Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>Secondly, in this case, Paul may not be the historical Paul.  The letter
>known as II Thessalonians is not among the undisputed letters of Paul.
    
    Richard, double negatives here, (tsk, tsk).  I had to read it several
    times to finally agree with you.  II Thessalonians is among the
    disputed letters.  In all likelihood it was not from Paul.
    
    Historians believe that II Thessalonians was addressing the problem of
    people feeling that the end time was so immanent, that they would stop
    working and actively wait for the end time.
    
    The message was, Only God knows exactly when the end time will come, so
    get back to the task of daily living.  Those who do not work will not
    eat.
    
    The passage read in that light is really not about the poor at all.

    Good point Patricia.  Still, it leaves the main question unanswered. 
    What do we do about the thief on Nashua Street panhandling and robbing
    from the poor woman with the two children on Boylston Street?
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I would suggest that you seek guidance from your  faith community
    regarding how to treat the panhandler on Nashua Street.
    
    From past conversations, it appears that you are not really interest in UU
    principles as guidance for your own behavoir.
    
    I'm not playing ping pong anymore.  I'm not interested in converting
    you and I have no interest in your conservative theology as a basis for
    my own behovior. 
                                   

ZZ    From past conversations, it appears that you are not really
ZZ    interest in UU principles as guidance for your own behavoir.
    
    Patricia, you cut me to the quick!  There are many UU principles I am
    interested in and believe in.  The Fruits of the Spirit.  I do however
    believe the social gospel is from the pit of hell just as any other 
    false gospel is.
        
ZZ    I'm not playing ping pong anymore.  
    
    That's a cute way of stating you don't really value diversity, you
    don't really have the integrity to continue dialog and apparently you 
    lack the longsuffering to deal with alternative ways of thinking.
    
ZZ    I'm not interested in converting
ZZ    you and I have no interest in your conservative theology as a basis
ZZ    for my own behovior. 
    
    Oh, is this what you've been trying to do?  I always thought you were
    here to provide balance like I was.  Regarding your second remark, tell
    us something we don't know.  
    
    -Jack

    Does not the heart of the New Testament address this sort of thing? 
    Pardon my partial and probably imprecise quotes here...
    
    With regard to giving in general...
     "If he asks for your cloak, give him your (???) as well"
     "Give and you shall receive" 
    
    With regard to giving based on who/what "they" are...
     "Judge and you shall be judged"
     "Love your enemy"
     "Remove the beam from yourown eye..."
     
    And then of course...
     "Do onto others..."
    
    
    The "heart" of the teachings seem to suggest that one give freely and
    unconditionally, even to an enemy! They seem to suggest that judgement
    of the other should not be part of the decision process. Indeed, there
    should be no decision process at all.  And there are other passages
    which suggest you're actually doing yourself a favor by stripping
    yourself of the material posessions and working on your spiritual life.
    
    It's a philosphy that I admire strongly but cannot bring myself to
    adopt in practice.  I admire those very few who actually practice these
    teachings.  I understand those who aspire to them, can't bring
    themselves to "give all that they have", and admit they fall short of 
    the target.  I question those who look for loopholes in passages which 
    were not Jesus' words and which are contrary to the heart of the New 
    Testament.  
    
    The message seems so clear.  For those who believe, I mean REALLY
    BELIEVE, I can't understand why they don;t just give everything to the
    Salvation Army and live the life that was taught.  Maybe some (read
    "some") of our homeless and our saints are one in the same.
    
    -dave
    

    Dave:
    
    I was walking by Mass General Hospital when a man came up and asked,
    "Mr., could you spare a dollar for a sandwich?"  I answered by stating
    I'd do one better.  If you come with me, I will not only buy you a
    sandwich personally but I will buy you anything else you want as well.
    He politely refused and moved on. 
    
    What I resent is the implication that BECAUSE I did not give him the
    cash, I am somehow on a lesser pinnacle of goodness, a lesser degree of
    charity than some of my colaborers.  Somehow, I am at fault for my lack
    of trust in the poor individual on the street and am scorned for
    suggesting the poor individual stand by my side while I order lunch for
    the man.  
    
    The points you brought up are important one's but this isn't the
    context of what is being discussed.  It is the point of giving
    prudently just as I mentioned above.  Needless to say the individual I
    offered this to did in fact lie and proved his intent some 90 minutes
    later when he was seen inebriated on the sidewalk.  
    
    If somebody feels giving money is ALWAYS a more charitable way to help
    curb hunger in this country, well guess what?  You're wrong I'm sorry
    to say, and your faith in the human condition is perpetuating the
    problem even more.
    
    -Jack

 I don't think this passage has anything to do with the homeless, or those
 who are unable to provide for themselves.  I believe the passage is referring
 to those who are in the ministry and not contributing, but are there only for
 the material blessings.  For example, in my church as in most, there are
 folks who are there to "soak in" but not participate in the work of the 
 ministry.  


 Back in the early days of the church there was a more communal spirit.  The
 work of the ministry was performed by this group, and they all contributed
 to the meal.  Some folks did nothing, but were there to eat.



 Jim

    Jim,
    
    I'm confused.
    
    How does one "soak in but not participate in the work of ministry?"
    
    
                                         Patricia

>    How does one "soak in but not participate in the work of ministry?"
    
    
  In every church, mine included there are areas of ministry..ie, Sunday
  School teaching, choir, bus ministry, usher, nursery workers, etc.  Vital
  functions of the ministry.  However, it usually works out that there are
  a handful of people participating in these ministries, many of whom work in
  several of them, while there are a great many members who benefit from these
  minstries, but do not participate.

  They "soak in" (perhaps not the correct term, the efforts of these minstries,
  but don't put anything into them.


 In Paul's day when the Church was just getting started, there was the same
 thing.."if you don't participate (work) in the ministry, you don't eat"  This
 is not to say that people would starve, I'm sure..but they were expected
 to chip in.




 Jim

    
    > What I resent is the implication that BECAUSE I did not give him the
    > cash, I am somehow on a lesser pinnacle of goodness, a lesser degree of
    > charity than some of my colaborers. 

    Give me a pointer. 

    What I have seen criticized is the attitude of ignoring the needy all
    together, not offering to feed them. What I have seen criticized is the
    the implication that the poor are poor of their own accord. Oh, sure
    the phrase "*some* poor people..." is used, but it's used, as I said in
    another note, to indite the entire group on the basis of the minority
    example.

    Any time someone mentions the need for compassion for the poor, the
    comment of the alcoholic, junkie pan-handler -- or some equally
    despicable sort -- is thrown out as a knee jerk response. Though some
    comments are more pointed than others, at times the underlying
    Dickensian theme is not too hard to pick out. 

    Somewhere between the cruel master of the Dickensian work house and
    the doe-eyed, naive, bleeding heart liberal, lie the participants in
    this conference. Although society in general and politicians in
    particular have given us all reasons to be jaded, the question is not
    what does Sen's. Gramm  or Kennedy teach us, but what does *Christ*
    teach us. All I know is that my God teaches love, compassion and
    humility. He teaches giving, and not financial management. He teaches
    love, and not stereotypical judgment. He does not teach "don't be a
    sucker." 

    Is it frustrating when you try to help some people repeatedly, only to
    find they slipped back into self destructive behavior? Sure it is! So
    what? Did Jesus say "look, if you're frustrated it's OK to give up."
    The old saying goes "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make
    him drink." True enough; Jesus commands us only to bring the water.
    There will always be poor people, because there will always be some
    that will not drink. That doesn't mean we are excused from offering
    water. (as you did, Jack)


    	Eric

 My church has been "victimized" by some who make the rounds from church
 to church getting money and or food.  It has been obvious that they were
 taking advanage of the church(s).  However, that does not stop us from
 helping those who ask.  It may be we "check them out", but most of the time
 we'll load them up with food from our pantry, or pastor will take them to
 the grocery store and load them up, or he'll take cash from his own pocket
 and give (giving cash is a rarity, however).




 Jim

.6

>    What I resent is the implication that BECAUSE I did not give him the
>    cash, I am somehow on a lesser pinnacle of goodness, a lesser degree of
>    charity than some of my colaborers.  Somehow, I am at fault for my lack
>    of trust in the poor individual on the street and am scorned for
>    suggesting the poor individual stand by my side while I order lunch for
>    the man.

I do not scorn you for offering what you did, Jack.  I would have done
the same.  But not for the same reason -- not because I feared I might be
imprudently giving, but because Jesus encouraged relationship and the
breaking of bread together.

Shalom,
Richard

    Jim,
    
    given your use of the metaphor, if you don't work you don't eat, are
    you suggesting that those who do not actively support the church with
    their time and effort, should not participate in the church?
    
                                       Patricia

    "What do we do about the panhandler on Nashua Street?"
    
    That is a good question.
    
    I might be a good idea not to give the panhandler cash!
    
    
    We might pray for him!
    
    We might feel compassion for him.
    
    We might talk with him, look him in the eye, show him some respect
    because he is a fellow human being.
    
    We should not judge him.  We have not walked in his shoes.
    We should not call him a "thief"
    
    We should not abuse him in any way.
    
    I personally feel lost and a keen sense of inadequacy when I see
    homeless people on the street.
    
    
                             Patricia
    

I would go along with Patricia (.14).

Another thing I might offer is to take him to the soup kitchen and
to stay with him for lunch and get to know him better.  I might later
mail a donation to the soup kitchen.

One of the redeeming verses of II Thessalonians 3.6-15 says not to treat
the other as an enemy, but as one of your own (verse 15).

Shalom,
Richard

    It sounds like what you are trying to tell me is to continue doing what
    I do...offer to help but at the same time, be sure my intent is one of
    nobility and remove my suspicion from the equation so that me heart is
    in the right place.  
    
    I find your suggestions to be good ones.  I simply have this fear that
    money given will be used for liquor, and I feel its a travesty when
    there are people who genuinely need sustainance to stay alive, i.e.
    shelter, food, warmth.  
    
    Eric, your point yesterday was taken.  You are right, it is grossly
    unfair to categorize the poor in one clump because of a few; it may
    sound like I do this but I know to do so would be just as wrong as
    stating all republicans are right wing extremists!  
    
    -Jack

>    Jim,
    
 >   given your use of the metaphor, if you don't work you don't eat, are
 >   you suggesting that those who do not actively support the church with
 >   their time and effort, should not participate in the church?
    
  
   It is certainly not up to me to make such a suggestion.  I believe that if
   one becomes a member of a local New Testament Church, having been saved,
   then serving God in that church should be a priority for them.  What if
   they are a member and don't get involved?  I believe ultimately that's
   between them and God.



 Jim