Meet the Williamsons

          Maybe you know a family like the Williamsons. Despite two full-time incomes, Mary and Jeffrey Williamson cannot adequately provide for their family of five, which also includes their teenage daughter, Angelica, their middle child, Jake, and their toddler, Marcus. Looking back, they realize how good they had it just a couple years ago. Mary worked part-time and took care of the kids, and Jeffrey had a union construction job that paid him a wage they could live on. But the virtual collapse of the construction industry cost Jeffrey his job, and left him with little recourse but to settle for a minimum wage job as a cashier at a grocery store. Mary was fortunate that the diner where she worked part-time as a waitress was able to start giving her full-time hours, but she too makes only minimum wage, even with her tips.

            If the Williamsons were members of your church, how would you expect your congregation to respond in their time of need? Presumably, you would walk with them and find creative ways to help get them back on their feet. After all, that’s what the community of the Church is all about. The pastor might offer temporary financial assistance, a few members might tap into their business networks to help find Jeffrey a decent job, and other members might volunteer to watch the Williamsons' kids after school while Mary took an extra shift at the diner a couple days a week.

            If you open up a newspaper these days, you don’t have to look far to find a story on unemployment or underemployment. The deflating reality is that the Williamsons are not an outlier. They are just one of hundreds of families in your surrounding community who find themselves in a constant struggle to make ends meet. You wonder to yourself, “How is our church supposed to respond to all these families?” Your church doesn’t have the resources to help everyone. But more importantly, it’s clear that there is a much larger issue at hand. There’s no question that your church should continue to support the Williamsons however it can. But shouldn’t the church also be asking how it’s possible that a family with two full-time incomes has to choose between paying rent and having enough to eat this month?

            If you take a closer look at the minimum wage, the federal poverty line, and real cost-of-living figures in Illinois, it wouldn’t take you long to realize that things don’t add up quite right. Since Mary and Jeffrey each work full-time at minimum wage ($8.25 in Illinois), they’re earning roughly $34,320 a year before taxes. According the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty line for a family of five is $26,170. As a result, the Williamsons don’t qualify for public assistance programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). But wait a minute…we already know that their $34,000 a year isn’t enough to get by. Needless to say, the federal poverty line is no longer an accurate metric. So what does it really mean to be ‘in poverty?’ Or to put it another way, how much would Mary and Jeffrey actually have to earn to be self-sufficient in providing for their family of five? According to the Social IMPACT Research Center, Mary and Jeffrey would need to bring in over $60,000 together—nearly twice what they can earn at the current minimum wage. To put that into perspective, they would each need to work full-time at a rate of $14.25 an hour just to earn enough to pay for the basics for their family. And I do mean the basics. That means rent, groceries, health care, clothing, childcare, school books and supplies, and transportation. We’re not talking about vacations, after-school tutoring, savings for college, birthday gifts, summer camp, or even a family night out to the movies.

            Some of the folks who oppose raising the minimum wage in Illinois have voiced concern that the added expense to businesses that employ minimum-wage workers would force them to cut jobs, which, at the end of the day, only further exacerbates the problem. This is a valid concern and a logical conclusion to draw. But, as it turns out, a recent national study comparing job growth in bordering counties with differing minimum wages has effectively proven that increases in minimum wage do not affect job growth. Additionally, several other studies have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage actually saves businesses money (by reducing employee turnover and thus the cost of training new employees), generates new revenue for businesses (by increasing worker productivity), and creates a better work environment (by significantly elevating employee morale).

            From an economic standpoint, there is also strong evidence that suggests we should raise the minimum wage. It's been estimated that raising the minimum wage would generate over $1 billion in new consumer spending in Illinois over the next four years. Raising the minimum wage means putting more money in the pockets of families like the Williamsons who will turn around and spend that money every month, primarily on goods and services in their own local communities. And if that’s not convincing, I imagine most of us would agree that minimum wage should, at the very least, grow at the same rate as our economy. However, as our economy has expanded, minimum wage has lagged behind. If minimum wage had simply kept pace with inflation over the past forty years, it would be over $10 an hour today.

            No doubt there are some convincing reasons to support a raise in minimum wage. It would ease the burden on financially vulnerable individuals and families, it would benefit businesses in a number of ways, and it would pump some much-needed new revenue into our flailing state economy. These are indispensible arguments we should bring to the public square to bolster our appeal. But if you consider yourself a person of faith, I really shouldn’t have to work so hard to convince you to support an increase in the minimum wage. When it comes down to it, we’re talking about standing with some of our most vulnerable neighbors, like the Williamsons, insisting that their stories be heard and their lives valued the same as yours and mine.

~ryan wallace

Go to Raise Illinois to learn more and take action.

Bonhoeffer in a Time of Global Crisis

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a theologian and pastor who was hung for his involvement in an assassination attempt against Hitler during World War II.  Here, Ric Hudgens looks through Bonhoeffer's eyes and offers a method by which to engage today's global crisis. Please take the time to click on the link and read the rest of the article.

Ric Hudgens/What did Bonhoeffer See?:

What might have led someone as insightful, brave, and devout as Dietrich Bonhoeffer to turn towards the Sermon on the Mount and the practice of communal discipleship as the appropriate initiative for engaged Christians in a time of global crisis.  What did Bonhoeffer see in Jesus’ sermon for such a time as that?  What might we still see for such a time as ours?

Bonhoeffer saw in the Sermon on the Mount the resources for responding to the German crisis in at least three ways.  First, he saw that the Sermon contained the resources for resistance to National Socialism, German patriotism, and the war.  Resistance would be practiced not just in subversive anti-government actions, but also in the formation of a church that could not be seduced by the false promises of blood and soil.  Crucial to the practice of cultural resistance was the formation of a Christian people, a confessing church, trained in and practicing the Sermon on the Mount without compromise.

Second, Bonhoeffer saw that the Sermon and the founding of a “new type of monasticism” would lay the foundations for a new social order after the war was over.  It did not matter whether Germany won this war or not (and it was clear through Bonhoeffer’s efforts that he hoped for Germany’s defeat); what mattered was establishing centers for renewal where a new type of recovery could begin and a new type of society be established.  These were in reality communities of and for the future, not communities trying to preserve or recreate an idyllic past.

Finally, Bonhoeffer saw that the Sermon on the Mount was the key resource for the restoration and renewal of the church and the church’s capacity to recover her voice as God’s people.  The Barmen Declaration had unmasked the false religion of the established church for the idolatry that it was.  A renewed church where Christians were catechized in the Sermon on the Mount would not look like the mainline churches that had been so susceptible to the appeal of National Socialism.   It would be a church founded upon and shaped by Christ alone.

More...

Cleverness, Not Justice

In response to national debate on wealth disparity and Warren Buffett’s call to stop coddling the rich, Protestants for the Common Good board member, Nancy Brandt, shares the following thoughts:

Those against tax fairness at the federal level have proposed an answer to Warren Buffett’s rule that his effective tax rate should not be lower than that of the people who work for him.  They have introduced H.R. 3099, Buffett Rule Act of 2011, which allows people like Warren Buffett to donate their taxes to the federal government.  

That is superficially clever, but it begs the question and proposes a substitute for what really should take place.  

Our problems will never be solved without systemic change in the tax code.  The Governmental tax system does not need charity from Warren Buffett or anyone else; it needs fairness built into it: that would be justice.

When the World Ends

What is the point of the Church?

It can be the institutionalized body that keeps the gospel message alive through passing it along families and bringing in new converts.  It can be more of a social club whose purpose is to provide a space for those with common interests to gather and do things together.  It can be something of a support group for disparate and similar people to support one another in the name of a binding doctrine.  It can be a place for those with common hopes to work towards an end (eschatology style, meaning the end of time and not something more temporal like lets build a shelter together) goal.  It can be a mix of all these things or a few of them or maybe you think none of the suggestions I have put forth are correct.

But grant me, if you will, my last definition and disagree with me on it at the end if you still want to.  When I think of this primarily eschatological argument, I am immediately drawn to think of the sorts of Anglo-Evangelical ideas that believe in the literal translation of Revelations, the rapture that will come when all have heard the message of Christ, the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, etc.  We need not get into all of the theological and political ramifications that those particular beliefs have produced.  Instead, if we focus on eschatology in a different way, it is possible to understand and see a hope for end things that is not explicitly about end things at all.  Rather, the end things are more of a way to focus our attention acutely on what is actually happening before us right now.

To offer up a metaphor, lets say that I was someone who believed the end goal of my life was to have children to carry on my good name, and any person worth a damn should do the same (I am in the stage of my life where children ages 5-18 annoy me to death so this is just a metaphor).  That does not mean that the steps I take in the time between now and my demise are merely about this end goal.  The person I fall in love with, I should be in love with (hopefully) from start to end, and with a love that is for love's sake and not just so that I can die knowing there are other human beings that have my unusually large palms.  This is why I would argue against reductionists who see human action as primarily a matter of biology, neurology, etc.

Ok, I hope you're still with me.

All this is to say that my biggest concern with Occupy Wall Street has been that it will lead no where.  What will come of this?  What if it all fizzles away and the rich CEOs are only spurred on to fight harder for the status quo?  What is the end goal suppose to look like? 

If you ask me, I see in the eschatology of Occupy Wall Street the same sort of eschatology that the Church does know, and if not, should know.  An end where the meek inherit the earth, the ones who hunger for justice are satisfied, and those who mourn are comforted.

There are theories of culture, and movements, and organizing that can be used to show why these seemingly shepherdess sheep who are hanging out together in parks and street corners are building the ground swelling for true change.  I hope that is true.  But I also see an eschatological hope in play here.  This is a not a moment merely for an end that is hoped for, where success and failure are defined by consequences.  It is a moment because of an end that is believed in.  And that doesn't make it any less valuable.

-Tim

Justice Will Surely Follow

by Ryan Wallace

Stop! Put aside all the other things cluttering your mind for a moment, and follow me as we float away from this world into Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood of Make-Believe. You and I appear there amidst a sea of people. Ok, the people aren’t literally a sea...there’s just a whole bunch of them. In fact, it’s every last one of the 6,967,766,637 (and counting) other people who were living with us in the Old World. The only difference is: we can’t remember who we are. We can all recall the details, purposes, and values of our societies and cultures at large in the Old World, but no one can seem to recollect who he or she was individually. That is, memory of your family history, your skills, your social standing, your education, your occupation, your personal wealth, and everything else that makes up your personal identity has mysteriously vanished. Confusion reigns over the neighborhood. Suddenly, on an oversized screen to your right, you watch three people you have never before seen file onto a stage and settle themselves behind three identical podiums. What is going on? Who are they? Who are you?

“You have been gathered here,” one of them announced, “because you have lost control over your own societies. We can no longer idly stand by as you destroy the earth and trample upon one another.” Another picked up, “You have left us no choice but to initiate a ‘reset.’ None of you has any recollection of your identity in the world as you knew it. This is because you will no longer be you. Though you will soon return to your world, you will return with a new identity. Just who you will be…well, that is what we are here to determine. You will have no knowledge of your new identity, your social standing, or any other details until you return to your world.” The only remaining luminary who had yet to speak continued on, “Together, you will decide one another’s fate. Before returning to your world, you must come to a consensus on how resources will be distributed. How will wealth be shared? Who will have the power? Which groups will receive a good education? Whose voices will be heard?” The figure who had spoken first—and who seemed to be the leader of this delegation—concluded the message saying, “As you make these decisions, give careful consideration to the fact that you may be placed anywhere within this new world order. We can assure you that you will have no control.”

I don’t know about you, but for me, this fairytale narrative is a pretty powerful demonstration of our deeply inculturated sense of justice as fairness and equality. It would be expected that if we were charged with reordering civilization without any knowledge whatsoever of who we would be in that new world, we would devise a world with remarkable equality. Why? Well, would you want to create a world in which there was a possibility you would be assigned to a position of abject poverty? This story I’ve invented is an adaptation of the late 20^th century philosopher John Rawls’ social contract. Rawls proposed that if a veil of ignorance were to shield us from knowledge of our own identity, we would arrive at an original position from which we would be able to make perfectly selfless and moral decisions in the interest of the common good. Essentially, if we did not know enough to favor ourselves over others, then we would be compelled to advocate for equality—maybe not communistic equality, but nevertheless, a society vastly more equal than the one in which we currently live.

I happen to find Rawls’ line of thinking both intuitive and insightful. Yet, the more time I spend considering it, what strikes me is that, as a Christian, I shouldn’t need a veil of ignorance to understand the way things should be. As a Christian, I should (theoretically) be fully aware of my identity and still understand that I am called to spend my entire life advocating for distributive justice—even if that redistribution happens to mean taking money out of my own pocket. In a thousand different ways, Jesus communicates that caring for others is our responsibility. In this sense, ‘sin’ is a violation of our relationality. When we do not treat one another—or the earth for that matter—with the utmost respect and dignity, then we have committed a sin. And when we put our own needs and desires above those which contribute to the common good, we have sinned.

The widespread ‘occupy’ protests and the ‘We are the 99 percent’ campaigns have undoubtedly been politically and socially divisive. But if we can manage to put aside the partisan political issues for a moment, what we can see is a group of people committed to protecting the common good. You may disagree with these movements’ positions on certain policy matters or the tactics they use to convey their points, but I implore you to recognize and respect their dedication to seeking justice for all people. But whatever your reaction may be, the reality is that we are living amidst the greatest economic inequality in the history of our country. To put it another way, we are living in the sort of society that no one in the original position would ever choose. In fact, a recent study backed up this idea that we are drawn towards fairness and equality by revealing that: 1) Americans believe that our wealth is distributed much more equally than it really is—for example, we believe that the top 20% holds only 59% of the wealth when in fact it’s closer to 84%, and 2) The average American’s ideal distribution of wealth is even more equitable—we give only 32% of wealth to the top 20% in our ideal distribution. And all this while still knowing where we personally stand in the hierarchy of wealth! 

But since I don’t foresee a trip to a make-believe neighborhood where we can reorder the social structures of the world anytime soon, the question we must consider is: What can we do today to make things more just tomorrow? As humans, I believe we have a deeply ingrained sense that relative equality is just and fair. As Americans, we have voiced our dream of a more equitable economic system. And as Christians, I am convinced that we are called by God to bring justice to every corner of our world, including our economic systems. Simply put, we are charged with reforming that which does not serve the common good.

Now after spending all this time trying to persuade you to advocate for economic equality, I’d like to finish by making a succinct case that it should not be our end goal. Instead, we should view equality as but one outcome of a far greater end. If we aim above all for the love, respect, and dignity of all people, then economic justice will surely follow. If you learn to truly love your neighbors, I am quite confident that you will not let them go hungry, and neither will you cease to ask the question, “Why is there not enough for everyone?”