In my opinion, this image speaks way more adequately than anything I've written here in the last eight weeks, and it sums up well several of my points about American consumerism, political corruption, and our frustration with not feeling like we have enough.

Can't Help Myself--'Nother Wheeler Quote

"Instead of antimaterialism or generalized "hostility to wealth," we find specific theological and moral rationales for the attitude toward material possesssions in the New Testament. Material wealth is problematic because it is often a hindrance to heeding the gospel; it is dangerous because it is a temptation to the sin of idolatry; it is suspect because it is frequently the result or the means of social injustice; finally, it's disposition is a matter of great moral weight, as the response to human needs is a sign of the advent of God's kingdom and a test of the love that identifies Jesus' true followers."

--Preach it, Sista!

So, I take this to mean...wealth and ample material possessions in and of themselves are not inherently "sinful." whew. But lest we think we're off the hook, we need to maintain an accountable level of eduation and awareness regarding the production and disposal of the products we do buy and own, so as to avoid contributing as much as possible to a vicious cycle of neglecting human rights in order to acquire more--a very Western and colonial ideal, I might add--the quest for more, that is.

Too Much

I have been feeling so overwhelmed by this topic lately; I think that's why the posting has slowed down quite a bit from when I first began. Initially my mind was exhilerated by the ideas I wanted to share, the books I was/am reading, and the resources that have influenced mine and Tyler's finances in the last two years. But now...I am just plain tired. Not so much tired of thinking about these things-that will probably always keep me fired up and energized. I think my fatigue stems from the feeling of having so much to unload-- I'm not sure where to begin anymore.

Actually, here's the truth. About six weeks ago a friend of mine from college had a stroke and through a rough series of events has been on full life support since then. Mostly, I have been asking about God's intervention. How, when, why, where does God intervene or not intervene? Is this 'God intersecting our life stuff' just something we tell ourselves to feel better? I do still believe that God moves in our lives, but to what degree? This question is not just about my friend, but about all of life. Particularly, about poverty as well.

Where is God in the midst of the traumas in our world? I see Scritpure narrative teaching us that God is always present and near to us. I believe this. However, when and where are the miracles? I tend to believe right now that more than interacting in the processes of my friend's recovery, God is present through the redemption that comes to her family as they process this tragedy, cope in the meantime, and plan for the future. But isn't it true for the impoverished as well? God is in the process of redeeming this world through the power of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit. So much so, that I confidently want to say, that God is just as grieved by the plight of the poor as anyone else who cares deeply for them, even more so, just as God is also grieving for my friend alongside her family. So why then, does it continue? Why does my friend still need her ventilator? Why is Skid Row a real place, and where did this AIDS pandemic originate? Did God surrendur the right to fully intervene and rescue when humanity was incorporated into the process of serving as God's helpers in redeeming and being redeemed? I am thankful for the Gospel of Matthew today (see prior post) and his eschatological assumption that Christ will come again and God's kingom will be fully restored. This is a truth I hang to tightly and often!


My work on the site is officially "due" on Wednesday, but I think my thoughts here will continue. Please keep reading and participating as you feel led. I will blog when the thoughts are too much to keep in and as questions keep arising.

Reflections on Sheephood

Matthew 25 is the parable of the sheep and the goats. The sheep did for the least, the goats looked the other way. The sheep saw Jesus in the hungry, thirsty, wounded, worn out, and rejected. The goats did not. On my good days, I'm a sheep. But I think on most days, my goatyness gets the best of me. Sometimes there is not time or not enough resources to stop and see Jesus in the midst of the marginalized, right? hmmm...

(This is an excerpt from my final reflection paper on this exercise-tweaked a bit to make it more interesting for this format.) This blog was an excellent way for me to continue classroom dialogue on a public level and to remember specific classroom lessons on a personal level. At the risk of sounding obnoxiously dramatic, this project has changed me, and it never would have commenced had it not been for the project assignment. For several years I have been comfortable (not in a negative way) knowing that people who live in poverty need attention and service. The discomfort lied in my lack of foundational political facts that pave the way for contemporary promotions of national and global poverty, as well as the fact that my personality type rejects all forms of strong activism. In this way, I am unlikely to boycott certain shopping centers that demolished affordable housing in urban areas to attract the rich—this is not because I like to shop so much as it simply does not make sense to me why one person not shopping at Paseo Colorado in Pasadena is going to change anything. For all of that, the secondary readings for class and a new reading of Scripture itself repeatedly insisted to me that Jesus did just that.

Jesus made sure that he knew well temple politics, and then as a single individual he over turned the tables, loved the Samaritan woman at the well, ate with sinners, and condemned religious elites. This humbled me in my blogging pursuits, as well as it enabled me to more freely confess not having the key that will unlock the solution to an end of homelessness. My writing and research also demonstrated that those who are called to sacrifice diet coke in the name of the mistreated at the Coca-Cola plant in South America is an admirable task, not overly simplistic or necessarily the result of pietistic motives. On the other hand, my slight Diet Coke addiction is not something that, at least right now, causes me great conviction. There are other things, however, that ignite me to a passionate anger, a fundamental principle that if others disavow are most assuredly a direct denial of the way of Christ. Ummmm, like, pastors who lead churches without giving the people a vision. (So, it's a different form, but nonetheless, something I do not tolerate well.)

I care more deeply now about the farm bill, the food stamp program, the illegitimate activity that transpires in the US Department of Agriculture, in large part as a result of Sondra Wheeler and a better understanding of how just one person can make a difference. The director of Bread for the World is also teaching me this lesson. (In fact, I roll my eyes a little less frequently at people who are zealous and possibly even divisive in their efforts to educate the rest of us consumers through their refusals to partake in mainstream American past-times like shopping/gift-giving, viewing professional sports, etc. In fact, I'm admitting that I am swaying to this side more dramatically-sometimes.) There are countless individuals living out their conviction to simplicity and justice in creative, life-giving ways. I want to learn better the ways of how to do this, especially for my family.

This class and blogging experience has given me renewed permission to be a co-creator and designer with God, the ultimate Creator. Like I mentioned in my blogger profile, I continually ask questions about the legitimacy of celebrating beauty, art (architecture, expensive paintings hanging in museums, Broadway, even a good marketing campaign, or the leather that's shaped into a stunning pair of high heels), and design in the midst of such harrowing realities of life and death that we see throughout America and the world if we stop long enough to look. I tend to embrace this duality now without guilt while recognizing the lack of justice residing in the face of an HIV-infected, orphaned, African child who has no access to school, much less the chance to see the cathedral, Notre Dame in Paris. What is more, I see the danger existing not in the presence of such cathedrals, but how we view ourselves in relation to it. When we think we deserve the beauty and wonders of art we are amiss. Like the class discussion that continued throughout the quarter, our possessions, our wealth, our stability, our land, all the pieces of life we claim to be our own, are indeed, not our own. They belong to God. So too, the gifts made of God’s co-creators are not their own; so again, it is a matter of the heart--just like so many things are with Jesus. “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” If nothing else, this blogging exercise has taught me that so long as we are sharing our treasures (whatever they are to us) with those who are in need, our hearts, our loyalties, and our longings will be with those who are need. Today this seems to me a good and solid way to mimic our Redeemer and continue on the path of discipleship. I want to be a sheep. The sheep loved their creator and cared for those their creator cared for.

Comment

This is a guest posting, so to speak. The writer is a one of my best and childhood friends who currently lives in Switzerland (love takes us to crazy places), after having lived in Denver for a while where she worked at the Denver Rescue Mission. She is smart, thoughtful, and honest, albeit a bit technicologically challenged. ha. I added the photos, which will probably make her chuckle. Here goes:

 Lauren,

Greetings, friend. How are you?  I wanted to let you know that I've read your entire blog and just wanted to say I think it's a cool project. It'sinteresting that your struggle seems to be fighting the fear of seeming prideful, like you have all the answers and can outline how to save the world on your website. It doesn't come across like that AT ALL. It actually sounds really humble-- a real person, albeit privileged, struggling with figuring out what her (or anyone's) role might be in the poverty predicament. Props for pondering it. 

I don't even get out of the thinking about things stage (much less to the action phase) because I'm too afraid of seeming like a hypocrite, even if well-intentioned. I wouldn't have had the courage to set up a blog like yours because I would have thought I was a hypocrite and would have been afraid that other people would think the same. Oh, cool-- another rich white girl with a catalogue-perfect looking little family (all that's missing is the golden retriever) singing the woes of the world from her ivory tower. Like, oh my god. Isn't it like, so terrible that people are like starving? You know what I mean? It's like totally tragic, you know? Let's like have a bake sale or something for them or maybe we could like, package up our leftovers from PF Chang's and mail those poor kids some food.... I'm so afraid of being criticized or of doing something wrong or useless that I don't do ANYTHING. Now in my mind I know that Jesus would probably smile
more on someone who tried to do something and perhaps failed, or worse, did damage, than someone who sat in the wings and did nothing. So , I repeat, props to you for starting the dialogue. It's the necessary first step. Hopefully it will eventually lead to some action, which I would presume is the ultimate and eventual goal. 

My family proposes serving at a soup kitchen as a family Christmas activity every year and every year I poo poo it because I think it's indirectly arrogant. I feel like if we don't do it all year and if caring for the poor isn't a part of our daily lives, then it's almost insulting to waltz in there on Christmas so that we can feel good about ourselves. I fear that I will do more harm than good because I think the people being served can sense the volunteers' motives and I think it's demeaning and insulting to them. 

Question: Is a deed "good" (or bad) because of 1) its results  2) its motive 3) both or 4) neither? An example:  Let's say I'm a rich politician. In order to get elected, I decide to build a homeless shelter even though I don't give a rat's ass about the people-- only my election. As a result,
hundreds of people are off the streets and have a hot meal at night. So, it was with an impure motive, and therefore, kind of tainted, but the result is good. What are we to think about a situation like this? What's the alternative? Is there one? Or, consider giving politically-motivated aid to foreign countries.  Wrong motives, but at the end of the day the people have some rice in their bowls.   

In my life right now, I'm trying to find the balance between principle and reality. I want to be a person of principle. I want to base my actions upon them. I think I would prefer to sleep on the street rather than take dirty charity from some slimeball politician (I say that now as I write on my
$1000 computer in my warm dry apartment....) 

The problem of poverty seems so big and so complex and therefore overwhelmingly untouchable. The roots are hopelessly entangled and every seeming solution has a pitfall. I can not speak for everyone, nor do I think it is the solution for everyone, but given my interests, gifts, and personality, I'm coming to see my role in the poverty problem as bottom-up as opposed to top-down. I might mentor, or "adopt" one family in my little town and hopefully that will make a difference. I know there's a need for lobbyists, politicians, shiploads of foods sent to foreign places, etc., but I see my role on a smaller scale.  That's one. And two, what's I'm really into at the moment is a) the idea and role of "community" and 2) local economy. Very oversimplified, the problem of poverty could be seen as the result of the breakdown of the local community and therefore the first step (not cure-all) in alleviation of poverty would be in the restoration of
community. 

When you have a minute, you might be interested to consider some excerpts from a collection of essays called THE ART OF THE COMMONPLACE by KY writer Wendell Berry, whose thoughts have been hugely influential in my life over the last year. I'm sure I want to pursue social work, but I often fear spinning my wheels in the wrong direction--being more a part of the problem
than the solution. As the result of reading some of his thoughts, I feel more convinced than ever of my current project: to develop a community garden project with the goals of naturally, providing a source of healthy, organic food, but also providing a social gathering place where people (for example of a certain apartment complex) can meet and work with their neighbors, hopefully fostering integration of marginianalized (ex: elderly, refugees, poor...) people.

If I could allow myself the liberty of reducing Berr'y thoughts to the "gist",  I would put it like this: As I understand it, he believes that most of society's problems that keep cropping up in the headlines (racial tension, the environment, crime, poverty, etc.) stem from the industrialization, urbanization, and globalization of the world.  He says we've got to stop tinkering away at these problems piecemeal with government programs or well-meaning social aid organizations--it's like pouring water solely on the leaves of a plant instead of its roots.  Everything is connected. The environment affects the economy(not to mention health, happiness...)  If the economy is bad, there is usually more crime as people get more desperate. And on and on. 

Take a common headline for example: Crime. He looks at crime as the result of the breakdown of community. Before, people lived in small communities where everyone knew each other. For one, you're less likely to wrong your neighbor because you actually know him and also, you probably depend on him for some reason or another (he's the butcher, the baker, the candlestick
maker, etc.) and if you murder him or steal his cow, you won't have anything to eat yourself. Additionally, if you're up to no good, Aunt Lulu down the road is going to see you and tell your family and you'll be ashamed and held accountable. 

Nowadays, we live in highrise apartments where we know no one and no one knows us. It's psychologically much easier to steal when you're taking "that guy's" TV instead of "Ole Farmer Joe's" TV and even if you get caught, it's just something written in a folder in a filing cabinet-- you never have to face the people you wronged- never have to apologize or make amends. 

Same for environment. We're so mobile these days, flitting in and out of different towns that we never have to face the consequences of our actions on the local community. If my condo is built on the last green space in town, or if the local school isn't very good, who cares? When I get that promotion next month, me and hubby are moving to the next best suburb and they have better parks and nicer schools... Point being, when you are rooted somewhere, and when there is a local economy instead of chain stores and
restaurants, you are more likely to have relationships to your neighbors and are more likely to get politically and environmentally involved since whatever happens directly affects you and the future generations of your family. 

It sounds all hippy happy-go-lucky and simplistic, but it makes sense to me that a community naturally lends itself to taking care of its members and its surrounding environment much as the Acts church model. We shouldn't need social welfare programs if we had any decent communities.  So Joe Smith lost his job and is down on his luck.  People cook for hum, babysit his kids, lend him a car, etc. until he's back on his feet. He's thankful for their help and support and there isn't much danger that he will abuse or take
advantage of their help because they have a relationship and he knows that while their help is gladly given, it has its limits and he's expected to carry his own weight again.  Then he'll be the one helping the next guy who falls into the same situation. Now instead,  when Joe's getting someanonymous check in the mail every month, 1) what motivation does he have to look for a job? There's no embarrassment. He's not putting anybody out.
He'll keep drawing that check as long as it keeps coming. 2) What chance does he  have to get out of the welfare trap even if he wanted to? He can't make something out of nothing. He can't magically find the skills or motivation to do that if he doesn't have them to begin with-- He needs the example, push, and interdependence on his neighbors and family. 

So I guess that was more than the "gist." Got a little carried away there. The bottom line is that instead of trying to imagine the perfect cure-all for world poverty (or any of the other big problems of our time), we'd be far better off, and lots of the problems (like the environment or crime) would probably resolve themselves en suite, if we would work to reestablish a local economy (so that everyone has a job suitable to the environment in which he lives and isn't dependant on a fickle global market,) and foster a sense of community with those around us.  

Some of Berry's thoughts (hopefully still interesting even though they've been taken out of their original context):

(Religion) It has encouraged people to believe that the world is of no importance, and that their only obligation in it is to submit to certain churchly forumulas in order to get to Heaven.  And so the people who might have been expected to care most selflessly for the world have had their
minds turned elsewhere-to a pursuit of "salvation" that was really only another form of gluttony and self-love, the desire to perpetuate their lives beyond the life of the world.a man, while pursuing Heaven with the sublime appetite he thought of as his soul, could turn his heart against his neighbors and his hands against the world.  
----------------------
Once the revolution of exploitation is under way, statesmanship and craftsmanship are gradually replaced by salesmanship (the craft of persuading people to buy what they do not need, and do not want, for more than it is worth).  Its stock in trade in politics is to sell despotism and avarice as freedom and democracy.  In business it sells sham and frustration as luxury and satisfaction.  The constantly expanding market.is still expanding-no longer so much by expansions of territory or population, but by the calculated outdating, outmoding, and degradation of goods and by the
hysterical self-dissatisfaction of consumers that is indigenous to an expoitive economy. 

-------------------------

We do not have a working concept of economic justice.  We ae resigned to the poor principle that people earn what they earn by power, not by the quality or usefulness of their work.  Insurance executives, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, factory workers, and garbage collectors all earn in proportion to their power. People such as small farmers who have no power must resign
themselves to earning what they can get. 

In such a society our private economies will depend less and less upon the private owenership of real, usable property, and more and more upon property that is institutional and abstract, beyond individual control, such as money, insurane policies, CD's, stocks.And as our private economies become more abstract, the mutual, free helps and pleasures of family and community
life will be subplanted by a kind of displaced or placeless citizenship and by commerce with impersonal and self-interested suppliers.

Guess that ought to do it for now! If creating dialogue is you goal, then there's 5 pages of dialogue for you from someone who is equally concerned and equally lost as you!

PS-At time of writing, the last entry I had read is For Love of Jimmy. Just checked your site again. See now that you have Acts on there, and I saw the world "community" while I was skimming just now.  Great minds think alike! Will catch up on your blog now. Some of what I wrote may be redundant but it's cool we were on the same wavelength without knowing it

Last Minute Gift Idea

Those of you still pondering what to give mom for mother's day have a great option through Kiva. Kiva is a micro-lending website that allows you to designate an amount of your choosing and offer a loan to an individual in the developing world who needs assistance in an entrepreneurial endeavor. Tyler and I have helped a single mother with her chickens in Cambodia and a another woman begin a cell phone business in Nigeria (pictured above). It's cool. Once the recipient of the loan has repaid the amount, you can either choose to recollect your funds or circulate them back out to another business person.

The Mother's Day gift works by you giving a gift certificate to your mom for the prepaid amount. Then your mom gets to choose who and what to donate the money to. It's a really neat way to give a gift in a meaningful way. 

What was Jesus really saying?

How many of us have read, assumed, or heard sermons articulating that the poor widow who gave the two coins out of her poverty and gave everything she had in Mark 12:41-44  did so as a result of her piousness and loyalty to God? Perhaps we've also learned at one time or another that part of the temple system was about providing provisions to the poor. (Even though we see through Jesus' cleansing of it that the temple skimped on that duty quite a bit.) I've always read the passage about this widow as saying that her devotion to God was so intense, so holy, that she was willing to offer even the last bit of what she needed for her very survival.

On the contrary, our professor comes to teach at Fuller, here in California, by way of a church in upper Manhattan populated mostly by homeless and marginalized people. After doing a teaching on this passage about the widow's offering at his church one morning, an African American man approached him afterwards and said in reference to the poor widow something along the lines of, "That bitch is gettin' ripped off." 

Wow! What a contrast. Maybe Jesus wasn't really praising her after all, but instead he was critiquing a system that was full of flaws and systemic evil. He had just finished talking to the scribes in the prior verses about their hypocrisy. Also, the temple money system worked by people giving money/alms to the temple which the temple authorities were then supposed to give to the people in the community who were in need. Unfortunately, it didn't quite work this well. So that, the leaders of the temple, i.e. the Scribes and Pharisees, were outwardly religious and pious, but inwardly straying from God's original commands as set forth in the law. 

In this way, her generosity toward an institution that is meant to provide for her but instead maligns her is not only foolish, but lamented by Jesus. This is a text that introduces us to new questions about what it means to be poor in the first century world and likewise, what it means to be poor today. The nuance in the text that is to be uncovered by Jesus' sentiments towards her when compared to her fellow patriots, who give out of their abundance, is the misfortune that she is forced, by her very devotion to God, to participate in a system that promotes injustice tempered with a (false?) promise of spiritual blessing for giving all that she has to share. 

There is so much that we miss in our white, educated, suburban worlds? How, then, does this messianic lamentation speak truth into our ecclesial structures and the systemic injustices they may or may not promote today?

(Oh man, I've never even thought about the widow being a young, single mother...that adds entirely new, deeper dimensions to the issue! It's actually made me tear up a little.)

Come on People (myself in included)

Acts 2:42-47

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who were believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possession and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

We just finished class and a hearty discussion about this text. 

The question was posed, "How is this and similar texts presented in our churches? What are our experiences with such New Testament idea(l)s?" Is it an ideal? Many historical critics and NT scholars in general are presuming that when Luke wrote this to old Theophilus that it was an ideal he was adapting or borrowing (?) from different, nonScriptural sources. Plato said that an ideal society exists when the philosopher calls nothing his own, or something like that. Yet, even before class I would have disagreed with this assessment. It sure seems like a theological and ethical cop-out if I've ever heard one. 

Or how 'bout this one? On the other extreme it presents a picture of the first community church that had their members on an entirely equal economic ground. Everyone is called to be the rich young ruler and sell everything for everyone else. Sort of a forced poverty, but not really, because everyone is sharing with everyone else. Maybe I'm just thinking of Shane and his monastics again. (Have you noticed I have a bit of a beef with them, albeit a bit unjustly I admit--don't even ask my community group how I really feel. ha. Did he talk about this during his "speaking of faith" interview with Krista Tippett?) In medieval church history it certainly was left to the monks and nuns living in monasteries who were the only ones called to live this ideal through their vow to poverty and communal dwelling. --Too bad that all fell apart when the monasteries started acquiring land and tax payments, and alas, mass amounts of wealth...and, yep, you guessed it, corruption.

Then again, maybe this perfect idea of economic equality isn't so far from the truth for Luke. The Essenes migrated away from Jerusalem city politics that were surrounding the temple while they were waiting on the arrival of the Messiah by moving out to the dessert. The Dead Sea Scrolls are often attributed to this people group; I'm inclined to agree. The community scroll describes how they shared everything and lived together. Even first-century historian, Josephus wrote of this desert-dwelling cadre, "You will no where see abject poverty or inordinate wealth [among them]" (Jewish Wars, 2.122). This historical data seems to contradict the NT scholars who argue against any literal interpretation regarding shared resources and a common purse.  

Then again, if Luke is telling the truth and these people shared all material goods, this presents a pretty intense way to live. There is a reason the rich young ruler left his meeting with Jesus greatly grieved by the prospect of selling it all. eek. Yet, we also see lots of Scriptural examples where people didn't have to give EVERYTHING: Zacchaeus, Cornelius, Dorcas (I'd be happy to give references if anyone cares to have them) all gave portions. Regardless of the command to give it all, or give a little, or give a lot, the point is, GIVE GIVE GIVE. These freshly gathered, Holy-Spirit-holding, communal commoners knew well their mission once Peter finished the sermon. They were to embody the Kingdom of God that had been shown to them in and through Christ Jesus; they were to care for the poor as part of that mission. Again, it's all about DOING kingdom work rather than believing in a kingdom creed. 

I remember growing up and jealously reading this passage from Acts as a teenager wondering what kind of power must have been with these people that the Lord was adding to their numbers DAILY those who were being saved when I was working so hard to live the "Christian life" in high school. I couldn't understand why none of my classmates cared about God's message for them. But I was missing the whole point. It's not about the number of people that were assured of a place in heaven when they died that Luke used the word "saved." (Actually, I think probably most people in my high school class cared quite a bit about God.)

Instead, doing church in this way, in this way of equality and caring for, as Matthew called it (in chapter 25), the "least of these", doing church in this way is most assuredly going to continue bringing in people to the community, especially the people who are in need! duh! (Not that all of my attempts to be contagious and holy in high school were in vain, that's not my point.) My point is, that God was adding to their numbers daily because the disciples and people were doing work that needed to be done and work that no one else was doing. And of course it says they're being saved--saved from destitution, hunger, injustice, general marginalization and strife! It's so clear, and so much easier to do church in this way instead of in a way that promotes rigid belief and such misunderstanding. It makes me feel sad that such a life-changing message has been so corrupted by all of us, by all of us, I mean humanity.

When I'm a pastor, come to my church b/c I've got this whole way of being church figured out. It's really not that hard. (--I am going to invent a key on all keyboards that people can use when they want to convey sarcasm in their typed thoughts.)

My parents and their good friends have recently begun a new church centered on acts of service. Their motto, not that they have it all figured out either, is, "Love God, Love People, Bless the World." Every time I say it, it prompts an emotional response in me. Surely God's heart is also swelling with satisfaction and celebration, that even after a few short months of meeting together their numbers are truly growing daily with those who are being saved because their focus is on doing kingdom work. They deliver groceries, clean apartments on the brink of being condemned, rescue single mothers from loosing their children as a result of no household furniture, and the list goes on. 

"...All who believed were together and had all things in common..." 

As a class member today said, this sort of faithful living "sells itself." And who was it that said "faith without works..." You know the rest, but that's for another post.

I can't end without noting that together they broke bread, ate with generous hearts, praised God and had goodwill toward all people. I think it no coincidence that when we are truly serving others we cannot help but to love them as Christ does and overflow with wishings of goodwill for them.