Pardon my slight change of the subject of religion to a practical outworking of religion. In two previous posts I began addressing the question of an appropriate response of Christians to the poor, as the political solution has either been to give the poor a handout or expect them to pull themselves out of poverty. Christians need to pray (because prayer leads to caring and recognizes only God changes hearts) for the poor, and need to be present in the community they wish to change. Third, and the focus of this post, is to personalize.

When I was in college, one of my professors, Jana Sundene, used to say “People, not programs.” She was referring to ministry work in churches, but the same applies to working with the poor. The government deals with programs. Are programs bad? Certainly not, but the government, in case no one has noticed, is huge. I’m not making a value judgment on size, simply stating a reality. This means that the huge government is attempting to help individuals that to the government are simply names and numbers. There is no personalization, nor should there be. Government, by nature, needs to be largely objective, otherwise corruption and manipulation come into play. Government, by and large, cannot and probably should not (I let Greg discuss the ‘should’) be making judgment calls as to who deserves assistance and who does not. For one thing, the government is to large to make micro judgment decisions. For another, how would the government determine who is  “deserving” assistance? Again, this is simply reality.

But, Christians are  individuals who live day to day in the micro rather than the macro. I do not live in California and have no contact with poor Californians. I do, however, have contact on a micro scale with poor Wisconsinites and soon, Virginians. My small church community is also in a community and can make personal, subjective decisions based on scripture (ala, if you don’t work, you don’t eat, etc.) about who ‘deserves’ assistance and who is just lazy. The micro nature of individuals and individual faith communities allows for personalization of the decision, making it most beneficial to those who have needs.

But this micro nature of individuals and churches also recognizes that the people being helped are persons. They are not treated as names and numbers but as human beings who have value and have needs. Not only can the actual assistance of these individuals be personalized, those helping can communicate that the recipient is a person who has been created by God with true, intrinsic value.

There is one draw back of this personalization. It’s difficult. The government can mail out checks and remain emotionally uninvolved. In order for personalization to take place, every Christian must get involved with the poor in their area, being a praying presence. But this also means that it might get messy. These are real people with real problems. They are not just lists of names and the amount of check they receive. Personalization means taking time, learning a person’s story, and doing what is best for that person. It means experiencing the joy of having it ‘work’ and suffering the emotion of disappointment when helping out the less fortunate blows up in our face. Yet, none of this changes the fact that Jesus (who also had it blow up in his face, although that was the plan!) has called personal Christians to be personally involved rather than letting an impersonal government depersonalize the poor.

As the dust settles after a clear win by President Obama last night, I’ve found the rhetoric interesting. On the one side I hear tried and true right-leaning republicans ask “Does this mean the majority of our country feels entitled to handouts?” On the other side, I hear more moderate conservatives state “Maybe our strategy of ‘work hard and you’ll pull yourself up financially’ doesn’t work with the masses. I find both interesting because these are both questions we have discussed here on this blog in the past few weeks.

On the one hand, “No” the majority of our country does not feel entitled to handouts. However, they have rejected the far right perspective of “You can do it yourself without any help from government!” Moderates have finally realized this fact, a fact which I stated less than a week ago. There are only a small percentage of people in this country who are self-starting entrepreneur types. People need some help. Maybe now politicians will wake up and realize standing on the sidelines shouting to the poor to pull themselves up by the bootstraps doesn’t really help anyone.

If it alliterates it must be true, right? As we talk about organizing compassion for the poor, as we begin to pray that God would cause us to have compassion on the less fortunate, we are faced with the continued question of how we are to care for those who live elsewhere than we do. I care for my neighbor, but what do I do when my neighbor is not poor and the poor are not my neighbor? Simple, move!

It’s right there in Matthew 28:19…Go! In fact, in Greek, not only is the “Go!” a command, it’s also done simultaneous with making disciples–“As you go…” Of course, American Christianity has chosen “come and be discipled” over “go and make disciples,” but that is an issue for another post. But the same root cause underlies both–we are content to wait for the opportunity to disciple or to help the poor to move in next door. And by next door, I mean right next door! The idea of going fifteen miles to get into an area where the poor are is simply too much effort for most people.

In order to really help the poor, we have to be present in their lives and present in their communities. In some cases, this means moving back into those communities that have become devoid of caring people through urban flight. One of the problems with forced compassion or redistributed entitlement of wealth is that in many cases as the poor become unpoor, they too flee to the suburbs, leaving more poor behind them without a caring presence. If we truly cared, we would put our money where our mouth is and move into the communities that need help, being part of the solution. Throwing money into these areas from out in the suburbs simply won’t help. These people need compassion, not a handout.

But presence doesn’t simply mean moving, although that is a great option. Perhaps it means choosing to shop at stores in that area, building relationships with clerks. It may mean getting out of my car when I buy gas so I can talk to the clerk inside rather than just swiping my card at the machine. I may eat at restaurants in those areas, participate in programs in those areas, and simply be a presence.

Sound difficult, sound impossible? I grew up in Green Bay Wisconsin, where one of the deacons at my church had a heart for mercy ministry. This manifested itself in such a way that if anyone needed help moving, whether from the church or not, this deacon would get a truck and organize a team. So here they were at a random house in a poorer neighborhood of Green Bay, helping someone move who had simply called in for help. A passerby saw what was going on and approached the deacon and said “Hey, are you the church guys who help people move?” No advertisement, no uniforms, no signage, but people knew. How? Presence. They were known in the community, their compassion was known in the community because they were present. And…they all lived in the ‘suburbs’ but they were still present in the community.

Dan is right…it starts with prayer, but prayer must lead to action, neighboring not just with those who become neighbors, but becoming neighbors with those we want to help by being present.

In my last post, I stated that I would present a series of posts about how Christians should respond to the poor. This all stems from Dan’s recent post on ‘forced compassion.’ Dan has summed up it well recently when he stated that forced compassion is not true compassion. Instead, forced compassion is a redistribution of wealth. On the other extreme we have ‘free compassion,’ which states that compassion should be truly free from external ‘force.’ Unfortunately, this often results in people rejoicing that they now have extra money in their pockets, tax rates have dropped, and the poor are forgotten. So, howshould we properly respond to the poor.

The first step must be prayer. I’m sure somewhere a large segment of readers are rolling their eyes. Oh no, he’s going spiritual on us! Let me further explain why this is necessary. I care about my neighbor. Just recently, the woman next door lost her job. I care. Her husband is gone for days at a time as a truck driver. I care. I’ve been secretly repairing and repainting things on their house in an effort to help out because I care for my neighbor. However, Milwaukee is fifteen minutes away, I feel bad for the poor in that city, but do I do anything to help them? No. Is this bad? Of course not. I’ve already explained how I care for my neighbor. If I care for my neighbor and you care for your neighbor there will be no poor. Or will there?

Similar arguments are often made concerning racism. My neighbor also happens to be a minority. I care for him, thus I am not a racist. Do I have problems with my neighborhood becoming full of minorities? Of course not because I am not a racist. Will that ever actually happen? Probably not. The problems of racial divide keep the minorities in Milwaukee and those of my race in the burbs. Intentional? No, but it is the reality. Claiming I am not a racist is true, but ineffective in dealing with a systemic problem of racial divide.

Back to the poor. My localized attempts at helping the poor, while kind and noble, will not solve systemic problems of the poor unless I think big picture rather than patting myself on the back for caring for my poor neighbor. The problem, though, is I do not really care about the poor in Milwaukee because I don’t live by them. I care for my neighbor because I have a relationship with them as my neighbor. Those in Milwaukee are nameless faces, statistics on the news, but not my neighbor. Thus, my level of caring is lower or non-existent.

Sadly, though, nothing will take place in Milwaukee until those in the suburbs start caring. And how will people in the suburbs start caring for those they do not live with or even next too? Only the grace of God, thus the call to prayer.

Prayer affects two things. First, it admits the problems of Milwaukee will not begin to be solved until the hearts of the people of Milwaukee are changed, and that is out of my control. Only God can control hearts and change them, so I need to pray for those in Milwaukee. Second, my heart needs to be changed so that I care for those who are distant from me as more than just a number or a ‘project.’ My heart needs to care for the poor in Milwaukee, and I’m no more able to change others hearts than I can my own. Thus, I need to pray. The result of praying for something is that I start to care. My heart is changed, leading to true compassion.

Before we can act, we have to care. If we are honest, I think we will realize that we only care about our own spheres. In order to care for those who are where we are not, our hearts must change. We cannot have free compassion without compassion in the first place. So, let us pray and ask God to change us so that we truly care. Only when we care can we prepare to act.

I recently had a conversation about forced compassion with a friend of mine who I view as typical of the political far right. In our discussion, we turned our attention to one of the largest problem areas in the Dairy State: Milwaukee. My friend would like to see the elimination of ‘forced compassion’ in Milwaukee, a proposition I agree with, but I asked him what would fill the gap of needs in the city if government assistance is eliminated? His answer is all too common on the far right: nothing, the poor can simply dig themselves out of poverty through their own personal initiative and hard work. Start a small business, be creative, go to college, pull yourself out.

This is a typical answer, one even candidates on the right have referenced when talking about the costs of college education. Work hard, make sacrifices, give it your all, and you can succeed in achieving the American dream, regardless of the financial level at which you began. Thus, those in inner-city poverty can dig themselves out of poverty if they try hard enough. This is, of course, the exact opposite of what those on the far left would argue that everyone who is poor needs government assistance.

The difference is not so much about strategy but promised results. Those on the left honestly believe that they can help everyone out of poverty through their assistance programs, which is certainly doubtful. But look at those on the right who argue for personal ingenuity on the part of the poor to dig themselves out of poverty. At best, only a small percentage will actual dig themselves out because such a small percentage of human beings are wired in this way. The culture and cycle of poverty has eliminated the drive in many people causing them to become resigned to their place of poverty. Those on the right seem content to consign the poor to their current position and then point to the personal failures of the poor as the reason they remain in poverty.

I’m not a sociologist, but it appears to me that those on the left and the right help roughly the same percentage of people. I’m not going to attempt to explain why, I just know that changing parties in power seems to have little effect on the status of the poor. Those on the left promise a lot and deliver little. Those on the right promise little and deliver about as much. Those on the left want to ‘force compassion’ and attempt to help everyone while those on the right call for ‘free compassion’ and help only those who help themselves. Neither position is helpful. The left seems to eliminate personal responsibility while the right places too much emphasis upon it. What then is the proper response?

What I would propose over the next several posts that I make on this topic is a strategy that ignores both the playbook of the left and the right while taking pieces from each in an attempt to help the poor. The right must be rejected for not helping the helpless. The left must be rejected because one realistically cannot help those who refuse to help themselves. The right should be listened to for emphasizing the value of personal drive. The left should be listened to for emphasizing the need to help those who do not have personal drive. The result of a combined strategy will not be political as much as it will hopefully be Christian and attainable. Milwaukee can be helped, but only if we as individuals separate ourselves from political rhetoric and theory and get involved in the trenches of the cities, fulfilling James 1:27 rather than just talking about it.