The Aldi's Gospel

Question:
    What can bring people of many different races, ethnicities, and socio-economic classes together in a cramped building on a Sunday night?

    No, the answer isn't a church service.

Answer:
    Aldi's.

For those who haven't had the pleasure of shopping for their groceries at Aldi's, some background information is necessary. Aldi's sells off-brand food products at inexpensive prices. So much so that my wife and I save around $40 a week from what we used to spend at Meijer or Walmart.

Is there a catch?

Well, maybe.

You first need to have a quarter on you. That's what 'renting' an Aldi's shopping cart will cost you. (Don't worry, you'll get the quarter back when you return the cart.) Second, you'll need your own shopping bags...or you can always buy some recyclable bags from their store. Third, you can't be too picky. Aldi's rarely has name-brand products. They do have comparable products made by their own company. If you're looking for a unique cheese or salsa dip, you probably won't find it at Aldi's. If you want the basics, you'll be fine. It really comes down to the savings.

And that's what brought so many people to Aldi's tonight. Milk for $1.89. It costs around $2.89 at Walmart. A pound of lean ground turkey for $2.99. It's around $5.00 per pound at Walmart or Meijer. Multiply that kind of savings on every product you buy, and you get the idea. Really substantial savings.

I'm writing this blog not only to promote Aldi's, but more specifically to point out the irony of it all. I work in ministry and find it teeth-clenching that an Aldi's better represents the beauty and diversity of humanity than any given church on any given Sunday. At Aldi's tonight, people came together under a common cause: saving money. There's another cause that can bring diverse individuals together: Love. And grace. And forgiveness.

So to Aldi's, I say, "Way to go!" Now the Church just needs to find ways to bring people together like you do.

Sacramental Musings (for dummies like me)

I'm a seminarian who, somewhat ironically, is still trying to make sense of the sacraments that Lutherans (and most other Protestants) see as 'essential to worship'—those things that Christ commanded his followers to do in the pages of the New Testament.

I've always viewed the sacraments (communion and baptism) as more symbolic than anything. Well, I've learned that's pretty much dead wrong. I've gained a little more insight now, and wanted to write out my understandings in order to help dummies like me with all of this insider vernacular and its meaning.

Here's my crack at explaining the sacraments (promising I'll be brief):

Communion (The Eucharist / The Lord's Supper)

Communion is 'the meal' that Christians share in worship. It's not really a meal, but is intended to fill a person much like a meal would. It also involves bread and wine, and is a meal in that sense.

Communion, in short, is the eating of a piece of bread and the drinking of a sip of wine. Bread and wine are used in Jesus's last supper with his disciples, the evening before his crucifixion.

It's from several of the gospels, most notably is Matthew, chapter 26.

"²⁶ While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” ²⁷ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; ²⁸ for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

 Because Jesus told his followers to do this, most Christians consider it a 'sacrament.' It's a way of uniting with Christ through the eating and drinking of bread and wine. It's not meant to be a ticket to salvation, or anything like that. It's simply a visible way that we can understand and experience our unity with Christ. Sometimes it's hard to have faith, and we often need something tangible and visible to help us experience our bond with Jesus.

Because Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood," we believe that there is some part of him within these things, the bread and wine. It's not meant to be super-mystical, but simply that Jesus's holy presence is there within those elements.


Baptism

Baptism is a bit more difficult for me to comprehend. Baptism is, in short, when a person gets dunked in a small pool of water by an ordained pastor. A person can also receive baptism by having water sprinkled on their head by an ordained pastor. Like communion, I don't regard baptism as a means to salvation—that would be only by faith, a gift given to all sinners by God alone. Baptism is the sacramental washing away of sins, an act of dying with Christ (in a sense, the being 'immersed' with water) and also of rising into his resurrection (coming up from being dunked).

This sacrament, like communion, was first instituted by Jesus himself:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20

 And, also like communion, it's a way to connect with Christ, who died and rose to life again, for the sins of humankind. It's a way of publicly declaring your commitment to Christ, and also a way of acknowledging what Christ has done for you (as opposed to being put up on a cross?) In all seriousness, though, baptism is another way to experience our unity with Jesus in a tangible way that Christians often need to feel (which is why people sometimes dip their hand in the baptismal bowl when entering the church...they need to 'feel' that promise of forgiveness and new life).

A Picture Of Poverty

Take a look at the stock-photo above.

What words and thoughts come to your mind?

A week ago, I probably would have simply concluded that this was a cheesy and unrealistic stock photograph, and quickly moved on. It's just a photo, right? Who cares?

Today I look at this image and about twenty immediate thoughts race through my head. You see, I just took a week-long intensive course on poverty alleviation and accompaniment with the poor. My limited worldview was given a good, healthy kick in the gut, and my perspective is now broader.

Let's revisit the photo above, and maybe use it as a way to talk about poor persons in the United States. Poverty is certainly a problem in every city. We all know that, and wish it weren't so. We do what we can to help...donate some money every year to charity, give to our local church, feel sad for those on the street. What else can we do, really?

When I see the picture above, I see disparity. I see the disparity between the middle-class and the lower-class. I think about the systemic problems that cause that disparity in the first place. I think about serving the poor, and how wrong we often get it. That serving counter between the pretty, middle-class couple and the poor couple might as well be a mile wide. It's sadly illustrative of the economic-class divide that we see in every city. There are the poor parts of town, and there are the wealthier parts of town. Those two don't really mingle. The wealthy parts of town often 'take the risk' and spend an afternoon at a soup kitchen in the poor parts of town. The middle-class serve the lower-class, and everyone supposedly goes home feeling a bit better.

Is it that simple?

Or could it be that our serving of the poor is actually creating more of a divide? Is our serving somehow conveying that we 'have it all together,' and the poor do not?

The Absence Of 'With'
The main problem here might be that the middle-class folks on side A of the serving counter are not working with the lower-class folks on side B. And 'with' is the word I'll focus on next.

Working with those in poverty—as well as looking for ways to alleviate poverty—is complex. There are so many causes of poverty. Some causes are obvious. Addiction. Lack of education. Laziness. Then there are the others. Lack of affordable healthcare. Social injustices. Discrimination. Lack of jobs. Problems with our welfare system. Lack of affordable housing and slum lords. And so we often look at the causes and then look for solutions. But sometimes, 'with' should be the only goal.

We often leave out the 'with.' What I mean is that we serve the poor, we give to the poor, and we do things for the poor. But we rarely work with the poor. We rarely get to know the names and stories of those in the receiving line of the soup kitchen. This lack of 'with' creates a lot of the problems that we see in cities today, mainly the separation of the middle- and lower-class.

Look around in your groups. Your churches. Your office. You'll likely see people that are all the same race and ethnicity as you. Maybe that's okay. And maybe it's not.

Maybe it's okay that the poor all live in certain areas of town, often out of sight and out of mind. Maybe that's just the way it is. Or maybe it's a problem.

Accompaniment—The 'With'
So we start with accompaniment: Working and walking with the poor. If relationships are built with people that look and smell differently than us, who knows what will happen? Friendships might form. Job opportunities might arise. Advocacy. Assistance.

Still, let's not get confused. 'Solving' someone's problems shouldn't be the goal. Relationships should be the goal. I'm probably not going to pull anyone out of poverty. I doubt I can help someone with a mental disorder, especially if they don't want to take their meds. But again, solving someone's problems isn't the goal...

The Soloist
In the movie The Soloist, Robert Downey, Jr., plays Steve Lopez, a Los Angeles Times columnist who thinks he finds his latest story in a man named Nathaniel Ayers, Jr., played by Jamie Foxx. Nathaniel Ayers, Jr., is a mentally-ill, homeless man who once attended the prestigious Juilliard School. Nathaniel is a gifted violinist, and Steve sees a possible story in Nathaniel's uncommon situation. In trying to get his story, Steve begins a unique friendship with Nathaniel that leads to a struggle for understanding and acceptance.

This is a great film that correctly conveys some methods for working with someone in poverty. Steve Lopez meets Nathaniel, who's homeless, and wants to get to know him, in the hopes that the interaction will produce a great story for his column. Steve didn’t immediately offer him money or a place to live. He simply conversed with Nathaniel for several weeks. He tried to learn about Nathaniel, about his background and his story. And, as he did this, he began to find empathy and compassion for Nathaniel.

Steve Lopez showed interest in something that Nathaniel was interested in—classical music. When his column about Nathaniel caught popularity, a reader donated a beautiful cello for Nathaniel’s use. Steve protected his new friend by telling Nathaniel that he would have to keep and play the instrument at the local homeless shelter. In this way, Nathaniel would not get attacked over the instrument. Steve also allowed himself to become a part of Nathaniel’s life. He spent a night with Nathaniel on the street, a filthy area, ridden with violence and drugs in the slums of L.A. Steve also attempted to get Nathaniel into an apartment, which would provide safety and security. Though Nathaniel was schizophrenic and often resisted Steve’s help, Steve’s motives were right. Anytime you try and help a person in deep poverty, the technical details will get messy. There will be resistance. There will be struggles and setbacks.

At the end of the film, Steve said that he wasn’t sure if he had really helped Nathaniel at all. Nathaniel did have a roof over his head, but his mental state was no better than the day they met. Finally, Steve says, “I can’t speak for Mr. Ayers in that regard. Maybe our friendship has helped him. But maybe not. I can, however, speak for myself. I can tell you that by witnessing Mr. Ayers’s courage, his humility, his faith in the power of his art, I’ve learned the dignity of being loyal to something you believe in. Of holding onto it, above all else. Of believing, without question, that it will carry you home.”

The power in this quote is the way it relates to the work of poverty alleviation. A person who works with the poor should not expect to ‘change’ a poor person. The only expectation should be friendship and the way that friendship will change and positively affect you.

Is that picture above bad? No. Anytime a person helps another in need is a good thing. Still, there is so much more to working with the poor than a cliché image can convey. My hope is to keep prayerfully pondering how I can work with the poor, and the unexpected ways it might change me.