Are The Poor Really Blessed?
Sermon
The Roman Catholic Church's canonisation of Edith Stein some years ago, fuelled considerable controversy. Edith Stein was born and bred into a Jewish family, becoming a Roman Catholic Christian at the age of 31. She was also a leading German intellectual in the early thirties, during the run-up to World War 2, although she gave up that career in order to become a Carmelite nun. But she didn't deny her Jewish roots, for in 1933 she petitioned the Pope, Pious XI to write an encyclical in defence of the Jews. He didn't, and we all know what happened to the Jews during the Second World War.
Because of the ramifications of politics in Germany in the thirties, Edith was sent to the Carmelite Monastery at Echt, Holland. When the Nazis conquered Holland, Edith was arrested, and with her sister Rose, was sent to the concentration camp at Auschwitz. Edith died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz in 1942 at the age of fifty-one. In 1987, she was beatified in Cologne cathedral by Pope John Paul II.
Out of the unspeakable human suffering caused by the Nazis in Western Europe in the 1930's and 1940's, there blossomed the life of a saint. Even though that life was snuffed out by the evil of genocide, Edith's memory stands as a light undimmed in the midst of evil, darkness, and suffering.
She's not alone amongst the Saints. Most of those people recognised as Saints by the Church were also martyrs, hence on Saints' Days the liturgical colour is red, signifying blood. And many, if not all, of those saints turned their backs on lives of comfort in order to embrace lives of poverty and simplicity. They took very seriously the beatitudes recorded for us in St. Luke's gospel:
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
"Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.
"Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
"Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets."
Certainly it would seem that in the case of the Saints, they were indeed blessed, and knew the kingdom of God. But is it necessarily always so? Except in these exceptional cases, the poor don't appear to be blessed. The hungry don't appear to be blessed. Those who weep don't appear to be blessed. And those who are hated don't appear to be blessed.
It would seem that the reverse is true. The poor, the hungry, the weeping and the hated have a terrible time, and part of the social responsibility role of Christians is surely to try and improve their lot. Yet these words from Luke's gospel could be taken as a charter to leave things exactly as they are. If the poor, the hungry, the weeping and the hated are all blessed, then why should anybody try to help them change their existence?
Indeed, that's exactly the argument used in previous generations. God has ordained that certain people should be poor, runs the logic, and they are happy with their lot. We should be doing the poor a disfavour to try and help them rise above their station.
So are there really any advantages in being poor etc., or are these words from Luke just a kind of benevolent Christian gloss applied in order to hide the real misery of such a condition?
Partly, Luke is looking to the future, for he counters the beatitudes for the poor with what amount to curses for the rich:
Then (Jesus) looked up at his disciples and said:
"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
"Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.
"Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.
"Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets."
The implication is that in the next life after death, all the inequalities in this life will be straightened out, and the have-nots will receive while the haves go without. And this, moreover, will go on for a very long time, so those without in this life could indeed be considered as blessed! But apart from any future life, of which we have no clear knowledge, is there any advantage to being poor in this life? Or is that condition only for the unfortunate or for saints?
The spiritual advantage of poverty is that with absolutely no possessions, the soul is freed to seek only God. Most of us with possessions spend a considerable amount of energy concerning ourselves about our possessions, hanging on to them, increasing them, improving them. Those who have chosen poverty are released from all those anxieties, and can, if they wish, use that surplus energy to meet and commune with God.
And possessions do tend to cushion us against real life. If someone has troubles and problems, one way of dealing with them is to use possessions to avoid facing the real issues. So alcohol, drugs, shopping, sex, and chocolate can all be used to avoid life. Those who live in abject poverty are thrust up against the rawness of life and have no such escape clauses.
But there's a difference between choosing poverty and being plunged into it without any choice. And I suspect it's only a few - Saints - who could choose all the sufferings and hardships poverty brings. So perhaps what Christians are saying when they work to improve conditions for the poor, is that the poor, like everyone else, should have a choice. They have the right to choose whether or not to embrace poverty, rather than it being thrust upon them.
St. Luke was on the side of the poor. His gospel more than any of the other gospels, spells out an option for the poor. And Jesus showed in practice what that option was. He showed that the poor are deeply loved by God, by showing that God in human form (Jesus) was not only on their side, but wanted them as his friends and wanted social intercourse with them.
If that attitude were true of all Christians, then perhaps the poor would indeed be blessed, and realise they were blessed. But until that time comes, we Christians need to continue to fight for the poor, for their rights, and to improve their standard of living. And maybe when we all share a more or less equal standard of living, we shall all more or less share in the blessings of the poor offered by God.
Because of the ramifications of politics in Germany in the thirties, Edith was sent to the Carmelite Monastery at Echt, Holland. When the Nazis conquered Holland, Edith was arrested, and with her sister Rose, was sent to the concentration camp at Auschwitz. Edith died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz in 1942 at the age of fifty-one. In 1987, she was beatified in Cologne cathedral by Pope John Paul II.
Out of the unspeakable human suffering caused by the Nazis in Western Europe in the 1930's and 1940's, there blossomed the life of a saint. Even though that life was snuffed out by the evil of genocide, Edith's memory stands as a light undimmed in the midst of evil, darkness, and suffering.
She's not alone amongst the Saints. Most of those people recognised as Saints by the Church were also martyrs, hence on Saints' Days the liturgical colour is red, signifying blood. And many, if not all, of those saints turned their backs on lives of comfort in order to embrace lives of poverty and simplicity. They took very seriously the beatitudes recorded for us in St. Luke's gospel:
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
"Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.
"Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
"Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets."
Certainly it would seem that in the case of the Saints, they were indeed blessed, and knew the kingdom of God. But is it necessarily always so? Except in these exceptional cases, the poor don't appear to be blessed. The hungry don't appear to be blessed. Those who weep don't appear to be blessed. And those who are hated don't appear to be blessed.
It would seem that the reverse is true. The poor, the hungry, the weeping and the hated have a terrible time, and part of the social responsibility role of Christians is surely to try and improve their lot. Yet these words from Luke's gospel could be taken as a charter to leave things exactly as they are. If the poor, the hungry, the weeping and the hated are all blessed, then why should anybody try to help them change their existence?
Indeed, that's exactly the argument used in previous generations. God has ordained that certain people should be poor, runs the logic, and they are happy with their lot. We should be doing the poor a disfavour to try and help them rise above their station.
So are there really any advantages in being poor etc., or are these words from Luke just a kind of benevolent Christian gloss applied in order to hide the real misery of such a condition?
Partly, Luke is looking to the future, for he counters the beatitudes for the poor with what amount to curses for the rich:
Then (Jesus) looked up at his disciples and said:
"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
"Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.
"Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.
"Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets."
The implication is that in the next life after death, all the inequalities in this life will be straightened out, and the have-nots will receive while the haves go without. And this, moreover, will go on for a very long time, so those without in this life could indeed be considered as blessed! But apart from any future life, of which we have no clear knowledge, is there any advantage to being poor in this life? Or is that condition only for the unfortunate or for saints?
The spiritual advantage of poverty is that with absolutely no possessions, the soul is freed to seek only God. Most of us with possessions spend a considerable amount of energy concerning ourselves about our possessions, hanging on to them, increasing them, improving them. Those who have chosen poverty are released from all those anxieties, and can, if they wish, use that surplus energy to meet and commune with God.
And possessions do tend to cushion us against real life. If someone has troubles and problems, one way of dealing with them is to use possessions to avoid facing the real issues. So alcohol, drugs, shopping, sex, and chocolate can all be used to avoid life. Those who live in abject poverty are thrust up against the rawness of life and have no such escape clauses.
But there's a difference between choosing poverty and being plunged into it without any choice. And I suspect it's only a few - Saints - who could choose all the sufferings and hardships poverty brings. So perhaps what Christians are saying when they work to improve conditions for the poor, is that the poor, like everyone else, should have a choice. They have the right to choose whether or not to embrace poverty, rather than it being thrust upon them.
St. Luke was on the side of the poor. His gospel more than any of the other gospels, spells out an option for the poor. And Jesus showed in practice what that option was. He showed that the poor are deeply loved by God, by showing that God in human form (Jesus) was not only on their side, but wanted them as his friends and wanted social intercourse with them.
If that attitude were true of all Christians, then perhaps the poor would indeed be blessed, and realise they were blessed. But until that time comes, we Christians need to continue to fight for the poor, for their rights, and to improve their standard of living. And maybe when we all share a more or less equal standard of living, we shall all more or less share in the blessings of the poor offered by God.
