Why Prison, Part Four of Four

To be clear, these posts are not against the Church engaging in acts of charity or against meeting immediate needs. The Church should make it a point to feed and clothe the poor for example, but the mentality that is so easily cultivated by the hand up model can easily result in a savior complex on the part of the local church, often without malice, or it allows an otherness attitude to propagate, even if unknowingly. The local church should be engaged in charity towards the Others in their community, not because they went on a rescue mission to do so, but because they are living and growing in that same community. Followers of Christ, when moved towards works of charity, perhaps should not wonder how they may to rescue the poor. A more helpful mindset to have is one that is open to the poor rescuing them. They should perhaps wonder, what they have to teach them about God’s love and redemption. Followers of Christ should consider if the Others in their society have anything to offer them physically, spiritually, relationally, and socially before any attempts to rescue them.

So, a biblical way to conduct charity through their missions department may simply be the Church removing that which separates Her from the less fortunate in their community, and engaging in relationships that she never has before, expecting all to mutually benefit by one another’s presence, not just the Least of These. Welcoming the unclean back into a loving and accepting society was a major focus of Jesus’ ministry. It should be a central goal of the local church’s today as well. A good rallying mission for the local church may not be anything more spectacular than welcoming the broken, and becoming broken with them, thus declaring everyone, despite their societal status, equally depraved and dependent on the same Savior.

There are ample opportunities for today’s Church to tear down that which divides her from the Others in society. There are the obvious divisions to overcome: racial divisions, economic divisions, and political divides. There are divisions of identity, sexuality, and even geographical divisions, all of which can and should be understood and potentially addressed by Christ’s mouthpiece to the world, the Church. For purposes of this study however, the focus is on that which separates the U.S. Church from 2.3 million of her neighbors: incarceration.[1]

Removing the labels of criminal, inmate, prisoner, felon, crook, thug, gangster, etc., would have been the first thing that Jesus would have done upon entering into a relationship with those behind bars, affirming that, besides some razor wire, nothing separates them from the rest of sinful humanity, thus removing the incarceration divide or the otherness between the local church members and local prisoners. This should be a goal of the local church.

Many churches participate in some sort of short-term mission trip across the globe each year. It is a 2.5 – 5-billion-dollar enterprise, with hundreds of thousands of Christians participating annually.[2] Many churches do not take the time however to realize that there is a mission field right in their back yard. One would be hard pressed to find a church without a prison, jail, halfway house, or juvenile center within a couple of hours driving distance at the most. Yet so few Christians take the time to get involved with those whom Christ necessitated that they visit. In Acts 1, when the resurrected Christ implored his Followers to be His witness, He started with the local towns of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, and then to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8). Many churches jump right to the end of the earth, skipping over their local community, which undoubtedly includes a local prison or jail.

Many prisons are underfunded and under visited. The resources are scarce, especially when it comes to any sort of fun or religious activities. Regarding prisons in Oklahoma, this study found that there is only one religious volunteer for every 250 incarcerated person[3] on average. Chaplains are often completely dependent on outside churches and volunteers to offer the incarcerated people anything other than their ear. This study even encountered chaplains paying out of their own pocket, just so the residents could have a cup of coffee with their Bible study.

This means that the door is wide open for the local church to get involved, not to rescue the incarcerated people, but to share in God’s love and restoration together. The doors are open for churches to tear down the fences that divides those on the outside of prison and those on the inside, growing together in the redemptive work of the Cross, and in doing so, removing the otherness from those society so easily forgets. The door is also wide open for churches to seek out the hope and contentment in Christ that so many incarcerated people have discovered, and perhaps provide them with some coffee along the way.

[1] Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagoner, “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie,” Prison Policy Initiative, March 24, 2020, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html.

[2] Robert D. Lupton, Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help, and How to Reverse It (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 14.

[3] Although Department of Corrections across the country prefer the official title on Inmate, to refer to those incarcerated under their care, this study attempted to use the word incarcerated person, resident, gentleman, etc., while referring to those incarcerated. The term “people who are incarcerated” is preferred, as it places their humanity first, for readability and style, “incarcerated person/people” will be used most widely. I allowed input on this from the residents of Joseph Harp Correctional Center, and they are ok with the label “incarcerated person” for purposes of this study.