Sunday Pastor was talking about the difference between pity, condescension, and compassion, taking as his text the part in Matthew where it said Jesus had compassion on the crowd because they were like sheep without a shepherd. According to the Greek, he said, what it really said was that he saw the crowd as being like a flock of sheep that had been attacked by wolves, all tore up and not pretty at all. Then he went on to explain that pity is the emotion that you feel but doesn't necessarily inspire you to do anything, condescension is action without love, and compassion is action with emotion (love).
Then he told about an encounter with an angry man down at the homeless mission who got right in his face and challenged him, "If I came to your house, would you ask me in for dinner?" He said, "I had to think about that one a minute." Finally, he told the man, "I think so, I think I would." Well, you can imagine that didn't soothe anything! He said that that man had really brought him up short and challenged him to think about his approach, was it compassion or condescension?
We were talking about it afterwards in our small group, and what disturbed me was how quickly the man's anger was dismissed as "he was only trying to pick a fight." A classic you can't win no matter what. I think the man had a legitimate reason to be angry. What he was talking about was more than just a meal. What he was talking about was respect, being treated as an equal. Not as an object of pity or mercy. Not as someone to be dismissed but someone to be listened to. But the minute he expressed anger, it was over. Now everyone has an excuse not to listen to him.
When you are homeless you have had just about everything taken away from you that possibly can be taken away from you, and you are at the mercy of others' charity. Down at the mission they make the homeless listen to a sermon before they feed and shelter them. So if you want to eat and be out of the cold, you don't have a choice. The other day I wrote a blog about the illusion of choice. Well, it's no different down at the shelter. You have to play their game if you want to get your needs met. No wonder the man was angry, I'd be angry too. But instead of addressing what he was angry about, no, now they want to take even that away from him and deny him his feelings. I know all about that too.
On the back wall of the church one of the words that is written there is "Authenticity." This man was being about as authentic as you can get. And what was the response? How did this man get into this situation in the first place? What is his story? Do you really think he likes being at the mission? How can we help him get out of the mission? Otherwise, it is all just words, and it is no wonder nobody wants to listen to God talk.
I'd really like to know how that encounter ended--Pastor didn't say--but again, maybe I already do. Because in the end nothing changed. And we can safely discuss him from our nice warm homes.
But you get enough angry, desperate people and that's how revolutions begin . . .
Then he told about an encounter with an angry man down at the homeless mission who got right in his face and challenged him, "If I came to your house, would you ask me in for dinner?" He said, "I had to think about that one a minute." Finally, he told the man, "I think so, I think I would." Well, you can imagine that didn't soothe anything! He said that that man had really brought him up short and challenged him to think about his approach, was it compassion or condescension?
We were talking about it afterwards in our small group, and what disturbed me was how quickly the man's anger was dismissed as "he was only trying to pick a fight." A classic you can't win no matter what. I think the man had a legitimate reason to be angry. What he was talking about was more than just a meal. What he was talking about was respect, being treated as an equal. Not as an object of pity or mercy. Not as someone to be dismissed but someone to be listened to. But the minute he expressed anger, it was over. Now everyone has an excuse not to listen to him.
When you are homeless you have had just about everything taken away from you that possibly can be taken away from you, and you are at the mercy of others' charity. Down at the mission they make the homeless listen to a sermon before they feed and shelter them. So if you want to eat and be out of the cold, you don't have a choice. The other day I wrote a blog about the illusion of choice. Well, it's no different down at the shelter. You have to play their game if you want to get your needs met. No wonder the man was angry, I'd be angry too. But instead of addressing what he was angry about, no, now they want to take even that away from him and deny him his feelings. I know all about that too.
On the back wall of the church one of the words that is written there is "Authenticity." This man was being about as authentic as you can get. And what was the response? How did this man get into this situation in the first place? What is his story? Do you really think he likes being at the mission? How can we help him get out of the mission? Otherwise, it is all just words, and it is no wonder nobody wants to listen to God talk.
I'd really like to know how that encounter ended--Pastor didn't say--but again, maybe I already do. Because in the end nothing changed. And we can safely discuss him from our nice warm homes.
But you get enough angry, desperate people and that's how revolutions begin . . .
