Sermon: You Always Have the Poor with You

Delivered at Christ Church Washington (Episcopal) Parish; Washington, DC; 03-17-13. Year C, Fifth Sunday in Lent: Isaiah 43:16-21 • Psalm 126 • Philippians 3:4b-14 • John 12:1-8.

After Hurricane Katrina, I spent several months as a disaster recovery intern for the Diocese of Louisiana - in fact, that internship was the start of this blog. One of my starkest memories of that time is of standing in the abandoned Lower Ninth Ward Walgreen's parking lot where we ran a distribution center, listening to a destitute subcontractor tell his story to a deacon.

This subcontractor had just finished two weeks' worth of work, but was being ripped off with no available recourse. The stolen pay was devastating to his business, his crew, and his family, and he was understandably quite worked up and distraught. The deacon listened, prayed with him, and apologized, saying all I can give you is a hug and these Vienna sausages. The contractor insisted no apologies were necessary, replying, "No, you already gave me everything. You listened to me - you made me feel human and loved again. No one has done that in months."

There are many others here this morning who, like that deacon, do far more for the poor than I can ever hope to do. Today's Gospel is a particularly tough one for those of us focused on that mission: "You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."

It's been said that this is one of the most frequently abused verses in the Bible - that it is used to justify ignoring the poor as the basis for such non-Biblical quotes as "The Lord only helps those who help themselves." On Google, I found several pundits, like Bryan Fischer, using the verse to attack their political opponents and compare their motives to those of Judas. And if you've seen Andrew Lloyd Weber's "Jesus Christ Superstar," you might remember the Christ character's line, "Surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot."

But we know that that's not what Jesus meant. Helping the poor - not just the poor of spirit, but the unemployed, the prostitutes and bums, the "crackheads and welfare queens" - is mentioned more than any other topic in the Bible. This is who Jesus ate with. But if that's what this Gospel is not about - then what is it about?

I think that that deacon in Louisiana was on to something. He was serving the poor, but he was doing it as part of something bigger.

But we'll come back to that. First, let's take a step back and think about what it must have been like that night.

It was only the previous chapter of John that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and the authorities are terrified about what this means for their own power. Jesus and Lazarus are now both marked men - indeed, Good Friday is only eight days away. But for all the foreboding dark clouds ahead, one joyous fact, remains: Lazarus has been raised from the dead! Our brother is returned! His sisters Martha and Mary invite the Apostles into their home for a celebration. Worries are set aside, if only for one more night.

Mary alone among the Apostles seems to know what's coming and what it means. She takes this last celebratory occasion, this last happy moment together, to honor Christ. By anointing Him with perfume, she is preparing Him for death and burial. And by letting her hair down, she is doing it in a very intimate and personal way.

Despite the earlier quote, this scene is actually my favorite song from "Jesus Christ Superstar." In it, Mary sings a lullaby to Jesus: "Try not to get worried, try not to hold onto, problems that upset you - don't you know everything's alright, yes, everything's fine." But then, like bad news or politics at the Thanksgiving table, Judas completely misses the point and loudly interrupts everything.

In John, Jesus seems to reply not to Judas, but to the whole room: Yes, Judas is half right. Serving "the least of these" is one of our biggest missions - but it is also part of something even bigger still. You will always have the poor, He says, so you must always serve them. But, do not serve them for their sake, or for your own - serve them for me, says the Lord.

Service is just an effect. The cause is our loving relationship with the one true God. All else, including loving our sisters and brothers and seeing God's image in them, flows from that beautiful, challenging relationship.

Isaiah writes, "I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?" That night at Mary's house, the new thing was so close. It was barely a week away - not just the Cross, but the resurrection. The conquering of death, the conquering of grief and sorrow. The eternal reminder that things of this world, like death and poverty, are not final. We are reconciled to our loving Creator. This is the new thing God is doing - this is the Good News! Mary knew this, so she drew closer to Christ. But Judas couldn't see it. For poor Judas, the things of this world remained the only things.

This is why loving our neighbor is but the second commandment. Loving the Lord our God is still the first. This means step one is always pouring out the perfume on Christ's feet - not because God is some narcissist needing praise, but because, as the webcomic Coffee With Jesus points out, worship isn't for God - it's for us.

Worship isn't for God - it's for us. Through it, we grow closer to God. And when we find that closeness, it is only natural that we would want to spread it.

When, like Mary or the deacon in New Orleans, our service is service before God, two things happen. First, physical bread goes farther. For Judas, worldly service was the highest calling to which he could aspire. But because that is not actually true, he still felt empty - and turned not to Christ to fill that hole, but to greed. He would happily donate, say, 290 silver pieces, but steal 10 for himself. Had Judas been able to act in joy and give to the poor because he saw in them God's image, he would not have felt the need to steal, and they would have had more silver.

Second, when service is a means, not an end, we find that bread is not the only thing involved. Far more happens than simple economics - grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, hope, and love all come too. This is what I learned from that deacon in New Orleans. These are the things the contractor received, to the point that, for at least that one half hour, he barely cared that he hadn't been paid.

But if I may stop being preachy for a moment - I certainly fail at this. When I walk to work, past Union Station and the Postal Museum, I intentionally cross the street so that I'm not hit up by the same beggars each morning. Now we can have an argument about the effectiveness of giving money to a man on the sidewalk instead of to Bread for the City, but that would miss the point. I find myself avoiding my brothers, focusing more on the awkwardness of this world than on the dignity of a personal exchange or the love of Christ. I have a very, very long way to go.

But together, we can remember Paul's exhortation - we press on, we keep trying, precisely because Christ Jesus has made us His own. It's hard, but that's okay, because we get to start over and try again, every single day.

No matter what other critical values we have - challenging Pontius Pilate (or the White House or Wall Street), caring for creation, even spending time with our families - none can be fulfilled on their own. As Cara+ said last week regarding the Prodigal Son, it's all about walking towards Jesus.

And just as Jesus wasn't really talking to Judas in the Bible, I don't think Mary was really singing to Jesus in "Jesus Christ Superstar," either. She too was singing to us. When we see the new thing God is making, when we put our hope and trust in God alone, and not in the things of this world, then like Mary sang, we truly can "try not to get worried, try not to hold on to problems that upset you. Don't you know everything's alright, yes, everything's fine." When we lay our burden downs, look to Jesus, accept that love, and let everything else, including service, flow from that relationship first - then "everything's alright, yes, everything's fine."

Real men support the Violence Against Women Act

Speaker John Boehner did  the right thing today. He broke the "Hastert Rule" and allowed the Violence Against Women Act to pass. This means he brought a bill to the floor that was not supported by the majority of his party, but was supported by the majority of the House.

In other words, he set politics aside to let important legislation pass.

President Obama, Speaker Boehner, Senator Crapo (my senator), and the majority of Congress, thank you for your leadership on this issue. 1 in 6 women are raped and for American Indians, that number is 1 in 3, with far higher stranger & other-race attacker rates than the rest of the country. We need this bill, and we need the American Indian provisions that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor immorally stood against.

Unfortunately, Leader Cantor wasn't alone. He was joined by my senator, Jim Risch, and my congressman, Raul Labrador. Real men don't vote against the Violence Against Women Act. Here's a letter I just sent to Rep. Labrador:

Congressman Labrador,

You voted against the Violence Against Women Act today.

1 in 6 American women will be raped at some point in their lifetime. For American Indians, that rate is 1 in 3.

And yet you still voted against the Violence Against Women Act.

Not only did you vote against it, but I saw a quote from you criticizing Speaker Boehner for bringing legislation to the floor that has the support of the Congress and the American people but not your chamber's majority party. That means you're putting party ahead of democracy - shame on you.

I know you're far more conservative than me, but there's nothing wrong with that. Until now, I thought you were at least reasonable. Instead, it turns out you're an embarrassment. I am not represented in Washington, and you are not a real man. Real men don't vote against the Violence Against Women Act.

Sincerely,
Nathan Empsall

Not old, but older

I was driving in Virginia tonight and "My Next Thirty Years" came on. I've always liked this song, but it's sounded more like a man maturing as he becomes a father or a middle-aged guy in a midlife crisis (not that 30 is middle-aged, just the feel of the lyrics to a kid). A good song, but always about a distant and irrelevant part of life. Man, I might still be a few years off from 30, but tonight this song smacked me in the face like the bristle end of a broom. It sounded relevant, real, present, personal; not about life itself but about MY life. I've heard this number for 13 years but never like that before. It was like I was hearing an entirely new and different song. Just, wow. Don't blink.

"I'll go back and find something productive to do with my life. As opposed to the last 18 years."

Wow, now-former Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) spilled all about the GOP House Caucuse to The Atlantic. Two nuggets jumped out to me, beyond info on how dysfunctional the House GOP really is. First, there is some serious mistrust between House and Senate Republicans ("With Mitch McConnell's reputation as a deal-maker, we... knew we were going to get back something that didn't look good."). Second, the schism between Boehner and his lieutenants is growing ("He had expended a lot of political capital to get the 85 votes [on the fiscal-cliff deal], and he felt a little betrayed that the other members of the elected leadership walked on him.").

I lost most of my respect for Boehner over Plan B, but gained a lot back when he broke the Hastert rule. The Sandy crap aside, I also admire him as a person for being a deal-maker and not being a punitive individual. That said, he is a terrible politician in a tight spot. I don't know how he gets anything done at all. And as LaTourette said, "If the purpose of the place is to govern -- if your ideology is you don't believe in governing, I can't say anything to that. But if you want a smaller, more responsible government, you have to go for the achievable. Or you can say 'no' all you want, but then you can't squawk if leadership has to go across the hall to get Democrats to vote for it... Boehner can't be a leader if he doesn't have guys behind him to lead."

And the GOP caucus aside, this was a particularly blistering statement from LaTourette about Washington: "I'll go back and find something productive to do with my life. As opposed to the last 18 years."

How Guns Are Just Like Cars

A friend posted an image with what I consider to be a ludicrous argument about guns on Facebook today (see at right), and I wanted to post here what I said in her comments:

I agree that cars and guns are a great analogy, for several reasons.

First, a drunk driver chose to get drunk and get in the car. That's why cars for folks we believe will drive drunk can have ignition locks. Background checks, waiting periods, trigger locks, mandatory training, registration, and a more robust mental health system are firearms' equivalent of ignition locks. Second, we don't allow non-roadworthy vehicles like tanks or monster trucks to drive on our freeways. That's the equivalent of an assault weapons ban. Third, stop signs and driver's licenses don't mean the government is coming for our cars, and gun safety laws don't mean they're coming for our guns. Fourth, responsible car owners don't need all the laws we have. But we have them anyway, because it's important to keep irresponsible folks in check as much as we can, for the sake of the rest of us.

Indeed, I can only think of one major difference between guns and cars. Guns were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: Injury, often to the point of death. Maybe that's a deer in the woods, an enemy soldier in war, a criminal in your house, or a thug on the street, but it's always injury. Vehicles are obviously intended for a different purpose.

Guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people. People with knives do too, but not nearly as many, as evidenced by the knife massacre in China that injured over 20 people the same day the Sandy Hook gun massacre killed over 20. We can't kid ourselves; the guns do make a difference.

For more, I recommend this Ezra Klein article, "Twelve Facts About Guns and Mass Shootings in the United States." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

On the President's Sandy Hook Speech Tonight

Wow. Just watched the rerun of President Obama's speech at tonight's interfaith vigil. From climate to Afghanistan to Congressional negotiation to general attitude, I have my issues with this administration. But on the personal level, it's clear that Barack Obama is a deep, complex, reflective, and dare I say great man. And i's very different when I watch this speech as coming from the President of the United States, not from Barack the man. I am reminded of the limitations of the office, and then for the first time in a long time, I am blown away.

From the President of the United States: "Why are we here? What gives our life meaning? What gives our acts purpose?

"We know our time on this Earth is fleeting. We know that we will each have our share of pleasure and pain, that even after we chase after some earthly goal, whether it's wealth or power or fame or just simple comfort, we will, in some fashion, fall short of what we had hoped. We know that, no matter how good our intentions, we'll all stumble sometimes in some way.

"We'll make mistakes, we'll experience hardships and even when we're trying to do the right thing, we know that much of our time will be spent groping through the darkness, so often unable to discern God's heavenly plans.

"There's only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have for our children, for our families, for each other."

On Gun Control, Mental Health, and why Today is the Day

To those saying we should wait to discuss the causes and solutions of gun violence and mental illness: This is the third high-profile shooting in a week. If not now, when? A couple days? Okay, this is a couple days from the Oregon shooting. A month or two? Fine, Aurora and Wisconsin. Years? Okay - Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabby Giffords, and Omaha. If there's another shooting at the end of whatever waiting period you would have us observe, do we have to extend the waiting period yet again, and let even more people die in the meantime?

Today IS the day to discuss how to prevent these tragedies. Simply talking about the victims rather than actions does nothing for them or their future brethren. If we wait to discuss action, then the fresh feelings of pain and urgency will subside, as they do every time, and policy arguments will go unheeded. The event will no longer be a motivator that can prevent more like it from happening again. In that vein, I can think of no better way to commemorate the victims than to let our grief motivate us to act right away, rather than only let it make us feel sad.

If you do wish to take action now, I haven't seen anything on mental health, but I have seen four gun control petitions - Howard Dean's Democracy for America (a friend wrote this one), Daily Kos's, one from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and one at WhiteHouse.gov. Indeed, the one from WhiteHouse.gov has over 50,000 signatures, something I've never seen happen that quickly on their tool before.

In response to some of the reasons WHY some folks say wait, I would add that, yes, we are dark on the specifics of today's massacre, but that doesn't matter. Just like monster hurricanes and climate change, it's not about the individual event, but rather, the pattern. Aurora, the Wisconsin Sikh temple, Oregon, today, so many smaller local shootings - and all in a few short months. It's an epidemic, one no other country not in civil war faces. The individual tragedy is now a catalyst that could well be necessary to address the former.

Additionally, though I believe saving lives is worth causing a small handful of individuals a small amount of more pain, I don't believe it's what's happening here. Those families aren't paying much attention to the op-ed pages or social networks today. They have other things to do. And even if they were paying attention, personally, I believe preventing more victims like them and addressing the cause of their situation is the best way to honor and commemorate them. Gabby Giffords's husband, who has of course been one of them, seems to agree; he's speaking out today as well.

But I'll end on a different note. Obviously, it's not just about changing our laws, approach to mental health, or culture of violence. 27 families are in immeasurable pain today, and thousands more are suffering from the tragedy at their school or town. Hundreds of children are at risk of PTSD, and will grow up too soon. I hope that all of these people know that God loves them and their children, and that Jesus suffered a similar pain. Good Friday is necessary to have Easter Sunday. But whether they know that or no, there is no solace today; they will be in pain for a long time. No words can explain or fix it; the ones that come closest that I have found are Phillip Yancey's book, "Where Is God When It Hurts?" But at the end of the day, all I can say is, I hope they feel God's presence and love, or that they will soon. I doubt this is part of some master plan God has; it is what happens in a broken world of pain and free will. But His love and guidance can, and will, pull us through.

A post-election letter to conservatives

Originally posted on Facebook, with some light edits:

Dear conservative friends - Here's my message to you as a "pro-life", anti-pot liberal from two very red states who knows politics and has been on the losing end of some bruising elections: It will be okay.

As a former professor of mine used to say, a look at history proves that America survives in spite of her leaders, not because of them. He's right. I survived Bush, and you will survive Obama. That's what America does: She survives, endures, grows, leads, and perseveres, and when she does make mistakes (we'll disagree about last night, but surely we agree that there have been devastating mistakes before), she almost always makes up for them. To despair is to abandon your patriotism for America and your faith in God, and I know you're stronger than that.

More importantly, in the long run, our primary focus should never be who is in the White House or the Capitol. To put all our hopes in the ballots of men rather than in God will leave us far worse of than the outcome of the ballot itself, no matter who wins.

Go ahead. Say the country is ruined, the voters were duped, our freedom is gone, we'll never be the same. Of course I disagree; I'm proud of what the U.S. accomplished last night, and we could argue about what happened and what it means. But that's not the point. The point is this: Catharsis is good. Get it out. But on some level, remember that people said the exact same things and felt the exact same way in 2004, 1996, 1972, even, yes, 1984. So take a week, pick yourself up off the mat, and come give us your best shot over this whole fiscal cliff thing. It wouldn't be the same without you.

Final 2012 Predictions

My predictions: Romney wins Florida and North Carolina (Omaha and Indiana also flip but they're more red than swing this time anyway), but Obama wins all the other swing states (yes, VA, OH, WI, NH, and especially CO and NV thanks to field program and Latino vote) and thus wins re-election with 303 electoral votes to Romney's 235. The state I am most uncomfortable about guessing is Florida, with NC, VA, and NH also on the fence, but hey, time to stop hedging and actually guess. Regardless, if Obama loses VA and NH too, he still wins with 286 votes. I think he'll also eke out the popular vote despite Hurricane Sandy suppressing northeastern turnout and Romney racking up the score in the deep South.

Democrats pick up Senate seats in IN, MA, and ME, while losing them in ND and NE. Current party holds in AZ, CT, FL, MO, MT, NM, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI, etc. End result - Dems +1, a far cry from the Dems -2-3 of just a month or two ago. I could also see Dems winning NE, ND, or maaaaaybe NV, and the GOP winning MT or maaaaaybe MO or WI. But again, time to make a real guess.

GOP hold House; slim Dem pickups of maybe 10. Only specific races I'll guess - Guinta (R) holds and Kuster (D) unseats Bass in New Hampshire.

One month out: 2012 predictions

President (Electoral College): Obama 322, Romney 216

House: Democrats 211, Republicans 224

Senate: 53 Democrats/Independents, 47 Republicans (no net change - specific states to come later)

By the way, based on GOP nominee Ricky Perry, Newt Gingrich's five primary victories, and Romney running mate Rob Portman, I'm having a great cycle predicting things, so, y'know, take this to the bank.