“THE POOR YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE WITH YOU…”

4/13/10

This morning’s first reading at Mass came from the Acts of the Apostles, certainly one of my favorite books of either Testament and one of the books of the Bible that has the greatest potential to appeal to those with little interest in matters of religion or faith; it is a book packed with intriguing stories, swashbuckling adventure, and good character development. But I digress…already. The specific reading for this morning contained the following passage from the 4th Chapter of Acts:

There was no needy person among them (MQ—the early Christian community in Jerusalem), for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.
Acts 4, 34-35, New American Bible

I read on Tuesday mornings at 6:45 Mass at Sts. Peter and Paul in Naperville, and, because of that, must stay on the altar in order to read the petitions, which come after the priest’s homily. Therefore, I must listen to the Gospel and the homily from a position behind the priest, which is fine if the speakers are working correctly. However, this morning, there appeared to be something wrong with the sound system. Given the problems with the sound system, and the poor acoustics that seem to come as an unwelcome byproduct of the stunning Gothic architecture of our old and strikingly beautiful church, it was difficult for me, sitting behind the priest, to hear either the Gospel (Fortunately, I’m familiar with the third chapter of John’s Gospel, so that presented little problem.) or the homily delivered by our young and promising Father Ryan Larson, who until recently we would have referred to as an assistant pastor but who, now that the Church seems to be bound and determined to ditch Vatican II, is called our “Parochial Vicar,” but I digress again.

Despite the difficulty in hearing Father Larson’s homily, I was able to pick up its most important points. Ryan pointed out that the political left interprets the above quoted passage from the Acts of the Apostles as meaning that, since we have an obligation to help the needy among us, we must support whatever social program the government deems capable of serving the poor. The political right, he asserted, argues that, since the forfeiture of property among the early Christians was entirely voluntary, no social program is legitimate, the government has no right to force forfeiture of property and that all help given to the poor must therefore be entirely the product of free will. He went on to say (as far as I could tell—that sound system problem, again) that the proper interpretation lies somewhere in the middle. We as Christians have an obligation to help the needy among us. The details of delivery of that help must be worked both in our own consciences and in the political process, on the latter of which the Church has no opinion (at least concerning social spending programs), as long as we all recognize that obligation to help the poor.

Father Larson’s interpretation, if I heard it correctly, of that passage is a sound and perfectly defensible one, certainly more well grounded than either of the extreme interpretations he outlined at the outset of his homily, both of which had a faint odor of straw, but that is another issue. I would suggest, however, a simpler interpretation, or lack thereof. Perhaps the “interpretation” of that passage is that the early Christian community held everything in common. In other words, it is what it is, a descriptive, rather than a prescriptive, passage. That the early Christians held all things in common was a fact but not a rule, or even necessarily a suggestion, for how Christians conduct themselves either now or any time after the first generation of Christians went on to bigger and better things. At least I, and just about every Christian should, hope so, because if that passage is prescriptive, the only people living the truly Christian life are members of religious orders who take vows of poverty.

My larger point is that many people read far more into Scripture passages than is truly there. (The opposite is also true, by the way, but that is grist for another post.) Generally, what people read into passages is justification, or rationalization, for a view on an issue or a behavior, that is, at the very most, ancillary to the Christian message. In other words, people use passages from Scripture to further grind their favorite axes, to give the spiritual seal of approval to decidedly secular issues and behavior.

Incidentally, if I interpreted Father Larson correctly, he would probably concur with this larger point, even though our takes on this particular passage differ.