Focus

I watched the movie Water last night. It was directed by Deepa Mehta and chronicles the lives of widows in India by focusing on the life of an eight-year-old widow, Chuyia. By the way, I recommend the film to anyone. The story takes place in the 1930s, but not much has changed since then. Hindu widows did and still live in ashrams after their husbands die, where they are forced to live in penitence and are many times are treated badly. This film explores the practice as motivated by financial and not spiritual necessity. A widow gone from the home is one less mouth to feed, three less sarees to purchase per year and one less corner of the house inhabited. Ghandi's rise to power is the backdrop for the film and the social statements it makes. Many of those statements are relevant today.

I was disturbed because the film made me contemplate the focus of Western Christianity as a religious practice. That focus, if taken from the mainstream Christian and secular media is rather a selfish one. Authors and speakers sell an abundance of books, tapes and host bible studies and radio programs focusing on things that steal your joy, living your best life now, and planting the largest seed for your greatest need. Admittedly, the focus of my faith tends to bend inwardly as well. Are my pants too tight? Do I gossip too much? Is my shirt too low? Am I fulfilled by the worship at my church? Did I miss too many Sundays or choir practices? Those question pale in comparison to more global issues.

What can I do to alleviate suffering? Am I taking care of the fatherless and the widow? What can I do to minister to those stricken with AIDS? Why are people in Darfur being slaughtered and why don't most people write their legislators to insist something is done about it? Do the poor have enough to eat? Are they warm this winter? Are those in prison being shown that there is another way to live? Will their children have a Christmas this year? Who helps them with their homework? Why is domestic violence on the rise in my community and the nation and what can I do about it? Who's helping teenage mothers raise their children without sacrificing their own future? Who's teaching them that someone loves them and cares? I could keep asking questions, but there are far more than I can fit in one post.

Here's the real question. Why is the focus on me and how can I help others live their best life?

Jesus got angry one time, well two if you believe there were two separate times he drove the money changers from the temple. The first was after his ministry began, after changing the water into wine. Here's another question. How do you think he would react to white evangelical Christianity? Think about that for a while before you answer.

Lets focus on one issue, the racial divide in the U.S. Most churches pride themselves in being diverse, but that is simply not the case. A diverse church means more than just having something better than a 30/70 ratio on races. Diversity or racial unity should be measured in the effectiveness of the church to influence social change. Many place that responsibility on leadership or programs that have been installed that give us a sense of accomplishment in that arena, such as food pantries or funds for helping the poor. While these are good and I would argue,essential, we have to be careful not to stop there. The focus of entire congregations across the nation needs to change.

During election time the two issues most vocalized are pro-life and pro-family issues, or rather, anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage issues. Either way you look at them its still the same. I would like to hear other issues raised. What about equal housing? What about equal education...you can argue all you like, but the educational system is still by and large separate but equal, ask anyone who lives in a rural county or inner city. The district lines are geographically drawn, yes, but poor white and poor minorities live in different districts than those fortunate enough to be privileged with a higher income. For, example in DC, tax bases ensure that a school two miles away will have enough resources to guarantee that 99-percent of their students graduate and go to college while a lesser school can boast about nothing more than an 80-percent drop out rate.

Emerson and Smith focus on the racial divide, but socio-economic status can be discussed in the same terms as mentioned above. Only change can be instituted when a majority of the people wake up and realize the gospel is not meant to line our pockets, wean us off Paxil and make sure that we walk in divine health.

Just take care of your neighbor...it's that easy. I bet you haven't seen many Samaritans lately, but think of any group that is despised or rejected, for whatever reason, and that's your neighbor. As far as I'm concerned, tolerate is a four-letter word. It means merely to put up with. What about the word accept. That's a better one, meaning to actively make a part of the group. To define as normal.

We should actively seek out those that are different from ourselves. Not just tolerate them. To accept someone doesn't mean that you substitute their beliefs for your own, but it does mean you understand where they're coming from. It means you accept the person, and are letting go of stereotypes you hold. We ALL have them. It means they fit your definition of normal and are no longer viewed as the other, or those people.

Do yourself a favor. Make a list of your friends and your acquaintances. If there's diversity, great. Remember, diversity is at least 30/70 for our purposes and it is defined in a variety of ways: race, socio-economic status, varying religious beliefs, etc. I'm not proposing an affirmative action social life here, just an examination of the variety of people you seek out. If there's a lack, ask yourself why. Get out of your comfort zone and see what happens.