9-19-11<\/p>\n
My granddaughter Elsie was dedicated this weekend. Since I was not able to attend \u2013 partly because she is in Northern Ireland and I am not \u2013 Emily and Norman did the next best thing these days: hooked up a Skype connection. The ceremony \u201cstreamed live,\u201d and when I was asked to pray, a microphone was held to my spectral, flickering image. I am not sure the people in the church could hear (in fact I heard only every fifth word or so of theirs), but we all know that God did. I got to wondering: would the 120 have gathered in the Upper Room if there had been Skype 2000 years ago?<\/p>\n
The screen has become a part of our lives now. Tekkies tell us that, soon, smart-phone screens will substitute for computer screens, and soon will projected onto walls, even to handle touch-screen capabilities once projected. (In the meantime, of course, it took me 20 minutes to remember how to charge the laptop\u2019s batteries\u2026)<\/p>\n
In recent history, much of my supposed field, popular culture, essentially has been related to the small screen. Even our political history. Richard Nixon might have been kicked off Dwight Eisenhower\u2019s presidential ticket in 1952, but for the \u201cCheckers Speech\u201d he made on TV (decades later my mother still grew misty-eyed, recalling that piece of political theater). Eight years later, radio listeners to the Nixon-Kennedy debates rated Nixon the winner; but on TV he came across as sweaty, shifty-eyed, and dark (here merely was ill, warm, and had a five-o\u2019clock shadow)\u2026 and such was the power of TV that Kennedy narrowly won that election. It has always been my opinion that much of the American public and even a lot of Ronald Reagan\u2019s supporters viewed him as an overly amiable \u201caw, shucks\u201d guy, until one night in the 1980 primaries, a moderator tried to shut off Reagan\u2019s microphone in a hall he had rented. The Gipper angrily shouted, \u201cI\u2019m PAYING for this microphone, Mr Breen!\u201d Even Reagan\u2019s political rivals broke out in applause; and I remember thinking, \u201cTHAT\u2019s how he\u2019ll face down the Soviets.\u201d I think America saw him differently too, because of a TV moment.<\/p>\n
Last week a similar moment happened. I doubt whether history will turn on the exchange\u2026 but for one moment the crux of the Great Debate of the 20th century, and the American government\u2019s fate in the 21st, was in the headlights. Then things moved on, maybe never to be raised again. It was a moment in the Republican debate when moderator Wolf Blitzer asked a hypothetical health-care question of the only doctor on stage, Ron Paul. If a healthy man who chose not to buy insurance got very sick, \u201care you saying that society should just let him die?\u201d<\/p>\n
I am not making a brief for a candidate, believe me: The response was mechanistic, not theological. However, Rep. Paul spoke some common sense when he recalled that he began his medical practice before the days of Medicare and Medicaid. He never turned a patient away, and never knew a hospital to do so. \u201cWhat about family, friends, and churches?\u201d he asked rhetorically. Is that a heartless attitude\u2026 or is it biblical?<\/p>\n
Statistics indicate that Americans bestow more charity than do citizens of most other nations; that Christians donate more than people of other faiths; that conservatives are far more generous than liberals, along these lines. This is instructive, especially in the face of concerted campaigns to the contrary. That is, there are serious political efforts to end tax deductions for charitable contributions, and since the New Deal, we are confronted with philosophies that attempt to have government substitute for private charity.<\/p>\n
The dilemma is not, of course, whether to render assistance. It is co-opting the impulse behind it, making war on our freedoms of conscience and action. When government \u201ctakes care of the poor,\u201d we don\u2019t have to, is the general proposition: that is the mindset of the modern state. Whether the poor, or sick, or homeless, are measurably assisted, is actually an open question (poverty rates have changed little since the Great Society) \u2013 but many people’s consciences are deadened \u201cbecause the government will take care of the needy.\u201d And this is apart from the question of whether it is moral to coerce one person here to support the children of another person there; or a woman from, say, Arizona to have to pay for the surgery of a man from, say, Maine. Eventually, citizens will be unable on their own to assist folks when they hear about children needing assistance, or surgical procedures requiring help. Already 1.75 citizens supports one Social Security beneficiary, and then we start adding Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, disaster relief, foreign aid\u2026<\/p>\n
Years ago I was impressed, when reading St Augustine\u2019s Confessions<\/em>, how he regarded charity. He quoted Christ\u2019s words, \u201cthe poor ye shall always have with you,\u201d and explained this otherwise enigmatic verse. Augustine identified with the poor, in part because Christ did, and he was extraordinarily active on their behalf. Augustine had a vision of corrupt man as someone who, despite our best intentions, keeps returning to self. He warned in the same vein against a circular form of love where even acts of charity were futile if divorced from the love and will of God.<\/p>\n \u201cAnonymous\u201d charity \u2013 that is, actions devoid of love; empty \u2013 is self-absorbing at best, and an offense to God at worst. For Augustine came to realize, through the humility to which the Cross inevitably brings us, that an act of charity (that word is also translated as \u201clove\u201d) is a godly construct. The poor, who we will always have with us, inspire us to imitate Christ in their care\u2026 and that pleases God.<\/p>\n That the humility, even the shame, of the Cross, takes us (drags us?) to more of an outwardly focused life, is the essence of the fulfilled believer\u2019s life on earth. We evolve from awareness to compassion to identification to brokenness with the hurting, needy, and dependent. Which is, of course, our state too. Even when we are in Christ \u2013 I say, even MORE so, when we are in Christ \u2013 we must practice sacrificial love, tender mercy, and authentic assistance.<\/p>\n \u201cThat TV moment\u201d I mentioned above is when political types, and TV watchers, had a chance to think about the drift \u2013 more like a tsunami \u2013 of the past several generations. It is mighty hard to maintain the impulse of individual response, when the \u201cworld system\u201d keeps saying it is not our job, but theirs. St Augustine seemed to be looking 1600 years into the future when he wrote, \u201cWoe to the soul which supposes it will find something better if it forsakes You!\u201d<\/p>\n + + +<\/p>\n Casting Crowns and the Beanscot Channel combine for a simple but powerful lesson drawn from true \u201cChristian Charity\u201d \u2013 with Christ in our hearts we trust Him more; and with Christ in our hearts we do His will more willingly.<\/p>\n