You always have the poor with you! (7/17/25)

(Our men’s group is going through Shane Claiborne’s Irresistible Revolution, which has spurred quite a bit of discussion and thought!)

Growing up in my conservative fundamentalist Baptist church, I remember hearing this verse quoted, usually in support of capitalism and against socialism / communism.  It was thrown around as proof that poverty would never be eliminated, so why try?  If poor people were too lazy to work, why should others support them?  

How contrary that take on this phrase is with the broader teaching and context of Jesus! Look at the extended passage:

Jesus was at Bethany visiting the house of Simon, who had a skin disease. During dinner, a woman came in with a vase made of alabaster and containing very expensive perfume of pure nard. She broke open the vase and poured the perfume on his head. ⁴ Some grew angry. They said to each other, “Why waste the perfume? ⁵ This perfume could have been sold for almost a year’s pay and the money given to the poor.” And they scolded her.

⁶ Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me.⁷ You always have the poor with you; and whenever you want, you can do something good for them. But you won’t always have me. ⁸ She has done what she could. She has anointed my body ahead of time for burial. ⁹ I tell you the truth that, wherever in the whole world the good news is announced, what she’s done will also be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14: 3-9, CEB)

 

Did you notice the context?  Did you notice what else Jesus said?

 

“You always have the poor with you; and whenever you want, you can do something good for them.”

 

Whenever we want, we can do good for the poor?  Do we want?  Do we ever want to do good to the poor?  Maybe during Christmas, and after a disaster!  But certainly not all the time!

How does our attitude square with the way Jesus taught and acted?  How does it square with Matthew 25: 31-46?  Read the whole section.  Let me point out that Jesus said:

 

I was hungry and you didn’t give me food to eat. I was thirsty and you didn’t give me anything to drink. ⁴³ I was a stranger, and you didn’t welcome me. I was naked and you didn’t give me clothes to wear. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

 

Yes, we will always have the poor with us, because we always have Jesus with us!  

 

Eschatology and Evangelism (2/3/09)

Today (1/27/09) I have begun reading Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology of Hope.  Already it has awakened a thought, answered a nagging question, and brought into focus a gap in my theology.

As I struggle through my “post-Evangelical” wanderings, I have wondered at the role of evangelism in my faith.  Moltmann points out that eschatology is not a disconnected future account but is a living motivation for the present.  The future hope is our present purpose.

We shall not usher in a time of utopia with our own efforts.  It shall not arrive until Christ returns.

My question and discontent, sowed from my fundamentalist, dispensational past, was, “Why all the fuss over the present which will be done away with anyway?” All we need to do is to secure the soul through a decision for Christ, obtained via presentations of “the gospel”.  All the efforts to change the world, to make a better place, would be wasted anyway, since it would all come to naught in the “great tribulation”.

This morning, though, the light dawned!  What more powerful evangelistic tool is there than to give someone a glimpse of the future here in the present?  What better motivation is there for someone to seek the Kingdom of Christ than to see and feel the effect of the Kingdom here and now in a world setting that conflicts with the Kingdom?  “A taste of heaven” on earth would only whet one’s appetite for more!

Thus, I am thinking, real evangelism, recruitment into the Kingdom, must involve living out the teaching of Jesus in the present in such a manner that we are salt that causes a thirst and a light that reveals the path to the future, and this involves action that creates communities of “heaven on earth”, outposts of the future that are tangible and desirable.

2/3/09

As I continue to read Moltmann, I try to formulate my thoughts:

It appears, according to Moltmann, that there are two errors commonly made concerning eschatology.

1) Man “presumes” that he can create his own utopia, bringing in the kingdom by his own efforts.  All attempts have so far miserably failed, because they are centered on man and his ability and effort.  2) It is thought that the eternal state is something unrelated to the present state.  That the eternal state is transcendent and therefore beyond our understanding.  This has origins in Greek philosophy where the material is considered sinful, inferior and only the spiritual is perfect.  Erroneous thinking says that we shouldn’t spend too much effort on trying to understand it, since it is beyond our ability to understand anyway.  We just need to get the motivation for living for eternity in the present.

My analysis on this is that the eternal state is what Israel was looking for; a literal, physical Kingdom made of literal, physical land, with a literal, physical King on this (restored) earth.  To this, man can relate and find motivation.  Toward this we can work, not in that we will complete the job, but in that we can set up “recruitment stations” where we live out the principles of the coming Kingdom in contrast to the principles of the present kingdom.  The people around us will then be able to see the difference, and make their choice, join the Kingdom to come (that is already with us, yet not complete), or live for the present.

Creation as Theophany (1/10/09)

In reading the chapter entitled Eschatology and Christology, Moltmann and the Greek Fathers, by Nicholas Constas in God’s Life in Trinity, I was introduced to an interesting concept that I would like to meditate on and record my thoughts.  The chapter draws heavily on Basil of Caesarea’s work, the Hexaemeron, a series of homilies concerning creation.

The chapter suggests that we should think of creation as a form of theophany, even parallel to the incarnation, an embodiment of the Spirit in material form.  We are not to see the creation as God, but a revelation of the transcendent God.  We are not to worship creation as an idol, but to see in it characteristics of the eternal transcendent God. (Note from 2025: this sounds like panentheism, as promoted by Richard Rohr.)

When God declared creation “beautiful” (they refer to Gen 1:8 in the LXX, which doesn’t correlate with Gen 1:8 in my Bible.  I assume they refer to God’s declaration that creation is “very good”) it refers not to the aesthetic beauty, but to the completeness and perfection of purpose in creation; creation will serve its purpose “beautifully” as it has been ordered and put together.

This is correlated with Ecclesiastes, and Solomon’s initial statement that “life is meaningless”.  If one looks at the order of creation superficially, without a regard for its transcendent revelation of God, one only sees futility in its cycles of life and death, of struggle and suffering juxtaposed to times of happiness and ease.  But when one sees its purpose, understands it as a revelation, an embodiment of God’s purpose, a manifestation of his Spirit, creation then takes on meaning, pointing us toward a future of hope, rather than a cycle of futility

 

Meditations on the Trinity (12/1/08)

I just began reading a book that has long been on my shelf.  Little did I understand or predict its importance.  A book on the trinity; how radical can that be?  I have believed in the trinity as long as I can remember.  Only into the second chapter, I am finding my thinking challenged, my paradigm stretched! 

 

To better solidify what I am reading, I need to write. I don’t yet know if I shall share these thoughts, or keep them to myself.   But if I do share them, they find origin in the book edited by Miraslav Volf and Michael Welker; an anthology of writings by various authors brought together in tribute to Jurgen Moltmann, a theologian who explored the trinity (whose writings I must soon explore!) and inspired the thinking of the authors to consider the trinity, and its implications for the church and theology.  The book is entitled, God’s Life in the Trinity.

 

The essay / chapter entitled The Social Trinity and Property, by M. Douglas Meeks has left me thinking, meditating, wondering about how important the concept of the trinity is in our practice of faith.  In the West, our theology has focused on the unity, the singleness of “one God”.  This one God is the creator of all, and therefore the owner of all.  He owes no one anything.  He gives, not of compulsion, but out of love and benevolence.  He lacks nothing, needs nothing.

 

So, the thinking goes, which has not been so obvious to me until I saw it in print, man (at least in the West), created in the image of God, must emulate God.  Since God owns all and owes nothing, man too should seek to own and not owe, the “American Dream” in a nutshell!  Perfect!  It is based in theology!  In our striving to own, we too should be benevolent, condescending to those in need, who have not yet reached the level of ownership and lack of debt(?) that we have acquired.

 

One big problem with this thinking is that it has turned everything into a commodity, property, to be sought after and acquired.  The individual and personal ownership have been taken to the extreme.  Justice, the experience of learning, and the maintenance of health have become commodities available to those who can pay.  Those who can’t, suffer their lack, and must wait for the beneficence of those who are higher or further along on the social ladder.

 

Is this really what God intended as an outworking of theology, of an understanding of “The Lord your God is One”?

 

But let us now consider the trinity.  God is three equals, living in harmony, without need, but giving to each other continually in love, a society of joy and satisfaction beyond anything we can compare in our fallen world.  God’s fullness of love is so great that it spills over into creation, and into his image, man.  We the image bearer of God, are to imitate our Creator.

 

How should that imitation take form?  Should we be seeking property? Ownership?Or should we be seeking the benefit and joy of all through sharing in common?  Should we be interested in true equality of justice, unhindered and even assisted opportunity to learn, and the ability to have physical needs met within the possibilities of our fallen world?  

 

How should our outworking of the image of God appear?

 

Lest you think I am speaking politically, let me dispel the thought.  I have no hope in “the sword” to solve the world’s problems.  “The sword” is a representation of the problem, man’s attempt to live apart from God’s rule.  God has ordained government but does not promise that world government will produce his Kingdom.  Whether we vote or not, and how we vote is a decision we must each make before God, with our consciences bare before his probing Spirit.  But let us not consider government as the source of our spiritual salvation or demise.  Remember that the cruel and oppressive Roman Empire was in power during the time of Christ and the early Church!  Yet the church grew!

 

Our job, the church’s job, regardless of the political climate or the governmental powers in control, is to reflect the love of Christ to one another within the body (that’s how we will be recognized!), and to let that love flow out in grace to those in need around us, not as a tool of power or coercion, but as a demonstration of the type of love that God shares in the trinity.  

 

Therefore, our focus / goal as image bearers of God should not be to obtain more property and to be free from obligation to others, but to share freely with others what God has given to us, and to sense an obligation, or better, a compulsion, born out of love, to serve those in need around us.  That is what the trinity is teaching me!

Is Healthcare a Right? (5/22/08)

As a physician practicing and teaching in rural, economically depressed southeast Ohio, daily I am confronted with the challenge of delivering health care to those who cannot afford to pay for it.  As I have considered the problem, with the influence of my experience as a missionary physician for 8 years in Honduras, I have made a few observations.

First and foremost is the issue of rights and responsibilities.  Does an affluent society have the responsibility to provide for the health care needs of its citizens?  Does each citizen have the right to health care?  Does the citizen have the responsibility to take care of himself?  Does the society have the right to encourage or even enforce good health practice for its citizens?

 

Exercise of rights requires exercise of responsibilities.

 

Unfortunately, many of the people in impoverished areas lack the basic abilities to fulfill their responsibilities.  Many lack in education.  Many lack in initiative.  Many lack in the basic ability to choose well.  Why?  There are nature and nurture factors.  Many people simply need opportunity and a little help to overcome an apparent hopeless situation.  Once they see an opportunity, a possibility that gives them hope, they can begin down the road to achieving it.  Others are incapable of reaching beyond their situation, no matter how much help they receive.

 

Is our society responsible to help those who simply need some hope and direction? I think so.  Is our society also responsible to care for those who will likely never rise beyond their current circumstances.  I think so as well.

 

What would / should a system of health care to meet the needs of these folks look like?  First it needs to be simple, almost automatic.  When someone is impoverished, they can’t navigate or manage a system of paperwork and options.  They lack the initiative and often the transportation to do the things the system requires to apply for government assistance.  Often they are in a health crisis that prohibits them from doing anything for themselves.

 

What do you think?

Righteousness or Justice? (7/13/25)

Our biblical translators, although attempting to be literal in their translations, have been biased by their presuppositions, and therefore have influenced us by their bias.  One such instance may be the word we often see translated as righteous or righteousness.  See these passages in Matthew 5 in two translations:

⁶ “Happy are people who are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, because they will be fed until they are full. …

¹⁰ “Happy are people whose lives are harassed because they are righteous, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Common English Bible

⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    for they will be filled….

¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

New International Bible

Both of these translations use the word “righteousness”.  I am not a Greek scholar, but here is what I found about the word in Greek:

δικαιοσύνη dikaiosynē, n. righteousness, what is right, justice, the act of doing what is in agreement with God’s standards, the state of being in proper relationship with God:– righteousness (78), justice (3), right (3), what is right (3), it^S (1), justified (1), righteous (1), that is right (1)

This word in the NIV is usually translated as “righteousness” (73 times), but can also mean “justice” (used 3 times).  (It was pointed out by a friend in a men's group that we recently read a similar interpretation by Shane Claiborne in Irresistible Revolution, which may also have been in the back of my mind as I came upon this passage in my personal study. It is certainly not original with me!) 

I don’t know about you, but for me, with my fundamentalist Baptist background, I tend to think of “righteous” and “righteousness” as focusing on my own individual behavior.  That encourages a very individualistic response to these verses.

However, “justice”, for me, sounds more communal, or social, and carries a different connotation.  Look again at these passages with the substitutions:

⁶ “Happy are people who are hungry and thirsty for justice, because they will be fed until they are full. …

¹⁰ “Happy are people whose lives are harassed because they are just, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Common English Bible

⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice,
    for they will be filled….

¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of justice,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

New International Bible

These verses now carry a different meaning, a different focus, with a completely different set of actions that I feel encouraged to implement.

How about for you?

 

Dave Drozek, with

Faith Reconsidered

Do You Feel God’s Pleasure? (10/8/07)

(To my medical students and colleagues, and everyone else as well!)

 

Eric Liddle, the runner / preacher / missionary featured in one of my favorite movies, “Chariots of Fire” says to his sister that he was created to run, and that when he runs, he feels the pleasure of God. 

 

This is great theology.  To fulfill your created purpose pleases God!

 

Do you please God?  Do you feel the wonder, the pleasure of God as you study the human body with the purpose of bringing healing to those who suffer?  Do you feel the pleasure of God as you evaluate and treat your patients?

 

In those moments when my heart and mind are correctly aligned with the Creator, I feel the pleasure of God; I become wrapped up in the joy and fulfillment of my purpose when I perform surgery.  What a great privilege to be the hands of Christ, administering healing, restoring and redeeming a suffering person, made in the image of Christ, from the consequences of the fall that hinders his material body. 

 

I participate in the work of Christ, his Kingdom work, restoring the fallen world!  I feel the pleasure of God!

 

How about you?