Part of a continuing series where I post biblical passages that deal with wealth, poverty, money, greed, simplicity, the rich and the poor. When I'm done, I'd like to have a fairly comprehensive collection of such passages all in one location. You can see other entries in this series in my sidebar on the left, under The Bible and Economics heading.
I've already looked at Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7). Today, I'm looking at verses scattered throughout the middle of the book of Matthew, from chapter 10 to chapter 19. Next month, I'll look through the rest of Matthew...
[Jesus speaking, sending out the disciples to preach...]
And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.
Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.
~Matthew 10:7-10
Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?"
Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM.
"And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me."
As these men were going away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?
"But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who wear soft clothing are in kings' palaces!..."
"But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and one who is more than a prophet."
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!'
"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds..."
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.
"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
~Matthew 11:2-9; 18-19; 28-30
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?
~Matthew 16:24-26
When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?"
He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?"
When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt.
"However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me."
~Matthew 17:24-27
Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these..."
["The Rich Young Ruler"]
And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?..."
...Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"
And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?"
And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.
"But many who are first will be last; and the last, first."
~Matthew 19:13-14; 21-30
137 comments:
I'm bettin' you still have possessions.
So did Jesus... What do you think he meant by that statement?
Yes, I do still have possession, why?
And I love these passages! How 'bout y'all?
While there are passages throughout the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty and hint at God's perspective on it, I think it is most clearly and repetitively found in Jesus' teachings. I mean, why would Jesus say, when asked if he were truly of God, "Look - I do for the least of these, the marginalized and ill. I preach good news to the poor..." WHY specifically "the poor"?
I mean, very few Christians of any stripe or other fans of Jesus really think that he despised the rich or anything, so why the specific note, "I preach to the poor" as evidence of his being from God? Don't you all find that significant?
I think Jesus had a very specific message in mind when He told the rich man to sell all he owned, give it to the poor and follow Him.
We can have possessions and money, even great wealth - these things don't obstruct our path to heaven. It is the importance we put on these possessions that act as a stumbling block.
Enjoying what we have is not sinful, failing to be grateful, failing to share our good fortune and failing to prioritize the important things correctly is our sin.
Buddah espoused this line of thought quite simply, "The key to happiness is letting go."
To be Christian (like Christ) what you own must not define you but rather what is within you.
I agree mostly, Rocky. A couple of thoughts, though.
I agree that wealth and stuff don't necessarily obstruct us in following God, but they certainly can. I think that is why we see so MANY repeated warnings in the Bible.
"It is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom," Jesus tells us. We who have much tend to trust in our belongings and wealth often is, as the Bible describes it, a trap to beware of.
Also, while Jesus' message here is specifically to the rich man, over in Luke we have a similar teaching. In Luke 12, we read Jesus telling his disciples in general...
"As for you, do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not worry anymore.
"All the nations of the world seek for these things, and your Father knows that you need them.
"Instead, seek his kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides.
"Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom.
"Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.
"For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be."
Sell your belongings and give to the poor. What do we do with this?
"Sell your belongings and give to the poor. What do we do with this?"
Ah,Dan, this is one of those biblical "gotchas." We are also admonished that if we had the faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains.
What do we do with that one? Sit in front of a mountain and try to move it?
The passage you provide covers a broader message of where you must put your faith; not in your own abilities but in the hands of God.
There is a saying, "If you pray, why worry? If you worry, why pray?"
This passage serves another purpose; to take down the overly pious a notch or two.
Remember, the rich man who approached Jesus gave an account of all he the "good" things he did. And then Jesus tells him in order to be perfect in his faith, he must sell all he owns.
I imagine if your faith is strong enough, you could sell all you have and go on the road spreading the gospel. Paul I think alluded the idea that it was better to stay single and focused on God while admitting that for some, it was better to marry and settle down. But he also warned that in doing so, it would be harder to not let the worries of the world weigh on you.
I think the last verse is most telling of the message here:
"For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be."
At the very least, those who profess to follow biblical teachings should be willing to place the needs of others above their own.
It was not my intention to write a post today but the subject of Wall Street greed got my cephalopod blood boiling, so here is my rendition with a few Swash Zone flourishes.
I have heard many a sermon and expostulation on the whole "sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and then follow me" that come down, in the end, to a kind of psychological reductionism. That is, we are admonished to act as if we could do these things, and we'll be OK.
Marshall Art's first comment is really kind of dumb. Obviously, Dan has possessions. If nothing else, he has a computer and internet service. So what?
The ensuing discussion - it's a Biblical "gotcha"! - also misses the point, because no, it isn't. The demands of discipleship are strenuous, although the grace of salvation is free. How do we reconcile these contradictions, or at least seeming-contradictions? First and foremost, I thing we get clear on the simple fact that Jesus meant what he said to the rich young ruler. Does Jesus call all of us to this same kind of radical discipleship? Not all, certainly, but many. What is the limit of our willingness to follow Jesus? What is the point at which we say, "You know, Jesus, I really like the whole 'love' thing, but that's going just a little too far for me. Thanks, but no thanks."
Since I have been struggling, in recent weeks, with a deepening realization of the call of radical discipleship, and what that means for me (and no one else, I would add), this particular issue is of serious import. How far do we heed the call? Would we be like the disciples, leaving our jobs, our livelihoods, our families, at the mere mention of our names? Would we be willing to live the mendicant life, trusting in God's Providential Grace to provide for us, as Jesus called his disciples to do (they were admonished to go forth, carrying nothing but the clothes on their backs, from town to town preaching the Gospel)? Are we willing to surrender not just our possessions, but our very lives, and all that we love, because God is calling us to do so?
The call is always unique, and always changing. The response, in my case, is like Jacob and the angel. Wrestling all day and all night. Wrestling with meaning. Wrestling so that one can blot out the clarity of the call. Hedging one's bets so that one can say, "Hey, I'm serious enough about this that I'm pondering it deeply!"
Since the call to discipleship is, in my very Wesleyan understanding, a second movement in the single symphony of Divine grace, I am right now, and for the foreseeable future, struggling to understand what, exactly, I am to do. Thanks, Dan, for at least pointing in the direction that God pushes all those who claim to love him and desire to follow.
Missing the point with glee and abandon as usual, Dan.
If Jesus had told the Rich Young ruler to take all that he had and put it into storage, and come follow him, Dan would be trying to tell us that the reason that Jesus came to Earth was to get us to put all our stuff into storage.
It's the same thing he's doing now.
Jesus couldn't care less what we do with all our stuff, Dan, or how much stuff we have or don't have.
You see, I love these passages too.
And I actually understand them.
What is your Idol, Dan?
I know what it is (it's glaringly obvious...) but I'm wondering if YOU do?
Well, as a brother who has been saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, I strive to worship God and avoid any idol worship. But feel free - you who know me (a complete stranger) from a few words on these internets - to take a stab at suggesting I'm worshiping some idol.
I fear that you will only make either a blatantly false or wholly ignorant statement and embarrass yourself, but if that's a risk you're willing to take, go for it.
As to this, Tug:
Missing the point with glee and abandon as usual, Dan.
Feel free to enlighten me there, too. What is the point? When Jesus told the rich young man that what he needed to do to be saved is to sell what he had, give his money to the poor and come follow him, I take that to mean that he wanted the rich young man to sell what he had, give it to the poor and come follow Jesus, for that is what the rich young man needed to do in order to be saved.
But if that isn't the point, please tell me what you think it might be.
Tug also said:
Jesus couldn't care less what we do with all our stuff, Dan, or how much stuff we have or don't have.
You are free to think that, of course. I disagree. I think Jesus cares a good deal what we do with our stuff. It's why he said:
It is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
It's why he told the story about the rich man who built more barns to store more stuff, calling the rich man a fool for doing so.
It's why he told the story of the sheep and the goats. What you do for the least of these, Jesus tells us, you do for me. How you spend your money and time for the least of these is how you spend your money and time for me.
I think Jesus cares a good deal. I certainly agree, though, that Jesus doesn't care if you're rich or poor insofar as we're all loved by Jesus. If that's you're point, I agree. Wouldn't suggest otherwise. And, because Jesus loves the rich and the poor, he cares very much how we relate with one another and what we do with our stuff. Seems to me.
There is no enlightening you, Dan, because you head has been hardened to the point that there is no way to penetrate it.
Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler to put away his Idols.
Jesus did not give the man a checklist, he told him how to change. it had nothing to do with the man owning things, it had to do with what was FIRST in the man's life.
Rockync tried to tell you this earlier in this thread, but you wouldn't listen to him either.
Nor do I expect you to listen to me, because you have been misled by people whom you respect more that you do me, and you believe that worshiping a church and an ideology is worshiping God.
As you told me...feel free to think you've got this right, but I disagree.
You still have a WHOLE lot to learn before you should presume to preach to anybody about what they do with their worldly posessions, Dan.
Tug, I'm not at all sure what you're talking about. WHERE have I "preached to nybody about what they do with their worldly posessions"? Have I told YOU what you ought to do with your possessions? Have I told anyone here what they ought to do?
In truth, no.
I suspect that you are looking for things to disagree with me about and are finding things that simply aren't there.
As to worshiping a church and an ideology, I'd have to wonder what evidence you have to support that charge? If you have none, are you not merely making stuff up (ie, lying)?
Yes, I do love my church. I'd say that's a good thing. I wish more people were able to find a church where they could be as challenged, inspired and supported.
How do you like your church, Tug? (Or is it the case that you're one of those types who criticizes others' churches and yet don't even go to a church yourself?)
I love my church, Dan...
But it's just a church.
It does good works in God's name, it is a place where like minded believers can gather together to worship God...
But in the end, there's nothing there that I do not bring with me.
And if it begins twisting or distorting the Message of Jesus, I will not follow it down that path.
It is my own study of God's Word and my own communion with God through prayer that makes up my relationship with God and guides my life, not what someone tells me at a particular church.
I serve God, and Him only will I serve.
Whether or not I go to church is irrelevant.
Dan, why did Jesus come to Earth?
It is my own study of God's Word and my own communion with God through prayer that makes up my relationship with God and guides my life, not what someone tells me at a particular church.
Yes, we agree it is our own relationship with God that is important, not what other people tell us. And yet, what other people tell us can impact our relationship with God. It's one reason why it's good to find a good church home.
Now, if you're finished making unfounded personal attacks, would you have any thoughts on the passages at hand?
For instance, if your point is that anything can be a false idol that we put in the place of God, we are in agreement. Stuff, money, titles, power, political affiliation, these can all be worshiped above God.
But looking at how Jesus repeatedly warn about the trappings of wealth, do you not agree with me that wealth is often one of those things that get in people's way? Do you think it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, as Jesus specifically noted?
Why would Jesus say that? Why would Jesus say, "woe to you who are rich!" Why would Jesus tell his followers to sell their belongings, give to the poor and follow him? Did he mean "sell ALL your belongings?"
Any thoughts beyond the attacks?
Why did Jesus come to earth? According to the Bible, for a variety of reasons.
"I have come to seek and to save the lost," Jesus said.
"I have come to preach good news to the poor, liberty for the captive, sight for the blind, the day of God's good favor," Jesus said.
"I have come that they may have LIFE, and have it in its fullest," Jesus said.
"I have not come to bring peace, but the sword," Jesus said.
"For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind," Jesus said.
"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it," Jesus said.
He said a lot of stuff about why he came. And that's fine with me. I agree with Jesus.
Do you ask because it has something to do with this post?
I have made no unfounded attacks.
As to the passages, they are some of my favorites.
What do they have to do with economics?
I'm trying to determine what YOU believe was the economic message of Jesus.
So, yeah.
I believe that Jesus taught just what he taught.
I believe it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. That seems to have economic implications to me.
I believe that Jesus came to preach good news to the poor. That seems to have economic implications.
How about you, Tug: Do you believe it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God? Do you believe that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle! than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God?
Do you believe that Jesus came to preach good news to the poor?
Is it the case that you think these teachings don't have anything to do with economics? [definition: financial considerations; economically significant aspects] With how we live, what we do regarding our financial considerations?
I do.
Tug mistakenly said:
I have made no unfounded attacks.
Allow me to illustrate what I mean by unfounded attacks. You said:
"Missing the point with glee and abandon as usual...
If Jesus had told the Rich Young ruler to take all that he had and put it into storage, and come follow him, Dan would be trying to tell us that the reason that Jesus came to Earth was to get us to put all our stuff into storage."
That is unfounded. You have not illustrated that I missed the point. You made a baseless (ie, not based on anything in the real world) charge that I would say the above. There is no evidence that I would say that and it's not entirely clear what that even means. I guess if Jesus DID tell the rich young ruler to put stuff in storage AND there were repeated teachings about the trappings of wealth and how Jesus came specifically to preach good news to those without stuff in storage, then yes, I might say that, but so what? As a Christian, if I follow the teachings of Christ and that was his teaching, yeah, I guess it would mean that.
But what you are doing (it seems) is trying to suggest I frivolously read the Bible too literally, or something. You have made a baseless charge.
You also baselessly suggested that I don't understand the passages by saying:
"And I actually understand them."
And yet you did not demonstrate that I don't understand the passages.
You also baselessly suggested I worship idols:
"What is your Idol"
But you offered nothing to support this false charge.
There are three examples of baseless attacks. It remains, it seems to me, that you are either a liar or just ignorantly slandering a person you don't even know. It's not okay to slander (it's in the Bible, look it up) so it's not okay to just visit someplace and make baseless charges, you understand this, don't you?
IF you have charges to make, AND you want to NOT be considered a lying or ignorant slanderer, then you support your charges. You have not.
And understand, I'm not saying this to belittle you or because your false charges bother me, I'm just trying to correct you. You are acting in a manner contrary to basic decency and biblical teaching. You can do better than this, brother.
In a decent conversation, if someone makes a false charge and can't substantiate it, they then say, "I'm sorry. It SEEMED like you were saying..., I guess I misunderstood you. My apologies."
Seems to me.
Dan, I do not have to demonstrate anything to you, either about my understanding of scriptures or about your Idol worship.
Anyone who regularly reads the things that you write all over the internet knows what I'm talking about.
I have made no unfounded attacks.
I have made no baseless charges.
I'm calling this like I see it.
If you don't like the image that you put forth in your writings, and the attitude that you convey, then maybe you need to search your own heart, be aware of your own tone when you comment, and take objective stock of your own possitions when you engage in discussions, or post your thoughts both here and elsewhere.
Yes it is difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
No, that is not because they are rich. Their posessions have nothing to do with that fact.
Giving all of their wealth to the poor will not save them, nor will it help the poor, not to any real degree.
Jesus did not come to tell us to help the poor.
That was not his mission here.
Yet it is the central theme of all of your religiosity.
Your attitude, even now, shows no hint of Christian Love.
Only a need to prove me to be inferior to you as a Christian.
Again, if this is incorrect, then you need to examine your own tone.
Once again... No false witness, no baseless attacks, no unfounded charges.
THE. TRUTH.
If it hurts, then that's YOUR problem.
Sorry, but those are unfounded unsupported comments. Perhaps you don't understand the concept. If I have a charge to make against Tug, I say, "Tug, you are making an unsupported charge. You did so Here, Here and Here." and demonstrate the charge. That is what is known as a supported accusation.
To come to someone's blog and say, "You worship idols cuz I say so," is an example of an UNsupported charged. Understand?
Now, Tug, if you'd like to comment here, I'll ask you to make commentary about the post, not make unfounded accusations. You're welcome to talk about the post, but unsupported attacks are just boring, in addition to being ignorant and they will be deleted.
Tug posted a bunch more false allegations and unsupported lies (or, as I'll always note in being generous, it could be that Tug is just arrogantly ignorant). I've deleted those attacks because they are boring. Tug DID however, ask a few questions relevant to the actual topic.
Tug asked:
Find me an example where Jesus ever fed anyone twice.
? Where have I suggested that Jesus did this? I haven't. I don't know if Jesus fed anyone twice or not and, since I don't know this to be the case, I have not said that Jesus did this.
Tug asked:
Find me an example of Jesus telling anyone besides the R.Y.R. to sell their posessions and give to the poor.
Easy enough. Jesus, in preaching to his followers (not the rich young ruler, but his followers in general) in Luke 12 says:
"Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom.
"Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.
"For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be."
For instance. Do you think Jesus was wrong to do so?
Tug also said:
Support your assertion that Jesus' followers are to give anything to the poor besides the Gospel Message.
Really? Okay.
Easy enough. In Matthew 5 (the Sermon on the Mount), Jesus told his followers, flatly:
"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."
Or in Matthew 25, Jesus tells the story of the sheep and the goats, in which the sheep enter into heaven. Why? According to Jesus:
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
And surely you know this, right? You know also that the goats went to "everlasting torment" for the simple failure to provide for and with the least of these.
Likewise, Jesus' brother, James, tells us:
The brother in lowly circumstances should take pride in his high standing, and the rich one in his lowliness, for he will pass away "like the flower of the field."
For the sun comes up with its scorching heat and dries up the grass, its flower droops, and the beauty of its appearance vanishes. So will the rich person fade away in the midst of his pursuits.
Therefore, put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls.
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
And that James also said...
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
And I'm sure you are aware that the purpose of the position of deacons being created was to tend to the needs of the poor and widowed? (Acts 6)
But I can't believe you don't actually know the words of Jesus and the teachings of the church on this point. Do you have some alternative interpretation where this isn't REALLY talking about the poor and how we're to live our lives and spend our money?
And if you'd genuinely like to talk about the topic, please do so. But enough with the boring and unsupported attacks.
We get it, you don't like me. I'm evil and worship boogeymen and want to kill the rich, yadda yadda yadda.
No need to belabor the point with more lies and slander that no one is going to believe anyway. But, aside from the attacks, please comment about the passages in question and your interpretations of them.
Now, it may still be forthcoming, and that would be great, but I would note that in a more civil conversation, the person who abusively made charges and raised questions would - after those charges have been illustrated to be false and the questions answered - apologize and say something like, "Oh. I see that Jesus and the Bible DO frequently call for assisting the poor. I honestly didn't know. Thanks for the education..." or, "Okay, I see what you're saying, but what I'm talking about is..." and explain why it seems as if they've made a ridiculous or unsupported comment.
I only point this out because it happens so frequently that we have these sort of drive-by insults and attacks and questions raised that are addressed and then ignored, that it has become something of a pattern. I understand not having time to keep a conversation going and that is absolutely fine.
But don't come and make false charges, slander people, raise questions in an accusing tone and then ignore the reasonable responses. IF you're going to go to the trouble to make false charges and attacks, have the decency to respond or apologize. Otherwise, if you can't say something unkind and defend it with an actual defense, say nothing at all.
Seems to me.
I have made no false or unfounded charges against you.
1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.
That's a nice verse, Tug. What's it have to do with the topic at hand?
Are you suggesting that those who claim to have fellowship with Jesus and yet who walk in the darkness (as evidenced by their lack of recognizing the teachings of Jesus to, for instance, give to the least of these) means that they don't know Jesus? That they don't know anything about the truth? Is that your point?
If so, perhaps, although I'd tend to be more generous and say they're just straying down a wrong road, perhaps in ignorance, rather than suggesting that they simply don't know Jesus or truth at all.
Tug had more attack commentary with falsehoods that had nothing to do with this post, so I deleted them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Okay, I'm going to let this one stand.
NOT because it is on-topic, just so's everyone can see the sort of nonsensical and fallacious attacks Tug is engaging in.
What is one to do with this sort of troll? I think he honestly believes the excrement that flows from his mouth. It's a bit sad.
"Your post had nothing to do with your post..."
What??
Who'd have thought that by merely posting the words of Jesus one could be so thoroughly hated? It might be satisfying to try to engage in the same sort of voodoo mindreading that Tug and his ilk like to engage in ("Tug hates Jesus, and that's why he's so critical..."), but in truth, I don't know what to make of this sort of bile.
So, I'll let this one stand and delete future stuff, so as not to bore others here. Sorry, all.
Interesting, he came and removed it himself. Go figure...
Again, my apologies, all.
Troll infestations can be an ugly thing.
Trolls are like stray dogs. Feed them and they just come back for more, leaving poo in your yard when they return.
Best to ignore them.
Every time I read some right-winger complain about how they have truth and common sense on their side and we liberals are all a bunch of Satanic tricksters, bent on making sure their sons are gay and their daughters all get abortions, or whatever, I just wonder - do they think words have no meaning whatsoever?
I mean, seriously. First, this guy says that Dan doesn't understand the verses in question, then proceeds to show that, in fact, he doesn't understand them himself. When Dan attempts to engage him, he does what always happens in these situations - he starts calling names. When called on it, he denies he did any such thing. The cycle goes on.
I have decided that, if I'm going to engage these folks, I do it on my terms. If they don't like that, too bad.
So, tugboatcapn, here's my question for you. Not just the words of Jesus, but the entire weight of the Law, the Hebrew prophets, the Pauline writings concerns itself with surrender of our worldly possessions in service to others. Jesus tells his disciples to go preach the Gospel, heal and cast out demons carrying nothing with them, and in Acts, the earliest Church is presented as a commune. You deal with this by saying all this is . . . what? Allegorical? Potential? I really have no idea.
Deal with the issue at hand, now. No name calling. If you can.
As soon as you apologize for your lies and slanderous false witness against me, Geoffrey.
I have never once said that you Liberals "are all a bunch of Satanic tricksters, bent on making sure their sons are gay and their daughters all get abortions...
This is an out-right, bald-faced lie.
You should be ashamed.
I demand that you find an example of where I have said that.
This is no way to treat a fellow Christian.
No, you know what...
I will address the topic at hand.
The 12th chapter of John addresses the "Liberal christian" and their economics..
...Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
Give all that you have to the poor, or any portion with which you feel comfortable.
Helping the poor is a wonderful thing, and commendable, and indeed commanded by Jesus...
That we, ourselves give our own posessions to the poor.
Never are we commanded to use the power of our vote, or to support a political party no matter what other ungodly thing they may advocate, simply because they will take the posessions of those who have more than us, and give it to those who have less.
When we begin to do that, we steal in the name of Jesus, and enslave both the giver and reciever.
I have addressed the topic at hand, with no name calling or slander.
Ah, tuggy, you know I wasn't addressing you in particular. I was using exaggeration of general tendencies among so many of you conservatives. Truth be told, it's hard to tell you apart sometimes . . .
No, I won't apologize. I've been called a false teacher, told that my wife and myself are going to hell, are leading others astray, and rejoice at abortions. Those are the real things (just a few, mind you) that have been hurled my way. So, no I really won't apologize, to you or anyone else.
Grow a pair, dude.
"Never are we commanded to use the power of our vote, or to support a political party no matter what other ungodly thing they may advocate, simply because they will take the posessions of those who have more than us, and give it to those who have less."
Obviously, because "democracy" was something that, as it exists right now, was quite literally unthinkable to those who wrote the Bible.
That's point number one.
Point number two - so, since the Bible doesn't say something it would have been impossible for it to have said, you therefore reserve the right to be selfish and hoard up treasures on earth where moth and rust can eat them, rather than share from your bounty with those who, through no fault of their own, have less?
That a political party is the vehicle for this is neither here nor there. The Spirit blows where it will.
Of course, since there isn't a single proposal before our legislators to make the tax code even moderately progressive and therefore redistributive downward, I'm not even sure why this topic is coming up. It would be nice, of course, to ask of those who can to give more . . .
There is something Christian about that, you know. Much more so than hating on gay people, it seems to me (at least there's more Biblical merit to it).
About what?
Coveting your neighbor's posessions?
I am not a selfish person, and I have no desire to hoard up treasures on Earth at the expense of my Soul.
But neither do I sit around and dream of all the good I could do with other people's money.
Jesus commanded the R.Y.R. to sell ALL that he owned, and give it to the poor.
Dan loves to point to this passage to illustrate that Christians are to give to the poor, but he obvoiusly hasn't given ALL that he owns to the poor, neither have you.
Neither have I.
I'm still saved, still a Christian.
Being a Christian does not give me the duty, nor the right to demand that ANYONE give ANYTHING to ANYONE, unless GOD inspires them to do so.
Not by any means.
It certainly does not make me the arbiter of who has enough, or who has too much.
Zachiuss was very rich, and yet he entered into the Kingdom of God. (And fairly easily, I might add.)
And when he did, he cut taxes across the board.
Tugboat, I assume you meant Zacheaus--the tax collector? Yes, he entered the kingdom. In fact, the point of the story is that Jesus can save anyone. The disciples were shocked that he would enter the house of a notorious sinner as those who collected taxes for Rome (the occupying government of Israel's conquerer's) were all considered.
You say Zach entered "pretty easily." Really? FIRST, he promised to give 50% of his money to the poor (imagine Bill Gates or Warren Buffet doing this)! Then, out of the 50% he has left, he promises to pay back anyone he cheated 4 times over. Now, Rome was a sneaky empire: 1. It forbade taxes of any kind on Roman citizens. Everything to run the empire was done by conquest and taxing the conquered territories HEAVILY. This kept the native population always ready for another war and unconcerned for the plight of those they conquered. 2. In order to deflect the anger of the conquered away from continual uprising, the taxes were never collected by Roman soldiers or officials. Instead, this was farmed out to turncoats in the conquered lands--in Zach's case, an Israelite. 3. Taxes were not assessed on an ability to pay like our graduated income tax used to be prior to becoming nearly flat since Reagan. Instead, Rome said to their collectors: You have to collect X amount for us. How you get it is up to you. So, the tax collectors overcharged--especially the poor who would have less legal or social clout to fight back. Thus, the hatred of the collaborating tax collectors.
So, it is likely that Zach had cheated huge numbers of people as a tax collector. If he repaid them fourfold out of the 50% he had left of his fortune after giving away the other half to the poor, he'd probably not have many possessions left.
It is THEN that Jesus says, "This day has salvation come to this house." If your conversion touches your wallet, then it's genuine. "Easy salvation?" I don't think so.
Thanks, Michael, for the keen observations.
Tug, I think one problem we're having is that I agree with you and you don't seem to know it.
You said:
But neither do I sit around and dream of all the good I could do with other people's money...
Dan loves to point to this passage to illustrate that Christians are to give to the poor, but he obvoiusly hasn't given ALL that he owns to the poor, neither have you.
Neither have I.
I'm still saved, still a Christian.
Being a Christian does not give me the duty, nor the right to demand that ANYONE give ANYTHING to ANYONE, unless GOD inspires them to do so.
We don't disagree. I don't sit around and dream of spending other people's money. I simply don't do that, it's never been mentioned in any of my comments or posts.
I also don't think anyone has the right to tell others how to spend their money or live their lives (beyond the whole natural law, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose kind of thing). That's between them and their God.
We are on the same side on these points. I suspect that you've misinterpreted something somewhere and have gotten off on the wrong foot. Put away your sword, brother.
I DO think that we each, as Christians, ought to listen closely to the many, many, many warnings and teachings about the trappings of wealth. I do think, as Christians, it makes sense to talk about these issues, to preach about them and teach them, since they're throughout the Bible.
But that does not mean I make the leap from thinking we ought to consider seriously what Jesus meant when he tells his followers to sell our belongings, give to the poor and follow him to, "Take that stuff from that guy and give it to that other guy!" Fair enough?
Dan, I left a lengthy reply in our conversation about biblical inerrancy and interpretation, and Blogger relayed that the comment would have to be approved. If the comment has been lost in limbo, let me know, and I'll attempt to reconstruct what I said.
I'm asking here because this thread is clearly still active, but otherwise I'm not all that interested in wading deep into this particular discussion.
One thing I will say about the subject of the incident with the rich young ruler. I believe that any study of this incident misses the point unless it draws our attention to three facts which are repeated in all three synoptic gospel accounts, in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18.
1) Christ asserts that there is only one who is good, in Mt 19:17 which Dan omits; and in Mark and Luke He is explicit in stating that only God is good.
2) After the young man left, those who remained asked, "Who can be saved?"
3) Jesus answered their question by stating that what is impossible for man is possible for God.
These three facts point to salvation through God's grace, not man's obedience.
Christ taught that no one is good but God.
When the disciples heard His hard command to the rich young ruler and His statement about how difficult it is for the rich to inherit God's kingdom, they didn't conclude that the poor are in better shape. They asked, how can anyone be saved?
Christ's answer wasn't that salvation was possible through human efforts: it was that salvation is possible through God alone.
Indeed, faith in God's saving power will result in obedience, including giving to the poor, but the obedience is the evidence of saving faith: works themselves do not save.
And, one thing I will say about Dan's stated belief in individual economic freedom: "I also don't think anyone has the right to tell others how to spend their money or live their lives."
I hope that's the case, but it does seem to me that Dan's political allies frequently invoke ideas like "social justice" and environmental concerns to limit economic freedom. If Dan really is more of an economic libertarian, I wish that he would make more explicit the deep philosophical chasm that separates him from more regular progressives.
If he doesn't make clear his serious disagreements with leftists who are eager to use the state to impose their values on the economic decisions of their neighbors, he should not be surprised at a certain amount of skepticism.
Your other comment has been posted and I'll check it out when I get a chance.
Bubba said:
These three facts point to salvation through God's grace, not man's obedience.
Christ taught that no one is good but God.
Okay, no worries here. We agree. We ARE saved by grace and Christ clearly did teach that there is no one Good but God. We agree.
Bubba also noted:
When the disciples heard His hard command to the rich young ruler and His statement about how difficult it is for the rich to inherit God's kingdom, they didn't conclude that the poor are in better shape. They asked, how can anyone be saved?
Indeed. It is my understanding that this culture is one that saw material wealth as a sign of God's blessings and poverty as a sign of God's disapproval. So, when Jesus said, "It is hard for a rich man to be saved," it is not surprising at all that the followers would be aghast and ask, "WHO then can be saved...???"
One of the many instructions that we can get from Jesus' teachings is the dismissal of that whole "rich=blessed, poor=cursed" doggerel. I don't think it is as big a problem in most places these days, but it remains a good point to remember. Jesus, in fact, taught rather the opposite. If anything, it is the POOR who are blessed ("blessed are you who are poor...").
At any rate, no disagreement there.
Bubba also stated:
I hope that's the case, but it does seem to me that Dan's political allies frequently invoke ideas like "social justice" and environmental concerns to limit economic freedom.
I DO believe in natural laws. That is, I believe that there are limits to our freedoms. We can't swing our fist so far as someone else's nose, we can't dump our waste in someone else's yard, we oughtn't oppress any employees we may have, etc.
So, I DO believe in limits, just as everyone else does. That is not to suggest that I'm wanting to penalize the rich, just that I want reasonable boundaries on how we consume and dispose. I don't find a problem with that. We all agree on that in principle, I think.
Although we may disagree on where to place those limits, very few folk actually want no limits.
Dan, if the sermon on the plain in Luke 6 is a parallel account of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, then I don't think one can persuasively argue that Christ taught that the materially poor are blessed.
In Matthew 5, He's quite explicit that the poor "in spirit" are blessed, and if it's wrong to spiritualize what is meant to be taken in a more physical sense, it's also wrong to de-spiritualize what is clearly spiritual.
And, on the subject of economic freedom, if you think, for instance, that so-called "living wage" laws are necessary to prevent oppression of a business's employees -- it's not clear that you do, but you also don't make clear that you oppose such laws -- then I believe that reasonable people can find your stated support of economic freedom to be less than wholly honest.
People do disagree about where to draw the line, sure, but there's a HUGE difference between criminalizing assault, theft, and fraud, and price controls of which "living wage" laws are an example.
The ability to decide what prices to set for the goods and services you offer to others is an essential economic freedom. If you think that price controls are compatible with economic freedom, you should at least know that others strongly disagree and have good reason for doing so.
I also don't think anyone has the right to tell others how to spend their money or live their lives (beyond the whole natural law, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose kind of thing). That's between them and their God.
On the face of it, this sort of statement precludes price controls. If you nevertheless support price controls, you should accept that others will not (and, I think, should not) accept your claim that you believe in economic freedom limited only by appeals to natural law.
Bubba said:
then I don't think one can persuasively argue that Christ taught that the materially poor are blessed.
Then we disagree. I don't think one can look at Luke and argue persuasively at all that Jesus is not speaking of the actual rich and poor.
Look at the Sermon on the Plain, as found in Luke 4 - 6:
And raising his eyes toward his disciples he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours.
Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied...
But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
If "blessed are the poor" means ONLY "blessed are the spiritually poor," what does "woe to you who are rich" refer to? Is that also "Woe to you who are spiritually rich???" That don't make no sense.
No, in context, that passage is clearly talking about those who are actually poor, those who are actually hungry. These are the poor to whom Jesus came to preach good news. When John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the real deal, Jesus replied, "Tell John how I'm preaching to the poor, ministering to the marginalized..."
Do you really think that all of that is just metaphorical? I could be wrong, but I don't think that even most conservative/traditional theologians would make that argument. Can anyone out there verify that for me?
Dan, I'm not saying Luke's beattitudes are metaphorical: I'm saying that they're spiritual. Those who are blessed are "actually" poor and hungry, but the blessing is for those whose poverty and hunger is spiritual.
When you write that the passage is "clearly talking about those who are actually poor," I believe you mean, those who are physically poor. Spiritual poverty is at least as real and actual as physical poverty.
If "blessed are the poor" means ONLY "blessed are the spiritually poor," what does "woe to you who are rich" refer to? Is that also "Woe to you who are spiritually rich???" That don't make no sense.
I believe the warning is against those who believe they are spiritually rich: all of us are spiritually bankrupt, those who recognize their spriritual bankruptcy will be blessed because they depend on God, and those who don't will be condemned because they relied on their own, wholly inadequate self-righteousness.
If the blessings and warnings are for the physically poor and hungry, and the physically rich and well-fed, are their rewards and punishments physical, too?
There have been countless poor people who died never experiencing the comfort of a steady diet, and countless rich men who died never knowing hunger pains, so it seems to me that what Jesus said has not and will not come to pass if the rewards and punishments were physical.
Or if they weren't physical, are you really saying that every poor man in history will end up in Heaven by virtue of being physically poor? And that every rich man will end up in Hell?
No, the more reasonable interpretation is this:
- Those who recognize their own spiritual poverty and who hunger, not merely or only for physical food but for God's righteousness, will inherit His kingdom and His righteousness.
- Those who do not recognize their spiritual bankruptcy and who are satisfied in their own righteousness will be condemned.
A reliance on God stemming from spiritual poverty, may indeed lead to material poverty as a person gives up all things to follow Christ. And, spiritual self-righteousness may lead to material wealth as one persues earthly pleasures by following the world's rules.
And, on the other hand, physical poverty may make it easier to recognize one's dependence on God, just as wealth may make it easier to deny it.
But the important thing is the spiritual condition.
Job, David, Soloman, Joseph of Aramathea, and Mary and Marsha all apparently had material wealth of some kind or another. On the other hand, neither Judas nor the other thief on the cross -- the one who mocked Christ -- seemed to have much wealth.
I absolutely refuse to believe that God's blessings or condemnation of these people hinged on their bank accounts.
And yet, that is the literal and most obvious translation, at least to me.
You say:
Or if they weren't physical, are you really saying that every poor man in history will end up in Heaven by virtue of being physically poor? And that every rich man will end up in Hell?
No, I am not saying that. I'm saying that Jesus clearly said: Blessed are the poor. Blessed are the hungry. Tell John how I've ministered to the poor. I have come to bring good news to the poor, over and over, Jesus talks about the poor and contextually, I think he means the physically, actual poor. Those with not much in the way of material stuff. The poor.
Similarly for the rich. When Jesus says, "WOE to you who are rich!" When James says, "Is it not the rich who abuse you?", when Mary says, "He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty," I think they are talking about the obvious, literal meanings of those words.
But to say, "blessed are the poor," or "Woe to you who are rich," is not to say, "Only the poor are going to heaven," or that the rich are doomed to hell.
Call me a simpleton, but when Jesus said, "blessed are the poor," I think he means that the poor are blessed. As one place defines it:
When a person or group is blessed, it is a sign of God’s grace upon them and perhaps even presence among them. To be blessed means that a person or people take part in God’s plans for the world and humanity.
Which is not to say that the rich can't get saved. But clearly, with all the woes and rants against the rich, it is something to take caution about.
What faith tradition do you belong to, if you don't mind my asking? I'm relatively sure that most faith groups (with the possible exception of some of the more charismatic, "name it and claim it" types) and most evangelicals do not treat these passages as if they mean something other than the obvious. I'm looking for some Billy Graham, James Dobson type's position on this to confirm that mine is not an unusual or unorthodox position.
Let me clarify something. Where you said:
I absolutely refuse to believe that God's blessings or condemnation of these people hinged on their bank accounts.
I don't think God's blessing or anger is wholly determined by one's economic status. Rather, I simply think that the poor ARE blessed. It does not mean they are perfect, more holy, more wholly, better or anything like that than the rich, just that they are blessed, they are part of God's plan and God is right there with them in a special way - according to the Bible's repeated testimony.
Certainly the poor can be naughty and the rich can be followers of God. I think the Bible is clear on that point. Still, we can't ignore 1,000 "woe to you rich" just because some rich are not in a bad spot. "Woes" and "blessings" are just general truisms, it seems is how the Bible is using repeatedly.
Dan:
I don't think God's blessing or anger is wholly determined by one's economic status.
"WHOLLY"? Am I supposed to find comfort in the fact that you think God's mercy or wrath is only partially determined by one's bank balance?
Funny, I thought the problem was neither poverty nor wealth, but sin.
I'm not saying that every reference to poverty in the Gospels or the New Testament or the entire Bible is a reference to spiritual poverty: I simply think it's clear that the beatitudes in Luke 6 so closely parallel the beatitudes in Matthew 5 that there's no problem spiritualizing the former when the latter is explicitly spiritual.
Indeed, there may even be an element of physical poverty referenced in Luke 6, but I believe that's an acknolwedgement either that physical poverty can help a person grasp his spiritual poverty, or that the Christian discipleship that results in reliance on Christ's spiritual riches can often result in physical hardship.
Our inheriting God's kingdom depends solely on our recognizing our spiritual poverty and trusting God for His free forgiveness. Our physical poverty can sometimes serve as a prelude to that faith or a result of that faith, but it is neither a necessary precondition or a universal result. Period.
Since you asked, I'm Southern Baptist, and I know of very few denominations or faith traditions that currently insist that God's blessing or wrath on a person is determined even partially on his material possessions.
That wasn't always the case: venal priests used to sell indulgences to the rich, creating a quite explicit industry in which giving one's wealth to the church supposedly resulted directly in blessings from God.
My Protestant forebears protested that practice for a reason.
And, if I may say so, I balk at the notion that you're just taking a plain interpretation of what Jesus said.
Call me a simpleton, but when Jesus said, "blessed are the poor," I think he means that the poor are blessed.
Well, Jesus also said that not one penstroke from Scripture would pass away until all are fulfilled, but that doesn't stop you from speculating that the Old Testament "clearly" contains scientific errors and endorses moral atrocities.
Jesus also said that God made us male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female), and you just don't think that He ever, ever said anything that would preclude homosexual relationships.
And, most incredibly, Jesus Christ said that He is the resurrection and the life, and He promised that He would die and be raised on the third day, but you have written that you think the belief in the physical and historical Resurrection is optional.
The only time you ever seem to approach Jesus' words in any simple-minded fashion is when doing so can bolster your Social Gospel progressivism.
Actually, Michael, I meant Zacchaeus the tax collector who entered the Kingdom. (Sorry I didn't check the spelling when I wrote that. It's not a name that I spell every day, and I assumed that everyone knew who I was talking about.)
(Sorry if you were confused.)
My point was that Jesus did not tell Zacchaeus to do anything with his money. The change came from within Zacchaeus.
He sought Jesus, and his giving to the poor was a result of his salvation, not a condition of it.
And the Bible does not say that "Zach", as you call him, quit his job. If he didn't, then the tax burden was eased for the people who paid their taxes in his district because 1)he stopped overcharging them, and 2) he gave them a refund.
(Another thing that is important to note is that Zacchaeus declared to Jesus that he would be able to pay back anyone he ahd cheated four fold, out of half his money. If he was being honest with Jesus, then an honest tax collector must still have been a VERY lucrative occupation.)
Dan, I am glad that we agree.
I'm just having a little trouble understanding what draw the Democrat Party, or the new President, has for you if you really hold the beliefs you say about issues like these.
It just seems to me that you would have trouble getting excited about the things they are proposing.
Tugboatcapn, you misunderstand. No, Jesus did not order Zacheaus to give away his money as he did others. But his offer to do so was the EVIDENCE that showed Jesus that "this day has salvation come to this house." Without that evidence, would Jesus have made the pronouncement.
You also draw the false conclusion that lower taxes are always good. Tax cheats and heavy taxes on those who can least afford it are terrible. Overly high taxes on small businesses can have a negative affect.
But taxes are necessary. They build roads, schools, pay police and fire, etc. If progressive, rather than regressive, and used for good purposes, taxes CAN be a good thing. And some tax increases can be a good thing. But how Christians deal with our money is a separate issue.
Oh, by the way, it is not the "Democrat Party," but the Democratic Party. That's a taunt invented by Nixon. Stop it. Or do you want the GOP to be called the "Republic Party."
Tuggy, let me be clear. There is a huge difference - all the difference in the world - between me coveting something someone else has, and taxation. The former is a vice, indeed a sin. The latter is the way the state collects money to perform its lawful duties. Who decides what is too much money to make, you ask? Why, we do through our legislative representatives! Back when the income tax was first passed, there was a confiscatory tax on all incomes over $1 million, and it was aimed at one person, John D. Rockefeller. Similarly, the inheritance tax was designed to keep the dangers of the creation of aristocracy from our republican land.
You confuse the two either because you don't know the difference, or don't care about the difference. Or both.
If nine people decided to rob one person, I fail to see the moral difference between their using pitchforks and torches, and their using the mechanism of majority rule to pass laws and elect representatives to do the work for them. There is the appearance of moral propriety, in that it is cops with badges rather than a literal mob who would, if push comes to shove, use violent force to separate the man from his property. But is the appearance real or only superficial?
As economist Walter E. Williams asks, "does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral?"
He doesn't think so: "I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another."
Neither do I. Geoffrey apparently disagrees.
I'm guessing that if you ask Geoffrey whether he opposes slavery, he would say that he would in the strongest possible terms, that he would certainly not participate in the degrading economic system and that he even opposes its legal sanction in any form.
I'm guessing that if you ask him whether he believes that the majority has the right to impose its will on the minority through representative government, he would say no. He would tell us that minority groups have rights that ought never to be infringed upon by the majority and that our government is structured to prevent such outrages. I wonder which rights he would invoke as examples -- probably things like the right never to hear a prayer on public property, which (unlike property rights) the Founding Fathers never verbalized -- but I strongly suspect that he thinks that he's on the side of angels when it comes to defending the rights of the few against the whims of the many.
And yet, he believes that it is moral for the majority to use political mechanisms to force the minority to serve their purposes, by seizing their property at what Geoffrey admits is a confiscatory rate.
And, still, he has the audacity to suggest that it is others who are ignorant, indifferent, and confused.
Tug said:
My point was that Jesus did not tell Zacchaeus to do anything with his money. The change came from within Zacchaeus.
He sought Jesus, and his giving to the poor was a result of his salvation, not a condition of it.
Along those lines, Bubba said:
Our inheriting God's kingdom depends solely on our recognizing our spiritual poverty and trusting God for His free forgiveness.
For the record, I - and I believe all the other so-called "liberal" christians commenting here - believe that we are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus. It depends upon God's grace, wholly, and our acceptance of that grace (I think most here believe that we are free to reject that grace). Zaccheus was saved by grace. I am saved by grace. All who are saved, are saved by the grace of God.
I think sometimes, some would see me quoting Jesus saying, "Woe to you who are rich," or, "it is difficult for a rich man to enter heaven..." and think I'm talking about some kind of works salvation. I have not said, nor do I believe that.
Rather, as I feel like I have said ad nauseum, I think those verses are in there REPEATEDLY because Jesus MEANT "blessed are the poor." Because Jesus MEANT "Woe to you who are rich," because Mary MEANT, "you have sent the rich away empty handed..." etc. I don't think these are allegories or mean "the spiritually rich" or anything else. These verses are not, it seems to me, the time to go all nonliteral. There ARE plenty of passages that we ought not take literally, but these aren't among them. And why? Because the text and context does not support a figurative interpretation.
But, just because we read literally, "it is difficult for the rich to enter heaven," or "it is the rich who are oppressing you," or "blessed are the poor," etc, this is not the same as saying, "It is only the poor who are saved and they are saved by their poverty." Or, "the rich are doomed because they are rich." I don't think the greater text and context of the Bible support that idea, either, and I am certainly not interpreting it that way.
I am just saying, giving the context, the clarity, the strength of language and the frequency of language, we can't ignore that financial and economic issues weigh extremely heavily in biblical text and in Christian thinking. God IS especially concerned about the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the outcast, you can't hardly avoid coming to that conclusion if you read the Bible. It's there repeatedly.
As are warnings about the trappings of wealth and power.
None of which is to say that the poor are saved by their poverty or that the rich are damned by their wealth.
Bubba said:
And yet, he believes that it is moral for the majority to use political mechanisms to force the minority to serve their purposes, by seizing their property at what Geoffrey admits is a confiscatory rate.
Let's not make assumptions, please. I am relatively sure that Geoffrey - and I know that I - believe that taxes can absolutely be unfair and morally wrong. There is certainly some level at which taxation would reach an unbearable level. I don't know of anyone who would disagree.
That is, if you asked, "Do you think it moral to tax those who make less than $10,000/year at 50% of their income?" Most people would agree that such is immoral. Probably most people would agree even if you change that to "Do you think it moral to tax those who make more than $100 million/year at 50%?" although, that really is a different set of circumstances.
I would think taxing that much would be wrong at that income level, but not nearly as wrong as it would be at the poverty level. The problem, it seems to me, is there is no clear cut off point. That is, it's not written down anywhere or "provable" in any way that taxing those who make $100 million at 25% is okay, but at 50% is morally wrong. I think most of us can see that it is clearly wrong to tax the $10k/year person 50%, but then, what rate IS acceptable?
There is no clear, objective answer. We have to muddle through it the best we can.
One other quick thing, Dan.
It's still not clear whether you oppose "living wage" laws, but I think your response to my comment about Geoffrey's position on taxation, justifies a healthy skepticism to your stated belief in economic liberty:
You've that you don't think "anyone has the right to tell others how to spend their money or live their lives" beyond concerns for natural law.
Geoffrey here writes that through our legislatures we can (and apparently should) decide "what is too much money to make," and he writes approvingly of what he describes as "confiscatory" taxes to seize all income over a certain amount, and to tax an inheritance that has already been taxed, not simply to fund new projects but to prevent aristocracies.
You say that you believe no one has the right to tell others how to live their lives, but you didn't criticize Geoffrey for his clear willingness to support confiscatory taxes to limit incomes because we should decide "what is too much money to make."
Instead, you warned me about jumping to conclusions because Geoffrey might think that the state should permit us to keep some of our money after all.
If you really do support individual economic freedom, limited only by a classical conception of natural law, then there ought to be a great chasm between your beliefs and Geoffrey's statism, and I would think that we would see evidence of that chasm with your polite but firm disagreement with the idea that the government has any business at all deciding how much income is too much.
In the absence of that evidence, I think people should be skeptical about your stated faith in economic liberty and limited government.
To put it most succinctly, I don't think anyone's irrational to think you're full of it when you claim to support economic freedom.
As is often the case, there are more comments than I have time to address. I've started replies to some earlier ones, but set them aside to deal with a few points from the most recent comments... Time is what it is.
Bubba said:
Taxing the wealthy at a higher rate simply because they can afford it is NOT consistent with equality under the law.
I don't know that anyone is advocating taxing the rich more simply because they can afford more. I haven't advocated such.
I advocate a progressive tax (ie, taxing the rich at a higher rate) simply because it is a matter of justice. It makes sense that "to whom much has been given, much is expected." It strikes many of us as profoundly Christian and profoundly American to think that those who have the most stuff have benefitted the most from this system and therefore naturally ought to pay the most, in form of a higher percentage.
It's a matter of justice, not simply because they can afford more.
Bubba refers to Geoffrey's comments, saying:
It seems to me that what Geoffrey wrote supports the idea that he believes "confiscatory" taxation (his word) is moral when it's enacted through democratic means...
What Geoffrey actually said:
The latter is the way the state collects money to perform its lawful duties. Who decides what is too much money to make, you ask? Why, we do through our legislative representatives! Back when the income tax was first passed, there was a confiscatory tax on all incomes over $1 million, and it was aimed at one person, John D. Rockefeller. Similarly, the inheritance tax was designed to keep the dangers of the creation of aristocracy from our republican land.
In reading Geoffrey's words, I do not see that he is advocating confiscatory taxation as moral, as long as it's democratically enacted. Maybe he is, but I don't see that in those words.
What I hear Geoffrey saying is a rebuke of the conflation of "taxation" with "envy" (and I would add "thievery"). They are separate issues and yet many like Tug make the charge all the time (Y'all are wanting to tax the rich because you're envious of their stuff and you want it. It's thievery!).
At any rate, that's what I hear Geoffrey saying. I won't speak for him, he can clarify if he wishes.
IF he supports confiscatory taxation (ie, saying you can make $1 million a year and anything beyond that will be taxed), I would disagree. Although I'm sympathetic to the notion - what in the world can anyone do with over $1 million a year?? Mostly get in trouble with it, it would seem to me - nonetheless, I don't think that fits with our societal values and I would oppose it.
Bubba wrote:
If that's true, then you misspoke when you wrote that you don't believe God's blessing or wrath is "wholly determined by one's economic status." That adverb "wholly" implies that it is at least partially determined by one's wealth.
What I mean is that I think Jesus literally means that the poor - the financially, materially poor - are blessed, by fact of their poverty. God is working beside and with them in a very real way. On the wealthy side of things, that's where I'd hesitate to say that the Bible teaches God's blessing or wrath is upon the wealthy merely because of their wealth. So, when I said, "wholly," I was allowing that I DO think, biblically speaking, the poor are in a blessed state because of their poverty. I'm not making the equivalent argument about the wealthy.
Bubba said:
To put it most succinctly, I don't think anyone's irrational to think you're full of it when you claim to support economic freedom.
I suspect it's the case that you hold false impressions of what my position is. Whether it's irrational to suspect that I believe something other than what I've said, I don't know. I think it has to do with communication styles and POVs.
I don't tend to have any problem understanding Geoffrey or other, more Leftish folk who visit here, nor they me. Nor do I tend to have any problems (some, but not too many) understanding the more Rightish who come here - since I once held most if not all of their positions, I understand pretty well where they're coming from.
But it seems (at least around here) that the Rightish seem to not get what we're saying, as often as not. When I say, I believe Jesus meant literally, "Blessed are the poor," I don't MEAN, "The poor are saved by their poverty," and yet that seems to be what you on the Right are hearing. I suspect that you all tend to read more into what is said, rather than just going with what was actually said.
Of course it happens in the other direction, too. You can frequently hear folk say, "Conservatives just hate the poor," or "They hate gay folk..." when they don't actually. It's just that I don't see that around here - this blog - that much.
Bubba said:
Since you asked, I'm Southern Baptist, and I know of very few denominations or faith traditions that currently insist that God's blessing or wrath on a person is determined even partially on his material possessions.
I asked because of your suggestion that "blessed are the poor," "woe to you who are rich," "is it not the rich who oppress you?" "The rich you have sent away empty," etc, etc, etc means something other than their literal interpretation would suggest.
I don't believe that S. Baptists (and I was raised such and am WELL familiar with the breed) believe those passages are anything but literal. S Baptists DO tend to ignore those passages and not preach from these texts and when they do, often spiritualize the meaning away. But, if pressed on it, I don't believe most S Baptist theologians or lay people would suggest that these passages aren't literally referring to the rich and poor. In my experience.
Here is one very helpful source of Southern Bapist views on poverty. The source is "merely" a Southern Baptist Seminary blog compilation, but it's still interesting.
At one point, the author lists a brief but fairly exhaustive listing of biblical teachings on poverty, in which he paraphrases/shortens...
In Zion the poor will be satisfied. (Psalm 132:5) King David calls himself poor. (1 Samuel 18:23, Psalm 86:1, 109:22) When Nathan confronts David’s sin, he uses a parable in which the victim is a poor man. (2 Samuel 12:1-4) The deliverance of the Jews through Esther is celebrated by gifts to the poor. (Esther 9:22) Ethical treatment of the poor is a theme in the book of Job. (Job 20:19, 24:4-14, 31:16) Job defends himself based on his kindness to the needy. (Job 29:16, 30:25, 31:19)
The Lord will defend the poor and satisfy their hopes. (Psalm 9:18, 12:5, 14:6, 34:6, 35:10, 40:17, 109:16) He hears and provides for the needy. (Psalm 68:10, 69:33, 72:13) He maintains their cause. (Psalm 109:31, 140:12) The wicked are characterized for their oppression of the poor. (Psalm 10:2-9, 37:14, Proverbs 28:15) But the Lord will show favor to those who consider the poor. (Psalm 41:1) Kings are commendable when they give justice to the poor. (Psalm 72:2, 4, 12, 19, 21, 29:14) The righteous gives to the poor and understand the poor have rights too. (Psalm 112:9, 29:7)...
those who are generous to them will be blessed. (Proverbs 14:21, 19:17, 22:9, 28:8, 28:27) To insult a poor man is to insult God. (Proverbs 14:31, 17:5) And God will ignore those who ignore the poor. (Proverbs 21:13) The Lord will plead their cause. (Proverbs 22:22) And save the needy from injustice. (Job 5:15-16) Gaining wealth by oppressing the poor will lead to one’s own poverty. (Proverbs 22:16)...
Jesus was homeless during his ministry. (Matthew 8:20) The kingdom of Heaven belongs to the poor. (Luke 6:20) Jesus’ preaching good news to the poor was evidence he was the Christ. (Matthew 11:5, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22) He used poor characters as righteous examples in his teaching. (Luke 16:19-22)...
God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith. (James 2:5) And the rich were associated with persecution of believers. (James 2:6) True religion is caring for the needy. (James 1:27) No one can say they have God’s love if they do not give to a brother in need. (1 John 3:17) Neglecting the poor is proof that one’s faith is false. (James 2:14-17) Those who are rich must be generous and ready to share. (1 Timothy 6:18, Hebrews 13:16)
This survey has shown God’s concern for the poor. He commands his people to act.
Impressive.
Dan, if you insist that Luke 6 requires a literal interpretation, I would you ask you AGAIN to tell me how you interpret the second half of its beatitudes -- the reward in addition to the recepient.
Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied...
You believe this is a reference to the physically hungry. Do you believe that the physically hungry will be physically satisfied?
If you do, when? Since people all over the world are still going hungry almost two thousand years after Jesus pronounced this blessing, I would think that the literal millions who have died hungry over the centuries have been gypped.
If you think that they're being spiritually satisfied, you raise the question, why is it a problem to spiritualize the first half of the verse but not the last half?
I would appreciate your answering my request for how you interpret the rest of the verse.
Now, I apologize for not seeing the nuances of your argument. I thought you supported so-called progressive taxation because the rich can afford it, but you have made clear that your reasoning is a quite perverted sense of justice.
I advocate a progressive tax (ie, taxing the rich at a higher rate) simply because it is a matter of justice. It makes sense that "to whom much has been given, much is expected." It strikes many of us as profoundly Christian and profoundly American to think that those who have the most stuff have benefitted the most from this system and therefore naturally ought to pay the most, in form of a higher percentage.
Even with a flat rate of income tax or sales tax, the rich would pay more. A 20% income tax on someone making a million dollars would result in his paying $200 K. The same tax on someone making $40 K would be $8,000.
$200,000.00 > $8,000.00
200 > 8
The idea that justice demands that the rich should pay even more, above and beyond a flat rate, is absurd.
You invoke Luke 12, "to whom much has been given, much is expected," but that passage is about one's relationship with God Almighty, not the state, and you would do quite well to quit confusing the two.
Even assuming that justice requires that the individual pay for the state services from which he benefits, I think it's hard to argue that the wealthy benefit disproportionately from those services that are rendered by a sane and civil state for all of its people. African warlords, South American druglords, and Hollywood superstars all thrive regardless of the sanity and morality of the regime in which they live: they have their own security forces and often even their own airstrips. But compare the very poor in the United States with the poor in third-world basketcases, and it is easy to see the difference. While the rich everywhere enjoy the good life, it is only the poor in free and civil societies that enjoy most or all of the good things that a state can provide, from reliable utilities, to markets with a great variety and reliable source of high-quality, low-price goods; from reasonably enforceable laws prohibiting fraud, theft, and assault, to a relatively fair police force and judicial system that enforces those laws.
But I don't make the assumption that justice requires that the individual pay the state for all the inumerable, incalcuable benefits he accrued from the state.
I believe justice requires that the state treat all people equally.
Justice entails equal protection under the law.
"You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor." - Leviticus 19:15
Pariality to the rich or the poor is described as unjust.
Bubba asked:
You believe this is a reference to the physically hungry. Do you believe that the physically hungry will be physically satisfied?
Yes. In the kingdom of God. Now, ideally, the kingdom of God will satisfy the physically hungry here. Now. But sometimes we (the citizens of that beloved realm) don't/can't come through. So, I think textually, there is a hint in some of these type of verses of the kingdom of God, by and by.
But yes, I think it means physically, literally satisfied.
Bubba said:
The idea that justice demands that the rich should pay even more, above and beyond a flat rate, is absurd.
Says you. I, and I believe most people, think progressive taxation is the most just method available. Not that "most people" determines what's right, but in this case, I believe most would be right.
I don't know that there's any way to "prove" which method of taxation - progressive or flat - is most just. I think it is fairly easy to prove which is most equal - a flat rate would be the most equal. Or, as I believe you have noted, a system where each household pays the exact same amount (a flat $1,000 a household, for instance) - those would both probably be more "equal."
But equality is not the same as justice.
If a teacher is giving a test and one of her students was blind, as a matter of equality, that student would be handed the same piece of paper with the test questions written upon it. But that would not be just or fair. A JUST teacher would give the sighted students the written test, but would make an exception for the blind student and give them an oral test.
I think clearly a progressive tax rate is the most just, far and away - I don't think it's even a contest.
I suppose we'll have to disagree on that point.
I'm not sure I follow your interpretation of Luke 6, Dan. Are you saying that, while some of the physically poor will be physically fed here and now, all will be physically fed "by and by" either in Heaven after death or on the new earth after Christ's return?
If so, aren't you saying that all poor people will be saved? I thought you weren't saying that at all.
And aren't you affirming a physical resurrection? I thought you didn't "insist" on a literal interpretation of Christ's resurrection, which is kind of an important precondition for our having resurrection bodies.
About justice, if ours were a disagreement with no way to ascertain the truth and no real consequences, I would gladly agree to disagree.
But it's not.
Instead, the Bible teaches that partiality to the rich or the poor is unjust: what you call justice, the Bible clearly repudiates as injustice.
And the outcome of this basic disagreement of what is just, affects everyone whose wealth is taxed as a result.
Since the Bible is clear that justice entials impartiality, I think you have a moral obligation to your fellow Christians to justify your dissenting view.
And, since your views on taxation wouldn't just effect your own pocketbook but the bank accounts of everyone else, I think you have a moral obligation to your fellow citizens to explain why the rich should pay more than a proportional amount of the wealth they earned legally and ethically.
If you think the so-called progressive taxation you support is "far and away" the most just, it seems to me that you ought to have very good reasons for saying so.
Bubba asked:
while some of the physically poor will be physically fed here and now, all will be physically fed "by and by" either in Heaven after death or on the new earth after Christ's return?
If so, aren't you saying that all poor people will be saved? I thought you weren't saying that at all.
This would be an example of one of those biblical verses that seem to imply that, if taken by itself.
Sort of similar to the passage where Jesus is asked, "What must I do to be saved?" and he answers "Sell all you have and follow me." By itself, that's what it's saying. I don't think though, that the whole of the Biblical testimony suggests that the rich young man would have been saved by selling all he had and following Jesus, but by God's grace, through faith in Jesus.
There are passages that by themselves sometimes give incomplete answers. Still, I believe this passage is talking quite literally about the poor. It's the only thing that makes sense in context.
And aren't you affirming a physical resurrection? I thought you didn't "insist" on a literal interpretation of Christ's resurrection, which is kind of an important precondition for our having resurrection bodies.
What can I say? I believe in Jesus' resurrection and I believe in the Kingdom of God both here and later, ie, I believe in OUR resurrection. Your reference to my point merely states that my faith in Jesus would not be shaken by some hypothetical disproval of his resurrection, it's not meant to say that I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection.
Bubba said:
Instead, the Bible teaches that partiality to the rich or the poor is unjust: what you call justice, the Bible clearly repudiates as injustice...
Since the Bible is clear that justice entails impartiality
Bubba, understand this: YOU THINK the Bible's position is that impartiality means one can't tax progressively. I DON'T agree.
It is your opinion. I agree wholeheartedly that the Bible teaches being impartial towards both rich and poor. BUT, the Bible also teaches repeatedly God's special concern for the poor and how we ought to be especially vigilant not to oppress the poor.
We have to weigh the two concepts together and find some balance. The purpose and context, it seems clear to me (you may disagree) of the "be impartial" passage in Leviticus is that the rich were getting special privileges, getting away with stuff.
That verse was intended to balance that out by saying, "HEY! Be fair to the poor, too." In that society, the rich were also treated equally. But sometimes the rich were/are treated more equally than others, to paraphrase Brother Larry.
Regardless, it's important for us to understand the difference between WHAT WE THINK a Bible verse implies and what it actually says. That passage says nothing about progressive taxation.
It's your opinion that progressive taxation is not just. It's my opinion that it is. Neither of us have the Bible on our side saying, "Dan's right." Rather, we both have passages that lead us to believe what is right.
The Bible CLEARLY does NOT "clearly repudiate" the progressive taxation position.
I will ask again, Dan, that you check the other thread for comments waiting for approval. I'm about done with this thread, and I don't want to interrupt further.
I do think the Bible clearly repudiates, not progressive taxation, but partiality under the law. If you honestly think that taxing the wealthy a higher percentage is consistent with impartiality, I doubt I can help you understand how you're wrong.
I do wonder, though, if you would be able to give a precise and reasonable definition of terms like justice, fairness, and impartiality and then see if, after the fact, your political positions line up. It seems more likely to me that you assume your positions are just and fair, etc., then strain to find whatever arguments you can to justify your use of the term.
It's not the case that, even by itself, the encounter with the rich young ruler implies salvation by works: in all three scriptural accounts, Jesus affirms the universal depravity of man (only God is good) and the universal need for salvation (only God can save).
I would say again that Luke 6 must be seen in light of Matthew 5 to be fully understood, but if you think that Luke 6 entails a belief in our bodily resurrection, then I don't see how you can believe that the belief in Christ's bodily resurrection is optional.
I understand you believe that Christ was bodily and historically raised from the dead.
But you seemed to write that you believe the belief isn't strictly necessary for Christian faith, that your faith in Jesus wouldn't be shaken if the Resurrection was proven to be fraudulent.
That is, I repeat, the most troubling thing I've seen you written, and I would like to return to that subject in our other discussion, after addressing a question or two about marriage.
Bubba and Dan are having an interesting conversation parsing what I may or may not have meant. Let me take a moment to clarify. I do not believe there is some prior rule we the people through our elected representatives should follow in deciding anything. How could there be? What is a proper level of taxation? The legislature decides. If it becomes burdensome to commerce and savings, it should be changed. Beyond that, it seems to me that we who live in a republican form of government are limited only by what our elected representatives decide.
Let me back up a couple moments and repeat for Bubba, in reference to his analogy of being robbed by 9 people that taxation is only theft if you believe that all governments throughout history have been illegitimate. Bubba, do you drive on the interstate highway system? Do you support the military? Do you have a sewer system at your house? Send your kids to public schools? Walk down the sidewalks of your local business district? Enjoy the safety provided by local, county, state, and federal police?
Then I suggest you rethink your position on taxation as theft, dude. Paying taxes isn't fun, but it is necessary. Even in the darkest days of the Bush Administration, when I knew my taxes were going to pay for torturer's salaries, Alberto Gonzalez' salary, all the rest, I still felt a surge of patriotism knowing I was contributing to the commonwealth through paying taxes.
Now, if you, Bubba, wish to live in a country where there are exigent limits to what legislators can and cannot do based not on legal or constitutional standards but some perception of immutable natural law, you are free to do so. That isn't the United States, nor has it ever been.
I shall repeat myself, because Bubba apparently wants me to say things I have not said. The proper level of taxation is not something anyone can arrive at through some prior formula and then enact. We can listen to various economists for their positions, but should the legislature not heed them and highly confiscatory taxation be enacted as law - that's the law, and no court in the land would say, "You know, not paying these tax rates is OK because it violates natural law!"
As for the slavery business - nice try, dude, but there is a world of difference between taxation and the commodification of human beings. I would also add that I oppose slavery even while conceding that any appeal I would make against its legal existence would not be connected to any universally accepted norm. Some folks still believe it is OK to own other human beings, and back it up with arguments from everything from the Bible and the Quran to arguments from Aristotle and other philosophers. Others, citing these and other sources, argue the opposite position. Who's right? There is no presiding judge to decide, and I wouldn't presume that my position is universally correct.
If Congress decided to enslave a population, I would fight against it. I would protest it. I would risk prison and worse. I wouldn't pretend, however, that my protest was rooted in some universal law, natural, Divine, or otherwise.
I suppose this is going right over your flat head, Bubba. If Congress made slavery the law of the land again, it would be the law whether I liked it or not. If opposing slavery were made illegal, I would go to jail quite happily, but I would still be breaking the law. Like paying taxes, if you think taxation is theft, don't pay your taxes. Don't think that you can argue your way out of a fine and prison term by an appeal to natural law or anything else, however, because the law is still the law.
What any of this has to do with the Bible and economics, I'm really not sure.
Let me be clear, Geoffrey, that I do not think that taxation in all its forms is theft. My comparison to nine people deciding to rob the tenth, was to criticize your apparent position that an act is moral simply because it results from the mechanisms of self-government.
It seems that I may have misunderstood your position, but that was the point of the comparison.
I do believe that some levels of taxation are inherently immoral. If the government taxed a person at 100% of his income and then provided for his basic needs through government programs, then the difference between taxation and slavery dwindles to mere semantics. But I also believe some levels of taxation are moral and necessary, and the clearest example is those that are used to fund public projects that benefit everyone: roads, dams, a police force, and an army.
Again, I do not believe that all taxation is theft: I just believe that some forms of taxation are morally equivalent to theft, and that theft doesn't become moral just because it is made legal through democratic means.
For the record, it is worth noting that I never said that taxation is theft, so you have little room to accuse me of wanting you to say things you did not said.
And, it is also worth noting that I didn't stoop to personal comments. The "flat head" comment should be beneath you, dude.
I never said an act was moral if a legislature enacted a law concerning it. I said it was a law. That's all.
In general, I think it is far better, from a social point of view, to require those more able to do so, to pay both a larger share and a larger overall amount in taxes. Why not? Their successes are due in no small part to the protection provided by the country in which they live; if some through a combination of smarts, luck, skill, and those laws manage to make a lot of money, it seems to me no small stretch to say the state can require them to pay a little extra.
Bubba, you seem to be confusing all sorts of things here - taxes and economics, laws and morality, the Bible and whatever - and confusing me, in particular. The thing is, what is wrong with a state that some call Christian acting in accordance with Biblical principles, pooling their resources to care for the poor, the hungry, those afflicted and lost?
It seems to me that's the question before us. I don't have a problem with it. I don't think Dan does, either, judging from his remarks. The only one arguing the opposite point of view is you. What do you have against the Bible and the early Church?
What do you folks think of the idea that all the "stuff" that is, is God's stuff?
It's not my stuff or your stuff, but rather God's stuff to use for work and pleasure and the benefit of all creation.
I'm using it right now, but if you need it...who am I to keep it from you? I don't want you to hurt because you don't have what I have in abundance. If my family needs some stuff, would you share with me?
Usually governments are designed to redistribute stuff among their citizens for the benefit of society and the arguments are usually about various interpretations of what's best for society, right? But isn't it still God's stuff being moved around in the effort to better society?
I saw a kid's worksheet from school that suggested that "generally speaking" conservatives were more interested in "freedom" and liberals were more interested in "fairness."
The suggestion was that conservatives would prefer the freedom to choose how they individually would spend their money to make the world a better place and that liberals would prefer that our systems were designed to ensure that nothing prevented anybody from being able to participate in a better world.
I don't know. If it's all God's money that government or you and I use in our expressions of freedom and/or fairness what is their to be so worked up about?
If we need taxes to help people have jobs, it seems we're using God's stuff in a good way. Why would we squander it on ourselves? What we do with God's stuff would seem to point to how seriously we take the commands/teachings of Jesus, right?
The spiritual side of the Sermon on the Mount is that we can/do participate in God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven when we work to use God's stuff for the benefit of others.
It seems to me the poor are/will be blessed because God's people are doing the right thing with God's stuff to the benefit/blessing of God's creation. That seems to be a clearer participation in God's kingdom than affirming a list of beliefs.
There are only two times in the Bible when Jesus draws an equals sign between Himself and the rest of us. The hungry, the naked, the homeless ... Whatever you do to the least of these, Jesus tells us, you do to him. And children ... when you welcome them, you welcome him.
To assume that all this talk of poverty is a metaphor for spirituality ignores the entire context of the Good News, preached *to* a bunch of peasants, made poor by the extreme taxes of Rome, *by* a poor peasant carpenter.
And it isn't just the New Testament. In story after story after story in the Bible we see God choosing nobodies: peasants, farmers, and even the lowest of the low, shepherds to do His work. The only possible conclusion one can draw from this, it seems to me, is that God loves us all equally, but He roots for the underdog.
Perhaps it's that dichotomy: God loves everyone, but God especially loves, looks out for, sides with the poor, that is disconcerting for some. But, if we have no problem believing that there is one God, but three representations of God - a bit of an odd image, to some - then surely we can acknowledge that the Bible does indeed speak of both situations: That God loves everyone AND that God has a special interest in the poor, specifically.
A difficult theological concept like the Trinity doesn't justify outright contradictions. The Trinity is the concept that God is three Persons in one Being, which is difficult to comprehend but still isn't contradictory, like (say) three Beings in one Being or three Persons in one Person.
Theological mysteries do not justify nonsense.
It's not clear that the way you put it, Dan, is an outright contradiction, but I don't think it's true that God especially loves and sides with the poor.
Again, consider Job, Mary and Martha.
I think a more credible way to put it would be, God provides more to the poor because they have more needs, but that's not right either. Because God provides everything to everyone.
(The comparison to a school teacher with one blind student fall apart, because, sure, the teacher meets the blind kid's special needs, but he didn't give everyone else sight. God did give sight to those who aren't physically blind, so it's not true to say that He provided more for the blind because the sighted could care for themselves. To the degree that they can "care for themselves," the sighted can because God gave them the tools they need.)
A more accurate saying would be that the rich are less likely to love God than the poor love Him, but that's a question about how we regard God, not how God regards us.
I grant that the Bible records a lot about how God cares for the poor, but I will reiterate why I think this is so.
It is to remind us of our moral obligations to charity, to make sure that God's church reaches out to meet the needs of others.
And, it is to make sure that God's church includes even the poor, not that His church should include them to the exclusion of the rich and influential.
I believe the Bible focuses on God's concern for the poor because it was easy to overlook that concern, to believe (as Job's friends did) that material want and difficulties is proof of God's disfavor.
It's the difference between what I believe...
"God loves all of us, even the poor and the marginalized."
...and what you apparently believe:
"God loves all of us, especially the poor and the marginalized."
The former is inclusive, the latter is divisive, practically goading the poor to proclaim to the wealthy, "God loves me more than He loves you."
Taking this logic to its ultimate conclusion, a person is not limited to believing that God loves the poor more than the rich.
He must also believe that -- since historically, some groups have oppressed and belittled others -- that God loves some races more than others, that God loves American blacks more than He loves American whites.
And, because of the centuries-old belief in patriarchy, God must love women more then He loves men.
This isn't something that the Bible supports. James, whose epistle you quote, didn't chastise the readers for esteeming the wrong group, rich instead of poor; he wrote that they shouldn't be respecters of persons at all, which is entirely consistent with Leviticus 19 and with the Bible's record that God loves both rich men like Job and poor men alike.
God loves us all, even the poor and marginalized. Not "especially" the poor and the marginalized.
That sort of thinking is not only unbiblical, I believe that -- to the degree it distorts the church's goal from inclusiveness to merely turning the tables -- it is wrong and immoral.
Okay. I disagree.
Yeah, we disagree. With little else for me to say, I'll probably bow out after just a few more thoughts.
It seems to me that saying God loves one group "especially" means that God loves that group more than other groups. The logic of the sentiment that God loves the poor and marginalized more than the rich and influential leads to the ultimate conclusion that God loves some races more than others, that God loves women more than men.
I'm white, male, and reasonably comfortable economically. It would be disgraceful for me to think that God loves me more than He loves, say, a poor black woman, but I don't think it's much of an improvement to think that He loves me less because of the color of my skin, the presence of testicles, or the balance of my bank account.
I believe that God literally and historically commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and I believe He literally and historically commanded the nation of ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation against its most wicked enemies. You think my beliefs in this regard are horrifying.
Well, you apparently think that God loves some people more than others on the basis of skin color and socioeconomic status.
(If you don't think that, please do clarify your position. Please explain how saying, for instance, that God loves the poor "especially" doesn't imply that He loves the poor more than the rich.)
I think your belief on this particular subject -- as I understand it -- is pretty grotesque, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on both counts.
I not only think that the belief that God plays favorites on the basis of race, sex, and wealth is wrong, it misses one of the big ideas of Christianity.
I believe that Christ taught that some of the first will be last, and vice versa, NOT because God reverses the world's way of judging people: it's not that, where the world esteems wealth, God esteems the lack of it. It's that God looks past these superficial things to the heart of people, to their faith. His criteria is orthogonal to the world's, not merely reversed.
Paul wrote, in Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
I give Paul the credit for intellectual consistency, so I take it he doesn't mean that there aren't moral obligations that are unique to different groups or that there are roles in history that are unique to particular groups. In Romans 11, Paul writes how salvation came through the Jews, that many rejected it and so the Gentiles were "grafted in," but ultimately after the full number of Gentiles have come in, all Israel will be saved. In Colossians 3 and 4, Paul writes how husbands and wives, and masters and slaves, have different responsiblities -- complementary, asymmetrical duties of sacrificial love.
But in Christ, these distinctions disappear.
You seem to say that God loves some races more than others, but there is no longer Jew nor Greek, for all are one in Christ.
You seem to say that God loves women more than men, but there is no longer male nor female, for all are one in Christ.
You seem to say that God loves the poor more than the rich, but there is neither freeman nor slave, for all are one in Christ.
Under the old covenant, Jewish men could be closer to the Holy of Holies than Jewish women or Gentiles.
I cannot emphasize enough my belief that the cross of Christ DID NOT reverse that distinction.
Instead, it eliminated that distinction. The curtain has been torn, and we are all free to come as close to God as we want.
God does not love you less, Dan, than a poor black woman in your congregation just because you're better off financially, white, and male.
With that thought, I hope you have a good evening.
Bubba, the entire Biblical witness - not just the Gospels, but the entire Hebrew corpus as well - is filled to the brim with the Divine confession of special concern for the poor, the widows and orphans, and the stranger in the land. Indeed, in Deuteronomy, Moses repeatedly invokes the Hebrew people's experience as slaves in Egypt as the reason for the call to special concern - "Because once you were slaves in Egypt" is an oft-repeated phrase; as is, "Once you were no people, now you are my people" which, it seems to me, shows that God does, indeed, favor some over others.
Whether or not covetousness is involved in creating the tax law is neither here nor there. Is murder involved in creating capital punishment? Is denial of God involved in the First Amendment? The issue, for me at any rate, is not whether or not some folks covet and try to make their own personal vice in to law; your argument, again and again, seems to swirl around the point without ever actually saying it outright. Them that has, has. Them that doesn't deserve whatever they get.
That's what I read, and I could be wrong. I see no mercy in your words. I read no compassion as your first instinctive reaction to the suffering around you.
Right now, and for a long time, the US has been the rich young ruler, called by Jesus to give away all we have to the poor, and then follow him. You either do it, or you walk away shaking your head like the rich young ruler.
Yeah, Bubba's position seems to work only by ignoring huge chunks of Scripture.
There are two strands in Scripture concerning wealth and possessions that are somewhat in tension. 1 strand sees possessions as a sign of God's blessing--derived from a theology of abundance. But even that strand is against hoarding and tells those so blessed to share.
The 2nd strand sees possessions as, at best, temptations to idolatry and, at worst, the result of deception or oppression. Most of Dan's quotes have come from this second strand, but he has also highlighted the sharing emphasis of the first strand.
There is no strand in Scripture which says wealth is an unqualified good and that the wealthy who refuse to share remain in God's favor.
I suggest that Bubba read Ron Sider's classic Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger .
I think it's interesting to note the language Jesus uses in Matthew 25 in the parable of the sheep and the goats.
When Jesus talks about separating the sheep from the goats he talks about the Son of Man gathering the nations and separating them. Perhaps that's just a metaphor to suggest that everybody is being gathered, but what about the alternative interpretation?
What if nations are being separated and not individuals? What if those who entered in the kingdom prepared were those nations who fed the hungry, gave something to drink to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked and cared for the sick and imprisoned?
Being a product of Western Civilization and Greek philosophical thought, I'm more inclined toward individualism - individual salvation, free will, and all that. But there are several verses like this that require me to use my interpretation to fill in the gaps of verses like this one (it says, "nations") or like when Paul announces to the Philippian jailer that if he believes in Jesus both he and his household will be saved (individualism would insert the caveat that each individual of the household would have to believe in Jesus - but that's not what it says...).
This alternative interpretation seems to suggest that nations/governments really should be caring for the marginalized right along with the church.
But even if they shouldn't be, democracy seems to be a marvelous vehicle for justice that was not available to Christians in the Roman Empire. If we have a responsibility to be good citizens, shouldn't our political and social concerns closely match the political and social concerns expressed by Jesus?
Thanks, Geoffrey, Michael, Roger.
In Bubba's defense, I will note that Bubba thinks he is hearing me say that I think God loves some people more than others. I don't believe that and I can understand the confusion - saying "God loves the poor especially" can sound a good bit like saying "God loves the poor more."
But I don't think there is any evidence to that end (although it may all be a matter of semantics, ultimately) in the Bible or elsewhere. To say, "God loves my church more than your church," or "...my family more than your family," is a disturbing sort of thought.
So, to clarify, I don't believe that and I don't hear anyone else here saying that. What all of us "Bible-hating liberals" (a joke, of course, of a caricature) are saying is that IF you take the bible seriously, you can't help but notice that over and over and over again, in biblical poetry, in biblical history, in prophetic writings, in Jesus' own words, in Paul and the other epistles, repeatedly and repeatedly, God expresses a special concern for the poor and marginalized that God does not express for the rich anywhere in the Bible.
Which is NOT to say that God loves the poor more than the rich, but rather it's just acknowledging and honoring repeated and disturbingly clear biblical teachings. The bible DOES say what it says and it says it repeatedly on this count.
I tend to think of it like parents with a disadvantaged child (or like my earlier teacher analogy): They may have a "normal" child and a child with some disabling condition. They wouldn't necessarily love the "normal" child any less, but they WILL love the exceptional child especially.
I don't find anything at all unusual or disturbing about that sort of love. Does that imagery and clarification help any, Bubba?
And I have a question for you: You DO recognize this repeated, strong, clear pattern in the Bible of expressing concern specifically for the poor and marginalized, don't you? Assuming you do, what do you do with that?
I think what you guys are misinterpreting is merely God's constant reminder to not forget the poor and unfortunate as that is a natural human tendency. In the animal world, the lesser of the species is the first to be attacked and often killed by their own. They get the scraps otherwise.
This same tendency runs in the human species as well. So it's natural to see these verses in that light, but not like it was a special reason for Christ's coming or that it should be our major concern as Christians, only one of them, but one that is too easily overlooked.
But in every single verse in the NT that touches on the subject of the poor, we are told indvidually to care fo them, but we are never told to force others to do so. In our form of government, to vote for the type of welfare you guys favor is to force others to do what is YOUR responsibility. By that I mean that each of us should, by ourselves, and on our own, consider helping the needy to be OUR responsibility---each of us should say to ourselves, "It is MY responsibility". This does not preclude our encouraging others to do as much as they can as well. But calling for higher taxe rates on the wealthy is not YOU helping the poor, it's you forcing SOMEONE ELSE to help the poor. That neither gets you any heavenly browie points, nor does it get any for the forced guy who has no such desire. Even worse, it assumes what you have no right to assume, that the wealthy aren't giving people to begin with. I insist that if you so passionately care for the poor, your first job is to increase your own wealth so that you can better provide. Which of you are doing so?
Marshall said:
But in every single verse in the NT that touches on the subject of the poor, we are told indvidually to care fo them, but we are never told to force others to do so.
Brother Marshall, wrap your mind around this: We agree. No one here is suggesting we OUGHT to force others to help the poor. You and I and everyone else is in agreement.
I have yet to take a gun and force anyone to help a poor person. Not once in my entire life have I done so.
Marshall also said:
In our form of government, to vote for the type of welfare you guys favor is to force others to do what is YOUR responsibility.
No, in our form of gov't, to vote for a policy (welfare, warfare, highway funding, etc) is to vote for those things you think are important.
If you think it is important to have a military that is larger than the rest of the world combined so we can sleep safe at night, you vote for more and more and more military money. (Even though the Bible tells Christians to trust in God for our defense, some Christians feel safer that way, trusting in God AND a gazillion dollars worth of chariots and horses.)
If you think it is more fiscally responsible to pay for education rather than pay to jail the uneducated who have gotten in trouble, then you vote for education.
If you think it preferable as a society to NOT have children dying on the street, then you might vote for funding for programs to prevent that.
There's nothing illegal or unsavory in a democratic republic for voting for your values. Even your Christian values. Many conservatives believe this (see gay marriage laws, for instance).
That's how our republic works. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.
So, Marshall, do your comments mean that you are opposed to voting for your Christian values? Does that mean you are opposed to banning gay marriage? I hope so, and that you have a consistent position.
One difference between most on the Left and Right, though, it seems to me, is that I don't have merely "religious" reasons for voting for social service assistance sorts of programs. I do so for fiscal responsibility reasons, as well. For pragmatic reasons, as well.
In fact, I don't think most religious Left types would vote for a policy merely because their faith system taught it. We tend to want to have other, civic-based reasons, too, before we'd vote to legislate our religious beliefs.
Although I'm fairly pacifistic because of my faith tradition, I would not vote to abolish all our military, because that extreme belief would be based on my religious beliefs alone.
Let me make one more thing clear... I generally prefer (not always, but often) public sector solutions over gov't solutions. I think the public can manage things better often times than the gov't because of bureaucratic tendencies in gov't.
And so, if churches and synagogues and private individuals and community groups wanted to pull together the resources to effectively deal with the 1 million homeless children in the US, I would love it. And you know what? SO WOULD THOSE GOV'T AGENCIES THAT DEAL WITH HOMELESSNESS. I can almost guarantee you that, to a social worker, they would all rejoice if the public sector stepped up and ended the problem of homeless children! EVEN THOUGH, it might mean that they would lose their jobs (I'm sure you could find a selfish idiot somewhere that might disagree, but then, selfish idiots don't tend to go into social work).
BUT, if the public sector is not dealing with homelessness, then I DO want gov't to step up and you know why? Because someone has to. It costs our society too much not to deal with it. We're paying one way or the other. We're either paying as a society for the ill-effect of, for instance, having one million homeless children or we're paying to deal with that problem. But it's more cost effective (not to mention, more moral) to deal with the problem proactively rather than reactively.
Geoffrey, it's simply not the case that I lack compassion for the poor.
(Here, you read into what I write a postion that you cannot possibly justify. I do wish Dan was half as concerned about making sure you don't draw unjustifiable conclusions about me, as he has been about my drawing such conclusions about you.)
I simply do not believe that meeting the needs of the poor is the primary responsibility of the state. The private sector -- particularly the Christian church and individual Christian families -- should reach out to help those in need as much as possible, and the government should serve a secondary and emergency role at the most.
The state's primary concern should be justice, not charity -- real justice, not the vague concept of social justice through which the left justifies its entire welfare-state agenda. Because I do not share your apparent contempt for the private sector, I can believe that charity is both an important duty of society and that it can (and should) be carried out through voluntary institutions that are not attached to the coercive beuracracy of the state.
Michael, you write, correctly, that Scripture does not assert that "wealth is an unqualified good and that the wealthy who refuse to share remain in God's favor."
But since I have never argued that, I don't see why you think the point is worth noting.
Roger, it doesn't seem to me that Jesus Christ expressed a great many "political" concerns, if any: His mission was spiritual and not political, focusing on saving of souls and changing hearts, not on an earthly revolution whose main goal would be to transform political institutions.
And, against the idea that salvation is collective rather than individual -- an idea at the heart of the wrong-headed and arguably heretical Social Gospel -- is Christ's direct teaching that His message would create enmity even within families.
Bubba said:
it's simply not the case that I lack compassion for the poor.
(Here, you read into what I write a position that you cannot possibly justify. I do wish Dan was half as concerned about making sure you don't draw unjustifiable conclusions about me
What Geoffrey had said:
your argument, again and again, seems to swirl around the point without ever actually saying it outright. Them that has, has. Them that doesn't deserve whatever they get.
That's what I read, and I could be wrong. I see no mercy in your words. I read no compassion as your first instinctive reaction to the suffering around you.
Geoffrey had indicated that is what he reads in your comments. He notes that he could be wrong, but that's what he's hearing. I'm okay with commentary like that, based on what people are saying.
I agree with you that I don't think what you've said has reached the point that suggests you lack compassion for the poor. But Geoffrey hasn't said that. He has said that from what he reads of your words, it sounds like (to him) that you think "that that doesn't deserve whatever they get," and, again, he notes he could be wrong.
That, to me, is gracious. It's not an accusation ("Bubba, you hate the poor!" "Dan, you support socialism!"), it is someone telling you how they come across to them, with the gracious note that he could be wrong. That's all I hope to hear from adults having conversations, a bit of grace and the chance to clarify and be heard.
You clarified and I'm sure Geoffrey has heard.
Dan,
Of course I vote according to Christian values (not MY Christian values, but CHRISTIAN values). That is why I support DOMA, for example. But more importantly, if people understand and follow Christian values, fewer laws would be required because people would be living better, more Christian lives. I believe that to do so would result in far less of that which plagues society, including homelessness.
Marshall,
1)Unless you were a member of Congress in '96, you did NOT "vote for DOMA" (the "Defense of Marriage Act") because that was not submitted to the people. It was a federal bill run through Congress on party-line vote. You may, however, have voted for people who voted for that discriminatory law or voted for one of the many state laws or changes in state constitutions which mirrored or reinforced DOMA.
2. As a Christian, I find offensive the notion that DOMA ACCURATELY reflects anything that might be called "Christian values." It is misnamed, doing nothing to "defend" marriage--addressing none of the many causes, for instance, that lead to the 50% divorce rate (higher in areas with more churchgoing)--a divorce rate which is FAR higher than in more secular Europe. All DOMA does is discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans by making their marriages illegal--even if churches like mine recognize or celebrate same-sex marriages.
3. Secular government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.
Michael, I have really no idea why you put the phrase "vote for DOMA" in quotes, since Marshall didn't use the phrase.
Marshall didn't say he voted directly for the federal bill. All he said is, "I support DOMA," which is not an act beyond the means of the typical private citizen.
If you're going to nitpick, you should be more careful in reading what people actually write. I suspect that you only skimmed what Marshall wrote, because you were too eager to portray him as ignorant of the details of our political process, to care to read for your own comprehension.
And, while I'm on the subject of sloppy thinking, I don't believe you should be so quick to condemn the United States for having a higher divorce rate than secular and sophisticated Europe.
The reason that the continent's divorce rate hasn't climbed any further is NOT that they esteem the insitution of marriage higher than we do: they're abandoning the institution altogether, far faster than we are. It's hard to get a divorce when you never get married in the first place.
Personally, I don't think retaining the traditional definition of marriage is a sufficient response to the decline of marriage: we should also support the abolition of "no-fault" divorces, at a bare minimum.
But because support of the traditional definition of marriage alone is insufficient to turn back the tide against the institution's destruction, it hardly means that it's unnecessary.
Where marriage has been radically redefined for more than a decade -- such as in Scandinavia -- the institution is far, far worse shape.
About the lack of Christian values in defending the traditional definition of marriage, I wonder if you're too busy berating your political opponents for imaginary offenses, to have read and studied the Bible.
Have you not read that He who made them in the beginning, made them male and female? And for this reason, a man -- male -- shall leave his mother and father and become one flesh with his female wife?
The Bible clearly teaches that God's will is for marriage to be a heterosexual institution, husband and wife, male and female, and Christ Himself ties this reality to our being created male and female.
There is nothing in Christian scripture or theology that requires our opposition to discrimination to result in making even the bedrock institution of society androgynous.
Finally, I personally believe that the state has a valid interest using voluntary marriage licenses to encourage the best real-world arrangement for the rearing of the children who will quickly become the country's next generation of adults: a stable household in which the child is raised by her mother and father.
If you don't think a secular state has any business in marriage, that's your opinion, of course, but you shouldn't then try to act as if you care about the condition of the institution.
Been busy, not much time for comments right now, although I will address this...
Bubba said (about Michael):
I wonder if you're too busy berating your political opponents for imaginary offenses, to have read and studied the Bible.
Bubba, of course you don't know Michael, but I do. You'd be hard pressed to find just about ANYone who has read the Bible more, or more indepth, or with greater attention to the context and original languages, etc, than Michael.
Oh, I'm sure there ARE other people out there more familiar with the Bible than Michael, I'm just saying that the average person probably doesn't have anyone in their circle of friends more well-informed than Michael on the topic of the Bible and its contents.
Now you know.
And yet, for all his studies into the Bible, Michael finds "offensive" the idea that laws protecting the traditional definition -- and the biblical form -- of marriage are a reflection of "anything that might be called 'Christian values.'"
I understand that Michael considers himself a biblical scholar. My comment was probably a more sarcastic response than strictly necessary, but it certainly wasn't beyond what his own snark deserved.
I'm not sure what good all that studying has done, if he gets such a simple question of the Bible's contents so spectacularly wrong. I understand that, because of his far-left political positions, he opposes the traditional definition of marriage, but just because it would be convenient for Michael if Christian teaching agreed with him, that doesn't make it so.
Dan, back on the subject of the Bible and economics, I would like to reiterate that I still don't know what you mean when you say that, God loves the poor "especially."
If that doesn't mean that God loves the poor "more" than the rich, what does it mean?
On second thought, I've spent (more than) enough time in our two conversations, Dan. If you can and would explain what you mean by the claim that God "especially" loves the poor, I'd appreciate it. I'll try to keep an eye out for your response.
I think I've said pretty much all I need to and, particularly in this thread, more than I originally intended.
I do find Michael's position on the lack of Christian values in the defense of biblical marriage to be absurd, but I apologize for responding to his snark with snark of my own.
A concluding comment about how we interpret Scripture differently will be posted shortly in the other thread.
Bubba said:
I'm not sure what good all that studying has done, if he gets such a simple question of the Bible's contents so spectacularly wrong. I understand that, because of his far-left political positions, he opposes the traditional definition of marriage, but just because it would be convenient for Michael if Christian teaching agreed with him, that doesn't make it so.
1. Gets it "wrong" - according to Bubba. Michael and I will leave our best understanding to God's judgment, not Bubba's. I'm sure you'd agree we have our priorities right on that point.
2. Both Michael and I (perhaps me moreso, but I believe it's true for Michael, too) have absolutely NOT interpreted the Bible to "fit" our political views. We began as conservatives and had our views shaped by the Bible and the Christian faith, not the other way around.
You can feel free to disagree with our position, but what you can't honestly do is say that we've adapted our biblical views (at least on gay marriage) to fit our political views. We've been over all of this before. (But, for the benefit of others who may be visiting...) I was a Reagan Republican conservative traditional Christian for the first 25 years of my life. I became more "radicalized" by reading the Bible, not by reading "liberal" writers or thinkers. Michael has a similar testimony.
For Michael's part, he comes from a military family and was in the army himself when reading the Bible led him to quit the army at some personal cost (I hope you don't mind my sharing your testimony, Michael).
Again, disagree with our conclusions if you wish, but please don't try to spin reality to fit YOUR political agenda. Thanks.
Bubba asked:
f you can and would explain what you mean by the claim that God "especially" loves the poor, I'd appreciate it.
1. My phrasing, suggesting that God loves the poor "especially," is just that: My own phrasing. It's how I explain the extremely heavy biblical emphasis on concern for/solidarity with the poor and marginalized. If you don't like the word "especially," ignore it. It won't hurt my feelings.
2. I don't know how to explain my point better than the notion of parents with disadvantaged children. I read your problem with that analogy, I think it stands nonetheless.
3. If you'd like me to put it in other words, let me try this:
a. God loves everyone. Regardless of station, family, history, ability, etc.
b. In the Bible, there is a HEAVILY repeated theme of care for the poor and marginalized - it's one of the central themes of biblical testimony.
Jesus tells us that the difference between the sheep and the goats is how they treated the poor. Jesus tells us that the poor are blessed of God. Jesus said that he came to bring good news specifically to the poor. When asked to verify he was Of God by John the Baptist, Jesus pointed to his ministry to the poor. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. It goes on and on and I'm sure anyone who's familiar at all with the Bible knows it.
c. In all of this, Jesus never specifically says, "blessed are the rich" (in fact, he says, "WOE to the rich") or "I have come to bring good news to all people" or "to the rich" but rather, specifically to the poor.
d. I don't disagree with your take that one explanation for this incredibly one-sided emphasis on ministry to/solidarity with the poor is because the poor tend to be forgotten and biblical writers wanted to be clear that God does not forget the poor. But I think the heavy emphasis suggests something beyond that.
e. God is fundamentally specifically WITH THE POOR, on the side of the poor, pleading the case of the poor, the Bible makes this clear.
... Let me think about this further before I continue. Thanks.
"protecting" marriage.
Exactly which "marriages" are they out to "protect"? A 50% divorce rate, second marriages, third marriages, mail-order brides, arranged marriages, Las Vegas weddings, Britney Spears' 45 hour-long marriage, abusive codependent alcoholics locked in a cycle of abuse and despair ... those are all "protected."
So-called "conservatives" have had far more time (over 200 years by my count) to "protect" marriage from divorce than they've had to make political hay out of gay marriage, and yet they've done nothing. I guess marriage wasn't important enough to require "protection" until the queers started demanding their rights.
"Protect" marriage simply means a wink and a nod toward any -- ANY -- heterosexual marriage no matter how unwise. No one with any ounce of integrity would ever use the word "protect" with regard to what this country has done toward the sacred institution of marriage.
But it makes a nice, though moronic and untruthful, sound-bite with which to use LGBT people as pawns in cynical political maneuvering, and more importantly ... fundraising.
BTW, it's a false dichotomy to say that just because God sides with the poor he somehow then hates the rich.
Notice how this notion of God loving the poor more than the rich, which perhaps some here believe, was not what I said, which was that Jesus identifies himself with the poor; that he roots for the poor.
It's easy to simplify that into a straw man, as has been done here.
A rising tide lifts all boats. By telling us to watch out for the poor ... demanding it even, Jesus does not ignore the rich, he's reminding us that working for economic justice helps everyone.
Heh. Recruit? That was His job. "I will make you fishers of men." Some of us think he actually meant it.
Jesus' inaugural address as recorded in Luke: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to teach good news to the poor, set me to proclaim release to the captives, and the receiving of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Jubilee."
Anyone who thinks that wasn't a radical message to an oppressed population of peasants, subjugated under Roman authority simply isn't paying attention.
Bubba said:
The temptation to make Jesus a political messiah was great then, and it is great now, but while the radicals' favored agenda has changed, from Jewish independence from Rome to political progressivism, the temptation is still wrong.
Either Roger and I are saying something wrong or you're hearing us say things that we strongly disagree with and, thus, have not said or supported.
To be clear:
1. I (probably "we," but I'll just speak for myself) absolutely don't believe in Jesus as political messiah.
2. I absolutely disagree with the notion of interpreting the Bible to fit a political agenda. Which is why I have not done so, which is why, in fact, I had to restructure some of my political beliefs, to align them with what I believe God's Word to be.
You are absolutely right that many in Jesus' time looked for him to be a military messiah, come to bring political change at end of a sword. That was not what Jesus was about. We agree on that point.
Bubba said:
All four Gospel accounts are unanimous and unambiguously clear that Pontius Pilate found no reason to have Jesus executed.
And yet, Pilate did go in with the plan to kill Jesus. Why do you think that is? Was Pilate afraid of the Jews? Or, could it be that Jesus' message was disrupting things and even though Pilate found no crime having been done, he went along with the execution for political expediency?
Why do you think Jesus was crucified, Bubba? I know the "religious" reasoning (to shed his blood for the salvation of humanity), but practically, WHY did the Jewish and other political leaders feel it necessary to kill this man who came healing and preaching good news to the poor and preaching "WOE to you who are rich" and "the powerful will be cast down" types of messages?
I'm curious.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Every time someone said Jesus is Lord, instead of Caesar is Lord, they were committing a political crime against the state, punishable by death.
That's not the sum total of what they did, but to ignore the political ramifications is to ignore the entire context in which the NT was written, which is hardly what one should do if one wanted to try to convince others that they actually believed the Bible was "authoritative."
To make myself absolutely clear, I do not deny that the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles have political implications, most explicitly when Jesus confirmed the moral propriety of paying taxes ("render unto Caesar") and when Paul wrote that Christians should be subject to government as even the pagan, often oppressive Roman state is an agent of God's justice.
But just because there are political implications in what the church taught and what the church claimed -- particularly kurios Jesus -- it doesn't logically follow that Jesus founded a political movement.
He founded a church which was focused (and should remain focused) on spreading the good news of the forgiveness of sin and gift of eternal life, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Jesus wasn't a political revolutionary just because some of what He taught touched upon the subject of politics.
You might as well say that, because He taught that food doesn't defile and because He instituted the observance of His death by sharing bread and wine, Jesus was a nutritionist.
False dichotomy.
Jesus came to do all that and more. The story of the Bible is one of creation, fall, and redemption -- our personal redemption as well as the redemption of the human condition in all of its facets: social, emotional, economic, and yes, political.
I think Jesus can multitask.
As the Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper said, "There is not a single thumbprint of the entire cosmos of which Christ the sovereign Lord of all does not say, 'This is mine'."
The political evangelical movement of the last 30 years or so has been founded on the notion that politics also needs to be redeemed. And that notion is based on an understanding of the depth and breadth of Christ's message, not only to each of us personally, but also to the political, social, and economic structures we form in our corporate lives together.
Unless someone is about to propose that they've been wrong this whole time? *They* seem to believe that there are some pretty serious political ramifications to Christ's message.
Funny that they criticize liberals so much when we take them at their word that they actually believe their own rhetoric.
Thanks, Alan, good answers.
Bubba said:
But just because there are political implications in what the church taught and what the church claimed -- particularly kurios Jesus -- it doesn't logically follow that Jesus founded a political movement.
I refer you to my earlier comment where I noted that I have not said that Jesus was leading a political movement. You and I don't disagree on that point.
Neither do we disagree that Jesus' teachings have political implications.
You sound like you're arguing against someone that's not part of this conversation, Bubba.
If the context wasn't obvious, I was responding to Alan, who earlier suggested that Jesus was quite overtly political in recruiting disciples and giving a radical "inaugural address."
(For what it's worth, I wasn't disputing the fact that Jesus recruited the disciples. I was complaining about progressives' efforts to "recruit" JESUS to advance their cause; I was complaining, rightfully, at attempts to turn the Recruiter into a recruitee, to turn our Lord and Savior into a puppet for a political agenda. Unless I grossly misunderstand the point he was trying to make, it seems Alan was too busy sniping at me to realize that he got my point bass-ackwards.)
The response you quote was to this comment, about the early church committing crimes against Rome for declaring the lordship of Jesus Christ:
That's not the sum total of what they did, but to ignore the political ramifications is to ignore the entire context in which the NT was written, which is hardly what one should do if one wanted to try to convince others that they actually believed the Bible was "authoritative."
Who's been ignoring altogether the "political ramifications" of what Jesus taught?
I certainly haven't, but I take it that Alan's snark about trying to convince others that one actually believes the Bible is authoritative isn't exactly pointed your way, Dan.
For the second time in this thread, you demonstrate that you're holding me to a higher standard than you do for those with whom you agree. You're patting Alan on the head for his snark, and simultaneously chastising me for mine.
If you think his comments are oh-so-beneficial, you should give those with whom you disagree equal room in playing fast and loose with what others write.
Or, if you want to split hairs with me, you really should make more of an effort to be fair in splitting hairs with everyone.
Now, you asked my opinion on Pilate's motives for having Christ crucified.
I answered, appealing not to blind speculation but to Scripture itself.
(If you have an alternative theory that's actually based on the Gospels' accounts of Pilate's words, deeds, and motives, I'd love to hear it. If you don't, tell me again that you don't let politics determine your take on Scripture.)
I also reiterated the question I asked you before: what specific passages made you decide that Reagan conservatism is unbiblical?
I'm still waiting.
Ignoring Michael's and Alan's goofy remarks on marriage and what the Bible teaches of it, I will instead try to stay on point, or at least where the point has gone.
I have seen in documentaries on the subject, as well as read the same, that Pilate's position as ruler of a podunk outpost of the Roman empire was not going well, his position was tenuous, and an uprising of the Jews would not serve him well politically. This matches the Scriptural points made by Bubba well. A little research should bear this out.
Roger made a point against Christians seeking wealth in order to provide better for those in need. He suggested that wealth is created at the expense of the poor and contribute to the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer, if I'm understanding his point. Neither, however is based on reality. Wealth is most often created by one who provides a better product or service at a better price affordable by more people. One can build a million dollar car and unless someone buys it, no profit is made. If someone does, a limited profit is made. But to provide cars that millions can buy provides more profits. The two obvious examples of this would be Henry Ford and Bill Gates, both providing to the masses what was once only available to the few. It made them gazillions.
The spread between rich and poor is more a matter of the habits of each rather than what one does to the other. In matters of money/finances/economy, the wealthy simply don't behave and live in the same manner as does the poor, and vice versa.
I notice that Dan and I are the ones providing a Scriptural basis for our comments.
"Radical" inaugural address? Yes, I agree the message is radical, but I'm not the one who made it. That was Jesus in His very first sermon.
And, like the rest of his ministry, it is about not only individuals but the community. (Because frankly, the notion of individuality as we conceive it, post-Enlightenment, simply wasn't the conception of His listeners.)
So, while Bubba complains that I'm misreading him, he's been arguing against something no one here has said. Jesus's ministry was not a political revolution. However, in addition to all the other aspects of his ministry, His message was indeed radically political, and it was meant to be, and we were meant to hear that and follow Him.
And finally, Bubba writes, "....to turn our Lord and Savior into a puppet for a political agenda...."
That is exactly what Fundamentalists have been doing for 30 years. "God's Own Party"? That sound familiar? "Jesus told me to run for President" How about that one?
I suspect Bubba's problem is not that Christian liberals use Jesus' words as a basis for their political agenda, but merely that we're liberals doing it, and not so-called conservatives doing precisely the same thing.
And MA, in his inimitable way, oversimplifies things. There are those who are poor because they're lazy or simply unlucky, or because they make poor decisions. But at the same time there are plenty of people who are poor because they've been made poor by the rich.
Sweatshop laborers make products and make money for wealthy businessmen ... money they certainly don't share. Capitalism rewards this behavior because they are, after all, only providing the market with the cheapest goods possible.
Migrant farm workers are paid so little that their children must quit school before they finish in order to earn enough money to support the family, guaranteeing that they continue the cycle of poverty.
In capitalism, that businessperson will be most successful who most successfully exploits his/her workers for maximum profit.
Alan, you're regurgitating Marxist slander about the free market. Ironically enough, you're being simplistic yourself in doing so, acting as if labor cannot and does not work to improve its own situation within the constructs of the free market.
Generally, the market continually improves working conditions for even those at the bottom. It provides the wealth and the opportunities for the individual to find better working conditions by becoming more attractive in the workforce through self-education, or by starting his own business.
In order to portray the capitalist as the wicked oppressor and the proletariat as the helpless victim, you essentially take a static image of the working conditions, ignoring both the poorer conditions that migrant farmers and sweatshop workers left on their own accord, and ignoring the better conditions that typically follow as an area becomes more prosperous and industrialized.
Anyway, your suspicion about me is unfair and unjustifiable: I do not agree with overt efforts to politicize Christianity from the left or the right, and you can find nothing that I've written to the contrary.
(I won't wait for Dan to chide you for making arguments against figments.)
I do believe that Reaganite conservatism, which seeks to balance a belief in individual freedom and esteem for traditional institutions, is both more moral and more effective than the statist and radical alternatives.
But I do not believe that faithful, biblical Christians must all agree with my particular political philosophy. I do not couch my political arguments as a necessary consequence of Christian doctrine. And I do not invoke stupid rhetoric about Republicans being "God's Own Party."
That sort of rhetoric actually repulses me.
What else repulses me is flagrant dishonesty.
It is nonsense to suggest that only you and Dan are providing a scriptural basis for your beliefs.
You write about Jesus that "His message was indeed radically political, and it was meant to be, and we were meant to hear that and follow Him."
But in response I appeal to Scripture to note that His closest followers didn't seem to catch his "radically political" message. They didn't start a movement; they started a church. They didn't focus on changing Rome, they focused on the repentance from sin. Your earlier snark about the inattentiveness of those who missed Christ's political message must apply, not only to me, but to Peter, James, John, and Paul.
And, on the subject of appealing to Scripture, Dan speculates that Pilate had Jesus killed because "Jesus' message was disrupting things."
He offered no textual basis for such a theory, probably because no such basis exists, and in response, I pointed out that all four Gospels were quite clear about Pilate's motivation. I even made very precise references: Matthew 27:24, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:24, and John 19:8.
"I notice that Dan and I are the ones providing a Scriptural basis for our comments."
This is a lie. It is such a flagrant falsehood that it cannot be excused without calling into question your mental faculties.
"In order to portray the capitalist as the wicked oppressor and the proletariat as the helpless victim,"
Again, you misrepresent what I said. What I actually said was that there are plenty of authentic examples of situations in which the poor are made poor by the wealthy. I didn't say that's always the case, nor did I say that it always has to be the case. I simply said it is the case in many situations. You dispute that's true in spite of the obvious evidence. You dispute that it's true in spite of your claim to be orthodox. If you were truly orthodox, you might have heard something about a little idea we orthodox Christians call total depravity. That is, our economic systems, like all human endeavors, created by sinful humans, are themselves imperfect, and abuses happen, so we shouldn't be surprised that many, though not all, wealthy business owners subjugate their workers for higher profits.
You apparently deny that's the case.
"They didn't focus on changing Rome,"
Strange then that within a relatively short period of time, Rome was the seat of the Christian Church on Earth.
"(I won't wait for Dan to chide you for making arguments against figments.)"
Why would he? I specifically wrote about what I suspect is the case. You say it isn't the case. That's fine, though I don't remember ever reading page after page of your comments chastising so-called conservatives for doing precisely what you believe liberals are guilty of doing.
See if these words have some familiarity: To put it most succinctly, I don't think anyone's irrational to think you're full of it when you claim to have any problem at all with so-called conservatives "recruiting" Jesus for their political causes. ;)
I find your constant complaining about how you're being treated here disingenuous. It is almost as if you've never read any of the things you write yourself.
"This is a lie. It is such a flagrant falsehood that it cannot be excused without calling into question your mental faculties."
Here, let me see if I can mimic you again, "Waaaaah! Dan, Bubba's being mean to me! Waaaah!" Sound familiar? LOL
Buck up and take it like a man, Bubba. I can. And I can do so without insulting you. I read your silly insults and laugh. Unlike you, I don't whine, or cry, or complain. When did so-called conservatives become so fragile?
Let's examime some of the things I've written...
I've said that "moronic and untruthful, sound-bite with which to use LGBT people as pawns in cynical political maneuvering, and more importantly ... fundraising."
I didn't insult anyone, just the rhetoric they use.
I've said that Jesus' message carried a radically political element, and that anyone who doesn't see that isn't paying attention to the context in which the NT was written. Furthermore, I stated that for anyone to say that they believe that the Bible is "authoritative", yet ignore the context in which it was written is disingenuous. Bubba has called me disingenuous too. Big deal. So we both think the other isn't really very truthful. Alert the media!
Then I suggest again that to criticize liberals for "recruiting" Jesus into their cause, while never doing the same for God's Own Party is hypocritical. Because it is. Still not insulting anyone, just pointing out that, based on the evidence, Bubba doesn't seem to have a problem with that sort of thing on the right. I am doing nothing more than he's done here, demanding evidence and saying that, without it, he doubts Dan's honesty.
In other words, I haven't said anything that Bubba hasn't already said.
And yet, I didn't call anyone's "mental faculties" into question. Now again, I don't care if he did that or not, because I don't really care what Bubba has to say. If he proclaimed the sky is blue, I'd have to run out and check, just to be sure. He'd rather argue about how badly poor Bubba gets mistreated rather than discuss the issues. Standard operating procedure for these guys: whine about the discussion, rather than debate the issues. Sidetrack the debate when you start losing it.
Then haul out the insults, while whining about the big mean ol' nasty liberals.
Meh.
If Alan really would rather focus on substance rather than personal insults, he has a funny way of showing it.
He called into question whether I'm really an orthodox Christian, called me immature and fragile, and called me an untrustworthy hypocrite, but he didn't actually substantiate the claim that I believe is dishonest.
"I notice that Dan and I are the ones providing a Scriptural basis for our comments."
Instead of taking responsibility for his own words, he insults me repeatedly, and he then tries to frame the discussion so that any objection to his behavior will be dismissed as whining, and as an effort to sidetrack a losing argument.
I'll admit this is all very clever, but it's not what I would expect from someone who's genuinely interested in substance.
And instead of engaging in substance, Bubba just continues the same whining.
For someone supposedly interested in substance, he has an odd way of showing it.
More whining as an attempt to distract from his losing arguments.
If you disagree, Bubba, perhaps you could stop the whining and get back on topic? Otherwise it's just more of your disingenuous hypocrisy.
Alan, I will again note that it's very clever to engage in name-calling while simultaneously framing any response as the whining of a loser, but your behavior makes good-faith arguments impossible.
About the scant substance you did convey in your last couple comments -- which didn't include any attempt to justify your claim that only you and Dan are actually referencing Scripture -- I think I made it clear that I don't believe the free markets are perfect and free from sin, corruption, fraud, etc.
Note the adverbs I used.
I wrote that the market "generally" provides continual improvement of working conditions, and I wrote that working conditions "typically" improve as an area becomes more prosperous and industrialized.
I didn't say that the political philosophy I support, which entails free markets, results in a perfectly moral and efficient society, only that it is "more" moral and "more" efficient than the radical, statist alternatives.
I readily acknowledge the doctrine of total depravity. I just believe that free markets manage vice better than the alternatives -- alternatives which do not eliminate corruption but rather consolidate the power of the corruptible by handing the reins of the economy over to the coercive state.
If you were simply pointing out the abuses that occur under the free market while still supporting the free market as the best possible (or "least bad") arrangement, then I think we agree more than we disagree, on this point.
If you believe that state intervention can reduce oppression and exploitation, I think I would go too far if I thought your naivete suggested a break from the orthodox belief of total depravity. I would still think that your solution would demonstrate a simple-mindedness that more than outweighs the broad strokes Marshall used to describe the reason for desparities in wealth.
About the political ambitions of the early Christian church, you object to my assertion that the Christian church didn't focus on changing Rome.
Strange then that within a relatively short period of time, Rome was the seat of the Christian Church on Earth.
That's hardly evidence that the church focused on politics. If you want credit for focusing on Scripture, let's focus on Scripture. How many sermons in Acts preached repentance of sin? And how many preached political reform?
I think we both know the answers.
Finally, I will readily admit that, here, I have not frequently criticized political conservatives who try to coopt to Christianity. I no longer comment here all that frequently, and the subject hasn't come up in those times I have commented.
I don't think it's necessary for me to make clear that, as I oppose you and Roger in your apparent efforts to coopt Jesus Christ to advance your political agenda, I likewise oppose those on my side of the aisle who do the same.
But, since it's come up, I will reiterate that I am repulsed by that behavior, regardless of the political bent of those who do it.
I don't think it's hypocritical to question Dan's commitment to individual economic freedom, since he admits that he believes it's a matter of "justice" that the wealthy pay even higher proportions of taxes, and since he still has not made clear that he opposes price controls like "living wage" laws. (I suspect that's because he doesn't oppose such laws.)
Between Geoffrey's stated belief that the government should determine how much people make, and my repeated prompting, Dan has good reason and an ample opportunity to explain his economic beliefs in more detail so that it would be clear whether his support of economic freedom is all that it's cracked up to be.
A couple of quotes from someone who has more credibility on this topic that anyone posting here.
"If the issue of how our wealth is linked to others' poverty makes us defensive, we will find it hard to do Christian community development. What is encouraging, however is that if our own wealth can be a source of the problem, it can also be a solution to the problem. Christians are called to use their personal wealth to advance the kingdom and to bring about justice and development.
The call to justice is not a demand for the redistribution of everyone's wealth so that all citizens have equal assets. Instead the concept of stewardship tells us that Christians should not accumulate wealth without regard for its impact on others. God created us with the motivation to care for ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods."
"It has been difficult over the years for some to understand why Jesus would make a callous sounding statement like, ("the poor you will always have with you"). Isn't our job to eliminate poverty? Jesus was moved to compassion when He was personally confronted with a need. His task was not to heal every disease and feed every hungry person but to witness the presence of God..."
Dr. John M. Perkins
Beyond Charity: The Call To Christian Community Development
pp. 130-131, 146-147
Nice to see you try to stick to some substance for once Bubba. See? It's not that difficult to do so.
All you've done is restate your case, yet again. I've already answered. We disagree.
Big surprise there.
BTW, if a majority of people believe it should be the government's business to provide some measure of safety for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, then I do not consider it thievery, nor do I consider it some sort of rebuke of total depravity. Just because human institutions tend to do evil instead of good, does not mean they can never do good. And in fact, that is not only my view, but it is the view of my denomination as well as many other Christian Protestant denominations. That's why our denominations are egalitarian in nature, with commissioners voting equally. And it's why we Presbyterians set up the US government the way we did.
You speak of the government as if it is some single-minded organism. The government is us. And if We The People decide it is right and appropriate to show some care for the poor, the hungry, and the homeless, then it's as good a use of government as I can think of. Far better than, say, killing people, in my estimation.
"I likewise oppose those on my side of the aisle who do the same."
Shouldn't surprise you, BTW, that I don't believe you.
Hey everyone, thanks for the many comments. I have been out of town and otherwise occupied (oral surgery today, for instance...), but I must say that Alan is doing a pretty good job of answering for me. Bubba, I will say again that you seem mostly to be arguing against someone who is not present in this conversation.
More when I'm up to it. I do plan on answering some questions/issues raised when I have time.
I haven't read through all this thread but I would like to comment on welfare.
I am glad that our country provides welfare for those who need it. I don't mind my tax dollars going to pay for it either. I would not object to my taxes being raised to pay for it.
As far as the "church" stepping up to take care of the needy...it ain't happening folks....the church isn't going to step up. Right or wrong, they can't. The church doesn't have the money nor the willing volunteers to take on that massive task.
I have to turn enough people away when they come to the church for help as it is now. To make the church responsible rather than the state, people would starve to death while begging for crumbs from empty offering plates.
Marty, our government at all levels -- federal, state, and local levels -- spent about $5.2 trillion last year, when our GDP is about $14.6 trillion. The government is spending about 35 percent of our GDP, and that percentage is growing, so it's not entirely implausible that their spending is crowding out private resources to address poverty.
And, anyway, you present a false dilemma in stating that people would starve to death unless they are given government assistance. For many -- certainly not all -- there is a third option. People can and do find jobs to meet their own needs.
Thanks for the comments, Marty. I certainly agree. As I like to point out: IF churches and private groups truly believe that the ONE and ONLY morally correct way of dealing with poverty issues is for private groups - and NOT the state - to work on them, then all they have to do is step up and do it.
That they don't or can't do it goes without saying. So, the question is, IF no one else steps up to deal with, for instance, homeless children, ought the state do something or just let them starve (or, "get jobs," as Bubba suggests as another option)? I think the only reasonable and responsible thing for the state to do is to take SOME action to deal with the problems associated with poverty.
As soon as private organzations step up and deal with the problems, I guarantee you that the state (ie, "we the people") will be glad to let them do so.
"You still haven't provided a clear explanation of what you mean by your claim that God "especially" loves the poor."
Sheesh!!!!! Yes he has. More than once.
Maybe ya just gotta have ears to hear. I don't know. Maybe you need a hearing aid Bubba. Honestly, Dan couldn't be any clearer.
Dan's answers seem pretty clear to me too, Marty.
Heck, there's another, even better example than prayer, of priorities of Jesus Christ that probably don't belong with the state: evangelism.
If Christ's commands to feed the poor mean that we should empower the state to meet their physical needs, Roger, do you also believe that the Great Commission means that we should empower the state to meet others' spiritual needs by evangelizing them?
If not, why not?
About God's coming to the Hebrew slaves to make a nation of them, I agree that this shows that God's love includes EVEN the poor. My objection is to the idea that God loves "especially" the poor, since I see no specific meaning behind that phrase other than the idea that God loves poor people more than He loves rich people, an idea I absolutely reject.
But it should be noted that God didn't first come to Moses and the Israelite slaves: God first came to Israel's grandfather Abraham.
Abraham, first known as Abram, wasn't exactly poor. Genesis 13:2 describes him as rich in livestock, silver, and gold. God didn't free the Israelite slaves because they were poor, per se, but because they were Abraham's people.
Finally, you write, "human civilization with all of it's advantages and conveniences has progressed at the expense of the poor (and our environment! - see Dan's latest posting)."
I don't believe that progress has been at the expense of the poor.
Look at free societies, and they not only tend to become the most advanced, the poor benefit when they do so.
If American prosperity was due to exploitation of the poor, you would expect the poor here to be far worse off than in undeveloped third-world countries, and that's simply not the case: where their poor are starving to death, ours are suffering from obesity.
Even the poor of those nations with whom we trade do better than those that do not trade with us: sweatshops aren't fun, but they're also not permanent features of a developing country, and a generation after Leftists decry our exploitation of third-world sweatshop workers, the Left laments the outsourcing of higher-paying, white-collar jobs that go to those workers children -- particularly when those children grow up in politically and economically free societies that mirror our own successes.
Even the environment is better cared for in advanced societies: people find the time and resources to worry about mountain tops only after their own needs for food and shelter are well secured.
"Telling me that I need a hearing aid to hear what he's saying doesn't bring me one step closer to understanding what Dan means"
Alan doesn't seem to have a problem understanding either Bubba. And I'm betting Roger, Geoffrey, Michael and others understand as well. Obviously what is crystal clear to the majority here isn't to you.
I know a really good audiologist. Would you like a referral?
"since I see no specific meaning behind that phrase other than the idea that God loves poor people more than He loves rich people, an idea I absolutely reject."
Well, we've all rejected it too. Several times now. And we've explained clearly what we mean. Several times now.
Yet you persist in repeating the same phrases over and over again. Blah, blah, blah.
I don't think you actually care about this topic, nor do I think you care about an explanation (since you ignore them when they're given), nor do I believe much else that you write. I think at this point it has become clear that you simply like to hear the klickity-klack of your own keyboard, Bubba. You need a hobby.
"I think at this point it has become clear that you simply like to hear the klickity-klack of your own keyboard, Bubba. You need a hobby."
Or a job that keeps you busier. I still have those brand new combat boots in my closet just waiting for a man to be all he can be.
Thanks, Marty, Alan.
Bubba, I think that you seem intent on disagreeing with me - even if you have to imagine I hold positions I don't hold - and that's okay if that's what you wish to do. It seems like it'd be a bit tiring, though.
You said:
If you really believe that the wealthy have just as much a right to their own property as everyone else, demanding that they pay higher percentages in taxes is a bizarre way of showing it.
1. I really believe the rich and poor and all of us have a right to their property.
2. And, like you, I believe in taxation to provide for our common needs and policies.
3. Unlike you, I think progressive taxation is the most just way to have a system of taxation. You disagree, thinking a flat tax or something along those lines is more appropriate. Okay.
I think you're wrong.
Bubba said:
To say that "God has a special concern for the poor and marginalized" is to trade one vague term for another
I'm sorry you don't think my position is clear, it seems clear to me and others here. I've explained it a few different ways. Sorry, I don't know how to explain my position better.
Bubba said:
but answering this question by telling me why you hate Ronald Reagan...
You claimed to have rejected Reagan conservatism, not because of disgust about a single politician or administration, but because you read the Bible...
I want to know what it is that you read in the Bible that convinced you to abandon Reagan conservatism; that's what I asked for.
1. I didn't hate Reagan. You can tell that's not what I think by the way that I never said "I hate Reagan." In fact, as I have repeatedly noted, I was a huge fan of Reagan.
2. I came to disagree with Reagan's policies - hating them, even - because they were antithetical to Christianity in so many ways.
3. I think that Reagan administration policies include war crimes, support for terrorism and support for oppressive thugs like Saddam and Pinochet. I assumed that you would not need me to point out specific Bible passages as to why I think that is unacceptable, but if you'd like, I can.
I suspect that you agree with me that committing war crimes and supporting terrorism are anti-Christian actions. I suspect that you don't think that Reagan-type conservatives actually did those things.
I disagree. And we could discuss that, but I think we've covered that before. You asked why I had to reject Reagan-type conservatism and I'm telling you it is because I think they clearly embraced these atrocities. That's my answer. I suspect you agree with me that IF you think someone is committing war crimes and supporting terrorism, then they are engaged in anti-Christian activity, we just disagree on whether Reagan did.
Yes?
Dan, I've reviewed what you've written about how God "especially" loves the poor, and I think I now see how it doesn't necessarily imply that God loves the poor more than the rich.
(I reconsidered the issue, no thanks to Alan and Marty. Their speculations that I need a hobby and/or a hearing aid weren't substantive or civil, so if you weren't going to chide them for their snark, even in the mildest possible terms, I think you could have at least refrained from an unqualfied thank-you.)
However, I don't think that any conception of God's caring "especially" for the poor fits with what the Bible teaches about God.
The analogy to a teacher with a blind student falls apart because God gave sight to those who could see: as the Doxology goes, He is the Provider "from whom ALL blessings flow."
Dismissing wealth as a blessing requires, I think, a positively gnostic belief that wealth is inherently bad and therefore does not come from God. And, while the Bible confounds the human theory that wealth is an inherent indication of virtue, it doesn't reverse the theory by saying that poverty is an inherent indication of virtue: instead, it cuts orthogonally across both standards.
You wrote, earlier:
I don't disagree with your take that one explanation for this incredibly one-sided emphasis on ministry to/solidarity with the poor is because the poor tend to be forgotten and biblical writers wanted to be clear that God does not forget the poor. But I think the heavy emphasis suggests something beyond that.
...God is fundamentally specifically WITH THE POOR, on the side of the poor, pleading the case of the poor, the Bible makes this clear.
This idea that God goes "beyond" including the poor to favoring the poor outright isn't at all clear in the Bible, and I think it goes against what's in the Bible. You'd have to ignore God's blessings on Abraham, Job, and Solomon to draw that conclusion, and you'd have to ignore Christ's reaching out to rich tax collectors and powerful Pharisees like Zaccheus and Nicodemus.
Your position is a convenient assertion politically, in that it's really useful to advance an agenda involving the left's concept of social justice, but I think it's terrible theology. It's the sort of thing that, taken to its logical conclusion, would lead to really awful ideas about God and man.
About Reagan, I think you're wrong about some of the basics of his administration, and I still don't understand how a rejection of his policies requires an abandoning of Buckleyite conservative philosophy altogether, but my issue here isn't primarily about your claims regarding the Reagan record. It's about your claims regarding how the Bible was key to your political transformation:
I was a Reagan Republican conservative traditional Christian for the first 25 years of my life. I became more "radicalized" by reading the Bible, not by reading "liberal" writers or thinkers.
I think I can show you what the problem by asking one question.
Was there ever a time where you believed what you do now about the Reagan record -- the war crimes, the support for terrorism, etc. -- and supported the policies as some sort of Machiavellian, before reading the Bible caused you to embrace more Christian ethics?
If the answer is no, and I strongly suspect that the answer is no, then it appears that "reading the Bible" is not what caused you to reject Reagan and/or conservatism.
Suppose you were arguing something like, "I always knew that Reagan advocated X, Y, and Z, and I supported those polices, but I realized it was wrong only after reading such-and-such passage in the Bible." THAT would indicate a political rethinking brought on by reading Scripture: the Bible changed your moral compass but the landscape remained what it always was.
Instead, you argue as if your moral compass was set, but it was the landscape (or your perception of it) that changed. You didn't think that Reagan supported war crimes and terrorism, but once you did, you opposed him.
The details you're providing don't support the narrative that "I became more 'radicalized' by reading the Bible," so I wish you wouldn't attribute to the Bible changes that quite evidently it didn't cause.
I believe that you used to be a "Reagan Republican conservative traditional Christian," though again I question how deep the philosophical roots were, given how thoroughly you seem to misundertand the political philosophy of your upbringing.
And, I believe that you are no longer what you used to be.
What doesn't seem plausible is the claim that Bible-reading made all the difference.
Finally, Dan, I don't see how you believe that we, rich and poor, have equal rights to property when you write that it's a matter of justice to demand that the rich pay higher percentages in taxes.
How do the rich man and the poor man enjoy property rights equally, if one loses a higher percentage of his wealth in taxes? I don't think they do.
This is an instance of what is probably my biggest problem with you, Dan. Generally, the details of what you believe -- theologically and politically -- are much less moderate than the broad strokes you use to describe your position.
You write that you love the Bible, and maybe you do, but that love doesn't prevent you from speculating that the more difficult passages in the Old Testament were "revenge fantasies" written by Jews in exile.
On the one hand, you write that you support property rights and that you believe no one has the right to tell others how to live their lives, beyond the limits of natural law. On the other hand, you believe that, as a matter of justice(!), the rich should pay higher percentages in taxes, and you support price controls such as minimum-wage laws.
You seem to have a tendency to obscure your radical beliefs with moderate or even conservative rhetoric.
You apparently think I argue for argument's sake, and I believe that you are not up-front about your own beliefs. Since neither of us thinks the other is speaking honestly, this is probably as good a time as any for me to wrap things up.
I meant to do so sooner, I should have probably done so sooner. I appreciate your time over the last few days, and I'm sure I'll see you around.
Thanks for the conversations, all. Thanks Bubba, for your thoughts.
Ultimately, I think that you just don't understand my positions and, not understanding them and them not making sense in your worldview, you perhaps just find it easier to explain it by saying I'm lying (which I'm not) or being disingenuous (which I'm not being deliberately) or something beyond my knowledge.
Suffice to know that I (and those of my ilk) do love the Bible, I do take its words extremely seriously and are striving to walk in the steps of Jesus. Believe it or not.
An excellent Bible for understanding poverty and justice issues is The Poverty and Justice Bible. You can purchase it through Amazon.com as well.
Post a Comment