresh, yeah
But all I got is dirt in my hair
My nightmares manifest,
But I can escape
Yours is in your chest
With no form or shape

The Middle Ages grasped something about this that we forget. Back then, it was the custom for whoever gave a coin to someone who was begging to request a prayer for the salvation of the giver's soul. The practice was probably very self-serving on the part of the givers, but at least the practice acknowledged that God listens to the poor, and that the salvation of the rich is in grave danger. Both the giver and the givee knew this.

Better still, in The Fear of Beggars, Kelly S. Johnson reminds us that in the Christian polity, we have supposedly surrendered our property at the feet of the apostles and from that point onward we should all become beggars, which is a stance more in keeping with our ontological dependence on God.

Nowadays we don't even recognise this, the poor are just left to be poor, both materially and spiritually. They've got nothing on us. But fortunately for all involved, progressive Christians have a bit to spare, both materially and spirirtually, and we're willing to dole out a few crumbs of it away.

Now, if the homeless guy and me were both to die and appear before God tomorrow what would God see? Probably that we were both desperately poor and miserable, desperately sad and full of unshed tears. The one coming at the end of a life deprived of earthly comforts and friendship, the other coming at the end of a life lived without a grasp and command of the most basic elements of the Christian Imagination.

But it is my hope that God would also affirm the "life, goodness, health, purity, and well-being of the dying, the sinners, the sick, the impure, and the poor" to use the words of Poserorprophet.

In my understanding of Dan's stance, life, goodness, health, purity and well-being are not simply things to be given out to people who lack them. They are primarily things to be affirmed in people who have already them. Despite all of the brokenness, God sees the life, the goodness, the health, the purity and the well-being of the homeless guy now. He sees them in me now. Maybe instead of pitying our miserableness -or the miserableness of others for that matter- we could begin by affirming these too.

But at the end of the day what I'm saying is: stop essentialising, we're all people. We're all sinners. We're all beggars for love. But despite our weaknesses (which I am not excusing or condoning) we are also beautiful and good and healthy and pure and well. Once we grasp this, there is much less scope left for any kind of condescention.

Cavanaugh's Being Consumed, a critical review

Occasionally, when reading a book on a topic that is of interest to me, I get to close the book again and think: "rats, if I want to read something good on this, it looks like I'm going to have to write it myself".

I was disappointed by this book, which reads like a rush job written for professional gain, rather than a genuine attempt at enlightening the reader. There is no depth to it and nothing I haven't read before (admittedly, this might be because I'm usually afforded a bountiful diet of good reading stuff).

Seriously, compare this meagre 100 pages rehash of things the blogosphere has been saying for yonks, with the early work of the likes of Mark McIntosh, and it leads me to think that there are early career monographs that are true labours of love, and early career monographs that are not. It reads like a long rant, supported by maybe fifteen sources, most of them are big hitters to be found on any first year undergraduate's reading list. I really hope that Cavanaugh got tenure and that he'll start writing good stuff again.

The thing that annoys me with authors who go on and on about something needing to be done about the poor is that they take money for granted. My thinking (and I suspect that was Peter Maurin's thinking too) is that you'd be better off trying to operate as much as you can outside money. It is not fully possible of course, not even for the likes of Jesus and his band of followers, but I think that this should be intented when possible.

This is my reading of giving back to Caesar what is Caesar's. It might be a way-out-there interpretation but it is mine and I own it. To me Christ's answer ammounts to saying: "Don't you see that by asking this question and using those coins you already are a part of Empire, and that Empire has got its grip on you through this".

Increasingly, I don't think money can ever be kosher, because no matter what kind of ethical job you do, it's all funded by profit made elsewhere and quite unethically. The same goes for being on the dole, since dole money was raised through taxes, and guess who got taxed. So my solution is do as much as you can outside of it. As I say, it is not always possible. But it is no surprise that alternative currencies are flourishing in Greece or is it?

Thus, it would be a good idea to go beyond Cavanaugh's recommendations of letting Communion wean you of your own desires for more stuff and towards giving more away. And when you do buy things, buy fairtrade and support companies with a triple bottom line. No shit Sherlock!? And if someone desperately poor gives you a present keep it and bring it back to your home in the first world as a reminder of what real sharing looks like.

So now, the concept of Christian desire is quite interesting, but I can't think of anyone that has treated it well (apart from me that is :-)). Even this dissertation on Augustine was a bit of a let down.

Additionally, I don't think that talking or writing about the poor as "the others" is all that constructive. To hell with Noblesse Oblige in all its forms. We would be well inspired to ditch the dichotomies of "the poor" and "the nice people who are in charge of benevolently helping them out by empowering them". But more on this in a next post.

Still the heart of the matter is that I'm tired of reading guilt-infused exhortatory stuff by liberal academics. I just want to read the "how tos" of people who have done it, and done it well.