The Gospel reading in church this morning was Mark 10:17-31--the story of the rich man who approached Jesus to ask what he needed to do to "inherit eternal life."
After reminding him of the commandments that related to how we should treat people, Jesus went on to tell him that he only lacked one thing:
"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Challenging words to a man who possessed "great wealth."
The man's face fell and he went away in a deep funk because he found the requirement too onerous to fulfill or even pursue.
Jesus went on to instruct those who were with him regarding "how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God."
In fact, he told them that it was "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Those who were with him were amazed, likely alarmed, and concluded that if this were the case no one could be "saved."
Jesus went on to tell them that "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
Bottom line: it takes an act of God to save a rich person such as myself in a world of hurt and need like this one!
I guess that is the meaning of the gospel.
That said, it is very, very clear that Jesus expects people who attach themselves to his name to be radically engaged in working with the poor, those in need and those who are oppressed.
I am wondering though. Have you ever known anyone who took this story so seriously that they did what Jesus suggests here? Ever know anyone who sold out, gave to the poor and entered on a more radical path through life? I'd love to hear your stories.
5 comments:
Thanks for this note, John. While I am not familiar with the information you share here regarding the details of camel herding, I am aware of an ancient "urban myth" about a long lost gate in the wall of Jerusalem that was called the Camel gate. It was supposedly so low that camels had to drop to their knees to get through. No respected archeologist takes this tradition seriously, as no such gate exists.
I find the responses of the disciples of Jesus a bit incomprehensible in view of the gloss you reference and the myth about the little gate in the wall.
I do believe you are onto something though in your bottom line interpretation: the rich (as in me and you!) must decide to go in a counterintuitive way to align with the principles of the Kingdom Jesus has in mind.
Sure... blame Jim Wallis -- It's his fault we have a government based on secular humanism...
Justin, you're under the impression the government is apparently Christian even though you say you don't want it to be, because you say the government should not be forcing people to care for the poor (previous posts on here). The idea of taking care of the poor is not some uniquely Christian concept.
It's okay for the government to care for poor people. Christians don't have a monopoly on that idea. The government's whole "promote the general welfare" concept is a secular humanist ideology. And if democratically elected people may determine that the government should keep the forces of capitalism in check so people are not taken advantage of, then so be it.
If you want a respectful discussion, great. But don't resort to these little one-liner sarcastic quips.
"Jesus never used force to do that. When we petition the government to do it... "
That's what I'm trying to get at. Jesus does not equal government. Government is human. Jesus is eternal. There's complete separation there. Who is the "we"? Christians? Secularists, people who don't believe in God, are calling for the government to help the poor, too. This isn't simply a "Christian" thing.
As far as the government is concerned, it doesn't matter what Jesus did/didn't say or do -- many people who don't believe in Jesus are calling for the same thing.
Second, very little of the government money comes in the form of a "check" now. CDCDC isn't building it's $25 million Akard project in downtown Dallas on its own. Around half of the money came from the government in the form of $12 million tax credits (which they can sell to development companies). No government effort towards poverty, no money for CDCDC, which in turn means no housing for low-income people.
Ask any faith-based organization if they want the government involved in poverty. When you get into running a nonprofit, you'll realize how important the government's role is in poverty.
Ideally yes, but private groups have have only limited coverage... Rural areas often have little or no services when in need. Basic government welfare serves as a baseline to cover all people regardless of available resources.
Actually, government grants/funding have very little influence on what faith-based nonprofits can and can't do. Most government money typically has two requirements: 1) you can't use earmarked government money for specifically religious purposes (i.e. you gotta raise your own money for your praise team or evangelism tracts or whatever religious icon you want) and 2) you can't force clients to attend church, religious activites, etc. as a requirement for receiving services (Not too many Christians want to do that anyway).
"I apologize..."
Apology accepted!
(While I appreciate the dialogue, I felt your ending remark was somewhat disparaging.)
Justin and all, thanks for the posts.
I believe a good history of the U. S. from the end of the Depression to present would be a good read here. Social policy in this nation has gone back and forth, but it is an undeniable, historic truth that government policy can and has affected the level of poverty in this nation.
The politics of the church, especially denominations like Churches of Christ, have downplayed the truly remarkable impact of the policies of FDR, LBJ and even Richard Nixon. Entire segments of the population were lifted out of poverty an into the opportunity of the middle class.
The remaining underclass could be doing better were it not for our consumeristic policies that guarantee very, very low prices. And then, there is racism and the institutional realities of that.
"Entitlements"--there is a slippery concept! Corporate benefits from the govt somehow aren't normally seen this way; nor are tax exemptions for churches, or mortgage deductions for home owners or Medicare for the elderly middle class. . .but all really are and all impact economic reality.
For people not to express their values in the political realm is a foolish surrender of opportunity.
As to govt interference in our work, it just doesn't happen. Another myth perpetrated by TV evangelists and others who simply have a bias against anything collective.
All of this said, I am more than willing to receive $6 million from the church community. I think everyone has our address!
Post a Comment