I appreciate the "love the church you're in" emphasis. As with most assertions, it's half true.

Yes, we must love the church we're in, but we love them too much to leave them the way they are. Every leader is called to move the people in some direction. To help them become more/better/holier than they are now.

It's not "pornography" to stir the holy discontent that keeps us from complacently treading water in the church where we are.

"I'm still not entirely sure what to make of the Acts 29/Southern Baptist connection. I know there's a Calvinist resurgence among Southern Baptists, but they still seem like strange bedfellows to me."

I guess I really don't understand the thinking behind this statement. Why should we be surprised by such a relationship? It seems to me that God's Church is one body, despite our attempts to disassociate ourselves from one another. These types of relationships should be the norm, and it almost sounds here like you disapprove.

I would doubt anyone who would follow under the 'preferential option for the poor' would say that the poor are overtly holy.. or even less sinful. Simply put the preferential option is basically saying that we should spend money on helping those who need rather than a new sound system or something along those lines.

From what I've read of those who invoke the Scriptures' preferential option for the poor, there is no claim of the poor being more holy (and I don't think my friends who are poor would want this label, either). Rather, there is a focus on God's special compassion and provision for the poor as an ongoing theme in Scripture, and on our obligation to have this also as we follow Him. I'm reading through the Pentateuch at the moment and am struck again by the provisions for the poor (leftover crops for gleaning; care for widows and orphans; equity for aliens; leveling of the economic playing field through Jubilee, etc.) that are clearly part of God's intent.

I attended a seminary that is a hotbed of "preferential option" thought and not a single person I met would make the claim that the poor are more holy.

Then again, in the aftermath of some of the "nice guy" provocative comments from people like Shane Claiborne, I can see how people would raise that critique.

That beings said, "poverty = holy" is a profound misunderstanding of the position whether you are in favor of it or not.

The war imagery of the conference intrigues me. I know about Ephesians 6 and all, but don't you think this is taking it a little far? Is there room for engagement or is it just all out war?

I guess the only way the poor could be more holy is if you take the rich person and the eye of the needle literally.

But sometimes I do wonder if it is not immoral to live in and support a society in which everything from health care to justice to education to political influence is based on a person's income. Perhaps it might be more moral to simply be poor.
***
If you have ever questioned a calvinist on a blog, there's no room for engagement. It's all out war.

Which is strange because you'd think they'd just happily go their predestined way and not get so upset at "heretics."

Chad,

Thanks for the "man on the scene" reporting. These posts have been really helpful and interesting for those of us stuck in the office/church/house/coffee shop/car/scooter/public transportation.

I find Ed Stetzer's comments especially helpful. I've begun to wonder how much good many ministry conferences actually are. They sometimes leave me feeling guilty, inadequate, or envious. Other times I leave feeling fired-up, but then come crashing down like my 4-year-old after a can of soda. I'm eager to find gatherings are are truly soul-nourishing and steeped in spiritual wisdom.

Jarrod: The point you make is exactly the point Stetzer made -- love the church you are in and be committed to helping them be all they can be as the body of Christ. The porn metaphor emphasized that leaders should not fantasize about some ideal/perfect church "out there" and be distracted from serving the church he/she is in.

Matt Hartzell: Sorry I was not clear -- it's not that I disapprove of the A29/Southern Baptist relationship. Of course it's wonderful for Christians of varying stripes and traditions to relate. It's just that I don't see a clear line of connection that would lead the conference organizers to invite Dr. Aiken to be one of the featured speakers. I'm hoping others can help me see this -- any takers??

Isaiah/nathan: We may just disagree on this, but for me, preferential sounds a lot like discrimination. I read the scriptures to say that God shows no favortism or preference -- which in light of cultures and societies that typically do favor the rich/powerful might seem like preference but is actually equality. And I'm trying not to confuse this with the decisions we all face about where to invest our time and resources - it's a matter of is there one group God prefers over another (to which I say No). Would love to hear more on this -- Thoughts??

Nathan,
Other disagreement on this blog aside, could I ask a sincere question in regards to the 'preferential option'?

I've just (like in the last couple of days) started reading up on Liberation Theology and Black Theology (that is the term in my book...sorry if it's not mainstream) which seem to put the poor uniformly in the role of the oppressed and thus the "righteous oppressed". So the individual poor are not more holy, but the poor as a community take the role of the oppressed and the wealthy as the oppressors wherever such is spoken of in the bible. Is this a right understanding? Is this what is being discussed here?

Thanks.

Chad:
In my understanding of preferential option I've only understood it (and had it presented to me) as taking seriously the numerous passages that clearly demonstrate God's particular concern for the poor and economically oppressed--a concern carried through to the NT as well. It's always been connected for me to pastoral theology/mission of the church in the surrounding culture.

I don't think that concern conflicts with God's universal love/providential love for all creation or people.

Paul,

I'd be happy to explore it with you...I'm not all that familiar with Black Theology. (and, FYI, I think that is the currently accepted term...so you're all good.)

I don't doubt that there must be voices somewhere using the term "preferential option" and then deploying it along the lines of "poor=holy"...

I've heard the 'preferential option' described in the following way:

I have 3 children. I love them all and care for them all. At school, one of the three is consistently bullied. As their Father, will I turn a blind eye to this? No. I will respond to the particular needs of this child. Does this mean I love that particular child more? Nope. It simply means because they are oppressed I will involve myself deeply in their situation.

Discussion of 'preferential option' is not a discussion of love. It is a discussion of justice and mercy. It speaks to our praxis. It seems like the calling of God's Kingdom is in part to respond to these injustices therefore the flow of the kingdom has to include focusing and responding to those marginalized and oppressed groups.

Scott's comment gets it right regarding the preferential option for the poor. It's about God desire for justice. Most often in our contemporary world and in history, the distinctions between those who are rich and those without are due to a large injustice in the way society functions. God is not pleased with this. Thus, God's choosing to ransom Israel from Egypt. Jesus definitely takes a similar route in the gospels. God's preferential options is never about humanity's holiness but God's holiness. God is holy and thus treats those who have received injustice with preference.

"God is holy and thus treats those who have received injustice with preference."

Not sure Esau would see it this way.

By definition, "preferential" and "just" are at odds. To be just is to treat all as the law of love requires; to be preferential is to lift one person (or class, or group) above another. Maybe the real problem is that we don't see what the wealthy person needs from us (though we see what we can get from him) while we see clearly what the poor person needs.

It's simple what the rich need from us: $$$$. Concentration of wealth is a fact and it gets worse every day. There's no such thing as a meritocracy in this country; I know too many spoiled rich kids whose only skill was being born to rich parents.

Of course, rich does not equate to happy. I've read that people who inherit money are indeed less happy.

this was really great. thanks so much for sharing it all.

Actually that definition of "just" or "justice" being equal with "fairness" or "equality" has more to do with our cultural/legal views than anything else.

Justice is not the leveling of the field or "equality".

C.S. Lewis rightly said that real justice returns equality to equals and inequality to inequals.

This insistence on "equality" need not be transported into everything.

just my 2 cents.

Great article, thanks for sharing. I too love the "man on the scene" reports, even though I know they are just running through one more filter. Myself, I've all but given up on conferences at this point, but it's still good to hear what's out there.

All that being said, I find it curious that the artwork used for this conference (and apparently the "war" theme) are vintage WW2. Seems like a not-so-subtle allusion to perhaps the last bastion of modernism (and it's failings?) WWII.

Also intriguing is all the CS Lewis conversation. In so many ways we all seem to be mourning the loss (of certainty?), and this conference is trying to re-fight the battle.

BTW, all that being said, I appreciate all these pastors you have quoted and am quite sympathetic to their conclusions, if not their methods. Great discussion!!

"I just don't see “God's preferential option for the poor” in the Bible." - How remarkably American this presumption is! Where to "share your bread" means to collect enough for half of a million salary and give the rest to the poor. Of course, not every poor is holy, but do you not hear the cry in a world? May be, some day, brothers and sisters, you will learn what means "(men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground."(Heb. 11: 38)

Viktor,
You over-generalize and hyperbolize to make a point. I suggest you find better ways to engage in the conversation.
The conversation here around the poor and God's provision for the poor has been substantive and helpful - largely becaue of how many different interpretations of "God's preferential option for the poor" there are. The perspective of someone who is not coming at this as an American could add a lot to the conversation, so I'd suggest you bring that perspective rather than bringing stawman condemnations spiced with scripture. Just a thought.

Three snapshots from the Bible:

- God chose the poor slaves in Egypt to manifest His power and glory.

- God destroyed Sodom because they did not help the poor.

- Jesus was born on a manger, walked the earth with “nowhere to rest his head”, lived with the poor, and buried in a borrowed tomb.

Kenneth Swanson in his book “Uncommon Prayer: Approaching Intimacy with God” highlighted this charming prose: “God doesn’t have favorites, but He does have intimates.”