Following commentary provided by Ched Myers, the inaugural Fellow in Urban Theology, tel/fax: 323-256-5748, chedmyers@igc.apc.org

Commentary
Patronage, Welfare Reform and Biblical Justice
by Ched Myers

Note: The following Bible study was offered at "The Church After Welfare Reform" conference at First Congregational Church, Pasadena, CA on April 10, 1999.

The recent dismantling of the welfare system has engendered the most thorough reassessment concerning the role of the religious community in the delivery of public social services since the New Deal. The dramatic shift from entitlements to block grants has opened up unprecedented opportunities for churches to receive public funds to administer programs such as Welfare to Work. This conference is rightly exploring the twin dangers that face the churches' response to this historic moment:

1. Overcommitment: In our enthusiasm to "step into the breach" to serve the abandoned poor, we need to be careful not to overrepresent the capacity of churches to fill the gap, nor should we absolve government of its public responsibilites;

2. Undercommitment: Neither should churches neglect the profound needs among former welfare recipients in this time of transition, excusing ourselves from setting up programs because we are underfunded and unprepared.

In attempting to navigate between these two errors, however, a third problem arises that is perhaps the most serious of all. This is the temptation for churches to simply reproduce welfare's "service delivery franchise" without correcting its most odious characteristics.

The old welfare system was flawed because it bred dependence and disempowerment among the poor. It was fundamentally a system of patronage, where the institutions and professionals delivering services had the all the power and resources, while the service recipients were treated as "clients." The worst thing churches can do is become opportunistic in the "poverty industry." To be sure, operating as brokers provides opportunities to enhance church program funding or infrastructure, or to grow membership, or to increase political access. But these are not good reasons to deliver services. Churches must serve the needy because of their sense of justice, and at the same time must work to build a broad-based social movement to end poverty.

The deeper theological issue, then, concerns not whether but how our churches should engage welfare reform. I am concerned here not so much with trying to find analogues to contemporary welfare reform in the Bible, but rather to reflect on how the Bible might help us interpret our responsibilities for welfare reform. I wish to make three points.

I. Solidarity or Patronage? Churches must approach the poor not as entrepreneurs, but from a commitment to solidarity with those who have been left on the margins of society. The old story of St. Lawrence the Deacon is germane. He and nine companions of the early church were convicted of treason by the Roman authorities, but because Lawrence was the treasurer of the Church of Rome, he was spared immediate execution. It seems that the authorities believed that the Church was fabulously wealthy (they were a few centuries too early!). So they commanded Lawrence to go away and bring back the treasures of the Church. "Give me two or three days" he replied, "and I will bring them here for you." Three days later Lawrence returned. "Where is the treasure?" the Romans demanded. Lawrence led them to the entrance of the hall and threw open the great doors leading to the courtyard. Outside was assembled a great crowd of poor, blind and crippled humanity. "Behold, the treasure of the church," said Lawrence. He was taken away to be tortured and then was roasted alive on a gridiron.

This brings us to the most oft-quoted and misunderstood biblical text in the debate over the church's relationship to the poor: Mark 14:7. This text has notoriously been used by politicians and preachers alike to justify the existence poverty, as if Jesus is stipulating its inevitability as a condition of nature or, worse, as a divine plan. In fact, the text is emphatic: "For the poor will always be with you, and whenever you will you can do the right thing by them." In other words, this is a statement about the social location of the church, and Lawrence the Deacon exegeted it well.

This is confirmed by the fact that this saying of Jesus alludes to the Deuteronomic tradition of Sabbath year debt-release (Deut 15:1-18). Such legislated social disciplines of wealth restructuring in Israel were intended as a hedge against the tendency of human societies to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the few, creating hierarchical classes with the poor at the bottom. The vision was that if "Sabbath economics" was practiced, "There will be no one in need among you" (Deut 15:4). But the practical Deuteronomist, anticipating rightly that the people would forever be hedging on the demands of social justice, adds that compassion is the plumbline of the law: "For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, I command you: open your hand to the poor" (15:11).

II. Jesus and Prophetic Empowerment. Jesus models for the church how to be prophetic in work with the marginalized. In Mark 1:40-45 we have the first detailed account of a healing by Jesus, and it sets the pattern for every subsequent healing episode in the gospel. The leper represented the archetypal social outcast due to impurity. The extensive Levitical regulations regarding leprosy (Lev 13-14) revolved around two stipulations: 1) the impurity was communicable; 2) a priest must preside over ritual cleansing. Both principles are challenged here. This episode is constructed around Mark's repeated use of the Greek verb "to declare clean."

The drama begins when the leper dares Jesus to assume the priestly prerogative and declare him clean (1:40). This may explain why "Jesus' guts were churning" (1:41)! Rather than performing a ritual, however, Jesus simply touches the leper and declares him clean. According to the Purity code Jesus should have contracted the impurity; instead, Mark tells us that the declaration was effective (1:42). The Purity code has been subverted by Jesus' willingness to have social contact with the leper. But the aftermath is the key to the story, as Jesus "snorts with indignation" and dispatches the man to the priests (1:43). The mood implied here is one of protest, not cooperation.

The man's task is to help confront the system that keeps him marginalized (1:44). He is instructed to submit to the Mosaic ritual in order to "witness against them," a technical phrase in Mark for confronting one's opponents (see 6:11; 13:9). The priests would hardly accept Jesus' authority to declare this leper clean! Unfortunately, the mission aborts: the leper goes public, and Jesus is forced to lie low (1:45).

This episode sets the tone for Jesus' ministry: his healings always involve more than liberation of the individual "victim." He also challenges the cause of the disease. This story articulates a "triangle of power," involving relationships between:

1) Jesus and the leper: a relationship of intervention
2) The leper and the priestly establishment: a client/patron relationship
3) Jesus and the priestly establishment: a relationship of challenge

Jesus refuses to patronize the leper, instead inviting him to participate in his own liberation. This approach is later made explicit in his well-known commendation to the poor who take intitiative: "Your faith has made you well" (Mk 5:34; 10:52). Jesus is clearly operating in the prophetic tradition, which both advocates on behalf of the poor and strategically confronts those in power with the demands of justice.

III. Principled Pragmatism. There is also a place for what we might call the "principled pragmatism" of the apostle Paul. Paul understood that the cornerstone of social stratification was the Roman system of patronage, which functioned in economic, social, and political spheres. In fact, the lack of a social safety net made personal patronage a practical necessity for the poor.

It was expected that Paul would support his pastoral ministry in Corinth by positioning himself as an "in-house philosopher" sponsored by a wealthy patron. Paul, however, refused to become a client of the rich. Instead, he insisted instead on supporting himself through a trade (I Cor 9; see I Thess 2:9). For this he was severely criticized by the Corinthian aristocracy, both for offending the patron class and for lowering his prestige by working with his hands.

Paul, however, recognized patronage as the glue that held in place all the oppressive relationships of the empire. Following the Christ who had been executed by that empire, Paul instead embraced the status of a "slave" (the lowest social class), in order that he might serve all people equally, unbeholden to those of high political or economic standing (I Cor 9:18-23). Paul expected the Christians in Corinth to reflect new, revolutionary social relationships in their community life. When they simply reproduced the divisions of the Hellenistic society around them, he was outraged, as in the example of how the Lord's Supper was practiced (I Cor 11)..

In almost every epistle, Paul mentions the collection he was orchestrating among his churches on behalf of economically disadvantaged Christians in Jerusalem (see I Cor 16:1-4; Rom 15:25-32; Gal 2:10). In II Cor 8-9, we encounter his most elaborate discussion of that project. Paul there uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to persuade the Corinthians into this project of wealth-sharing, because he is concerned that they will interpret his appeal according to the expectations and conventions of patronage. But it was precisely the unequal nature of such a relationship that Paul wished to avoid. He was asking for Christian solidarity, not patronage (see II Cor 9:5-7).

For this reason, the term that is repeated ten times in II Cor 8-9 is "grace" (Gk charis). Paul, the great apostle of "grace alone," here makes it clear that it is not just a theological concept but includes the practice of economic sharing (8:4,6,7,19), which practice Christ modeled (8:9). "Not that others should be relieved and you afflicted; rather, it is a matter of equality. So in this time your surplus should help their lack so that their surplus
might help your lack--in order that there may be equality" (II Cor 8:13f). Then, in his only scriptural warrant for the collection project, Paul directly evokes the old wilderness manna story: "The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little" (II Cor 8:15 = Ex 16:18; see Acts 4:34f ). This very text is the foundation for the Jubilee tradition in the Hebrew Bible. Paul was pragmatic in invoking the economics of mutual aid, and principled in rejecting the practice of patronage.

Conclusion. Our churches can do no less than practice solidarity with those increasingly left behind by the globalizing economic order. Our challenge is to work for the empowerment of the poor in our prophetic engagement with the dysfunctional "poverty industry." And it is to be principled in our pragmatism, as we seek to participate in the complex realities of welfare reform, public policy and service delivery.

Ched Myers is completing his Fellowship in Urban Theology at Claremont School of Theology. He can be reached at chedmyers@igc.org

Following commentary provided by Michael Mata, Director, Urban Leadership Institute, 213-746-2211, mmata@cst.edu

Educating Clergy and Laity
Together for Transformative Ministry

Urban Churches have an interest in change. Pastors want to see their lay people change into vital and dynamic contributors to their congregations and the surrounding communities. Lay people, on the other hand, are experiencing radically different things in their communities but often do not know how to deal with them. When it comes to transformative ministry, both clergy and laity come at the process with their own set of expectations. Yet, both clergy and laity sense a common call to transformative biblical ministry. How do we design an appropriate learning event for both types of individuals? First, it is important to note four essential principals of adult learning.

· Adults are interested in and learn quickly about those things that are relevant to their lives. How often have adults after paying their fees and attending a conference, come away wondering, "Why am I here?" Subject matter must be relevant to the adult learner.
· Adults have a sense of personal dignity. We must ensure that both clergy and laity are treated with equal respect in the learning process we facilitate. Only then will their ability to engage new learning experiences be enhanced.
· As adults grow older, their memories may get weaker, but their powers of observation and reason often grow stronger. Often we mistakenly interpret an adult's slower memory as a lesser capacity to engage in the learning process. In other words, do not underestimate adults' ability to grasp new ideas and perspectives.
· Adults have wide experiences and learn much from life. Adults can best learn from their peers. Create an ambiance conducive to people sharing from their life experiences. But be prepared to mediate the eagerness of both clergy and laity to share of their wisdom. Each group must listen to one another.

How, then, do we design a learning event that trains clergy and laity for effective and transformative ministry? Certainly, we're talking about more than content. Learning may arise from relational interactions, structured reflections and the use of case studies. When you put together a learning event, the primary question to ask is: "Why are you doing this? Avoid elaborate scheme. Simply respect your context, discover the resources available and go with your strengths.

Remember, the learning event is to stimulate participants to go beyond primary objectives. We want them to discover? Recall when you learned how to read? You tried to read everything and when you couldn't make out a word or phrase you would ask for help. We're striving for that same attitude of discovery, the activating element that makes learning personal. People remember 20 percent of what they hear, 40 percent of what they see and hear, but they remember 80 percent of what they discover for themselves!

I teach a course called "Exegeting the City." By using the technique of field observation, we explore the neighborhoods of Los Angeles and strive to read their stories in the built-environment. We ask: Where does that freeway go to? What had to be eradicated in order for it to be there? That use of color, or that stalk of corn in the middle of the city--what is it doing there? We may walk through a gang-infested neighborhood and see a pristine, brightly colored Virgin Mary painted on a wall with candles and flowers placed below it. As we assess the community's values and ethos from dialogue with its structure we are given clues of possible entry points in dealing with gang members: the untouched mural hints of their respect for the spiritual dimension of life. Instead of questioning the aesthetics of corn stalks in a yard or a religious symbol on a wall, we move to a new level of appreciation of how people interact with their urban place. When students engage in this type of learning they see things as never before and they are better equipped to interpret other urban experiences in the built environment.

A critical question to raise is? "Will the learning event provide the participant with the opportunity to discover something that you, the teacher, haven't discovered?" That's how I know the participants in the class are truly learning (and earn "A"s); they think better than I do and teach me something new. Transformative ministry is something that neither clergy nor laity has yet imagined

Organize the learning event intentionally to demonstrate continuity, sequence and integration. We're creating an even playing field for both pastor and lay person. Then comes the most challenging aspect of transformative learning: Design the event so that cognitive input, hands-on experience, critical reflection, biblical/theological critique and spiritual formation complement each other in a balanced way. At times the practical will want to rise above the theoretical aspects of the event, or vice versa. Our challenge is to balance all components so the learning experience can help bring about transformative ministry.