the poor don't choose to be poor

Some Christians profess a curious viewpoint on poverty. They say that within an economy of uncontrolled markets, voluntary decisions of many people are the only factors that explain economic results. Therefore, everyone has nobody to blame but themselves. In the competition of buyers and sellers, including when the negotiated items are jobs (i.e. labor, "human resources"), anyone can succeed if only they try.

Ridiculous. Economically speaking, people aren't indistinguishable "commodities" and markets aren't perfectly meritorious or open. That ideal is theoretical, like calculating physics without including friction. People differ in their inborn talents, education, upbringing, and so forth. In any case, markets don't always reward or even consider the most valuable/productive people.

I find it easier to appreciate this point by envisioning an instant switch between the circumstances of my life thus far and the life of someone else. I've received love and encouragement from my social networks (no, I'm certainly not referring to Facebook). I've received a good education. I've received relatively good care of my nutrition and health. I've received ethical and religious instruction.

These are advantages that I could easily assume everyone else also has. However, after swapping my life's advantages for another life's downfalls, can I realistically suppose that I'd achieve the same level of economic "success"?  Don't misunderstand or misconstrue my meaning; I agree that personal initiative and strength of character are hugely important ways to compensate for many formidable obstacles. But can we honestly suppose that every person in the middle class would have still ended in the middle class, had they hypothetically started in a lower class? Do we naively presume that every imagined transplant would grow to a beautiful rose, blossoming regardless to a predetermined height from out of the least nurturing soils? Without the basic skills and interpersonal connections that markets require, someone with the best intentions or a revolutionary idea could still be one of the poor. For that matter, a long string of bad luck can transform the fortunate to the unfortunate.

Of course, this complex reality of a "poverty trap" doesn't lead to the conclusion that the poor can only be economic dependents forever. Rather, when people are caught in traps, the more charitable action is to help them climb out of the trap. And provide sustenance until the assistance allows them to start participating sufficiently in markets in a more independent mode. The aforementioned ideal, income level being a personal decision, is really a goal. Just as Christians cannot force other Christians to seek God (although they can and should encourage/spur/exhort/cajole/discipline/etc), people cannot be forced to put in the necessary effort to earn the economic outcomes which they claim to want. However, charitable Christians will offer every opportunity and support to those people who do. They'll sacrifice their temporal excess resources in order to bless fellow sinners who lack.

Christians administer mercy economically, as they keep in mind the divine mercy they continue to receive. Christians aren't meant to have the mindset, "I've earned every cent I have and you've earned every cent you have. Since we're individuals in a dog-eat-dog and king-of-the-hill world, I and my finances have no relationship whatsoever to you and your finances. Don't complain to me about the markets' rejection of your utter lack of starting capital. You really should have thought of that before you became peasants."

coercive public school prayer is no panacea

As easy as it was to forward email about any angry topic whatsoever, Facebook may have succeeded in simplifying such communication still further. Based on my experience, "Status" sometimes is about sounding off on the fervent yearning to "bring prayer back to public schools". Unfortunately, were this accomplished, it would be a symbolic gesture at best.

Nondisruptive voluntary prayer remains a cherished human right, in school or elsewhere. Admittedly, the parameters and limitations of "nondisruptive" and "voluntary" are rather sharply drawn, but the set rules are firmly in place. At times the restriction or the praying can be overzealous, and either one needs to be corrected. As long as nobody oversteps their bounds, prayer per se is certainly not "forbidden" in public schools.

Moving along, the next question is the details of the proposal. What do the words "bring prayer back to public schools" really mean? Naturally, this assumes that the person's "status" is a truly desired change that flesh-and-blood teachers and students will do, not a wishful-thinking slogan or outburst. Does it mean nothing more than a three-minute moment of silence, in which active young children are expected to be quiet and sedate if they aren't opting to pray?

To the contrary, my presumption is that what the status-writer would like is a short recitation of a canned prayer, taught and led by the teacher. After all, allowing the teacher to make whatever extemporaneous prayer he or she likes is probably not what the status-writer intends! Since there can be no religious test for public school teachers, that would be an "anything goes" proposition, perhaps including teachers who are - gasp! - atheistic.

Then the next practical question is who will write The Prayer that's taught in public schools, and who will approve it. Is there to be a tyranny of the majority, in which the religion with the least number of naysayers has the privilege of educating the rest to rigid conformity? If not, and The Prayer must meet at least a minimal standard of acceptability by a wide range of religious believers, then my suspicion is that in the end it will be "cleansed" of most doctrines that the status-writer holds dear. Claims that Jesus resurrected, or that the Bible (KJV? NIV? Septuagint?) is truth, won't last long. Does this form of completely inoffensive prayer have much to do with Christianity?

Imagine that The Prayer is eventually written and duly recited in classrooms. What is the expected outcome? Will students who are coerced into memorizing and mumbling mush act more holy? Will teachers who hurry through in order to get to the day's lesson have epiphanies? When casual attendance of weekly church services isn't enough to turn people into disciples, what effect could The Prayer have? Needless to say, those who disagree with the statements won't be any closer to salvation by mouthing the words.

Religious instruction or Bible classes are much more likely to raise children who have the right knowledge. Yet those are highly inappropriate in a school targeted at the general public. Parents may not agree with all or any of the content in those classes, and they'd be rightly irritated by the school's attempts to introduce contradictions. Far better would be if parents could select separate schools that target their particular beliefs. Everyone surely realizes that this solution has been in place in the USA for many, many years?...

I'll grant that the removal of coercive public school prayer is a symbol of the reduced influence of Christianity in the USA's culture. And its symbolic importance incites visceral feelings among some Christians. But it seems to me that a symbol is all it can be. Reversing it won't reset the past decades.

digital fast

The "digital fast" is a popular trend. It's the practice of temporarily giving up the usual websites or the usual computerized devices. Since the Bible doesn't cover computers or electric networks, principled opinions rather than doctrines are necessary. Toward that end, here are my generalized remarks for all fasting. Christians who happen to be currently living on Earth shouldn't assume that their digital fasts are that special.

• Fasting from particular things or activities can be a great help for Christians who feel that they're becoming enslaved to anything other than God. That includes digital technology. But it might also include woodcarving, if woodcarving is an obsession that doesn't leave any time for service to the needy. Christians can have a variety of interests, but none can be a rival to God. Compulsive obedience to any competing impulse is a concern.
• A proper fast should refocus attention on heavenly things. The substitutes during the fast must reflect this goal. A fast from chocolate is less impressive when ice cream is the substituted food. In the same way, a fast from one website isn't too beneficial when time spent on a different website takes its place. I once heard the comment, "Fasting without praying more is just starving yourself." People may feel superior by reading unedifying books instead of viewing unedifying television, but they're missing the point. Fasting should be a change in kind of behavior, not a change in degree of behavior.
• Throughout the fast, self-observation is paramount. The desire for the fast's subject will be noticed and rejected repeatedly. Hopefully, these experiences produce insight into the essential futility of that desire: no matter how often it's satisfied, it returns later to demand more. After the fast ends, its success is measured by the change in attitude. For instance, instant relief at the resumption of the item or activity is a side effect of its continued potency. Purposeful reduction of it, once the fast has illustrated its strength, is a more sober response.

Ultimately, the ideal solution to an immoderate craving is not a fast. Fasts are temporary but total eliminations. The better course is to tame the craving and rule it thereafter. Compared to a traditional fast from food, other fasts are a conspicuous symptom of luxury. Christians who have so many fasting choices may be tempted to treat their fasts as another consumer choice or status symbol.

The very question of fasting is an opportunity for Christians to ponder how much they could survive without. Maybe the fast is the chance to examine innermost emotional ties to the world. These ties could need to be sacrificed altogether. Not because sacrifices cause a greater sensation of "spirituality", but because sacrifices are an outgrowth of cultivating different values.

matchmaking in the Christian community

When two unmarried Christians manage to find each other, a common remark is, "I'm so glad! I knew all along that you two were well-suited to each other." But in my opinion, that remark seems rather self-incriminating. It's like "I told you so," but instead it's "I didn't tell you so."

It raises the obvious question of why the speaker didn't do anything. The majority of the Christians whom I've met are the most vociferous supporters of strong marriages. They're intent on preventing divorce. They favor premarital counseling of engaged couples. They stop just short of turning marriage and family-building into a sacred duty. Why is it that these people contribute so much less to the formation of the first stages of a (potential) marriage?

I'm definitely not suggesting that marriages be arranged by relatives or church elders. Neither am I suggesting that romantic relationships must be rule-driven or extensively supervised. I'm mentioning a curious oversight in a Christian community's attitudes. Its unmarried members surely are in need of assistance as much as the married? It's true that people are unlikely to welcome outright interference or control of their lives, and they really shouldn't allow others to do so. Yet that extreme is much different than intermediaries in the same community who simply see what the couple does not and merely brings it to their attention. On the condition that they ask permission beforehand, perhaps they could also help provide introductions or informal contexts for the two to meet.

Good unmarried Christians might spend their lives in loneliness due to ignorance of the others in the community with whom they could have blazed a marriage pleasing to God. Who cares?