Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Rise


So - I saw The Dark Knight Rises on Friday. Twice. I loved it that much. But I held off on my thoughts about it for a few days, because of what happened in Colorado early Friday morning. I also held off, because I wasn't sure of the right thing to say about everything. Some reactions in the media have been honorable. Others have been downright ghastly. People have blamed the film for this. People have spent more time talking about the shooter (I refuse to type his name here). It's not about the shooter. It's not about the movie. This could have happened at any big movie coming out; he just wanted a lot of people in one place at one time. It's about the victims. About Alex Sullivan who was turning 27 and tweeted that it was going to be the best birthday ever. It's about Jessica Redfield who had witnessed a shooting at a Toronto mall last month. It's about Matt McQuinn, who dove in front of his girlfriend and her brother. It's about the two active duty servicemen. And the survivors - like the guy who went to another theatre the next day to finish the movie "for those who could not finish it." I recommend this movie - when one is ready. It was fantastic, and we should not live in fear and let one man destroy something that was meant for entertainment. The guy who went back the next day conquered his fear right away, it seemed, but I must stress here that everyone deals with things in their own time. Some will never see this. Some will wait awhile. Just let everyone be. I say this also with that Twitter campaign in mind where people want to see the cast of Batman visit the injured in the hospital. Really, guys? REALLY?? Use some common sense, all right? Because this is not a good idea. If they want to go to the theatre after they heal, or wait til it comes out on blu-ray/DVD, or...just never see it, that's up to them. Don't force it on them. And definitely don't say that the actors should go visit them in character. No. Just...no. My prayers are with all of them. With Ashley, who lost her 6-year old daughter Veronica - and yet did not lose her unborn child, even though she took shots to the stomach and throat. With all of them, and with those who did not make it as well. 

By the way, due to not having internet from Tuesday until this past Saturday (and also not being a cable subscriber or getting my news from TV), I was completely unaware of what had happened in Colorado. My mom made some comment about it, that maybe we shouldn't go because we might get shot, and I had no idea what she was talking about. I was on Facebook later in the day on my phone, and there were random comments made - still no real idea that anything had happened. The theatre on Friday morning was mostly empty, but I chalked this up to it being a morning showing. Morning showings are never that crowded, and the ushers weren't going through the theatre any more than usual. Same goes for the showing Friday night in Lake Placid. There were more people, because it was a night showing. But again, nothing out of the ordinary in terms of security or anything like that. I didn't really start getting information until Saturday morning. I was not scared then, and I would not be scared even now that I know. We owe it to them to not be afraid. Because if we are, then the man responsible - yes, the man responsible - will have won. He is responsible for this. Not the movie, not the people who made the movie. He is. 

I'm not going to post a full review, but I will just tell you what I loved the most:

  • Michael Caine. Amazing performance as Alfred.
  • The final twenty minutes or so, which I found on YouTube today, and have watched several times since finding it. 
  • The plot twists. And that's all I have to say about that.
  • Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman - not nearly as bad as people thought she would be.
  • How everything with the three films together was tied up in a nice little package by the end. I can't wait for the blu-ray, because when I get it, I'm going to watch all three films back-to-back. I watched the first two Thursday night, but (obviously) didn't see the third one until the next morning.
  • Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He's good in pretty much anything.
  • Obviously, the scene at Heinz Field. I recognized Brett Keisel, Hines Ward, and Ben Roethlisberger straight away. And no way is Hines that fast. 
There were some flaws, some plot holes, but really...I didn't care. I kind of figured that Bane wouldn't hold a candle to the Joker, for one, although he was okay. Heath Ledger left some huge shoes to fill in terms of the role of the villain. I loved this movie. RISE.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Steel City...Soon to be Home

I finally heard from the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh last week. I'm on the waiting list for two complexes in the city. I'll take either one, because I want this so bad I can taste it. This is what will happen - especially if the apartment comes up when there's no snow on the ground. I'm going to walk virtually everywhere and take pictures. I was down there a couple of years ago, but my mom and I only spent a few hours. There was so much we didn't do. And I'm going to do it all. I'm going to Primantis for a sandwich. I'm going to Eat n Park again, to get a chocolate milkshake so thick you almost have to eat it with a spoon. Throw some grilled stickies a la mode on my plate also. I'm going to go to PNC Park and see the Roberto Clemente statue and the Willie Stargell gate. I'll go see Consol Energy Center and see the Mario Lemieux statue. I'll go up the inclines and go to the Point. Go to the zoo, go to the aquarium, if there is one. I've never been to an aquarium. All in the first week. If I get into the building I hope to get into - although I will take the other one - on Pressley Street, I'll be able to walk to Giant Eagle, a three-minute walk, and Allegheny Center Alliance Church, an eight-minute walk. I want to walk across the Roberto Clemente bridge and take the Gateway Clipper.

I will be able to fulfill my ministry calling in Pittsburgh as well. The Allegheny Center Alliance Church has an urban ministry outreach that I will be able to get involved in. I'll be looking for an office job that I can do. For now, I have SSI, and will have that when I get to Pittsburgh, but I want to get off it. I need a job that I can do, a clerical job. I'm just really excited now that I have a plan. I have an image in my head, I can see it. And the food, I can taste it. And I can't wait. <3




Thursday, April 19, 2012

It's Graduation, not a Campaign Stop


This morning, I and the rest of Liberty Class of 2012 got news that made our heads explode. Mitt Romney has been selected as the keynote speaker for our Commencement ceremony in three weeks. Everyone else's problem is that he is Mormon. It is not this that I have a problem with, although you'd think a Christian university would have selected someone in line with their beliefs. This country is not a Christian nation. You want a theocracy, go over to the Middle East or something. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Presumably, that extends to the office of the President. Nowhere does it say the President must be a Christian. Anyway. I have my own issues with Romney, most chiefly that he is so out of touch with the citizens of this country that it's not even funny. He says he doesn't care about poor people, that we have a safety net. Yet at the same time, he wants to eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is a huge part of that safety net. He does not, and will not, have my vote come November. But again, this is not the problem I have with him that is related to Commencement.

You see, graduation is about the school. It's about the students. The keynote speaker delivers an encouraging, empowering message. If this weren't an election year, I wouldn't care. But I can see him using this as a campaign opportunity, seeking our votes. It's neither the time nor the place, and I hope he knows better. Given what's come out of his mouth so far, though, I'm not so sure. I'm still going, though. There are a lot of people who are cancelling their plans, though, which I will admit, I think is a little strange. I didn't get to walk for my undergrad. It was a long walk that I was not able to do, but I could do now. So I'm going through it, because I want to walk, and have the whole experience. To do otherwise would be sour grapes, and I've really been looking forward to this. Still am.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Spoon Theory II: Don't Try to Solve a Situation About Which You Know Nothing


There's someone I know who...I know they mean well, but they're doing more harm than good, really. It's no one reading this, by the way. I had surgery four weeks ago, yes, but this goes back to before that even. An example is something that happened last Friday, but has happened before. I needed to go to the bank, Rite Aid, and Blue Moon. In that order. This person insisted upon driving me to all of these places. Oh - and the post office afterward, to get a card mailed. The only exercise I get besides my bands and weights is walking. I'm not allowed to take stairs right now as extensively as I normally do (I live five flights up, just for the record). "That's too much walking," I get told. No it's not. I'm tired of being treated like an invalid. I am capable of walking around town, it's not that hard. Yes, I get rides to church, and to Life Group and Game night. But that's because there are sidewalks missing along the route to church, and I really hate that three-way intersection by NBT Bank. And Life Group and Game Night are in the evenings. It's dark when we get out. But during the day, around town, come on. I get told, "But if you move away, there won't be anyone to give you rides!" Well, I didn't need them in Buffalo a couple of summers ago. It's a mile and a half between Paramount Parkway and Raintree Island, some of that along a busy highway. But I managed. Heck, I walked the 15 blocks between the corner of Bailey and Kensington and UB South Campus one day. By the way, Bethany, Leslie, Rachel...whoever else is down there in the city - I won't ask for a ride unless we want to do something or whatever. Then it would make sense. 

As you guys know, my parents aren't going to my graduation. There are several reasons for this. One is that my brother's fiancee is graduating from Buff State on the exact same day, so my brother will not be home to take care of the dogs. In addition, my cat is on canned food now, in the morning, so someone will need to fill her dish. My parents were also hesitant about going, which my friend Amy has not been. My mom actually had the audacity to suggest that this could be done all in one day. We go down Friday, and leave right after the ceremony on Saturday to come back. However, I absolutely must be there Friday morning for Commencement check-in. If I'm not there for that, I cannot walk on Saturday, which would defeat the whole purpose of going in the first place. This woman who's been insisting upon giving me rides has gotten really chummy with my mother. Um. Yeah. She keeps telling me, "Well, they MUST take you to your graduation! I'll watch your cat!" It's so much more than my cat...come on. I want to be able to enjoy my graduation, not go just to say I went. I went and just picked up my diploma at IC, bypassing the ceremony, but that was because I was unable to march, and also...I was right there. Not twelve hours down the road. 

I just wish people would get to know my situation before they judge what I can and cannot handle. This goes for a lot of people, in regards to a lot of different scenarios that I will not go through here. Only I can figure out if I have enough spoons. I get help getting to church, to Life Group, to Game Night...I had help getting around Buffalo last summer for Ben and Chelsea's wedding, but that was really because we were all going to the same place and doing the same things (hotel, church, reception, and back to the hotel). It just made sense. But this right now...no. It's nice to be offered, but I also get made to feel bad if I say no thanks. As for my parents going to my graduation...to people who really don't know, please don't act like you do. It's not okay.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

This is me. This is what I need **snark within**

OK, people, I've been hearing the following A LOT. Which tells me that a lot of people don't get it, which...of course they don't. They're not living my life. But here goes. I NEED TO LIVE IN A CITY. I NEED MASS TRANSIT. People think Saranac Lake is great. OK. It's great for you. It is, however, not, as someone put it, "self-sufficient." Especially for me. I cannot hold down a job here (much less one that is self-sustaining). I cannot drive. People who say, "But there are buses here" obviously have no idea how mass transit works. In places like Buffalo and Pittsburgh, if you want to catch the bus, you stand next to a sign that has the number of the bus you need to take to get to point B from where you are. This is called a bus stop. You don't have to call the bus to come get you. Secondly: hospitals. If something goes wrong with my shunt, it's not a neurologist I need. We're way past that point. I need a neurosurgeon. And yes, there is a difference. Saranac Lake cannot get me any of this. I appreciate people giving me rides to and from church and other places. Seriously. A city would give me complete independence, though. People tell me, "But you're supposed to be humble and depend on people!" No...Jesus taught us to depend on each other. It's a two-way street. Where I am now, people cannot depend on me. I cannot give back. I love how people are like, "Just go out and get a job." You have no idea...I don't see my disability, but every job interview I have been to, the interviewer has seen it. They don't ignore it. They don't say "Oh hey, no problem" either. They think, "Oh, she can't get to work," or "She's not smart enough." By moving into a city, I can make that first excuse go away. Small towns are great - for other people. But please, just because they're great for you doesn't mean they're great for everyone. That goes for everything, really.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Evangelism is...


So everyone in my building received a pill bottle in their mailbox today. This bottle contained, essentially, a tract. Not a Chick tract, but something created by a Lutheran church in Barre, VT; the idea being that Jesus is the Great Physician. The office downstairs was not happy about this, and even as a Christ-follower, I tend to agree. There's also the question of legality, due to where I live being public housing, but anyway. I'm not disputing that Christ heals, but coming to Christ is a very personal experience. The person who got through to me got to know me before he even tried to witness to me. I know that the Great Commission says that we are to bring Christ to all the people and all the world, but there are a lot of people who believe that that is our only mandate. It's not. Isaiah 58 and Matthew 25:31-46 are also our mandates and are actually the whole reason why I enrolled in seminary. Your actions mean as much as, if not more so than, your words. Preaching on street corners and through mass mailings does not alone make you a Christian. Shoving the Gospel down people's throats will not win them over. Trust me. I've been there. I got criticized in a class for wanting to help people whether or not they accepted Christ. The terms "Social Gospel" and "theologically liberal" were tossed around. I was even told how helping someone if they reject Christ is unbiblical. Let me tell you something. Jesus did not always win people over with words; and when He did, it was not like what we do today. The Samaritan woman? She was rejected by the Jews, all of them, except for Jesus. He asked her for a cup of water. Let me give you examples of what people do today: 

  • The group in Buffalo that used to picket outside the Capen library on UB North and tell non-Christians that they're going to hell and tell Christians that they're going to hell if they don't go to that group's church or read the King James Version.
  • People with disabilities get told that their disabilities are punishment for not accepting Christ.
  • The Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals and preaching messages of hate, which I will not repeat here, because said messages are incredibly vile.
  • Groups ambush people on the streets, and now, in the mail, with tracts, and other means of evangelism. While not absolutely horrible, it is impersonal and ineffective, due largely to the image of Christians that people have, thanks to the WBC, and other fundamentalist groups.
Jesus never did any of this. He never condemned people the way we condemn them now. He didn't tell people they were going to hell. He never told women who didn't have children that they weren't going to get into heaven, either. The Samaritan woman? He merely told her He knew of her indiscretions. He did not condemn her. The tract thing is ineffective, because it is impersonal. People get a tract from a stranger, they will throw it away. "You're trying to change me...you don't even know me." They interpret it as judgment, because of what they have seen. Who can blame them? 

I tell people my story if they ask. I carry a Bible in my purse, really for me. If people see me reading and they ask, then I tell them. If people ask about my necklace or my Godstrong wristband, I tell them. Jesus lived to serve people. So do I. Servanthood is my witness. God's grace must be shown, not told.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Women in Ministry: An Excerpt (Teachable Moments)


Note: This is an excerpt of a paper I wrote for my Systematic Theology II course. Citations have been removed for formatting purposes.

What the Bible Says About Women in Ministry

                The Bible says that women are not to pray or prophesy with their heads uncovered. In addition, 1 Corinthians 14:34 reads, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says” (NIV). 1 Timothy 2:11-12 reads, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (NIV). These passages are often cross-referenced with Genesis 3:16, in which God deals with Adam and Eve after the Fall. Genesis 3:16 reads, “To the woman he said, `I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’” (NIV). This is important, because when Jesus came, it became not just the law that mattered. Paul seems to be focusing exclusively on the law. Jesus focused on grace. Where the Old Testament forbade most of society from going beyond the curtain to spend time with God, in the New Testament, God came and spent time with all of society; including women.
                There are five major examples of Jesus interacting with women; all five of those women had teachable moments. The five women were the woman at the well, the sinful woman with the alabaster jar, the woman at Bethany, also with an alabaster jar, Mary Magdalene, and Mary, sister of Martha. The woman at the well was a Samaritan woman, with whom the Jews never associated. Jesus spoke to her, asking her for some water. In John 4, after He asks her for water, he witnesses to her. He does not manifest contempt for her and the fact that she has been married multiple times and is living in sin at the time of His encounter with her. The law calls for Him to condemn her; grace calls for His forgiveness, as it does for everyone. The woman then brings her people to Christ, saying, “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did.” They listened to her. They said to her that they believe not just because of what she said, but also because they saw for themselves. She was no longer the sole reason for their belief, but she did get the ball rolling, so to speak. She did minister to them, as she literally led them to Christ. She did not do what the law commanded, which was to, as a woman, stay silent. She submitted to no one except Jesus. What is even more significant about this has to do with what Jesus says later in the fourth Gospel: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message.” The “them” refers to the people that Jesus has sent out, and include more people than the Twelve. The “them” refers to the Samaritan woman, among others. While Jesus did not explicitly tell the Samaritan woman, “Go tell everyone about me,” it was implied that she does have a missionary function. Raymond Brown makes note of this in his article, “Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel.” He writes that the Samaritan woman “serves to modify the thesis that male disciples were the only important figure in church founding.” Jesus speaks to His disciples of the harvest, which is missionary language, as referenced in Matthew 9, in which Jesus says, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.” Jesus Himself never said, “Send out male workers.” He said, “Send out workers.” The idea that the workers had to be male was later inferred. Indeed, as Brown notes, the first person to see Jesus after He was resurrected was Mary Magdalene. He instructed her to go tell the disciples that He has risen. Because of this, she “comes close to meeting the basic Pauline requirements of an apostle.” The basic requirements were that one had to have seen Jesus and had to have been sent to proclaim Him. Mary Magdalene fulfilled both of those requirements. Like the Samaritan woman, she is sent out. Unlike the Samaritan woman, she is explicitly sent out.
                The other three women took the initiative and led by making their own decisions, rather than listen to what others told them to do. In Luke 7, Jesus is anointed by a sinful woman, much like the Samaritan woman at the well. The woman washes His feet with her tears, wipes His feet with her hair, and then pours an alabaster jar of perfume on His feet. The Pharisee who was hosting Jesus looked down upon this act. He said that if Jesus were indeed a prophet, He would know who the woman was and what she had done. Jesus did indeed know who she was and what she had done, but she had ministered to and blessed Him with her actions and so was forgiven. She took an initiative that the Pharisee had not taken, which Jesus notes. She loved, and so He forgave her sins. Love mattered here, not the law. This account is often cross-referenced with an account in Matthew 26 with another woman and another alabaster jar of perfume. In Matthew 26, Jesus was anointed at Bethany, in the home of Simon the Leper. A woman came in and poured perfume on His head while he was at the table with His disciples. They called it a waste, saying that the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus said it was a beautiful thing she did, as she did it to prepare Him for burial. “You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me,” He said. Jesus went on to say that what the woman did will always be told wherever the Gospel is preached. Like the sinful woman in Luke 7, she took initiative, as leaders do, and Jesus did not look down on her for it.
                The fifth woman is Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, in Matthew 10. While Martha made the preparations for dinner, Mary sat and listened to Jesus. The New International Version says that Martha was “distracted” (v. 40), meaning that what Mary was doing was the right thing. Martha wanted Mary to help her, but Mary would not help. Jesus said, “Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” Mary chose to devote her attention to Jesus instead of following the “requirement,” which was to prepare the meal. Martha served Jesus through deeds; but so did Mary, through faith, and she made her own choice, instead of doing what society required of her. A leader is someone who defies the trend.
                Mitzi Smith calls it empowerment. In her article about the story of Mary and Martha, she writes about the positioning of the story in Luke’s Gospel and its relation to the story of the Good Samaritan, after which it is placed in the Gospel. The story of the Good Samaritan involves a man who had fallen on the road to Jericho. Everyone passed him by, except for a Samaritan, who took care of him. Smith writes that the law held that women were not to have conversations with men in public; however, Jesus may have intentionally gone to visit with Mary and Martha, and did so in the home they shared with Lazarus. However, even in the home, Martha did not have a conversation with Him; rather, she prepared a meal in the kitchen. Mary, on the other hand, “has crossed the political, religious, and domestic boundaries of her time.” She is very much like the Good Samaritan in this respect. Martha was irritated, because she felt Mary was doing something that women were not allowed to do at that time. She was also irritated that Jesus did not correct Mary, for surely He must know, as a teacher, what the role of women was at that time. Smith writes that the actions of Mary and Jesus “serve as a model for empowering our sisters who do not understand the position we have taken in ministry.” Their actions show that it is okay for women to break the mold. By doing what she did, Mary taught Martha. If she had instead listened to Martha and gone into the kitchen, Martha would not have learned the lesson that she learned from Mary and Jesus. Martha took a passive approach when she conformed to what society expected of her. Mary took an active approach when she sat at the feet of Jesus. Taking that active role was her teachable moment.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Sheep and Goats: Christian Treatment of the Poor

NOTE: This is a paper I wrote for my Ethics and Christian Ministry class. Citations have been removed for formatting purposes.

Introduction     

There is a woman with a green wool blanket who had to make a choice between putting food in her mouth and a roof over her head. She chose the former. She sleeps in the bus shelters on Delaware Avenue in Buffalo, NY. There is a man named Broderick who sits on a bench in front of a Tim Horton’s restaurant in Lafayette Square and asks for change six days a week. People pass right by him; even Christians pass right by him, because they believe the only task that God has given them is to tell people about Jesus by evangelizing on street corners and metro platforms. It is like this in cities all over the United States. People sleep on benches in parks, in doorways. Those who are better off just keep walking, and in many cities, the homeless are punished for simply trying to survive. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, panhandling is illegal after dark in cities like Pittsburgh, PA, and Atlanta, GA. Homeless shelters in cities like Little Rock, AR, have had to decrease the hours they are open, due to budget cuts by the government. “Lodging out of doors” is prohibited in cities, including Sarasota, FL, Las Vegas, NV, and Flagstaff, AZ.  Yet those who are above “the least of these,” including Christians, keep walking, believing that it is not their problem. The truth is, it is the Christians’ problem. Jesus said, “Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me.” Christian treatment of the poor as it stands now is indeed unethical and could use some improvement. Helping the poor could be considered an even greater witness to Jesus than just sharing the Gospel, because then, when one helps the poor and the otherwise less fortunate, they testify to the existence of Jesus Christ through their actions.


Objections

                The majority of Christians today are socially conservative. They are against abortion and same-sex marriage; and they also believe that one should work for what they get. They also believe that the only way to spread the Gospel is by telling someone about God, rather than showing them. Christians today generally believe that helping the poor is something called the Social Gospel, which has been associated with “theologically liberal, moderately reformist Protestant social thought.” Laissez-faire individualism, in which the government does not give monetary support to its citizens, and everyone earns what they have, is and has been a cornerstone of Christian orthodoxy. In fact, in the forward to When Helping Hurts, by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert, the author of the forward, John Perkins, writes that his “concern for the poor and social justice made many evangelicals suspect that [he] was theologically liberal.” This idea that evangelicals have about people helping the poor comes from 2 Timothy 5:18, which is a reference to Luke 10:7. They focus on the part of the verse that says, “Those who work deserve their pay. However, the context of Luke 10:7 refers to the disciples accepting hospitality while working to advance Jesus’ kingdom; they should not be so humble as to refuse any hospitality that is offered. Evangelicals take this to mean that people should not take assistance of any kind without having first worked for it. It is so easily forgotten that some people are unable to work. Examples of this in Biblical times include the blind beggar in John 9, and are still applicable today.
In addition, there is a fear of the city, perpetuated by stereotypes of the city as “an urban wasteland.” It is too crowded, too violent, too noisy, and beyond any help. Further, the objections of those who are religiously pretentious, as Walter C. Kaiser writes, are that, as previously mentioned, the first and foremost duty of a Christian is to bring people to Christ. Giving the poor a helping hand may or may not include verbally sharing the Gospel with them. These Christians believe that the most important thing for a Christian to do is to pray to God, go to church, and get other people to do the same. In other words, they believe in rules, much as the Pharisees did. It is for this reason that Christians are generally equated to Pharisees by the unsaved. Kaiser writes that God does not wish for people to follow the rules and rituals in order to maintain the outward appearance that they are believers. The habits that are correct in their eyes are not correct in the eyes of God.


Why It is Biblical to Look After the Poor

In the forward to When Helping Hurts, John Perkins cites Matthew 25:31-46 and 1 John 3:17-18. The passage in Matthew 25 contains the parable of the sheep and the goats. Jesus puts the sheep at His right hand, and the goats at His left. He tells the sheep that they fed Him when he was hungry, visited Him when he was in prison, invited Him in when He was a stranger, cared for Him when He was sick, gave Him water when He was thirsty, and clothed Him when He was naked. The righteous who were the sheep asked Him when they did those things for Him, and He told them that “when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it for me!” (Matthew 25:40 NLT). Likewise, he said to the unrighteous, the goats, that they did not do those things, and that “when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me” (Matthew 25:45 NLT). Further, 1 John 3:17-18 reads, “If someone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need but shows no compassion – how can God’s love be in that person?” (NLT).
There are examples in the Old Testament as well. Deuteronomy 15:11 reads, “There will always be some in the land who are poor. That is why I am commanding you to share freely with the poor and other Israelites in need” (NLT). Further, Isaiah 58:6-7 reads, “No, this is the kind of fasting I want: Free those who are wrongly imprisoned; lighten the burden of those who work for you. Let the oppressed go free and remove the chains that bind people. Share your food with the hungry and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them and do not hide from relatives who need your help” (NLT). These verses illustrate what is called “true worship,” according to the New Living Translation. The first five verses of Isaiah 58 condemn those who worship God, but ignore their fellow man, something that is commonplace with conservative Christians today, as they consider those Christians who fight for social justice and the poor “theologically liberal.”


Urban Ministry: Its Necessity and Its Purpose as a Witness for God

In his study of the New Testament, Ray Bakke found that the church is meant to be “an agent in the world.” He notes that in the books of Luke and Acts, the focus is on riches, poverty, justice, and women, which make up the agenda of urban ministry. Many Christians, both historically and today, think of only the poor on the other side of the world or south of the equator as the ones needing help and needing God. However, Harvie Conn writes that “missionary compassion no longer demands border crossing; theological reflection can no longer be done from the balcony at a safe distance.” One issue is that there are those who do not want to get their hands dirty, so to speak. John Hayes writes that poor communities are “places we try to avoid.” People are afraid. They also think they are above those God is trying to use them to help. By letting their fear and preconceptions control them, they are not seeing what God wants them to see. The other issue is that people are unsure what to do. The situation is all around them instead of on the other side of the world. Urban ministry requires more than just sending money and supplies overseas, or going to Africa on a missions trip that would last about two weeks. However, there are people who go to the Third World on long term missions; the only thing that is different about urban ministry is the location. As with Third World missions, the purpose of urban ministry is still being a witness for God through words and actions.
Ministry to the poor in urban areas is vital for both the people and the city itself. In To Transform a City, Eric Swanson and Sam Williams give six reasons for engagement of ministries with cities. These reasons include the idea that cities have a transforming effect on people and are fertile ground for creativity, thinking, and receptivity, meaning that new ideas circulated rapidly in urban areas, through communication effected by the closeness of the people; cities can also help people live efficiently and productively. Cities are also valued by God, and as such, the “early Christian movement was primarily urban.” What Swanson and Williams mean by a transforming effect is that once people go into the cities, they would not want to go back to more rural areas. They write that these people “learn to adapt to a new way of life.”
The early Christian movement was primarily an urban one, because as it is noted in To Transform a City, “if the goal is to `make disciples of all nations,’ missionaries need to go where there are many potential converts.” Toward the end of his life, Paul made it his goal to get to Rome, which was the most powerful city at that time. All of his letters were to the inhabitants of cities, some of them places where his missionary journeys took him: Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, Galatia, Colossae, Thessalonica, and Philippi. He also went to Antioch and Athens; however, God called Paul to write to the first seven. There are cities mentioned by name in the Bible, including Jerusalem, Babylon, and Tyre; all were warned, chastised, loved, and lauded, as God does for His children. Therefore, cities and the people in them are not to be ignored. There are those that say that the Great Commission is the most important task for believers, which is why they say that urban ministry and helping the poor is not important. However, others affirm that it is actually the greatest commandment, that “you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind…A second is equally important: `Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Matthew 22:37, 39 NLT). Author Robert Lupton notes that it is out of place to consider bringing people to Christ as more important than loving them, as Christ Himself said that the greatest commandment is to love God and love others. Bryant Myers writes that this commandment is motive to help the poor, and a framework for urban ministry, or transformational development. It is about relationships, not law, and about “who we must love, not what we must do.” Mark Gornik compares the church to the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were looked down upon in Biblical times. Yet when someone had fallen to the ground, injured, and everyone else passed him by; except for the Samaritans. Gornik challenges the church to “be neighbor to the beaten, bruised, and left behind.” Christians need to answer this challenge; they need to figure out how to minister in urban spaces, because ministering to the urban poor is different than ministering to those who have everything they need in a physical sense.
To that end, there is a book, Not Just a One Night Stand: Ministry with the Homeless, written by John Flowers and Karen Vannoy, which illustrates how Christians are to minister in urban areas. In the preface, they write that there is more to urban ministry than just handing out food and blankets. They write that more understanding of the issue is necessary, and that it is necessary to partner with others to move forward. There is a film starring music artist Michael W. Smith as a pastor of a mega-church in the suburbs. The film is called The Second Chance and there is one scene in which the pastor of an inner city church that is connected with the mega-church comes to the mega-church to speak to the congregation. He says that it is not enough that the congregation sends money to the inner city church. He tells the congregation that if they are not going to go into the inner city and see how people live there, then they could keep their money. This is what Flowers and Vannoy are getting at in Not Just a One Night Stand. They write about letting the homeless stay in churches, staying with the homeless on the streets to experience what they experience. This is what they say effective urban ministry should be. It is a practice of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is, so to speak. One needs to become familiar with the people and the neighborhoods of the city, including the history and politics of the city. Robert Lupton reaches the same conclusion in Renewing the City, when he writes that merely physically relocating to an urban center is not enough. One cannot simply move the church into an urban center and keep the same practices that they had when their church was in the suburb. Suburban churches are primarily concerned with saving souls; urban churches are concerned with not only saving souls, but saving lives as well, and when a suburban church becomes an urban church, their practices need to reflect that.
There is a caution, though. Flowers and Vannoy write that the poor are skilled at manipulation. It is “a survival skill for the poor and marginalized.” Christians are cautioned to not succumb to the lifestyles of those they are trying to help. This fear of manipulation and “sinking to their level” is a common objection of those who are against helping the poor and fighting for social justice; however, there is a right way to help those in need. Provide food, shelter, clothing. If someone needs help with rent or transportation, have them work for it. Flowers and Vannoy write that most are willing to work; they are just not given the opportunity. Work would provide more than money for the urban poor. It provides “dignity and respect for those who rarely receive it.” Manipulation by the helped does not make the poor any less deserving of being ministered to. Fear of this manipulation gets in the way of the love God wants people to have. In at least one case in the Bible, love is translated as charity. 1 Corinthians 13:13 of the King James Version reads, “And now stays faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
Randy White writes in Encounter God in the City that one must not misuse the city. The city can be misused when the missionary’s commitment fails. People who volunteer their time in city centers need to finish what they start. People need a vision “as big as the city.” Additionally, they need to know the situation before they help. Duane Elmer proposes a similar idea in Cross-Cultural Servanthood. If one is going to help someone, they need to respect dignity and not automatically assume that someone needs help, especially if it is something small that is affordable without help. Additionally, White writes, there is a desirable attitude to be had when confronted with cross-cultural differences. Like Elmer, White writes about openness, acceptance, trust, and adaptability. The openness is to new situations; acceptance is toward these new situations and cultural norms; one needs to trust that they will be taken care of in the mission field, a rebuttal to the objection that urban ministry is too dangerous; and adaptability refers to adapting to the culture of the mission field. This attitude will result in a successful urban ministry.


Urban to Suburban

The issues of urban ministry are spreading into the suburbs as well. Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert write that people would travel into the cities to practice urban ministry, much like people travel to the Third World to minister to the people there. However, there is an increasing trend of the urban poor moving into the suburbs where more affordable housing can be found. Moving into the suburbs, however, does not raise them above the poverty level, even though they may have at least one minimum wage job per person. They require some of the same ministering that they would receive if they lived in the city center. The only difference is really that, due to their employment status, the new suburban poor are less visible than the urban poor.
In A Heart for the Community, the movement of the urban poor into the suburbs seems to be marked by race. It is also marked in history by the construction of housing projects in the cities as part of the housing boom after the second World War. There was a time when racial minorities were not to be found in suburbs. Now, it is common, as projects in urban spaces are being closed down, forcing their residents to move into the suburbs; however, suburban churches have been resistant. Megachurches have promoted “numerical church growth,” quantity as opposed to quality, as it were. This has resulted in segregated churches in the suburbs. Slowly, this is changing, as suburban churches are being mobilized toward the same mission of their urban counterparts. There are six Biblical principles of mobilization: believers are called to do good, according to Galatians 6:2, which calls for the sharing of burdens; God’s transforming power is revealed through believers serving the hurting and the poor, according to 2 Corinthians 4:7 and 2 Corinthians 13:4, meaning that He shines through believers; according to 2 Corinthians 12:9, believers experience God’s presence through relationships with the poor, as “my grace is all you need” (2 Corinthians 12:9 NLT); Isaiah 58:6-8 describes how God promises to protect those who serve the poor; and, according to Ephesians 2:10 and Isaiah 43:21, God designed each person in a unique way to serve His kingdom. Suburban ministry to assist the hurting and poor is similar to urban ministry in terms of who the churches are trying to reach, and the methods the churches use. One key difference is the use of education. The value of serving “is a biblical mandate that every church should embrace.” Urban churches see this every day, and thus generally do not remind their congregations from the pulpit every Sunday, as happens in suburban churches. The reason for this is that the suburban poor are generally less visible than the urban poor. The suburban poor may have minimum wage jobs and places to live, while still having trouble putting food on the table or clothes on their backs. They may have trouble paying for electricity or heat. They may have trouble with transportation, as transit in the suburbs can be sporadic. Poverty in suburban areas is different in some ways, but it still exists. The suburban poor, and even others who are not poor, deal with the same issues that are dealt with in urban areas, including drugs, teen pregnancy, and broken homes. Suburbs do not automatically imply prosperity. They do not automatically imply perfection.

Conclusion
Just as suburbs do not automatically imply prosperity, the poor do not automatically imply unimportant, both urban and suburban. They are important. They are important to God, and they should be important to churches. The woman with her two children, all of them going hungry, who escaped to Amherst, NY for a brief respite from the gutted building that passed for their home in the west side of Buffalo, are important. God calls for Christian treatment of the poor to be compassionate and just; the Biblical evidence is overwhelming. It is time for God’s children who seek to serve Him to take notice of His children who are suffering.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

So far, the 2012 wrapup


`Kayso, now that school's done...just waiting for grades...I can really react to the craziness of the NFL offseason. You know, it really hurt when the Steelers cut Hines Ward. It hurt, because he was the last Steeler from the Steelers team of my childhood. They're all gone now, and it's so sad...I really wanted Hines to go out as a champion, like Jerome did. What softened the blow, I think though, is what he did today. Out of respect for the fans, he retired as a Steeler. He took the high road. Pittsburgh cuts him (and Dan Rooney's in Ireland going, "WAT!?"), and although he doesn't retire at first, he eventually does take the high road. I just think that what the team did was really low, after Hines offered to take a pay cut. They let Jerome do that, why not Hines? 

Next, Peyton Manning. Um...he's a Bronco now?? Yeah. Um is right. And Brandon Jacobs and Mario Manningham of the Giants. Wasn't Manningham the one who caught the game-winning touchdown in Super Bowl XLVI? I'm confused...

Lastly - school. I have most of my grades, except for one. That's taking a little while, not sure why. But I took five classes in one subterm, because I didn't want any surprises when I got down to Virginia (the last subterm ends a day before graduation). And felt not quite myself for a good part of that. I got through it, though, ordered my cap and gown last night, and it's off to Virginia in early May. I have a couple of my papers that I think I'm going to post for anyone who's interested. My Christian ethics paper on urban ministry, and my Systematic Theology paper on the role of women in the church, both of which pertain to me directly. I'm at my parents' right now, recovering from surgery, but I'm going back to my apartment tomorrow, so I'll do some reformatting and post those for you guys (I don't think Facebook accepts footnotes). And again, for those of you who maybe didn't see my sermon from the fall semester, here's the link if you want to see it -

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmt6bj_tearing-the-veil_lifestyle

Monday, January 9, 2012

Not my first day at the races, thanks

I feel like I have to do this after every playoff loss, which is ridiculous, but anyway. I am not a Steelers fan "only when they win." I have two words for you: Bubby. Brister. That was...1987 or so. And I have never wavered. Not once, not even a little. I remember the loss in the AFC Championship game to the Chargers in early `95. The loss to the Cowboys in Super Bowl XXX (matter of fact, I still have nightmares. Oh Neil O'Donnell, why did you throw it straight to Larry Brown not once, but TWICE? And I'm pretty sure there's a third interception in there somewhere, but anyway). Broncos in `97, Patriots in 2001 and 2004, Super Bowl XLV, and last night.  And yet I'm still here. I remember guys like Yancey Thigpen, Dermontti Dawson, Jason Gildon, Myron Bell, Mark Bruener, Carnell Lake, Bam Morris, Barry Foster. And of course, Jerome Bettis. I remember the QB merry-go-round that was going from the time Bradshaw left (before I was born, just for the record) to the time that Roethlisberger showed up. Every single one from Bubby Brister up to now.

I remember the bad times, and there were many. Super Bowl XXX, the AFC Championship losses, the Thanksgiving Day coin toss debacle, three seasons of total mediocrity from 1998-2000. 6-10 in 2003. Hines Ward crying in the locker room after the loss to New England in the AFC Championship game at the end of the 2004 season, in which the Steelers finished with a regular season of 15-1, their best ever. I think that's why that one hurt the most. Everyone was telling me, "The Steelers are going to win it all this year!" This was something I wanted SO BADLY, because I'd been waiting years for it. I was in tears after that game. Saw the clip with Hines Ward the next day and started crying all over again. He wanted Jerome to come back for another year. We all did. And so he did.

The Steelers won Super Bowl XL the following year. I watched it in my dormroom on my 13" TV.  Huge rollercoaster, that one. Jerome Bettis fumbling on the goal line against Indy? *passes out* Oh, by the way...


That's for the Seahawks fans who are still whining. 


The Steelers wouldn't make it to XLI or XLII, but I was ok with that. I finally had my Super Bowl. They made it to Super Bowl XLIII, which I watched with friends. And got nervous, because one of them, who shall remain nameless, kept yelling against the Steelers, because he had money on the game. That year was actually the best, because, while Super Bowl XL was my first, and special in its own way - the touchdown in the above picture is most likely my favorite - Super Bowl XLIII marked the first of three of my teams winning their respective championships that year. The Penguins took the Cup, and the Yankees took the Series. I'd waited all my life for that to happen, too. All three of my teams winning in the same year, not the Yankees winning the Series.

Then there was Super Bowl XLV. I took it better than I thought I would - I think for two reasons. One: Roethlisberger is a waaaaaaaaaay better QB than O'Donnell, Tomczak, Stewart, Graham, and Maddox ever were, obviously. Even injured, because he did try to come back last night. The defense just...yah. Oops. The other QBs I mentioned would never have pulled that off. But Super Bowl XLV. Here's reason #2: I have seen not one, but TWO Super Bowl victories up to this point. It made it less painful to deal with, and same goes for last night.

I've been on this bandwagon for almost my entire life. And yes, I stuck with my team over Tim Tebow last night. Oh, that means I'm less of a Christian? Grow up. I've found the Tebow fans to be the most obnoxious. I like the guy; his book's on my shelf, waiting to be read, but come on. I'm not going to bail on the team I've stuck with for a couple of decades for one player. I'm accepting this loss with grace, as I always have. But man, you guys are making it difficult. Oh, by the way, next year? We'll be back.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

God and Football

So the Steelers lost to the Broncos today. I'm over it. To be quite honest, I'd rather lose to Tim Tebow than Tom Brady. The former has more class than the latter. I hope they beat the Patriots next week, although I'm not holding my breath. I'm rooting for the Giants to get to the Super Bowl; failing that, the Saints. Anyway, the point of all this. I got a message through Facebook telling me that if I were a true Christian, I would have rooted for the Broncos today. Because God's apparently a Broncos fan, with Tim Tebow on the team and all. And apparently all the rest of the teams in the NFL are heathens. I applaud Tebow for not hiding his faith. But he's not the only Christian in the NFL. And he's definitely not the only one who shows his faith (Troy Polamalu, I'm looking at you).



(Yes, my boys pray, too)

People say that faith has no place in sports, because God doesn't play favorites. You're right, He doesn't. Here's how this works: God gives everyone something to work with. Then He leaves it to us. Randy Pausch wrote in The Last Lecture, "It's not about the cards you are dealt, but how you play the hand." God isn't steering everything. He may be saying "Well done, my good and faithful servant" to Tim Tebow for using what he was given to work with; however, He would say the same thing to Troy Polamalu, had the Steelers won today. So please...God doesn't love Tim Tebow more than anyone else. Tebow only seized the opportunities as they presented themselves. The Steelers didn't. That alone is why they lost.


Tuesday, January 3, 2012

I am Second: Daniel Sepulveda

Last Sunday, I was asked about my football jersey. Yes, I wear the football jersey of a punter on game day. Watch this video and you'll see why. The Steelers took Daniel Sepulveda in the fourth round of the NFL Draft in 2007. He has torn his ACL three times in his professional career; I believe he also tore it in college, but the Steelers took a chance on him anyway. And I'm glad they did. He has been hurt a lot, but he has brought something intangible to this team. To a lot of people, that's not worth much. They want whomever can make the team win. But character's big. Godly character's even bigger.

Tearing the Veil


This is a sermon that I gave at High Peaks Church in Saranac Lake, NY on December 4, 2011. It was my first. The source text was John 9:1-3, where Jesus and his disciples encounter the blind man by the side of the road. His disciples assume that his blindness is because he or his parents sinned. This is a common Old Testament thought, which I talk about in the message. I also talk about why Jesus tells them they are wrong. I gave this message for a class, but I chose this text, because it is what I myself have been through. I have had people tell me that it was because I hadn't accepted Christ as my personal savior. I even got that from people after I got saved. A huge problem today with my fellow Christians is that they tend to cite only the Old Testament. When the veil was torn, a new covenant came to be. The old has gone, the new has come. Homosexuality, for example, is still a sin in the New Testament. At least, it is implied, which means it's open to interpretation; however, if you talk to the average Christian about it, they always cite Leviticus 18:22. They should try citing the New Testament; however, I see why they don't. There isn't anything in the New Testament that is anywhere near as explicit as Leviticus 18:22, hence the openness to interpretation. My sermon was about a couple of different things. It was an exhortation to do your best with the hand you're dealt and not play dead when an obstacle shows up. It was also an effort to get people to delve more into the New Testament. After all, the question we have to ask is "What would Jesus do?" He didn't preach messages of hate or defeat. He hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes. The Bible does say, "Be perfect as your Father is perfect." However, our perfection is not the same as God's perfection. Our perfection is purely legal. You follow the rules, you're perfect. But Jesus didn't follow the rules. He followed His rules. We need to stop using God to push messages of hate, and actually study the Word to see what it really says.