Seeing Through the Eyes of the Excluded

In Mark's Gospel, the disciples are arguing about who among them is the greatest.  In response, Jesus places before them a little child, and tells them that in order to be first, we must seek to be the last, and the servant of all.

As a starting point, since Jesus is using a little child as an illustration, we first must understand the perception and role of children in the ancient Near East.  Here, we encounter an enormous disconnect with our own cultural understanding of children.  We place a high value upon children and have a largely positive understanding of children.  We associate positive values like innocence, faith, and purity with children.

The ancient Near East had a very different understanding of children.  Children were seen in a very negative light.  In particular, children were kept out of significant public and private events.  Children were seen as the outcast, who was, at best, excluded, and at worst, used as a scapegoat when things went wrong.  The only time, in fact, that children were noticed was when they were punished publicly for doing something wrong. 
We can think of lots of contemporary equivalents to this ancient perception of children; those who are excluded as outcasts and scapegoated for anything that goes wrong. 

The disciples would have been shocked when Jesus brought a child into the conversation about who was the greatest.  They would have been even more shocked when Jesus told them that whoever welcomes a child welcomes him, and the One who sent him.  Jesus is, literally, telling his listeners that the greatest among them will see the presence of God in the excluded and the outcast.  Accordingly, the excluded and outcast can no longer be excluded and outcast if we perceive the presence of God within them.  Jesus' statements have enormous implications for how we must reorder not only our cultural understandings of the excluded and outcasts, but our collective political and social relationships.

The Church, at best, gives the outcast a bag of groceries and wishes them well.  The Church is called to do much more than that.  The Church is called to stand in the place of the outcast, and to see the very presence of God in the outcast.

Considering Society's Correlation of Wealth and Virtue

The author of the Letter of James says that we shouldn't show partiality or favoritism based upon wealth, inside the Church or outside of it.  The author's statement cuts against the prevailing wisdom and ethos of our own society, as well as James' own

I would like to raise the simple question about whether or not the author is correct.  We begin by asking about why partiality has been shown in the first place.  Today, I believe, we show partiality to the wealthy because we believe that there is a correlation between wealth and virtue--the wealthier that a person is, the more virtuous that they must be.

If we are going to correlate wealth and virtue, we first would need to be informed about the true net worth of an individual that we are evaluating, so that the individual's virtue could thereby be measured.  But in our society today, there is often a difference between reality and perception when it comes to wealth.  Particularly before the financial crisis a few years ago, there was an explosion of the use of unsecured credit.  Someone who did not have the trappings of wealth could easily obtain tens of thousands of dollars of credit to obtain it.  That individual, with little actual net worth, could parade about with designer suits, shoes, and a fancy car.  For those that correlate wealth and virtue, this individual would appear to be virtuous, when they are actually in debt up to their figurative eyeballs.  In comparison, studies have demonstrated that a large number of millionaires actually live frugal lives and don't show the trappings of wealth.  In a fancy suburban church in Nashville, who would get the preferential treatment by the ushers at the front door?

When we are measuring someone's wealth in order to evaluate their virtue, we have to acknowledge, therefore, that what we are actually measuring is not the person's actual wealth, but our perception of their wealth, which might be drastically incorrect.  But let's assume that we can make an accurate measurement someone--let's imagine that an individual's worth is transparent and known to everyone.  If wealth were correlated to virtue, this raises the inference, for example, that public school teachers are not as virtuous as private school teachers who make more money.  Doctors who choose to work in the developing world or in clinics for the poor have less virtue than specialists in large hospitals.  Persons who do not have wealth but who suddenly inherit money or win the lottery suddenly obtain virtue.  Business executives who fraudulently obtain large sums of money are virtuous.

James is right.  When we really think through it, it makes no sense to show partiality based upon wealth.  There are virtuous rich.  There are virtuous poor.  There are rich who lack virtue.  There are poor who lack virtue.  Basing our opinion about someone upon our perception of their wealth is irrational.

But let's assume for a moment that virtue was a function of wealth and that those without wealth truly lack virtue.  If that were true, then this is all the greater reason to show partiality to those without wealth in Church.  The Church is, after all, a place where those who are lost can find salvation and redemption.  By analogy, a hospital gives its greatest resources to those who are in the most critical condition.  The best doctors are in the emergency room.  Patients are given the most care when they are in critical condition.  The more that we perceive someone to be lost, the more hospitable and welcoming we should be, because we are called to be a place where those who are lost can find their way home.