How do I Think I Think? Practical Reconciliation 6

 

 

 How do I Think I Think?

Practical Reconciliation 6 

Lamborghini NI. A great vehicle for delivering potatoes to the food bank!

I said this week’s post would be touchy, so I considered not touching it. Earlier I mentioned the issue of lifestyle and indicated that Rosthern’s town Logo is, “Where lifestyle counts.” 

I think we generally assume that “She’s got style” means "she" may have something we run-of-the-mill people may not have, and so “lifestyle” easily becomes a word suggesting a class structure: those with it, and those without it. Dualistic, binary thinking.

 Obviously, even the man who seldom showers, seldom changes his clothes, drinks too much and expresses himself in words of single syllables and invective also has a style of sorts. Our biases regarding class, although not as stark as India’s caste system, are very much attached to style, and style is very much contingent on opportunity and income, on education and rearing—and to our shame--ethnicity. We grow up being very sensitive to style; we can pick out people whose style renders them acceptable to us very easily. To maintain a consistent style can even become a “meaning” for our lives. (Watchers of the British TV comedy, Keeping Up Appearances, were treated to a satirical take on style as meaning.)

 Both in our communities and in our churches, income levels, education levels, opportunities and the possession of personal assets and liabilities are bound to exist. This doesn’t have to, but it can result in cliques of people who share a lifestyle. At its worst, it can produce another class system where some are made conscious that their “style” doesn’t measure up. 

In the early church, one of the first orders of organization was to enact that form of justice that saw equity as a Christian community virtue. “Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” (Acts 4:34 & 35, KJV) That kind of equity doesn’t characterize churches today, but although the situation is much different, it’s hard to argue that the principle is no longer valid. To interpret the principle for today, I’d like to make two points. 

Research has shown that subsistence-level poverty becomes demoralizing when it exists next to affluence. In other words, a community or country in which people interact and are visible to each other most easily becomes divided if the “have nots” are constantly reminded of their inadequacy by observing the amenities and advantages of their “have” neighbours. Attempts to bring a degree of equity into the population has become a provincial/federal, political responsibility; churches are excluded in practice although congregations and members have often done a lot to fill in gaps legislation hasn’t been able to. What neither churches nor governments have been able to alleviate is the systemic bias and uneven opportunity that makes inequity persist, even after much expenditure on ever-increasing programs. (A useful primer on income equity is HERE) 

Second, at its extreme, the prosperity gospel has discarded the whole idea of equity by maintaining that wealth is God’s gift to those of whom he approves. As nonsensical as this appears when considered through the window of the Sermon on the Mount, its result is little different from the “I have it because I earned it” argument. Both serve as justification for possessing beyond what’s necessary even when neighbours are hard-put to meet basic needs for their families. Both imply a judgment on those whom God hasn’t granted wealth. 

A little story: My maternal grandparents, the C.K. Ens family, moved from Aberdeen to Eigenheim in 1912. Here they hoped to make a living farming in an area where their children (my mother, for instance) had access to good education. Grandpa C.K. was a passionate, evangelical preacher and a gifted choir director and was soon elected as a minister in the Eigenheim Church. But he was no farmer and ministers weren’t paid. On several occasions, the family landed in such dire straits that the deacons went door to door to collect money to tide the Enses over their worst times. After serving in ministry in the Rosenort Church community for a number of years, the family moved into the bush at Lorenzo (Mayfair, Glenbush general area) where Grandpa with others founded and served the Hebron Mennonite Church until he went blind with glaucoma in the 30s. 

Whatever guided the Enses’ life, it certainly wasn’t the maintenance of style. I think the best fed, best dressed creatures in the Hebron congregation were the mice.