Disturbing the Poverty

MIAMI (Reuters) – Police in Florida have arrested an activist for feeding the homeless in downtown Orlando.

Eric Montanez, 21, of the charity group Food Not Bombs, was charged with violating a controversial law against feeding large groups of destitute people in the city center, police said on Thursday.

Montanez was filmed by undercover officers on Wednesday as he served “30 unidentified persons food from a large pot utilizing a ladle,” according to an arrest affidavit. The Orlando area is home to Disney World and Universal Studios Florida.

The Orlando law, which is supported by local business owners who say the homeless drive away customers but has been challenged in court by civil rights groups, allows charities to feed more than 25 people at a time within two miles of Orlando city hall only if they have a special permit. They can get two permits a year.

Police collected a vial of the stew Montanez was serving as evidence.

Police spokeswoman Barbara Jones said in an e-mail it was the first time anyone had been arrested under the feeding ban.

Montanez was charged with a misdemeanor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0517193520070405

 

Theological Skeleton (Part 1)

Let’s start with omnipotence and benevolence. These are two characteristics of God that describe different categories. Omnipotence is the answer to the question what is God. Benevolence is the answer to the question who is God. I’m going to try to start with just these two assumptions and see if I can make a case for some striking similarities between the ethic taught by Jesus and what we should expect from this starting place.

But first I want to explore the idea that benevolence actually follows from omnipotence. An omnipotent being existing by itself has nothing interesting to do except share power. Any possible creation without the sharing of power is merely an extension of the omnipotent being. It is simply the omnipotent being essentially remaining in isolation. Omnipotence becomes trivial if the omnipotent being does not allow at least provisional power outside of its control. But if provisional power is taken away arbitrarily, omnipotence remains trivial and uninteresting. Only the allowance of at least potentially opposing power creates a meaningful ‘other,’ and only the creation of a meaningful other is anything more than an extension of the omnipotent being. So the omnipotent being is left with two basic choices: no creation (or a controlled creation) with no meaningful others or a creation of an other or others given the ability to act in opposition to the omnipotent being. This is acting in the interest of another rather than oneself. This is benevolence.

 

Subordination

Yoder talks about the apparent divide between the ethic of Jesus and the ethic of the New Testament letters. The mainstream church takes the instruction about subordination to authority and sees in it an implicit endorsement of a conservative, status quo supporting ethic. Yoder, however, sees in this call to subordination something Christlike. Instead of seeing Jesus, the prophetic revolutionary, versus the realistic need to come up with a sustainable way of life, we should realize that both Jesus and the ethic given in the epistles are calling for a revolution in the way that revolutions are understood.

Like any other revolutionary, Jesus calls out the supporters of the status quo for what they are: hypocrits. The way things are is bad. Rich oppressing poor. Man oppressing wife. Diginifed oppressing young. Owner oppressing slave. Roman (read: state) oppressing Jew (read: member of nonconformist religion or, simply, foreigner).

Because Jesus’ ethic is so radical, we assume that it must be in contradiction to the call to subordination found in the epistles. That we make such an illogical leap is a testament to the appallingly inadequate education to which most of us Westerners have been assigned.

The (early) Christian revolutionary message goes beyond the shallow revolutions to which we are accustomed. The revolution of Jesus is not simply, “Those in power are bad, so let’s rebel.” No! The revolution of Jesus calls for introspection. The revolution of Jesus calls not just for a change in the world structures but also for the revolutionary to look first at herself. First comes “Repent.” Then he says, “…for the kingdom is at hand.”

Too many conservatives stop at personally repentance.

Too many liberals skip ahead to the kingdom at hand.

To ignore either is to ignore Jesus.

The follower of Jesus walks as Jesus walked. Not only was Jesus’ condemnation of the world’s structures revolutionary. His response to these evil powers was a revolutionary way of being revolutionary. He submitted. He submitted to evil men… even to death.

“By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.”