This passage has been dragged out as proof that "the gospel" is simply a
social justice gospel. Jesus was here to help the oppressed and the
poor and the transgender. Oh, no, not that one, but He would have
been if they had been around at the time. You know, any of the
mistreated and minimized. Assuming that's so, it's sad to know that
Jesus failed.
Some points in response:
Right. Take the Bible literally... unless it's Jesus' words speaking of
Jesus' Good News... then you should make it metaphorical and basically
ignore it and replace it with your own human-made "gospel" that leads
with "You're all disgusting sinners who deserve an eternity of
torture... AND the vast majority of you will get just that!"
My concern is that much of modern evangelicalism has a sick idea of "good news." Sick, in the sense that it's entirely divorced from Jesus' actual gospel. Jesus, the author of that Gospel, one would suppose.
My concern is that modern evangelicals regularly fail to take Jesus' words seriously and opt, instead, for trying to render them meaningless and impotent.
Stan said... "If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty and the oppressed
from oppression, He failed to accomplish His mission."
Wow. He is trying to emasculate Jesus who he calls Lord, saying his teachings,
taken literally, show a failure of a man unable to do anything.
It's stunning, how little respect modern conservatives have for Jesus' teaching.
Jesus'
way as he taught is a way of salvation for all, beginning with the poor
and oppressed but including the rich and powerful and privileged. Like me and most people who might read this blog. It includes us WHEN and AS we join with the poor and
marginalized in fighting oppression and building the Beloved Community.
Ironic that Stan choose this MLK Day to attack the idea of the Beloved Community as a failure of an idea, a failure of Jesus' teachings.
And
what of Stan's "gospel" of bad news for nearly all of humanity? Of
assumed failure and eternal torture for the bulk of the world? You call
that a SUCCESSFUL bit of "good news..."??? If you're going to say Stan's
"gospel" is better because Jesus' Good News didn't fully succeed in
ending the oppression and marginalization of the poor then and there with Jesus, well, hell, isn't the modern evangelical "gospel" an UTTER failure because most people, in that scheme,
will die and be tortured for an eternity?
Think about it.
And
rather than misrepresenting what Jesus' progressive followers are saying when we
point to his literal words, why not begin by listening to what we're
actually saying? Stan's parody of our position - our understanding of
Jesus' literal words - is a pale and faint understanding.
Stan also said...
"Still, I happen to think that the latter -- saved from sin --
is more impressive and more important ... and more consistent with
Jesus's ministry and the rest of the Scriptures (like Jesus's own claim
that "The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost")"
1.
Again, the "good news" that the majority of humanity will NOT be "saved
from sin" but will instead, be tortured for an eternity for their
typical human failures is NOT good news at all. It's sick, evil,
irrational. Even if you ultimately disagree, do you at least see how truly
awful that "good news" you modern evangelicals have manufactured is?
2. Stan cites Luke
19, that Jesus came to seek and save the lost... but he lifted that verse
entirely out of the passage to ignore the context of those words and
render it meaningless in an effort to promote the modern Evangelical bad news. I wondered if Stan (and others) caught how they did that?
3. Also, in context, this passage REFUTES that
misrepresentation of Jesus' actual gospel, that Jesus "failed" because no poor people were lifted out of poverty.
Luke 19, in context (the story of Zaccheus)...
When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.”
Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord,
“Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I
will give to the poor,
and if I have defrauded anyone of anything,
I will give back four times as much.”
And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.
“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
WHO was the lost one in that story? Zaccheus, the rich man.
WHY was he lost?
Because
he had placed his treasures here on earth - that is, accumulating treasures for himself, which ultimately
led him to a way of cheating and oppressing the poor (which is one of the trappings of wealth).
WHAT saved him?
Recognizing
his way was sick and harmful and repenting and following Jesus in HIS
way, which was a way of restoring the poor and cheated, of lifting them
out of the oppression caused by systems of wealth and power.
Stan chose a great passage but reached an ass-backwards interpretation of it.
I wondered and asked Stan if he saw how that might be correct... that he'd misinterpreted this passage?
The
Way of Jesus is a way that, when followed, leads the people siding
with/aligning with the poor and oppressed and taking actions which
defends them and helps restore them to the Beloved Community. To the
degree that we take Jesus' words literally (as Zaccheus did), the poor
ARE restored and, at least, a welcomed part of the beloved community of
God. And, when the rich and powerful continue to dismiss Jesus' teachings
and they aren't lifted out of poverty fully or made whole, they are,
nonetheless, part of a beloved community which shares what they have to
alleviate the suffering of the poor and marginalized by the wealthy
oppressors.
Look at what the passage is actually saying, people.
Stan...
"If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty and the oppressed from
oppression, He failed to accomplish His mission. He tried, but
apparently it's up to His followers to accomplish what He couldn't."
1.
Jesus literally fed the hungry. Success. That was literally good news
for the poor and hungry. It wasn't a failure. Shame on you, Stan, for calling
Jesus a failure.
2.
Jesus told his followers to literally feed one another, especially the
hungry and marginalized. And they did so. That was success, not a
failure.
3.
Jesus literally saved the oppressed woman accused of adultery (somehow,
magically, apart from any man!) from those who literally sought to kill
her. You can bet that was good news to her. Shame on you, Stan, for calling
Jesus valiant actions a failure.
4.
In the passage Stan cites, Zaccheus was led to change his ways and follow
Jesus way, literally feeding the poor and fighting oppression. That was
a success... That was good news both for Zaccheus and for the people
that he had harmed. Shame on you, Stan, for calling Jesus a failure. Zaccheus
would disagree.
5.
Jesus said that those who followed him would do even greater things
than him. And indeed, we have. We've ended the notion of slavery being
accepted as a moral option, by-and-large. We've ended the oppression of
women in places where Jesus' teachings are followed. We've more fully
developed and recognized the notion of human rights and spread that good
news around the world. We have made progress precisely because of
following the Teachings of Jesus' way.
Following
Jesus way has indeed lifted the poor out of misery and helped to end
oppression. Have we ended all oppression? No, but we've made progress.
On the other hand, has Jesus saved all of humanity from their sin? Modern Evangelicals
would say no... nothing like it, that most people are doomed to an eternity of torment (hell).
Which way is truly the failure?
