As I seek to begin my fingers hesitate before
striking the keys. These questions are so large and theoretical, but the way in
which our answers to such lofty questions play out in human interaction is
substantial. As I search for answers to this question, I struggle with where to
begin. When faced with this struggle it is easiest for me to simply reference
the text, and thus I begin there.
I appreciate Myers discussion on the ways in
which modernity has shaped our Western mindsets. Growing up in the Bible belt
south, I often found myself dissatisfied with the pervasive religious worldview
and the way that managed to manifest itself in some less than ideal ways. I was
often told this proclaimed Christian worldview was the only way to understand
religion, and thus the only way to understand God. Due to my dissatisfaction
with this the version of Christianity, I came close to walking away from all of
it during my senior year of college. It was around then that I stumbled upon
the writings of Brian McLaren and his discussions of the ways in which the
modern worldview has shaped and impacted our religious and specifically
Christian worldviews. Brian McLaren writes about some of the very things Myers
discusses, and helps me to see the forest through the trees when I think about
the historical and cosmic scope of Christianity. Our understanding of
Christianity, and thus a “Christian” reaction to poverty is steeped in the
constructs of modern thought.
When I consider how my worldview shapes my view
of anything, I must realize that I am
a product of churches and cultures that are still deeply entrenched in modern
thought, with its beauties and hang-ups. As Myers discusses, one derivative of
modernity is a tendency towards compartmentalization. We view the spiritual world
and the real world as operating in two separate dimensions. Thus, when seeking
to find an appropriate “Christian” response to poverty, I venture into the
appropriately partitioned box labeled Christian, subset poverty. Perhaps this
is a bit hyperbolic, but I do find it difficult to think about my view of
poverty without speaking in languages of compartmentalization.
For example, when considering my response to
poverty I primarily evoke a text found in Matthew 25 describing the words of a
man name Jesus whose teachings I desire to follow. I find it difficult to view
the cosmic scope of this text without relegating it to simply a physical
response to physical needs. This reading of the text does not see the larger
dimensions of poverty, and thus my response in inevitably flawed as it is based
in a limited reading. Similarly, as I seek to relate to folks who live in
poverty, I find it increasingly difficult because of the way in which my mind
has been trained to separate their lives and stories into a section of my mind
that is disconnected from my own life and story. Despite my increasing
awareness and desire for empathy towards the plight of those in poverty, my
natural response is to appeal towards the compartmentalized mindset that has
shaped and formed my thought.
The larger reality of which I seek to be a part
is that of the Kingdom of God, in which the artificial distinctions modernity
has taught us to define are shattered and the all-encompassing love of God pervades
over all. In the Kingdom that Jesus inaugurated and subsequently commanded his
disciplines to continue bringing forward, the love and grace of God transcends
our notions of separation. As I move towards understanding and relating to
those who are oppressed by poverty, in whatever dimension that poverty may
manifest itself, my desire is to break the false barriers that have been
constructed in my mind. With this movement, my view of poverty and subsequent
reaction to those suffering from its far-reaching oppression tends to become more
holistic and transformational in its nature.
