THE CHURCH AID POVERTY
Matthew 11:1-6

June 23, 1968

John M. Buchcenen

If you ore like some people I kmow, in fact several I've encountered this
woek, some of you are alrondy uncomfortable, perhaps even angry, having read the
title of tho sermon this morning. Presbyterians are walking out of thoir churches
with increasing frequency these days 1s their ministers address themselves to the
topic of poverty - a rather pathetic ritual that may be 2 tragic loss to tho church,
or, on the othor hand, a healthy pruning of the vine by the Holy Spirit himself.

In any casc, I have no illusions this morning; I »nticipate that somo of you are
nlready disagrecing with me before I've spoken 2 word. And I ask only that you give
me the next twonty minutes or so, before you beat a hasty cxit. :

I «sm provoked this morning by two situations in which I found mysclf mlast
wook — both far ond safely removed from the life of this congregation. In the first
I was part of + church meeting at which the subject of the "Poor Poople's Campaign”
was introduccd by way of an 2ppenl for support. The reaction was immediate cond
strong 2nd completely negative. What impressed me most was the unanimity with
which these people displayed rather unpleasant hostility and complete antipathy,
not only to tho sometimes bizarre antics of Resurrection City, but to the stated
aims and goals of the entire effort. No one had am intelligent or informed thing
to say, 2nd the discussion never rose ntbove 2 dismil xiring of mutuol ignorance,
dragging out -11 the old cliches — "We made it - why can't thoy!"

Later in the woeck I attended 2 funeral during which the minister, within the
context of his meditation, felt constrained to Insh out 2t the Presbyterian Church
for its concorn with racc, poverty and peace. In that the funeral was for my grond—
father, and in that I had the uncomfortable suspicion that the remarks were being ©
addressed directly to me - I became truly angry. For a while, the man had 2 point,
albeit an irrelevent one at a funeral. The Gospel is more than social concern. Amon.
I buy that. But the extremism he displayed in assuming the opposite position
was equally 2s crroncous 1s that which would close the church altogethor, trons-
forming it into tho field headquarters for the War on Poverty.

It's a divisive, inflammatory issue and the real problem scems to be this:
the United Presbyterian Church, as 2 denomination, has made substantial financial
and porsonol commitments, in 2 sense pulling out all the stops to 2ttack the problem
of poverty. But the laity, according to 2 recent Gallup poll, not only couldn't
care less, but are opposed to the actions of their church in this matter. Anothor
way of putting it is this: the donomination is frantically trying to do battle
with an enemy most of its constituents don't acknowledge exists: or if they do
grant that poverty is 2 problem, certainly don't fecl any personal responsibility
for its allcoviation.

Now it is out of this context that I speak this morning: certainly not cx-
pecting you to buy everything I say, wanting only to put before you three rather
simple ideas — hoping thant you will romain “tuned in" until I have concluded.

The first ides is this: Poverty is rapidly becoming the greatest single problom
confronting tho United States of America. There are other serious concerns, to
be sure: -— the wor in Vietnam, unrest in the cities, am overheated cconomy, a
continuing deficit in the balance of pnyments. But one and all, they are related
to the problem of domestic poverty.

Poverty is not new to the United States: there have always been poor pcoplc.
But poverty is, and always hrs been, arelative term, and in this respect the com-
plexion of the problem has changed drastically over the past two decades. Wo have
become, in tho short span of twenty years, a phenomenally affluent culture. Tf
think you ond I are inclined to forget that: or perhzps it's not possible to
perceive something like this as we are involved in it. In amy case, wo arc © very rich

-~—

people. Tho problem is that nothing has happened to the poor: they are still

that way; for one reason or another, they have not shared in the dramatic increase
in the average American's ability to buy, borrow, and pay. The problem of poverty
has changed in tho rapid and steady widening of the gap that divides the “havos"
for the "have-nots".

At the same time, those who are poor have become steadily more invisible
to the average American. This was documented by Michael Harrington in his cx-
cellent book, The Other America: “America has the best dressed poor the world has
ever known...«. It's much casier in the U. S. to be decently dressed than it is to
be decently housed, fed or doctored. Even people with terribly depressed incomes
econ look prosperous." p. 12-13

Harrington points out that both urban and rural poverty have been removed from
the beaten path of most Americans by four lane highways whisking through the country-
side, and oxprovoways zooming over city ghettoes. I can cite > personal example:
I've lived in Lofayette for nearly two years and have the occasion to do 2 lot of
driving in the city. And the worst housing in the city - unbelievably wretched
housing, did not become apparent to mc until someone told me where it was and I
went to take a look.

These arc the two major changes in the complexion of American poverty -
relatively specking, it's gotten worse while becoming less visible. Thus tho
very real tendency of many Americans not to beliove that it exists, or that those
who describe it sre exaggernting.

Now — wht is poverty? What's it like? One thing is certain: it is somo~
thing more then the lack of money. If you're interested you will read the material
available, starting with Michacl Harrington's book. For me, poverty was defincd
in Gary, Indionz. I had the privilege of serving on the Board of Directors of the
Gary Neighborhood House, and part of my oricntation was a tour of the immediate
area. The dircctor took me into severnl homes, one of which I shall never forget
ns long as I live. It was an apartment on the sixth floor of a building which,
from the outside, didn't laok too bad. But the stairs were dark, chunks of plaster
made the walking precarious and the halls were cluttered with garbage. We knocked
on the door of the apartment in question and after quite . struggle were admittod.
I was told that the lock didn't work and that the door had to be opened with o
putchor knife. The apartment contained a woman and six young children from onc
to ten years old. There was 2 man in the bedroom. dn electric heater in one
corner provided = little heat, but also a fire hazard, made more urgent by the fact
that the door didn't work. I+ was a weck day morning. The children, clad only
in undershirts wore at home, and whon I inquired why they weren't in school, I
was told that they didn't have warm clothes and so the mother just didn't send
them when it was cold outside. Nobody scemed to caro.

Now, think for a minute - not about the morality of adults or why she docen'!%
do something. Think a minute about those six children os teenagers, or adults, if
thoy live that long. Suddenly the American dream loses its glow, and all our solf
rightcous cliches about working hard fall to pieces. These children don't have =
chance.

That's poverty, and it is far more than the lack of money, or cducation, or a
any other single factor. And it's significant that programs, thus far devised,
aren't beginning to touch it. It's not getting any better, anywhere; and until it
does, it will result in more and even worse'y ‘crty-

Presiding Bishop Hines of the Episcopal Church has said: "I am not concerned
alone with tho problems of poor Americons. What is at stake is the very lifc of
our society, the rebuilding of our communities 2s centers in which persons ond
families are fulfilled - not crippled."

o>

That is the issue —- poverty is the greatest single problem confronting the
United States. It is one war we cannot conceivably afford to lose.

The eccond idea I would lay before you is that poverty is the concern of the
Church of Jesus Christ. And although I have three different ideas to buttress
that suggestion, I don't really need anything more than the Responsive Reading
this morning. That said it rather well.

I took the time this week to trace the word "poor" through the Bible and
finally gave up. There were enough references to fill a sizeable volum. In tho
Old Testament, there are basically four different types of references to poverty.
First, God is the friend and protector of the poor. Second, there is a strong motif
of social justice for the poor. Try rending the book of Amos sometime. It's
rather disturbing. Third, there arc many womings against oppressing the poor —
such as tho cntire book of Micah. Finally, there 2re specific laws regarding tho
care of the poor.

In the Now Testament, Jesus displayed on many occasions His special concorn
for the dispossessed. In the lesson this morning one of the things by which ho
described his own ministry was preaching gocd news to the poor. And what, I havo
always wanted to ask, is good news to 2 peor man, if it is not that he no longor
has to be bound to poverty?

The Bible, howover, is no utopian document at this point. I+ cites the
causes of poverty ag sloth and laziness as well as famine and plague. But that
doesn't matter. In the Bible responsibility for poverty, whatever its causes, is
laid directly on those who are not poor. Just like that.

It would bo grossly unfnir to indict the church for ignoring poverty in tho
past. Because it hasn't. Throughout the world the greatest generator of compassion
and help has always been the church of Jesus Christ. And yet, too frequontly,
particularly on a local level, the church's methodology in dealing with poverty
has been charity -— stop-g.p measures that don't come close to root causes or
permanent alleviation. The symbol of our conecrn for the poor has always been
the Christmas basket, which by our own admission makes us feel rather good. That is
it salves our guilt, and leaves the recipient as hungry the day after Christmas
as he was the day before.

The Church's responsibility in dealingwith poverty has been described by
somcone in terms of the parable of the Good Samaritan. In that story, you will
remember, 2 Samaritan helps a Jew who wns benten and robbed by bandits. Well,
suppose it happened a second time and a third and a fourth, and suppose the
Samaritan found the victim and ministered to him each time in the same manner.

At some point the Samaritan, even with his great charitable spirit would be re=
miss if he didn't go to the nuthoritics and try to have something done about keeping
the road clonr of bandits.

Biblically, we are responsible. ‘there are no two ways about it. But the
concern of the church gocs even deeper. God loves the world. God loves the world
and every individusl person in the world, 2nd wills for every person 2 full and
abundant and.good life. That's rather clenontary theology, and it means that God
is hurt when... child starves, or wicn a child is mentally 7: -‘red for: the rest
of his life becouse his dict is not sufficient as an infant.

God loves the world, ana so he scnt his son to show t2at love, and to call
to him other mon who wo’. become the agents of that love. The church's conccrn
for poverty, thon, is not political, not economic, not social ~ it is theological.
It is tied directly to the foundaticn>l statement of its faith — "God so loved
the world."

The .-ird idea I would rut before you is this: that poverty is not going to
go away: it's not going to be eliminated by all the governmental programs in the
world - although that's going to help. The crisis of poverty in our nation will
begin to be resolved when a lot of indiviual men and women like you and moe wndergo
a radic.l change of heart. That, by the way, is not my.,idea, nor the idea of omy

—~}

yi. FE

-4-

professional churchman. Rather it comes from an editorial written by Louis
Cassels of the United Press International.

We haven't had that change of heart, partially - I believe = because we've
never really sccn the full dimensions of the problem — the utter degradation of hard
core poverty, or the threat it presents to the fiber of our nation. Partially it is
a problem of provincinlism: in comfortable, middle-class Lafayette we just don't
have much poverty, and that which we do have we don't ever see. But partiolly, I
believe, it's also a problem of sin. It's just c--‘cr not to worry about it; to
become so complctcly immersed in our own private pursuits that another man's
difficultios bocome most unplensant even to think about: +o become go completely
obsessed with our own pursuit of the good life that we are offonded whenever sonc-
one suggests that we might help the man who doesn't even have his foot on the lsdder.

The Old Testament tells it like it is - calling it "hardness of heart"; the
New Testament calls it sin, and that, I believe, is the r.-1 problem.

Three very simple ideas, and my appeal, h-ving presented them to you, is
precisely for that radical change of heart. I appeal for a erc-tive, redemptive
change - that just might have political and economic ramifications. But for onc
reason and one reason alone. Because as confessing Christians, as disciples of
Jesus Christ woe have been told and know our responsibility.

I would conclude by reading to you two portions of the New Testament: from
the First Epistle of John: "If anyone has the world's goods,and sees his brother in
need, yet closcs his heart against him, how docs God's love dwell in him?" And
from the Gospel according to Matthew: Matt. 25:31-40:

"When the Son of Man comes in Glory, and 211 the angels with him, then ho will
sit on his glorious throno. Before him will be’ gathorcd all the nations, ond he
will separcte them one from another as 2 :hepherd separates the sheep from tho gonts,
and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Thon the
King will soy to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my father, inhorit
the Kingdom propsred for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry
and you gave mo food: I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger ond
you welcomed mc, I was naked and you clothed mc, I was sick and you visited me,

I was in prison snd you came to me.'

"The rightcous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed
thee, or thirsty ond give thee drink? And when did we see thee 2 stranger ond
welcome thee or naked and clothe thee? And when did we sce thee sick or in prison
and visit thec?*

And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of
the least of thesc, my brethren, you did it to me.'

Amen

O thou who art the guardian ond protector of the work and helpless, grent unto
us a renewed commitment to the "lorct of theec". Save us from casy solutions, from
quick cliches that mean nothing, and instill within us new understanding, now
responsibility, new courage as we attempt to be thy people in the world. Through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.