As stories from Hurricane Katrina continue to come in, we hear accounts of tremendous sacrifice, bureaucratic bungling, and gross selfishness. In many cases neighbors banded together to help one another and to care for the elderly in their communities. In other cases complete strangers spent their time and money to come get stranded residents and deliver them from the flood waters. Then there were the neighbors who weren't neighborly, who went on looting rampages, who sold food instead of giving it away, who carved up the New Orleans Convention Center into gang territories. Perhaps the worst account of this sort comes from the neighboring town of Gretna, across the Mississippi River from New Orleans, where local officials (mostly white) blocked the bridge to prevent New Orleans residents (mostly black) from escaping the flood waters and finding refuge in their town. For all the talk in recent months about the phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance, maybe the phrase we should be focusing on is "one nation . . . indivisible." It is clear that there are many people in this country who still think in terms of "us" and "them"; such thinking is not conducive to building a community. In today's reading from Exodus, God provides manna for the people of Israel to eat in the desert. The manna is distributed equally to everyone, and everyone gathers as much as they need. Because there is enough manna to go around, there is no market for surplus manna. Because it is plentiful, it is impossible for an enterprising person to try to corner the market and drive up the price with artificial shortages. There are no rich or poor when it comes to manna: all have as much as they need. Many Americans, as well as other people around the world, realized that they had more than they needed and sent some of their surplus to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Others have opened up their homes to people who have lost theirs, and still others have volunteered to help the evacuees in a variety of ways. Why has God given the vast majority of us more than we need? God has done this so that we can help others in times of need. But when the needs of the victims of this hurricane subside, will we slip into complacency? The hurricane revealed one of America's dirty little secrets: we have poverty here in the richest nation on earth. The poverty won't be gone once the flood waters recede and people begin to rebuild their homes. All across America, in her cities, in towns, and in rural areas, the poor live among us. Will we hoard the manna that God has given us, or will we leave some for the poor to gather? Across the world the situation is even more dire. Millions die every year because they lack access to food or medicine. There is no shortage of either, but there is a problem with the system of distribution. The poor cannot go outside and find manna on the ground to fill their bellies, nor can they find malaria medication hanging from the branches of trees. It is up to us who want to share God's love with others to figure out ways to provide food and medical care to those who need it, whether through private agencies or through restructuring and re-imagining our governments, or both.
In mid-19th century England, the owners of "taverns, victualling-houses, opera-houses, play-houses, or any other places of public, fashionable diversion" hated to see the preacher John Wesley come to town, because it certainly meant a great reduction in their business. Wesley urged his followers to avoid such places, and they stayed away in droves. On the other hand, Native Americans hated to see preachers come into their territories in the 16th century, because they knew that armies and settlers would soon follow. On those rare occasions when the preachers moved on to other locales without leaving their replacements behind, the Native Americans were glad to see them go. The psalmist is describing many of the great works of God in the past, and when he gets to the story of the exodus, he says of the Israelites, "Egypt was glad when they departed." Is the world today glad to see Christians leave an area? If so, why? I suspect that most Iraqis will be glad to see Christians leave their country, because they associate Christianity with the destruction and chaos that has engulfed their country (such as the more than 200 people killed in suicide bombings over the last few days). In contrast, I have heard of sleazy nightclubs and strip clubs closing down after Christians opened a church or began ministering nearby. If I had my preference, I would rather have the world welcome Christians than rejoice in their departure. I would like for people to see the benefit of living the Christian life, the joy it brings, and the improvements in the community as a result of faithful living. If non-Christians have to rejoice in Christians leaving, though, I would much rather that they be happy to see Christians leave because people's lives were changing for the better than because Christians were further contributing to their misery.
In an address at a prayer service at the National Cathedral on Friday, President Bush made many promises regarding the federal government's intent to help rebuild the city of New Orleans. These remarks were certainly welcome. However, his pledge not to raise taxes to pay for the rebuilding efforts was puzzling at least, frightening at most. If the rebuilding of the city will indeed cost $200 billion, as many pundits are estimating, there is no way that the money can be raised from cuts in "unnecessary spending," as Bush promises (unless he is ready to slash the military budget, which he's not). One of three things, or perhaps all three, will happen. Either the president will renege on his pledge to provide federal funds to rebuild New Orleans, or the federal government will simply borrow the money and further increase the national debt, or federal programs that support the poor and elderly will be cut even further than they already have been. The president is right to pledge federal government support to rebuild the city and other areas damaged by the hurricane. He is wrong to pay for it on the backs of the poor or of future generations of Americans. Great leaders of the past have understood that in times of national crisis, it is necessary to call on citizens of the country to make sacrifices to meet pressing needs. Franklin Roosevelt called on Americans to support those who lost their jobs in the Great Depression, then he asked people to cut back on luxury items like sugar and steel to support the war effort. John Kennedy told his fellow citizens, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Lyndon Johnson asked Americans to build the Great Society. Bush has shown himself to be pathologically unable to ask for sacrifice, either when the nation plunged into a serious recession, or when terrorists attacked our nation, or now that a hurricane has destroyed one of our greatest cities. Even worse, most of those Christians who reflexively support anything that comes out of his mouth have so far refused to call for sacrifice. Paul tells the Philippians church that God has graciously granted them the privilege of suffering for Christ. This statement is diametrically opposed to the health and wealth gospel, which teaches that those who are faithful to God will be blessed with riches and good health. No one wants to suffer--or if they do, they have a serious problem--but Christians should be willing to suffer for the sake of Christ. How is paying a few extra dollars in taxes to pay for the rebuilding of New Orleans suffering for Christ? Isn't it instead suffering for people who lost their homes and businesses, and in many cases loved ones as well? Actually, it's both. Jesus said, "Whatever you've done for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you've also done to me." When we suffer a little for the sake of others, our suffering is also for the sake of Jesus and his gospel. To apply this truth further, Christians need to realize that giving up a little bit for the sake of one city is just the tip of the iceberg, for poverty is rampant throughout America and around the world. Those who preach that government should be slimmed down to the bare bones and that care for the poor and sick should be left to individuals and nongovernmental organizations are preaching a decidedly unbiblical doctrine. The Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, calls on the people of God to care for the poor, not throw them to the wolves. Yes, individual Christians should do all they can, but our efforts can be much more effective at reaching people if the government will play its part as well. Christ calls us to suffer for his sake, that is, for the sake of those least able to care for themselves. We must challenge our fellow believers and our fellow citizens to do the same on the largest possible scale, so that we can alleviate, or at least ameliorate, the poverty, preventable disease, and unnecessary suffering of others.
Several years ago I heard a famous biblical scholar speak on today's reading from Matthew, the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard. The point I remember him making was that the workers who had worked all day really did have the right to complain about getting paid the same as those who had only put in an hour's work. In today's world it is common for one group of people in a company to be paid an hourly rate that is twelve times that of the lowest paid worker in the same company. In fact, according to the "12th Annual CEO Compensation Survey" just released by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, the average CEO at one of 367 leading companies in America makes 431 times that of the average worker in the same company. The pay differential between CEOs and ordinary workers is indeed unjustified. More than that, it's just plain wrong. Skyrocketing CEO salaries is a byproduct of a society that has committed itself to the path of wanton riches without thought for those millions of people who get left behind. In many ways in America today, the Rapture has already occurred (I actually believe the doctrine of the Rapture to be unbiblical, but I use it here to make a point). A few (the rich and powerful) have been chosen and taken up to heaven to meet a God who blesses the faithful with unbelievable wealth, while the vast majority (the poor and middle class) have been left behind on earth to struggle with the evils of the Great Tribulation. The biblical scholar I mentioned made a good point about the problem of unjust wages in today's world, but I want to flip his application on its head and emphasize what I believe to be the point that Jesus was trying to make with this parable, namely, that none of us is a deserving recipient of God's grace. Whether we've been following God for decades or we've just begun, God's gracious gift to us is the same: an abundant, meaningful life in God's presence. Sometimes it's not a matter of time served but of social class or lifestyle that really bothers people. Surely the same God who called me to work in the vineyard wouldn't also call a person like that! For all our talk about the ground being level at the foot of the cross, we continue to gaze up in admiration at certain people and look down our noses at others. If there's anything this parable tells us, though, it's that the rules of the kingdom aren't the same as the rules of the world. The world discriminates, divides people into social classes, holds some people up for admiration and others for derision, and generally erects arbitrary barriers between groups of people. The kingdom of God is different, for in God's kingdom everyone is equal: rich and poor, black and white, male and female, gay and straight, intelligent and mentally challenged, sick and whole. It's our job to make the kingdoms of this world become more and more like the kingdom of God.