Luke 16:19-31
Proper 21 (26) - Year C
questions as a way of life
Here is a comic strip that plays well with the Luke and Jeremiah passages this week:
Enjoy.
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-as-way-of-life.html
Whether ignoring the poor by sticking a nose in a newspaper, attending to Facebook, or listening to your tunes, we have a multitude of ways to compartmentalize our lives. We don't know just what technique for separation this particular rich man used to ignore Lazarus but it seemed to work for him.
Alive or dead, Lazarus didn't make a difference in the economic and political arenas of his world.
Periodically, when circumstances become dire enough for a large enough group, there comes a revolution that would put the ignoring-class in enough hurt to be a warning to future generations of "ignorers". Of course they will also ignore the lessons of their predecessors.
Smashing ignorance and revolution together we find "angels" to be fomenters of revolution leading the currently ignored to a favored position.
Those who do not attend to the prophets won't attend to historical precedent, much less learn from it. Their addiction to short-term personal gain is too all-consuming.
May you be an "angel" this week and for as long as there is not enough for all because of the hoarding of a few.
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2013/09/luke-1619-31.html
It is easy to express what might be called "compassion" with those we are particularly fond of in the moment or with those behind us or ahead of us in time. This might better be called "being sorry for", as in pity, commiseration, condolence or sympathy.
"Compassion" is one of of the big universals and if it is not pulling us into a larger frame then it is probably not compassion. To have compassion for one's sisters or brothers and in regard to a danger they will someday face if they don't face up to that danger now is a good and worthy endeavor. If, however, it ends with one's brothers without pulling us toward others who are in the same situation it quickly becomes a mere special interest.
It is easy compassion to care about American deaths in Iraq without extending that care to the many more Iraqi deaths. It is easy compassion to care about those caught in what we have come to call the holocaust without caring about those caught in present discriminations that are more narrowly cast. It is easy compassion to care for those grandchildren to come whom we project will face ecological devastation without caring about those who are already caught in it by their bodies allergic reactions todays.
Compassion is defined online by Merriam-Webster as: "sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it." My sense is that compassion is more active and universal than this. A distinction can be drawn between a willingness or desire to bear a "cross" and the actual bearing of it. Another distinction is between alleviating an injustice for an individual or group or alleviating an injustive for all.
Where is compassion leading you in regard to people's lives?
The following article was forwarded to me and I thought it might lead you to pursuing the active compassion question in your own current life-situation:
Dawn McMullan: Scouts give me common cause with Log Cabin Republicans
The Log Cabin Republicans are to politics what the Jews for Jesus are to religion. Their very existence is defined by a deal breaker in my opinion.
As a straight Democrat, I wouldn't have thought I had much in common with this national group of gay and lesbian Republicans. But when they recently decided not to endorse George W. Bush, I suddenly felt like dancing a round of Sister Sledge's "We Are Family" with the entire group.
They are taking a stand against discrimination. And so am I -- starting with the group of harmless Boy Scouts who meet regularly at my small, liberal Methodist church in the M streets.
Although we have a good number of gay and lesbian members -- and most of the congregation is certainly gay friendly -- the Scouts' meeting there on a weekly basis never seems to bother anyone. Would our congregation be so apathetic if this were a group that discriminated against African-Americans, women or Jews? I think not.
So over lunch recently, I asked a gay friend from our congregation if he was bothered by the church opening its doors to the Scouts -- a group that comes outright and says it will not allow leaders or members to be openly gay.
Craig just shook his head at the question: "And if I'm not bothered by it," he said, "I doubt you'll find anyone else at the church who is."
Well, I am. And this isn't my first run-in with those boys in brown. Last year, my sons were starting a new school. At the very first parent meeting, another first-grade mom asked me and my husband if Noah, our then 6-year-old, would like to join their Tiger Cub Scout troop. I was bothered by two things:
1) I was going to have to make a political and social stand in the first three minutes of our family's journey with this school. I have no problem taking such stances, but I usually prefer to learn someone's last name before I do so.
2) I was sad that my son was going to miss out on this fun opportunity that would help him make friends at his new school. And, worse, that I might have to explain why.
The encounter -- along with the recent discussion with my friend over lunch -- makes me wonder: Does anyone take a stance on issues at the street level anymore? Kerry. Bush. Vietnam. Iraq. Gay marriage. Abortion. These are the biggies we argue about at the dinner table and on the nightly news.
Boy Scouts don't even hit the radar by comparison these days. Are we just quietly saying we don't care?
My kids are as clueless as George Michael in his straight years that gay prejudice even exists. Once when Craig was out of town and his partner Monty was coming for dinner, my 4-year-old asked, "Who's Monty?" to which Noah explained, "Craig's husband."
Of course, there was a time when Noah thought Monty and Craig were brothers, so maybe he's even more open-minded than I am. When they got married in Canada this summer and were coming over one afternoon so we could give them their wedding present, my 4-year-old said, "They're both boys," as if he were pointing out that Scooby Doo was, in fact, a dog. He didn't care, but did want to make sure we knew.
My boycott of the Boy Scouts is definitely a baby-and-the-bath-water situation. But you can't micromanage discrimination. What affects an entire group of people you may disagree with affects my friend Craig. And Monty. And Laura. And Cabrina. And Paula. And Cindy. And John.
So this is where the Log Cabins and I find common ground. They will be Republicans. I will still go to my church, which is working on its own issues at the administrative levels when it comes to accepting gays. They will not endorse Mr. Bush. And I will not endorse a group -- be it by signing up my son to be a member or quietly watching them gather in my church -- that, as a policy, discriminates against gays.
To me, that's a deal breaker.
Dawn McMullan is a free-lance writer based in Dallas. Her e-mail address is dmcmullan@sbcglobal.net. This article can be found on the Dallas Morning News [MISSING URL]
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2004/september2004.html
Trying to convince your brothers who have an "affluent angst" (sensing a conspiracy that keeps them from having more) to reduce their desires on behalf of a common good has a long history of failure. They simply will not see they are setting themselves up for the decay of the very infrastructure that supports them and eventually leads to their downfall and the downfall of many.
Another term for this is "short-termitis". It keeps us glued to the micro-movement of dollars and immunizes us against any long-term planning based on an honest appraisal of the effects of our decisions.
Take a look at the U.S. deficit and see if there is any turning away from the political necessity to cut taxes without cutting services. What warning will cut through greed?
If folks refuse to see this as a moral issue of how we leave the world for our grandchildren, they won't listen to any prophet, including Jesus, or recognize any sign in their midst.
It takes a huge sense of being loved anyway to risk any experience but mine or to rethink in terms other than what benefits me right now. This story is pertinent to our current political situation and applies to both major parties.
Who will give heed to Lazarus now? Will we simply employ more sore-licking dogs as a supposed humane response to institutionalized poverty?
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2004/september2004.html
O what a bosom has Abraham (apparently the author didn't exactly see Sarah, so she shows up in this elliptical phrasing). Likewise we see things that aren't there and overlook other matters. Here the poor is named and the rich unnamed. Quite a reversal. However, that doesn't suit our need for hierarchy and so we force a made-up name on the rich fool - Dives.
We do so want to be in control. Even the unnamed, when finally waking up to their loss of place, desire to be known as the salvation of others and begin to do all they know - order others to do their bidding and to understand that their options they open will be willingly jumped through by others. So the dead rich guy sets up salvation rules: someone dead must come back to get the attention of the attention-dead and warn of what nature and tradition around have been saying for millennia. Then they'll be saved and thankful and come and bring me a sip of cool water (are you listening, Dan?).
What a ruse the old dead guy plots for his own relief. Appeal to their religious sentiments, who could give up playing the savior role? Well Abraham and Sarah and Lazarus saw through it. If those left trying to make sense of life aren't willing to pay attention to human experience beyond their own, they aren't willing to pay attention to anything. Their rules for making money or making salvation, without the experience of what their rules do to others, will come to naught.
So who's experience are you listening to today? Was it the experience of those who received the meatloaf you doled out at the mealsite last night - portioning out crumbs to 242 Lazari? Was it the experience of setting rules for confirmation or which bills get paid or who gets a visit? Was it preparing an experiential sermon or a guided meditation for folks who only want to use their ears and to have every moment filled?
- - -
prevenient grace for those in hades
must not be put aside
in favor of judgment's chasm
so wide it can prevent grace
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html
Can you trace back your sense of where authority lies? There are many overlays that will have to be discarded on such a journey. Before moving further a key decision is whether or not it is sensed that a change is needed. If it is, one does not have to travel any further than their present understandings to be authorized to act. If satisfaction, for whatever reason, has set in, you can track an authority back through many generations to Moses and the prophets or to creation and creator before them and never get to an authority authorizing this particular change.
If we are busy defending "what is" as the end point of time or that it will be too risky to move from what currently is, there is no authority, no matter how miraculous or strong that will do to move us off of our present square.
If we see that change is needed to get to a better place, we can get by with an ordinary understanding such as the one my brother sent today regarding math and history as authorities: "Anyone who mentions tax cuts with deficit reductions are idiots, and should be thinned from the herd. It seems simple math, as well as historic perspective has been lost to the Right wing."
Unnamed rich people, unable to see a poor person, are not good candidates for seeing a needed change. They have come to understand the present rules and to shape them to their attain their privileged positions. So intrenched is this privilege that they try to order Father Abraham (euphemism for G*D) to serve their thirst for surface comfort. Even when called on that, they try to help their own class, unable to see the need to help the poor (which would help heal their own). [Note Paul Krugman's editorial, "The Angry Rich", in today's NYTimes.]
We need to develop a way of looking that used both eyes to have a three-dimensional view of life. What will actually help our own group and others? Helping the rich (trickle-down theory) has yet to do anything to the divisions and to really help the poor not still be the poor. Helping the poor, on the other hand, actually does help the rich return to community. As you choose what charities to give to, what causes to support, look for those that emphasize the least. This is not just for their assistance, but your salvation/wholeness.
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2010/09/luke-1619-31.html