This links to a Washington Post
article and video regarding children living homeless.
My friend’s inquiry:
Regarding Sins of the
"Father" Instead of pointing fingers, help find a solution. The
entitlement mentality IE. Choosing social security and welfare as a career
path, should not condemn a child to the same fate. I empathize with those who
have fallen to hard times. I also recognize there is a mentality that takes any
and every advantage. A child deserves every opportunity that we as an
"advanced" society can give them. We as a whole are failing these
children. These children do not want anything more than love and a secure
present. Their future is in their own hands. We however should have an
obligation to help release them from the hobbles they are fettered with. It's
not who's to blame, it's why we are inefficient and ineffective when we are
needed.
My initial
response:
This may
take a little while, as I have struggled with the ideas for some time myself,
and cannot claim any complete solution. But, do have some definite ideas as to
what our responsibility may be, much as related to scripture, and some more a
matter of experience. If it’s alright, and I suspect it is as we
are engaged in an ongoing conversation, I will make this in installments, but I
want you to know it is not neglected. I simply have to set aside times to
address the issue adequately. So expect more in the next few days.
----------------
My reply:
Ex 34:7 and
others regarding 'visiting the iniquities of the fathers unto the third and
fourth generations' was, at one time very troubling to me. But that was before
I understood more of how the human mind and environmental (parental and family)
conditions influenced each other.
We, in the
Christian community, tend to relate 'God' as the responsible agent for
virtually all human conditions, without consideration for the natural cause and
effects, as they exist, whether as instituted by His divine person or as a fact
of natural condition. IE 'God' is the one to blame, He is obviously 'unfair'.
This is a logical conclusion, not too difficult to espouse, but that is based
on a very limited understanding of how human relations affect each other, and
particularly as relates from generation to generation.
When the
Bible states (as pertaining to God speaking) “I will visit”, the contemporary accepted notion is that “God causes”, and that can be rationalized,
though I believe errantly. The Bible is not a book to explain all the details
of conditions as pertains to humans and God, but uses the “God” reference to explain attributes of
spiritual, psychological and often material truths in environs of ignorance and
inadequate means of understanding truths and reality beyond the limits of those
being addressed. I know this would automatically relegate me to the realms of
unbelief (as contemporarily defined by Fundamentalists) but I don’t really worry about that, as this is relatively simple by
comparison to some the deeper I get into it, and if it is truth … why should I worry.
Jesus said at the time of his being anointed with expensive perfume in
preparation for his execution and burial, as he was confronted about the cost
and the fact that it could have been spent to relieve the “poor”, “…the poor you always have with you…”
Of course he was emphasizing the fact that his presence was of a limited
duration, but I believe he was equally underscoring the fact that eliminating
poverty is not a matter of focusing on it, or providing some temporary relief …
Or that as scrutinized in greater detail poverty could be eliminated, but
poverty is an actual condition to be expected as all economic systems being
humanly devised invariably are deficient in considering the class of persons,
for whatever reasons, predisposed to reject or neglect the necessities of life
required to maintain their existence within the commonly accepted system. This
is not a Capitalist or Socialist problem, but rather a human nature problem.
Unfortunately where this obstinate attitude begins or surfaces, the progeny of
the transgressor suffer. Eventually, these descendants must come to their own
thinking and either accept their “fate” (I don’t like that word) or make a
break in their congenital thinking inherited through exposure to parental
influence. This is a situation which holds true regarding many areas of thought
picked up through parental relations. We must all accept
responsibility for our own thoughts and associated actions and responses in the
world.
Now,
having stated what I have, that does not excuse us from making our every effort
to provide a better life foundation for all caught in such disadvantaged
marginalized situations. As Jesus observed the multitudes being “without a
shepherd” or gathering the little children to himself. Yet, I do not believe
this attitude of Christ is one that can be mandated or made part of the “Christian”
code. It must be one divinely instilled … though I do not reject the necessity
of ongoing, affirmative, and pro-active education, the acceptance of
responsibility regarding ministry to the needs of others is an individual one,
and being “guilted” into ministerial service is a religious farce.
I
also think it is unrealistic to believe that we, as an enlightened” society
will ever completely solve the problem of poverty, or homelessness. We can do
what we can as individuals, and influence as many as we can, but I do not believe
a corporate effort (as a corporation is currently defined) can be created to
accomplish the task. A corporation is made up of individuals, and no matter how
“well defined” a purpose may be, there will always be exceptions which require
an individual’s attention and make accommodation for the needs of all such
individuals not fitting into the ‘corporate’ definition. Thus I realize my
responsibility is to be who I am to all I can be and influence to a greater
life than they currently understand. A corporate system may be supportive, but
is not itself the heart of ministry.
There
are a number of problems concerning the little girl and such living in homeless
shelters. First, what are parental rights and responsibilities? There are cases
where I think the state should step in and place a child in foster care. But
that is not an absolute, each case is different. Second, a child’s desire to
improve, must be faced with their need to divorce from acquired parental
attitudes and influence. Third, though a desire to relocate to another state
may be understandable, it does not address the acquired and/or innate human
deficiency. The fact that humans are deficient (or ‘sinful’) is not a popular
concept in modern culture. But, I have learned over the years from experience …
we are. The cause or nature of this deficiency are too complicated to even try
to clearly decipher. I do believe we humans can progress and improve our
cultural social situation, but also believe we are continually faced with an
often disproportionate number, of a mind to reject whatever system is
established, or “a mentality that takes any and every advantage”…
giving little or nothing in return. These deserve nothing, but is it my place
to make that judgment? When is “hope” extinguished? When do I give up on
another human being? … I don’t know.
No comments:
Post a Comment