Luke 12:16-34
And He told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man was very
productive.
"And he began reasoning to himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since
I have no place to store my crops?'
"Then he said, 'This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns
and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my
goods. 'And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry."'
"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is
required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'
"So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich
toward God."
And He said to His disciples, "For this reason I say to you, do not
worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as
to what you will put on.
"For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.
"Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; they have no
storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds!
"And which of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life's
span?
"If then you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry
about other matters?
"Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; but
I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one
of these.
"But if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today
and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You men of little faith!
"And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do
not keep worrying.
"For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but
your Father knows that you need these things.
"But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you.
"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly
to give you the kingdom.
"Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money
belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys.
"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
The Word of the Lord.
Thoughts? Comments? Cutting remarks?
39 comments:
A few thoughts: This passage (given in the context of concern about the pharisees and having just been approached about money matters) has Jesus again criticizing those who'd store up and up beyond their reasonable needs ("You fool!...now who will own what you have prepared?").
But not criticizing so much, if you go on to read further, we see the bucolic nature of relying upon God and the economy of Enough ("consider the ravens...consider the lilies...").
It's in THIS context that a compassionate Jesus says, "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to charity..."
Excess money is a trap and a danger - not just for the poor who might be exploited in order to obtain any wealth, but for the person "who stores up treasure for himself and who is not rich toward God."
A compassionate God (nor reasonable person) doesn't want us weighed down by gold as we swim through life. Too much chance we'll drown.
Let go of all that stuff! Seek ye first the important things... This seems to me to be the message consistently found in the Bible and certainly here.
I've started reading Bill McKibben's Deep Economy which deals with these matters in a secular manner. Can't wait to start writing about that.
Good thoughts, Dan.
The weird thing about evangelical Christians in the U.S. (this is not as true elsewhere in the world)is that they read this parable and hear Jesus to be saying, "DON'T give up all this stuff. Just have an attitude of not caring about it and caring instead about heavenly things." But Jesus clearly says that where we invest our treasures (time, money, etc.) and what we care about are deeply connected. Jesus tells us to start giving up STUFF and American evangelicals actually read him to say, "Keep it--just don't let it control you." But idolatry works PRECISELY by controlling you while making you believe that you aren't being controlled!!!
Thanks, Michael.
I'm going to post a comment Michael made in an earlier post up here, to give more folk a chance to see it. It's marginally related, as it was posted in response to the charge that Democratic Socialism is a contradiction in terms and is not Christian in nature...
Michael said:
Socialism (not Marxism) was started in Britain by Christians in two movements--Fabianism and Chartism. This movement flourished from the mid-19th C. until the 1930s.
Charles Dickens was a Fabian (as his novels' constant condemnation of contemporary British neglect of the poor show); several prominent Fabian and Chartist Christians were elected to Parliament.
Among 20th C. theologians, several have been members of Socialist parties, including Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr,Jurgen Moltmann and others. The conservative British NT scholar, F.F. Bruce, was sympathetic to some socialist ideas and, while never part of a socialist party, voted socialist in a few local elections.
C.S. Lewis believed that Christians should be very conservative in some areas, but in economic matters should be more radical than most socialists.
The secularism of most European Socialists today has more to do with the secularism of Europe, period, than it does with any kind of incompatibility between democratic socialism and Christianity.
Many Christians in Europe formed "Christian" parties whose main purpose is to get Christians special privileges from their governments. This has resulted in fewer and fewer Christians while the U.S. system of church-state separation has allowed Christianity to flourish.
Many Christians in Europe who are not part of the state churches DO belong to socialist parties, rather than "Christian Democrat" parties--I know this especially in Germany.
Here is another example of a modern paraphrase running interference with the original message.
Sell your possessions and give to charity.
"Charity" falls on the modern ears as a donation to United Way or an few bills in the offering plate at church.
The actual word here is alms which in Greek is literally a "mercy doing." That is, direct help to the needy and thus cutting out the middle man who is trying to earn a living by dipping into that "charity" to ... ahem ... defray his expenses for collecting it and disbursing it.
By and large we don't do alms any more. Rather people buy the services of professional prostitute-like conscience salvers under the guise of "giving to charity" the vast majority of which is eaten up in paying the people to collect it to begin with.
The point most often missed in this part of the chapter is this: It says where your treasure is, there your heart will be. It doesn't say, where your heart is, there your treasure will end up going. That is, you cannot trade in your foul heart for a good one by simply moving your assets from one place to another.
-------------------------
Soooo. We sell all our goods and give it to charity (or as alms). What now? That would only take a few days or a few weeks at most. Now you don't have anything and are likely to live for years and years. What next?
Great question!
I'm very eager to hear what others have to say.
My answer might begin by looking at that OTHER passage where Jesus tells someone to sell their belongings and give to the poor. (As an aside, almost universally in my experience, when one quotes Jesus here in Luke 12, the response is, "But Jesus only said that to the Rich Young Man, it wasn't a rule to apply universally - only for that particular man whose God was Mammon.)
In Matt 19, when Jesus is approached by the rich young man who tells Jesus he has obeyed the Law and wants to know what he must do to be saved, Jesus says:
"If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
It is an invitation, it seems to me, to not ONLY divest him of his wealth, but ALSO to "come, follow me."
Or, considering the context, to come join his band of followers, who lived lightly on the land.
I think we can take from the greater context of the early church and what is said in the Bible, that Jesus wasn't necessarily advocating making one's self destitute and relying upon alms one's self.
Rather, he invited folk to a different way of living. One not dependent upon wealth, but upon community. Upon the earth.
That's my short answer. Yours?
Paul the Apostle said it a little differently in 1 Timothy 6: 17 to 19 -
"Teach those who are rich in this world not to be proud and not to trust in their money, which is so unreliable. Their trust should be in God, who richly gives us all we need for our enjoyment.
Tell them to use their money to do good. They should be rich in good works and generous to those in need, always being ready to share with others.
By doing this they will be storing up their treasure as a good foundation for the future so that they may experience true life."
Christians are called to be radical givers to the poor.
The rich young ruler of Matt 19 left not understanding Jesus as THE way - but rather as A way. He chose to go his own way instead. Jesus' request to him was a test of obedience and not a step to gain eternal life. I believe Jesus did that to make an internal (the man's heart condition) more visible to them. Note that the young man was unwilling to confess his spiritual need - "ALL these things I have kept from my youth." Of course, that is an impossibility.
The question is more about obedience to what God is calling each of us to do instead of some external formula of how to please Him (see 1 Samuel 15:22). Externals never lead to an internal change - however, internal changes will lead to different externals. And only God can change our heart.
Tradition says that the rich young ruler eventually became a powerful witness for Christ after the crucifiction.
If true, then the words continued to work on the rich man after departed. That's the power of the Holy Spirit.
Dan,
So, for the sake of clarity. Are you advocating that all Christians (including churches) should give all of their excess wealth to the poor?
And are you also saying that all Christians should quit working at large corporations, such as Wal-Mart, because of the company's supposedly greedy natures?
I'm not the type to tell "all Christians" how to live. I'm too fallilble in my own humanity.
I think the Bible is clear in its warnings on wealth and oppressive wealth. I think it wise to live simply and doing so is amongst the best of ways to show our love for our neighbors.
I think the Walmartization of our culture has hugely negative impacts upon God's creation and our neighbors and participation in such is not a good way to demonstrate love for either.
Having said that, I'm "liberal" enough to not feel comfortable forcing my opinion off on anyone. This is how I feel called to live in response to my faith.
Jesus' statement, "What you did for the least of these, you did for me...what you did NOT do for the least of these, you did NOT do for me," precludes me from owning an expensive car or living in a lavish estate, etc.
I'm more comfortable with each person deciding those sorts of decisions on their own.
I AM comfortable talking about policy in general...what we ought to be encouraging and discouraging as a society. I want to discourage pollution, waste, harmful lifestyles, actions that cause damage to others. I want to encourage policies (individual, local, nat'l, internat'l) that encourage living within our means, not dumping toxins into the environment, etc.
Does that answer your question?
Dan,
Very good answer.
As for me, I am an advocate of radical giving to the poor. But to do that, I see Mark 16:15, "Go into all the world..."
And "all the world" to me includes large and small corporations and businesses.
Willie Sutton, the bank robber, said, "I rob banks because that's where the money is."
Well, in the same way, I work at and with corporations because that's where the money is. And when it comes down to helping the poor and needy - you need money.
But isn't that reasoning of the bank robber, Larry? "Why would I work for a little money?! I'll rob the bank because that's where the money is!"
Rather, wouldn't the first step to aiding the poor be to stop taking part in systems that are causing their oppression in the first place?
I would hope that, if you thought that the system were oppressing the poor, then you would be amongst the first to agree that we ought not take part in the system, or at least ought to attempt to divest ourselves of the oppressive system.
It's just a matter that you wouldn't necessarily accept that our StuffMart system IS oppressive, right?
In an earlier essay on cars, I asked the question, "Would we shop at Hitler's bakery?" to get across the idea that taking part in an oppressive system is just that. The way to stop the oppression is not to get a job in it to make enough money to give to those who are being damaged by the system, but rather to get out of the system in the first place.
Seems to me.
Which brings me back to my question, are you advocating that all Christians should leave large corporations? It sounds to me like your answer is yes.
Jesus said, "Go into all the world..."
The system will not be changed by hiding out at Walden Pond and throwing rocks at the big, bad corporations. They will be changed by godly men and women who have an anointing from the Lord and work in the system to bring about changes.
The kingdoms of this world shall become kingdoms of our Lord.
Well, you can work from within, if you want and feel comfortable doing so. I'm feeling less comfortable doing so and am looking for ways to divorce myself from the system, which I perceive to be corrupt.
Let me ask you: If there were a company that was using slave child labor to produce widgets, and the factory dumped their waste mercury and ebola virus from their process into the stream behind the factory. Suppose further that you were a neighbor to that company.
Would you want to work from within to hope to gradually make changes to that company. Maybe at the end of the year, you'd hope that the child slaves would have Saturdays off?
OR would you want the company closed?
Of course, it would be best if that company were closed.
But rather than working outside the system, start a company, use godly principles, create jobs, make profits and give to the poor.
We are stuck in this world system, but we are not of it.
Larry, I don't know if you're getting what I'm trying to say: I think our system IS that store. Destructive to the environment, community and the poor.
That is why I don't want to be in that system.
Start a new system, seems to me, not modeled on the old one but on better principles. Sustainable, non-aggressive principles.
An economy based on waste is inherently and hopelessly violent, and war is its inevitable by-product. We need a peaceable economy.
Most of us are still too sane to piss in our own cistern, but we allow others to do so and we reward them for it. We reward them so well, in fact, that those who piss in our cistern are wealthier than the rest of us.
~Wendell Berry
"I'm not the type to tell "all Christians" how to live."
Sure you are! You do it all the time!
As to the idea that Christians should be like lilies or sparrows waiting on the Lord for everything... That doesn't line up with Scripture.
If a man doesn't work, neither should he eat. Furthermore, wasn't it God who told Joseph in a dream that the Egyptians should spend six year hoarding grain against the coming famine? Wealth isn't evil, and no where does it say those WITH wealth must give it up to be a good child of God. Ananias and Sapphira weren't struck down dead for wanting to hold back some of their profit for themselves, but rather for lying to the Holy Spirit. Ananias was asked, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." --Acts 5:4
Christians should be generous... to-a-fault generous!... giving to all who ask, expecting nothing in return. But being temporally wealthy and genuinely blessed of God are not mutually exclusive states.
If Jesus were into "redistribution of wealth" why would He say the unprofitable servant would have what he DID have taken away and given to him who was quite profitable?
If Jesus were into "redistribution of wealth" why would He say the unprofitable servant would have what he DID have taken away and given to him who was quite profitable?
I guess you'll have to take that up with the early Christians from Acts.
"If a man doesn't work, neither should he eat."
No one has advocated people not working. I'm suggesting the Bible consistently warns us of the trap that money is, how difficult it is for the wealthy to get in to heaven and that we should not depend on wealth.
As to "redistribution of wealth," Wasp Jerky is right - take it up with the early church and, I'd add, the Jubilee Code and the prophets.
Why do some people sell their possessions and move to another country to be a missionary? Because the word and the Holy Spirit was guiding them to that place. Are all believers supposed to be foreign missionaries? Of course not. God has called each of us to a unique plan in how to use the time, talents and treasure we've been given. Instead of guessing what it might be and hoping we're pleasing God, we need to get into the word and listen for His direction - then we'll have peace of mind and know. Anything else is some external formula of how to please God - and that never works.
At its essence the redistribution of wealth idea is based on the uber-liberal view of the economy as pie of fixed size. The problem is only that the rich are getting too large a slice of the pie and the poor too small.
That is a foolish economic view. The "wealth" is dynamic and depends on the amount of effort and labor and that depends on motivation. Take away the motivation with the threat that excess wealth will be redistributed and the size of the 'pie' immediately shrinks.
Some people in any society must be cared for although they do not materially contribute to the pie, the very young, very old, and the (actually) disabled. The trouble with a 'redistribution' mentality is that it breeds an entire class of people who expect to have good redistributed to them whether they make an effort to contribute to their production or not.
What is wanted is the redistribution of the opportunity to create one's own wealth, not the wealth itself. The same as you would not feel obligated to donate food to someone and then put it in their mouth and work their jaws if they were too sorry to eat it, just like that we might feel the obligation to make workshops, gardens, useful work available but feel no compunction to force, coddle, or persuade people to take advantage of them.
Here's some biblical direction:
I hate, I despise your feasts,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
Even though you offer me your burnt offering and cereal offerings,
I will not accept them,
and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts
I will not look upon.
Take away from me the noise of your songs;
to the melody of your harps I will not listen.
But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an everflowing stream
~Amos 5:21-24
What can I do with you, Ephraim?
What can I do with you, Judah?
Your love is like the morning mist,
like the early dew that disappears.
Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth; my judgments flashed like lightning upon you.
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
~Hosea 6:4-6
God repeatedly in the Bible talks about our acts of mercy and justice. I don't think there's any great mystery as to God's will in general. It is to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly before God.
Loving mercy - loving one another, we tend to "get" although we still work on putting it in practice. Walking humbly before God, we sorta "get" too, although putting it in practice is difficult for most of us.
But doing justice, it seems to me, is where we really flounder. Understanding we're taking part in unjust systems and knowing what to do about it is a difficult thing for most of us.
As Gene Edwards states, we read the Bible and do not see the story.
Jesus ministered in a time when Rome governed Israel. And fifty per cent of the Roman Empire consisted of slaves. The slaves were treated and fed so poorly that few of them lived past the age of twenty-five years.
And yet Jesus did not speak out against the system of slavery or against Rome. Nor did Paul. In fact Paul went so far as to write that the slaves should count their masters worth of all honor and should serve them wholeheartedly.
And yet, the system was changed one heart at a time.
You cannot equate acts of "Mercy and Justice" with a vow of poverty. Mercy and justice do not mean self-imposed poverty. Nor does the Bible imply one should choose or WANT to be poor. By the standard of the day, Abraham was rich, Lot was rich, Job was rich... all men of faith.
The Rich Man suffered a just punishment not because he was "Rich", but because he was unrighteous and did not fear God. The fact that he WAS rich certainly contributed to his eternal end, in that it colored his attitude toward God, but it was not what sent him to hell.
Abraham's remark that he fared well in life and is now punished, while Lazarus suffered and is now comforted, is but a statement of obvious truth, but that statement does not at all address what sent the Rich Man to hell.
The warning here is to not put your faith and trust in earthly riches. Jesus has said plenty about the riches that will be heaped upon us in Heaven. What are crowns if not riches? What are streets of gold if not riches? What are mansions if not riches? What is being a joint heir with Christ if not the promise of riches to come? There's nothing wrong with being rich, but there is something very wrong with being rich and upon seeing someone in need, turning a deaf ear, a blind eye, and shutting up ones bowels of compassion.
That's why the Rich Man ended up in hell.
"You cannot equate acts of "Mercy and Justice" with a vow of poverty."
I've not said anything about a vow of poverty. I think some here are trying to read something into my statements that I haven't made.
I haven't actually made many "pronouncements" or offered my opinion a whole lot here. All I've mostly done is repeat what the Bible says and says repeatedly:
Wealth is a trap.
It is difficult for a rich person to get into heaven.
We are to be content with what we have and not strive after riches.
I'm not saying these are my opinions (although they are), I'm saying that THIS is what the Bible says.
And from there, then I think it wise to ask honest questions of we, who are so wealthy:
Is our wealth gained by means that are oppressive to others? (After all, that is warned against repeatedly and repeatedly in the bible - it is only prudent to ask that question and do so with fear and trembling, given what the Bible says.)
Are we content with what we have or are we striving for more and more Mammon?
Jesus warned about the rich man who tore down his barns so he could store more and more for "later," and called that man a fool. Are we doing the same thing by storing up more and more for later?
These aren't accusations. They're honest questions that I think biblical context demands that we take seriously.
Or, as ELashley pointed out:
"there is something very wrong with being rich and upon seeing someone in need, turning a deaf ear, a blind eye, and shutting up ones bowels of compassion."
Is there something very wrong with we who are wealthy (I'm guessing every single one reading this, or nearly so) turning a deaf eye to the needy?
Basil the Great said:
When someone steals another's clothes, we call them a thief. Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does not? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor.
Is that an accurate reflection of biblical teaching? Of what Elashley is saying?
It is not at all accurate.
So, where do you stand, then? Is it your position that we ought to share with the needy and that there's something wrong with us as Christians if we don't, but it ought not be considered robbing if we don't? We ought to consider it "very wrong" (your words) but not go so far as calling it thievery? Even metaphorically?
I think the piece you leave out is that "helping" from the "rich" to the "poor" leaves them (the poor) in slavery -- an economic system approved by the Bible -- with the advantage that they are cared for but also told what to do. The truly needy are cared for but the simply sorry are forced to actually work.
It is immoral to give an addict $10. It it moral to force an addict to work and then feed him for it.
CG:"It is immoral to give an addict $10. It it moral to force an addict to work and then feed him for it."
Let's finish out this ladder of morality.
1. It is most moral to stand aside and not interfere with someone earning their living, to enjoy the rewards of their work or endure the effects of the lack thereof.
2. It is somewhat less moral provide the opportunity for them gainfully earn their living, but sometimes expedient. It begins to rob the person of autonomy and self-determination.
3. It is less moral still to force them into earning a living, but again it is expedient especially if they are responsible for the upkeep of others like their children or aged parents.
4. It is immoral to just give them money.
5. It is even more immoral to take up funds by force (taxes) or fraud (saying God told you that I should be giving money), pocketing a large portion of that as your salary for collecting it, and giving the remainder to the now totally dehumanized recipient.
6. The lowest pit of immorality is to collect money through the above force and/or fraud to pay yourself to go about pontificating on how everyone ought to be giving money as in 4 and 5 above.
Thanks for the comments, CG and Eleut. But it seems to me that you have the right intent but you have it all twisted up in knots.
I agree with this:
"It is most moral to stand aside and not interfere with someone earning their living, to enjoy the rewards of their work or endure the effects of the lack thereof."
But I would add it is moral still to stand by that person and work with them when a polluter comes in to bespoil their land, or a giant corporation floods the market making them unable to continue to compete.
The corporation can do so only by practices that are not moral nor sustainable and, therefore, ought to be opposed.
1. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
2. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. ASSUMING
3. You work with the man to assure that your water isn't toxic and that your freedom to fish hasn't been preemptively purchased away from you by a gov't or corporation.
it is the government regulations that you espouse that make the corporation more powerful (more arch-ful) than the individual. Replace the -arch with the individual (an-arch-y in that sense) and, wa la, you haven't a problem with the corporations. Pollution would be force or fraud, obviously.
Oftentimes the gov't regulations do make corporations more powerful. But that's a problem with the regulation, not with having a regulation.
So, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying we ought to do.
Before the advent of the EPA and all such government agencies, individuals had standing in courts to bring corporations to task for pollution. And it happened very often.
The view of the centralists is that unless you have the EPA bringing the collective clout down on polluters, they would pollute with impunity.
Alas, just the opposite is true. Most people don't know or don't go back far enough to remember that with the formation of EPA (and ilk) individuals lost their standing in the courts. You cannot individually sue a company because of pollution, you can only file complaint with the government and they will decide what to do.
Now, if a corporation can manage to buy off the EPA, it's in like Flynn to pollute with impunity. And that's just what they do.
"C.S. Lewis believed that Christians should be very conservative in some areas, but in economic matters should be more radical than most socialists.
"
Actually, I thought Lewis was more of a classical liberal. He believed in helping the poor, no doubt, but my impression is that he was on the other end of socialists. My references being the last chapter of the Screwtape Letters in which he condemns the overtaxation of the middle class so that they have no choice but to send their kids to state schools, and that he is featured "In the [Classical] Liberal Tradition' at the Acton Institute.
"1. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
2. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. ASSUMING
3. You work with the man to assure that your water isn't toxic and that your freedom to fish hasn't been preemptively purchased away from you by a gov't or corporation."
Hey Dan, a couple of things.
For one, based on conversations with you, it sounds like many times you don't believe that 3 can happen without 2. I've often pointed out that I believe we should have a free market system but then you point out pollution is a problem, which begs the question, what if we have a free market that regulates for pollution but I don't know if I've heard your opinion on that. It's like you believe a free market by definition allows pollution.
Also, this is just an anecdote and doesn't really invalidate your belief for the need of publicly owned lands. For my wife and I's anniversary one time, we decided to go camping in Estes park. About 2 days before we wanted to go, we called up the public park. We couldn't stay there however, because we didn't call early enough. There were spots open, but because the park arbitrarily decided that people should call 3 days ahead, we couldn't stay at the public park. We called the KOA campground and they had no problems letting us in. Why would they? We were paying them money so we could stay there. About the same price as the public park.
All I can say is, I'm glad some land around there was privately owned.
Oops, I mean "you don't believe 2 can happen without 3."
", what if we have a free market that regulates for pollution but I don't know if I've heard your opinion on that. It's like you believe a free market by definition allows pollution. "
I'm okay with a regulated free market. I'm not opposed to free markets, I just want to also not have my well pissed in.
Post a Comment