Mother Teresa’s Advice to Politically Conservative Bloggers

Dear Readers,

I’ve been reading a little bit of In the Silence of the Heart: Meditations by Mother Teresa of Calcutta and I’ve been overwhelmed by what a good, good woman Mother Teresa was.

I spend a lot of time thinking about politics and thinking about how to fix the whole world. Of course, I don’t do much to actually fix the whole world, but it’s still a nice intellectual exercise to pass the time, much like doing crossword puzzles.

I often think, “If only country X would get rid of their dictators and replace them with democratically elected representatives bound to a written Constitution, then all the suffering in country X would vanish.” Or, “If only country Y would banish communism and embrace capitalism…” Or, “If only country Z would renounce global warming and enthrone the monster truck as the most enlightened mode of transportation…”

And so I spend a lot of time trying to convince people, and re-convincing myself, especially around election season, that small-government, democracy and capitalism are the way to go. But really, maybe that’s the wrong way to go about relieving the suffering of the world. Maybe my attitude should be more like Mother Teresa’s, who writes:

Our Sisters are working around the world and I have seen all the trouble, all the misery, all the suffering. From where did it come? It has come from a lack of love and a lack of prayer.

Notice Mother Theresa doesn’t say that all the trouble, misery, and suffering comes from a lack of capitalism, a lack of democracy, or a lack of correct political structures. She writes that the suffering comes from a lack of love and a lack of prayer. In my opinion, if rulers were to have more love for their neighbors, and spend more time in prayer, then they would organize society so that everyone was benefited as much as possible. Freedom, love and happiness would abound.

And so I think it is important that we Americans look for faithful, preferably Christian candidates to fill the seats of all levels of government, from the small-town mayor to the Commander-in-Chief. Typically, Christians have more love for people and spend more time in prayer than agnostics or atheists do. Oh, and I should say that it would be fine to vote for candidates of just about any religion, so long as they love people and spend a lot of time in prayer. But I just feel the most comfortable with Christians governing us, and, bearing in mind the percentage of Christians in our government, apparently so do most Americans. Sure, a lot of politicians are lousy Christians, but at least they’re Christians.

Mother Teresa’s ideas may appear to conflict with some conservatives’ views of welfare:

It is striking with what kindness the Missionaries of Charity receive the same patient several times. Once cured, the patient returns to the street and after a short time he stands at the door again, sometimes in a worse state than before. The Sisters are always ready to admit him and begin the nursing once more. It is one of the characteristics of the poorest that they cannot free themselves from this cycle. For our western mentality it contradicts all ideas of a profitable system to look after incurable people. For the Missionaries of Charity there is no incurable person.

Some conservatives might do a cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to help people through government action. The death panel created by ObamaCare will do a similar cost-benefit analysis.

However, the conservatives’ beef is not with the concept of welfare itself or with charitable giving. Conservatives have a problem with welfare administered by the government, which administration is usually fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. And instead of lifting people from poverty, government welfare programs often elongate poverty.

Plus, there’s little comparison between the poor in contemporary America and the poor in India during Mother Teresa’s ministry. The poor in her time and place were so much worse off than the poor in America.

By the way, conservatives give more to charity than liberals do. Liberals console themselves by saying that their efforts at structural, governmental change will help more people than individual donations ever will. That’s why liberals love big programs that aim to lessen suffering, like the National Children’s Study. After all, liberals think, the food stamps program alleviates the hunger of a million bellies. But if we could cut out the administrative costs of the food stamps program, conservatives respond, if we all individually gave to the hungry out of the charitable feelings of our hearts, how many more bellies would be filled?

Liberals may think that if charity weren’t forced out of Americans’ paychecks, then the nation’s hungry would go unfed and the nation’s sick and poor would go uncared for. But I say, if we get to a point where Americans are not willing to share their bread with a starving stranger, all the governmental welfare programs in the world can’t save us. I also say that Americans are very charitable, in addition to the social security and such that is automatically deducted from their paychecks. Plus, I bet that Americans would be even more charitable if they were taxed less.

I would hope that before people go to the government for help, they would go to their family, to their friends, to their church or any church, and even to their acquaintances.

But there I go thinking about big systems again, unlike Mother Teresa, who, with a heart full of love, focused only on the needy person before her:

We are not social workers but contemplatives in the world….I cannot analyze systems, economic patterns and ideologies… So many times I have been told that I must not offer fishes to men but rods so they can fish for themselves. Ah! My God! So often they do not have the strength to hold the rods. Giving them fish I help them recover the strength necessary for the fishing of tomorrow. There are in the world those who struggle for justice and human rights and who try to change structures. We are not inattentive to this but our daily contact is with men who do not even have a piece of bread to eat. Our mission is to look at the problem more individually and not collectively. We care for a person and not a multitude.

How close Mother Teresa was to Jesus! Like Jesus, Mother Teresa did not aim to change political structures. Christ made no effort to overthrow the Romans or to establish a Jewish/Christian state. He didn't publish a Constitution for Utopia, he wrote the Sermon on the Mount, which says, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect."

Jesus went after people individually. He wanted to change their hearts. He commanded individuals to live up to his standards, all the while loving them unconditionally, healing them, feeding them... giving out welfare. Jesus said, just as well as Mother Teresa could have said,
"Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s."

Christ's revolution was a spiritual revolution. It seems to be that Christ's thinking was, change the hearts of men, and a transition to celestial political structures will organically follow. Submit yourself to the political powers that be. (Except in extreme situations, like when Herod is trying to kill you; then you can flee Israel and seek asylum in Egypt.)

I think the same ethos is expressed in Titus 2:9 and Ephesians 6:5, which talk about how servants should be obedient to their masters. It's not that Jesus endorsed slavery. In fact, Jesus would ultimately be known as an abolitionist, but in the infant stages of the Christian church, disciples might as well keep the slavery system unchallenged. The slavery system would fade away in its time, when Christian hearts were ready.

Anyway, this post might be a little disorganized, and I drift around from digression to digression, but if you're a longtime reader of Telemoonfa Time, you've come to expect that from me. I only hope that my lack of focus and eloquence is eclipsed by the importance of the subject matter and the sincerity of my feelings. For surely content is superior to form.

I hope you're doing well.

Sincerely,
Telemoonfa