Pack on the Back

One of the joys of corporate culture is receiving office memos. Of course, memos are now electronic and our environment hopefully benefits from that. A couple weeks back a memo announced Operation Backpack, a charitable cause. Fully employed for the first time in what feels like an eternity, I signed up to contribute. When I read the memo through, however, I was shocked. In New York City 11,000 children attend public schools from homeless shelters. Eleven thousand. The number is still large enough to boggle my blue-collar brain. That is over eleven times the size of the town in which I grew up. And that’s just the children. Urban culture has become the predominant paradigm of capitalism, but it comes with a considerable price tag. I see homeless people foraging through garbage for food—a more degrading example of picking berries and nuts in the woods, I suppose. What’s worse, nobody seems to think this is unusual or distressing.

A frequent visitor to university campuses, I am familiar with urban troubles. The low land values around tax-free campuses mean that many universities abut the harder neighborhoods in our cities. The city is considered the epitome of civilized living—humanity removed from the dirtiness and wildness of unpredictable nature. When did it become okay to forsake those who came to cities to make a living? How can one of the most affluent cities in the world let 11,000 children live in homeless shelters while others in the same city have far too much to satisfy any individual’s needs? We send troops to other countries to liberate them from oppressive regimes, mistaking free trade for freedom. We need to help those who cannot help themselves.

The biblical ideal of a just society is not one without wealth, but one where wealth comes only after everyone has enough. Yes, there will be some who take advantage of the system. I wonder, however, if not working is any different from taking advantage of the system on the other end—to “succeed” in a culture driven by the market, you must take advantage of the system. One kind of taking advantage means getting by with basic needs and services met, the other kind of taking advantage means living the life of royalty in a democracy. One we excoriate, the other we emulate. I don’t have the answer, but I do hope that a backpack of school supplies will make a difference in a young idealist’s life.

Still so far away…

9 thoughts on “Pack on the Back

  1. The backpack program is a great one. Kudos to everyone who participates through work, at church or in community programs. However, the majority of Americans have abandoned biblical ideals, so the current state of affairs has nothing to do with the Bible. You’ll have to look elsewhere.

    Like

  2. @ Steve,
    Steve, I forget, do you still consider yourself a Christian?

    The reason I ask is your use of the standard Christian trope of “the Biblical …” as when you said:

    The biblical ideal of a just society is not one without wealth, but one where wealth comes only after everyone has enough.

    Because I find one of the most useful approaches to evangelical believers and many others is to get them to realize that the Bible is not homogenous. It is composed of many different writers who had many different opinions — not to mention the edits. And it was not all smoothed over and homogenized by a not-controlling-but-inerrantly-guiding Holy Ghost.

    So the question is, “Is there ONE biblical economic view?”

    And even if you are in love with some model of economics you read somewhere in the Bible, is it a real system? Did it really work? Have you idealized it? Were the rules only for a certain class?

    I remember back in my Christian College days when I surrounded myself with Mennonites John Yoder’s book “The Politics of Jesus” was all the rage. Everyone wants to make Jesus their spokesman. I find that even some ex-Christians still do it.

    Conservatives use Jesus and Bible images to say what America should do, and Liberals do the same. So I have learned to practically ignore any voice trying to cash in on Sanctified images Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or otherwise. Why can’t we just talk to each other without all the Holy pretense? [because for many, pretense works – unfortunately]

    Like

    • Steve Wiggins

      Hi Sabio–your points are penetrating, as they always are. Without going into much personal detail, suffice it to say that what is not said here is louder than what is said, regarding my use of “biblical.” I know there is not one point of view, but often those in positions of public/political power use “the Bible” to justify policies. I am problematizing the use of it here. By the way, in my college days, at Grove City, it was Ron Sider’s books that were the local version of Yoder. There is not one single biblical view, and some days I think there is no view at all.

      Like

  3. I hope “penetrating” is not to bad — after all, the last name is “Lantz” for a reason. Yeah, I guess sometimes I am not a very typical commentor.

    So I really did not understand your comment but let me delineate what I think you said:
    (a) I don’t want to say if I am still a Christian or not.
    (b) I read similar stuff to Yoder
    (c) I agree, the bible does not have just one point of view.
    (d) I agree the bible is used by all people to manipulate.
    (e) “some days I think there is no view at all” <– somedays I think the Bible is worthless bullshit.

    But I wasn't sure if you were admitting that you accidentally used holy images in your rhetoric and now regret it. Or if you still feel there is a time when the Jews did it right or something the book of Acts or the Gospel that spell out the perfect economic system?

    I also had no idea of what you meant when you said:

    what is not said here is louder than what is said, regarding my use of “biblical.”

    But as you can see, I am fairly analytic, so prose with vagueness and subtlety confuses me.

    Like

    • Steve Wiggins

      You take it all in the right spirit, Sabio. Yes, penetrating is intended to be a good thing. I like your reading of my reply. Circumstances in my life compel me to be subtle and vague, or in the words of a young Leonard Cohen, “I never said that I was brave.” Ambiguity feels particularly comfortable to me, but I do hope a few of my analytical skills remain intact.

      Like

Leave a reply to Sabio Lantz Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.