When the Homily is about Immunology

Helping the Poor

As I mentioned in a previous blog post I have been reading St. John Chrysostom's sermons on Luke 15 (Lazarus and the Rich Man). Saint John's words are scalding to say the least and in my mind are MUCH better than anything Ron Sider has done...which I suppose isn't surprising given that Ron lacks an official halo. But whereas Ron would have Christian charity alter our voting habits, Saint John says nothing about politics.

Now of course, Saint John - not living in a democratic society - would not have had the chance to do something we take for granted and call VOTING, but none-the-less his sermon is directed solely at the the individual Christian and says nothing about government responsibility for the poor.

I wrestle with this issue a lot. I am, I think, concerned about poverty and I believe we are obliged (as Christians) to help the poor and needy of the world. I also believe that as a Christian I am obliged to look at and repent of my material excesses and my luxuriant lifestyle. But, I am less convinced that forcing people to give to the poor is the fullfilment of Christian virtue either.

So I tried to do a bit of research (by which to mean I did a google search) to see if I could get a better idea of how charity worked in the time of St. John. Was it left soley in the hands of the Church, as if the Church were a branch of the government? Or did the government have programs? I did find that Byzantines developed a system for orphans, but was it funded with taxes or donations? Both? Did you know that the Byzantine Empire effectively invented the hospital (according to the Journal of Interdisciplinary History)? Alas, I found very little and shall have to examine the matter with a bit more seriousness.

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, Jesus' commands are directed to ME (and to YOU) and He certainly never FORCED people to obey his commands (recall the sad rich young ruler). If the US welfare system collapsed tomorrow, could Christians step up to the plate? Fiscally I KNOW we could, but would we be willing? Would it mean I'd have to sell my PS2, this computer, my driftboat? Would I have to drive a beater instead of the Lexus? (I don't drive a Lexus, but rich people on the way to eternal torment do...not me oh no...my Trooper will do just fine at keeping me on the road to heavenly heights!)

So much easier to point to the OTHER, you know the REAL rich people and expect them to sacrifice on behalf of the poor - no matter what their beliefs might be. And how do we define rich? Well...umm...let's see, how about anyone who makes 10% more than I do? Or drives a Lexus, Hummer, or a ridiculously expensive eco-hybrid-car. (There...that ought to nail most everyone but me.)

I'm thinking outloud here folks...not really making definitive conclusions and would very much like to entertain further discussion of the matter.

As a side, Saint John also verbally lashes (to put it mildly) those who refuse to give because they believe the recipient would waste or use the funds immorally. How often have we heard THAT argument from people these days?