In response to Occupy Wall Street, there is a photo going around on social media sites.  It's a college student holding a sign which reads,
<blockquote>I am a college senior about to graduate debt free.  I pay for all of my living expenses by working 30+ hrs a week making barely above minimum wage.  I chose a moderately priced in-state public university &amp; started saving $ for school at age 17.  I got decent grades in high school &amp; received 2 scholarships which cover 90% of my tuition.  I currently have a 3.8 GPA.  I live comfortably in a cheap apt., knowing I can't have everything I want.  I don't eat out every day, or even once a month.  I have no credit card, new car, iPad or smart phone--and I'm perfectly OK with that.  If I did have debt, I would not blame Wall St. or the government for my own bad decisions.  I live below my means to continue saving for the future.  I expect nothing to be handed to me, and will continue to work my @$$ off for everything I have.  That's how it's supposed to work.  I am NOT the 99%, and whether or not you are is YOUR decision.</blockquote>
I could point out the obvious flaws in this piece.  For example, even if this college student is working hard and going to school, he or she is, in fact, part of the 99% of Americans who are not at the top of the financial food chain.  This person appears to have put far more energy into writing what he or she thinks is a witty reply than into finding out what "the 99%" and "the 1%" mean in context.

I could argue that not everyone qualifies for scholarships, and not everyone's scholarships pay nearly all tuition expenses.  Or that 30 hours a week at minimum wage is fine for a single college student, but not for a family of four.  Or that while a 3.8 GPA is impressive, not everyone is that smart.  Or that lots of people don't have new cars, fancy apartments, or iPads, even when receiving government benefits.  Or that being poor is not always a "choice."

But in the end, that doesn't really matter.  People who believe poor people ended up that way because of laziness will continue to think that way regardless of the arguments made against that line of thinking.

Instead, I will appeal to Jesus' own words.  Jesus tells a parable about separating sheep and goats.  To sum up, Jesus tells the sheep that they fed, clothed, and visited him when he was hungry, naked, sick and in prison.  The sheep, surprised, ask when they did these things.  Jesus tells them when they did it for "the least of these," they were really doing it to him.  Similarly, the goats get an earful of what they failed to do.

What I want to point out here is that at no point did Jesus ever say, "You fed the hungry people you deemed worthy."  We are not told that we may, under any circumstances, evaluate whether someone is deserving of help.  We are not given the freedom to decide which people we should feed, clothe, and visit.  We don't get to decide whether someone is in need because of his or her own actions or because of external forces.  There is no form to fill out wherein a person has to prove he or she is poor for the "right" reasons.  And in no way, shape, or form are we to hold ourselves superior to anyone else by virtue of being "not poor."

It is our job to reach out to people, not just as followers of Jesus, not just as churches, and not even as the Church collectively.  We, as an entire nation, are responsible for our citizens.  If even one child goes to bed hungry tonight, we are all accountable.  We live in a country of plenty.  There is absolutely no reason that any person should not have a roof over his or her head, clothes to wear, and food to eat.

Can we look ourselves in the mirror each night and say, "Today I made someone's life better"?