Chicago

I went to Chicago over the weekend. My church and many sister churches were part of the ICMC (International Campus Ministry Conference), where a bunch of college students get together and fellowship and learn stuff. On Friday, we had the HOPE “day of service” called “Lots of Change.” Basically, most of the students at the ICMC went around a rough Chicago neighborhood called Englewood and picked up a lot of trash.

Afterwards, we all met up at Sherman Park, had lunch, and listened to a few of the people who organized/sponsored Lots of Change give speeches. It was great and I got to hang out with some friends I haven’t seen in years, but there were two or three things that ticked me off (although this wasn’t a surprise; it is Chicago).

An Illinois state senator got up and gave a short speech. In it, he quoted MLK and, later, read a bit from one of the Corinthean books (he just said “Corintheans” without a number – and I think without a chapter or verse). Anyway, when he mentioned Corintheans, a bunch of students cheered a bit (we weren’t expecting a secular speaker to read from the Bible). He then destroyed any rapport he’d gained with us with a snide remark along these lines “So Corintheans gets applause and MLK doesn’t?”

That’s right, Mr. Senator. MLK was definitely a great guy and a historic figure, but there are two reasons we would honor Corintheans more than him.

1. Everyone and his dog quotes MLK. This is not a bad thing, but if people applauded every time MLK was quoted, we’d probably need new hands (evidenced by the fact that the speaker before him also quoted MLK).
2. Any true Christian would not put MLK on the same level as the apostles. And I really, really doubt MLK would put himself on the same level as them. He was a great orator and all, but the apostles had the explicit approval of the Lord.

At some point, Chicago’s mayor Richard Daley gave a speech. First of all, let me say that I’m automatically suspicious of anyone who’s held a position like mayor for over twenty years – be they hardcore conservative or super-green-hippie liberal. But more specifically, he brought two political issues into his speech that had no business there.

1. He spoke very passionately against the U.S. gun industry. He specifically mentioned an NRA rider on the Obamacare bill that prevents a gun owner’s insurance from going up or something if he accidentally shoots his neighbor’s kid.
2. He talked about how we need to stop the warmongers.

Let me first say that if that rider he mentioned is what he made it out to be, then I agree with him that it shouldn’t have been passed. That said, he had no business attacking the gun industry.

1. I’m sure he utilizes many guns indirectly. He’s a mayor! He’s got bodyguards, and there’s a large police force in his city. What does he think they use to defend folks? Archery?
2. Guns are no more evil than the Internet, or pencils, or hammers, or any other tool. And a mayor who’s probably (albeit unintentionally) helped the illegal gun industry a lot (by supporting gun bans) shouldn’t be criticizing the legitimate gun industry.
3. It isn’t the wisest thing to mention any political issue when you’re talking to folks from all over the country – and even some other countries. The majority of the guys staying in my hotel room were pretty ticked off by his comments.

When he talked about warmongers, I’m assuming he meant proponents of our military presence in the Middle East (he complained that we spend billions of dollars on our military overseas, but can’t spend the money to help people in Chicago’s low-class neighborhoods) or perhaps Republicans in general, since that is one of the Dem’s nicknames for the GOP.

1. I may not fully agree with the military’s actions, but you cannot deny the good we have done in Iraq, at least. You cannot honestly compare cleaning up trash to saving many lives from terrorism/militant fascism.
2. No one who spends their city’s money on “green” stuff has any right to complain about how the nation’s money is spent on the military (he was touted for his environmentalism, among other things, when he was introduced). Even if I thought “climate change” was a threat, I’d consider other things much more important (at least immediately so).
3. Maybe you ought to focus less on funneling money into the areas and more on convincing those who need help to help themselves. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do stuff like what we did at Lots of Change, but anything you do to help them like that is just a quick fix; a remedy for the symptoms. There were several people who came out and watched us pick up trash. They were nice and polite and all (and they thanked us, too), but why weren’t they cleaning up? This trash we picked up was usually on or near the sidewalk; a lot of it was in people’s own front yards! They just don’t care enough to clean it up. Until you fix that, the trash will just build up again. This principle transfers to more serious things, too. You could confiscate all the guns in Englewood (which had well over 100 homicides this past year), but until you get a stronger police presence (only so much police is good), or eliminate the desire to kill each other, or loosen gun control laws (enabling folks to defend themselves – the laws obviously aren’t stopping the violence), or some combination thereof, you’ll continue to have violence and they’ll just get replacements.

Advertisement