|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Does the bible have anything to say about the poor?
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
On a couple of other threads on this board the issue of a Christian (biblical) approach to those who fall into the category of the economically poor has been raised by grumpyoldman. It's a very good issue to raise, but I appreciate that the response has been typically Shippish – to query, prod, and poke into people's ideas. That's good, and the Ship deliberately allows space to ask the questions that sometimes re not asked in a church setting for whatever reason (fear of rocking the boat, fear of being told to do somewhere else, desire not to appear as lacking love...).
However, I appreciate that our knee-jerk reactions (with apologies to those who actually have well thought out and considered reactions!) can lead to frustration for those who are new to the Ship, particularly if they have real, practical, concerns. It can appear as though we are lacking in real-life love, or are speaking from the confines of a hallowed crystal glass debating theatre with little understanding of the real world.
So. I've been wondering about how best to meet grumpyoldman's concern. I suspect there is no one on the Ship who would argue that the bible (in fact, wider Christianity) has nothing to say about a Christian attitude to the economic poor – in particular the urban poor of that category – but it is a stance that is worth testing for validity. That would help ensure we are not on boggy ground.
It might help to take that question (“Does the bible have anything to say about how Christians should relate to the category of the economic poor?”) and try to answer that. Being Kerygmania this would need limiting to the bible, rather than drawing on second level strands of thought in Christianity.
One way to get to the issue would be to set up a thesis and see if it can knocked down. For example: The bible has nothing to say about how Christians should relate to those in the category of the economic poor.
To back the thesis up one could cite some arguments, e.g., that:
quote:
[1] The term “poor” in the bible, particularly its OT usage (which informs the NT usage) refers not to the economic poor, but to the faithful in Israel. It relates to those who remain loyal to God no matter what. That 'loyalty-no-matter-what' lifestyle could, as a by-product, lead to someone becoming economically poor because that person is being deprived of his or her economic stability by oppressors, but that is a purely secondary phenomenon.
[2] Those who have attempted to justify a uniquely Christian stance toward the economically poor in the last century have fallen into the same fallacy as those espousing other liberationist approaches, i.e., they read into the biblical texts interpretations that they desperately want to see there, drawing on philosophical strands that were not compatible with textual interpretation.
[3] Jesus said “You will always have the poor with you” (John 12:8), which means that he wanted his followers to focus not on issues of economy, but on loyalty to him.
Other arguments will no doubt come to mind, but that above may help shape the framework of a discussion.
So – Does the bible.....?
[ 02. July 2015, 21:26: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I would say that when the Bible speaks about the poor it is referring primarily to the spiritually poor, and only secondarily to the economically poor.
The same is true when it refers to the rich.
For that matter the same is meant with reference to the blind, the lame, widows and orphans, and other categories of disadvantaged (or advantaged) people.
In fact there is a similar structure behind all sorts of comparisons and similes found in the Bible, from the many references to wilderness and desert places, to comparisons with fruitfulness and bountiful harvests.
These things are all concrete, tangible ways of discussing positive or negative spiritual states. The positive or negative values of the literal statements are usually both obvious and true. The lowly generally need help, and the most privileged often need cutting down to size. But the real point is spiritual.
The spiritual point is more significant because it is about universal qualities of goodness or evil, generosity or self-centeredness. To be poor is to lack the means, the knowledge, the good qualities, and yet to long for them. To be rich in a negative sense is to have the knowledge but be unwilling to share or use it, or to be materialistic and self-serving. To be rich in the positive sense (as in the glorious and prosperous future so often promised to Israel) is to know and love God and the neighbor, and to fruitfully serve them.
It is not purely a matter of spiritual poverty to the exclusion of natural poverty. Both are meant. But the priority goes to poverty's spiritual aspects.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
When the Deuteronomist demands that farmers not glean all the way to the edges of the field to allow the poor to have something to eat, I rather doubt he is referring to spiritual wheat. When James says that true religion is helping widows and orphans, I doubt he is referring to spiritual, rather than actual, widows. When the post-exilic prophets rail about the rich denying the poor their wages, or screwing them over in court, there is no indication at all that it is referring to spiritual, rather than actual, poverty. The spiritually poor don't do manual labor for the spiritually rich. That relationship has to do with money.
Jesus says tells a parable about a rich man who builds bigger barns then dies. Were those spiritual barns? What does that even mean?
Jesus tells a parable about Lazarus with the open wounds and Dives who steps over him to get to his sumptuous suppers. Are those spiritual suppers? What does it mean to treat this as being about "spiritual poverty"?
What does it mean, by the way to be "rich in spirit"? I don't believe the term is ever used in the Scriptures, is it? It rather sounds like something positive rather than something the prophets would rail about.
I just can't see any justification for taking the many, many, many, many places where the Scriptures refer to the ugly ways the rich treat the poor, and spiritualizing them all away. They just don't parse that way.
[ 24. August 2014, 22:10: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Quick response that I'll expand upon after I'm done with tomorrow's funeral. While there certainly are parts of scripture that use poverty as a spiritual metaphor, these metaphors only work because of the huge number of parts that talk about material poverty. MT has already given many examples of these. I'd add many of the prophetic denunciations as important examples. Also, the importance care for the poor in Paul's account of discipleship is seriously underestimated.
It is true that "anawim [hashem]" ("the poor of the LORD") does become a term for "faithful ones" having little to do with material poverty, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot about how God is on the side of the poor in scripture.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
If I might add to Mousethief’s comments some simple questions:
Why is it necessary to assume that when Jesus spoke to the ordinary (and genuinely economically poor) people of Israel and Judea he would look them in the eye and say nothing at all about their real context and the injustice that was their lot? Was He simply using them and their context to create a wealth of spiritual sayings to inform our privatised 21st century religion? Is that not a cynical and selfish view of the mission of the Son of God?
We all want to promote our worldview by showing how the Gospel of God supports it – all Christians do this and not just those with a “liberation” perspective. (What is “wrong” with a liberationist starting point is that it openly admits its partiality. What is “right” about the traditional view is that it supports the status quo and has always been the dominant view, or the view of the dominant.) Perhaps that which gives credibility to any interpretation is how closely it is linked to the real world of those who heard the stories and encountered a walking, talking Son of God. 90% of the population around Jesus were the rural poor. About 8% were urban poor. 2% were the elite. In a society even more divided than ours it makes no sense that Jesus was talking about “the spiritual”, not least because that kind of division, like that between religion and politics, would have been a cultural anathema.
The justification of the economic system of 1st century Palestine was left to the ideological machinery of the temple which churned out anything which supported Rome and protected the Jewish elite. Jesus went up against the religious (ideological) and political elites because he pursued God’s justice – a word much used in the bible, certainly more often than the word "spiritual" in the sense we use it today.
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Thing is, it's also wrong to assume that God is on the side of the poor simply because they are poor, as if that somehow made them perfect innocent and flawless. It doesn't, anymore than being rich automatically makes someone evil. The Scriptures have a lot to say about economic injustice just as they do other kinds of injustice; but we can't privilege the economic thing as if that were Jesus' reason for existence. He's concerned with making sure that everybody, poor or rich, receives God's forgiveness, salvation and everlasting life. The economic thing, while important, is a secondary concern--as is sexism, racism, and every other -ism. (not that most of us want to hear that, we all have favorite causes)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Lamb Chopped: He's concerned with making sure that everybody, poor or rich, receives God's forgiveness, salvation and everlasting life. The economic thing, while important, is a secondary concern--as is sexism, racism, and every other -ism. (not that most of us want to hear that, we all have favorite causes)
This is not what I believe.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sure, but can you say something about why and what in particular you do believe?
The reason I said what I did is because we do not in fact see Jesus dedicating his 33 years of life to fixing economic problems, healing the sick, raising the dead, bringing down a nasty government, or doing any of the myriad other good deeds he conceivably could have done if he had chosen. What he says and does in those areas is incidental to the one task he considered most important--the journey to the cross and the empty tomb, and the founding of a church that would carry that message to all humanity. The other things happen along the way--he heals those who come to him but refrains from seeking out the sick elsewhere; he cares for the Gentiles he meets but refrains from going far out of Jewish territory; he castigates entitled rich bastards but refrains from leading an economic revolution, and in fact allows Peter (directs him, really) to pay a tax that he himself says is not applicable "so as not to offend them."
I'm sure there were any number of people pissed off at him for not dedicating himself to healing or economic justice or racial equality, etc. But there's only so much you can do in 33 years, and what you choose to spend your years on tells us what you value most. And it wasn't economic issues.
ETA lightbulb moment: That's not to say that Christ's people ought not to dedicate their lives (if so called) to economic issues. I work among the poor myself.
[ 25. August 2014, 01:28: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Lamb Chopped: Sure, but can you say something about why and what in particular you do believe?
No, I don't have a completely worked out theological system about this. But overcoming sexism, racism ... or in general: our egoism is part of His Kingdom. Letting go of this saves us. Not in a "Who will go to Heaven and who will go to hell" sort of way. That's a completely irrelevant question. It saves us because these things enslave us.
The reason why He didn't bring the economic system down is because He wasn't supposed to. If He would bring it down, it would mean using His power, and that's not how He does things. He went to the root. The root of economic injustice is egoism. It can be overcome by love.
[ 25. August 2014, 01:37: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posited by Nigel M:
[1] The term “poor” in the bible, particularly its OT usage (which informs the NT usage) refers not to the economic poor, but to the faithful in Israel. It relates to those who remain loyal to God no matter what. That 'loyalty-no-matter-what' lifestyle could, as a by-product, lead to someone becoming economically poor because that person is being deprived of his or her economic stability by oppressors, but that is a purely secondary phenomenon.
In addition to mousethief's remarks, which which I completely agree, I'd say this: Remaining loyal to God in the OT in fact is not supposed to lead to economic poverty. The promise to Abraham isn't just lots of children, it's also lots of land. It's disloyalty to God that leads to destruction and poverty -- the Babylonian captivity, for example. Large chunks of the OT argue that God's blessing comes to those who are loyal to him, and that blessing takes the concrete forms of land, children, long life, and plenty to eat -- i.e. affluence. (The counter-argument comes in books such as Ecclesiastes, where it is observed that following God's commandments doesn't seem to work as advertised, but that doesn't support the posited argument either.)
quote:
[3] Jesus said “You will always have the poor with you” (John 12:8), which means that he wanted his followers to focus not on issues of economy, but on loyalty to him.
Well, that's not exactly what it means. He was talking to Judas. He was telling the guy who didn't care about the poor in the first place, the guy who was bothered by the anointing because that was three hundred denarii he wouldn't be able to steal from the common purse, the guy who was to betray Jesus, that right now he shouldn't be criticizing the act of someone so in tune with Jesus and what was going to happen to him that she was anointing his body for burial.
Jesus' care for the poor and the marginalized is most certainly not "incidental" (Lamp Chopped's word) to his journey to the cross. It is actually a big mistake to separate Jesus' life and teachings from his death and resurrection. If the records of his deeds and words weren't important, we'd just have the passion narratives in the gospels.
quote:
[2] Those who have attempted to justify a uniquely Christian stance toward the economically poor in the last century have fallen into the same fallacy as those espousing other liberationist approaches, i.e., they read into the biblical texts interpretations that they desperately want to see there, drawing on philosophical strands that were not compatible with textual interpretation.
This is a different kind of argument. How do we determine which philosophical strands are compatible with textual interpretation and which aren't?
If the complaint is that liberation theology's emphasis upon the preferential option for the poor is unbiblical, that complaint is entirely unfounded. The Deuteronomic Code makes specific and special provision for the poor and the oppressed, again and again dictating systems and codes that raise them up and create a more egalitarian society. And in Luke's gospel Jesus' care for the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed is one of the major themes of the book. Plus all the stuff mousethief cited.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posited by Nigel M:
Those who have attempted to justify a uniquely Christian stance toward the economically poor in the last century have fallen into the same fallacy as those espousing other liberationist approaches, i.e., they read into the biblical texts interpretations that they desperately want to see there, drawing on philosophical strands that were not compatible with textual interpretation.[/qb]
I suppose that Basil the Great and John Chrysostom were liberationists too, then? They had a hell of a lot to say about the poor, and the proper Christian attitude toward taking care of them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When the Deuteronomist demands that farmers not glean all the way to the edges of the field to allow the poor to have something to eat, I rather doubt he is referring to spiritual wheat. When James says that true religion is helping widows and orphans, I doubt he is referring to spiritual, rather than actual, widows. When the post-exilic prophets rail about the rich denying the poor their wages, or screwing them over in court, there is no indication at all that it is referring to spiritual, rather than actual, poverty. The spiritually poor don't do manual labor for the spiritually rich. That relationship has to do with money.
Jesus says tells a parable about a rich man who builds bigger barns then dies. Were those spiritual barns? What does that even mean?
Jesus tells a parable about Lazarus with the open wounds and Dives who steps over him to get to his sumptuous suppers. Are those spiritual suppers? What does it mean to treat this as being about "spiritual poverty"?
What does it mean, by the way to be "rich in spirit"? I don't believe the term is ever used in the Scriptures, is it? It rather sounds like something positive rather than something the prophets would rail about.
I just can't see any justification for taking the many, many, many, many places where the Scriptures refer to the ugly ways the rich treat the poor, and spiritualizing them all away. They just don't parse that way.
Entirely agree ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My covenant calls upon me to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, befriend the friendless...
But I am having a problem with the definition of poverty in the UK.
To me a man who is poor has not enough to wear, not enough to eat, nowhere to live.
However, the official definition of poverty is so high as to be ridiculous. People who live just below the poverty line - 60% of the average wage (£26,000) are called poor when they have more than enough to live on if they live within their means.
In many cases poverty is caused by bad spending choices and addictions rather than simply being poor.
If we address those problems then being on a low income may not be comfortable but at least it's not life threatening.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Does the Bible not actually speak about poverty in the context of Israel - i.e. making sure we treat the household of faith fairly?
I'm not sure that the Bible advocates a setting up of a welfare system that feeds a whole nation. Biblically, it seems to me that Israel and the church are primarily called upon to make sure that their own members are cared for.
Of course, we would never turn away anyone who came to us but I don't see Jesus as a welfare rights campaigner. He would not have joined makepovertyhistory.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does the Bible not actually speak about poverty in the context of Israel - i.e. making sure we treat the household of faith fairly?
I'm not sure that the Bible advocates a setting up of a welfare system that feeds a whole nation. Biblically, it seems to me that Israel and the church are primarily called upon to make sure that their own members are cared for.
Israel was instructed to set up a system to make sure the entire nation was fed. Call it welfare or call it something else, but it was certainly supposed to be nation-wide, and to include resident aliens as well.
The church today is in a different position, not being identified with the nation-state, and therefore not in a position to set up a system to make the the entire nation is fed. (We could and I think should advocate that our various nations do so, however.) At the same time we are instructed to love our neighbors, and in the parable of the good Samaritan we are told that everyone we come upon is our neighbor -- so again we have a comprehensive mandate.
You don't like the welfare state, or the politics of the welfare state, but the welfare state is more biblical than the sorry state of affairs that exists where there is none.
quote:
In many cases poverty is caused by bad spending choices and addictions rather than simply being poor.
No one is simply poor! There are always causes. And you've got the causality backward. Poverty makes for bad choices. Poverty causes poor decision-making because it's so exhausting to be poor. If it were true that poverty is frequently caused by bad spending choices and addictions, there wouldn't be so many rich people spending their money on expensive drugs.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You don't like the welfare state, or the politics of the welfare state...
Where do you get that from?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
When I look at Matthew 25 and find the statement of criteria for the last judgement, it seems clear that we are expected to feel compassion for the poor and act on it: feed the hungry, house the homeless, etc.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Do we need a new criteria for what 'poverty' means?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I just can't see any justification for taking the many, many, many, many places where the Scriptures refer to the ugly ways the rich treat the poor, and spiritualizing them all away. They just don't parse that way.
Then maybe I can put it another way. I don't mean to spiritualize away the clearly beneficial and good literal applications of these ideas.
Another way, then, to put this idea is that goodness is not limited to helping actual widows and orphans, but to aid everyone that whose needs are like those of widows and orphans. Beyond that it means to aid goodness itself, which is often marginalized and impoverished in an immoral world.
To see the spiritual meaning as the primary one does not do away with the literal meaning, it just expands it. The reason for this is that the Bible is about the world becoming good, a world where people love God and love the neighbor.
The Bible is not primarily about the world becoming rich. If it was it would be utterly self-contradictory.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I think for me, one of the key elements in thinking about how God sees the poor are the structural instructions in the OT about the Year of Jubilee. Debts were to be cancelled and land returned to its original owner. I know that there is some doubt as to how far these laws were ever really put into practice, but the whole thrust of them is to redistribute wealth on a regular basis and to try and prevent the rich and powerful from accruing more and more land and possessions at the expense of the poor.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
Thank you Oscar; your comments linked into what was going round my brain.
The essence is not to confuse structural sin with personal failures. The structures of the world were and are unjust, and offensive to God because they hurt the weak, the powerless and the poor – those unable to defend themselves.
As already noted, a poor individual has the capacity for sin and there is no guarantee that poverty makes someone holy. However, if a powerless person sins then the damage is limited. On the other hand a powerful person can do much more damage through their individual sins. Furthermore, a powerful person is much more likely to be implicated in and benefitting from unjust social, political and economic structures.
Sin is about hurting the people God loves, and God’s love is for all. However, there is an exponential relationship between power and the effects of sin. That means that when an institution or a system is sinful then it has a destructive power beyond imagination. We cannot ignore that in favour of focusing on the peccadilloes of individuals. (Which, equally, cannot be ignored but should be dealt with proportionately.)
What is important is that poverty is created mainly through unjust structures which the salvation offered by the cross has to address.
On another note, a careful reading of the Gospels (especially Matthew which I know best) finds Jesus affirming the lives of the poor because on the whole they have an instinctive sense of community, solidarity and looking out for the other, compared to the grabbing self interest of the elite. There was also self-interest by the marginalised in this in a sense – the need to support each other to survive. At the same time, the instinctive desire for the good of the other is the most human and godly virtue; a sign of hope and the Kingdom and that is what Jesus affirmed. With reference to this, at the end of Matthew 25 when Jesus separates sheep and goats it is worth observing that neither group of people realises that it is behaving in the way it does. The question back to the Son of Man in both cases is, “Lord, when was it that we saw you .....” There is a naturalness about those who have chosen to respond to the poor and those who have chosen to ignore them. They do what they do because they have fallen into certain patterns of living.
To sum up:
1) The sinfulness of structures is at the heart of this debate. Sinful structures cause poverty.
2) Sinfulness and power have an unhealthy relationship.
3) Poverty does not cause perfection but does create a proper and godly awareness of others and their needs.
4) Wealth does not create evil people but tends inevitably to cocoon and corrupt and make competitive and self-serving individuals out of social beings. (But I am always thrilled and surprised when I meet the exceptions to this rule!)
5) Those who live on the margins can be seen to have a better understanding of mutuality and care for others. This is not a blanket claim and holes can be picked but it is a justifiable claim, and can be experienced by those living in urban working class communities.
6) Those who live on the margins are dis-illusioned. They have fewer illusions about the systems of this world, knowing at first hand the damage they do. This can create a critical approach to the world, the church and how scripture is interpreted by the middle classes in the ecclesia and the academy.
7) Nothing is clear cut and straightforward and the above is set out as basic principles, recognising that, as at (4) the pattern can be disrupted.
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You don't like the welfare state, or the politics of the welfare state...
Where do you get that from?
From this:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm not sure that the Bible advocates a setting up of a welfare system that feeds a whole nation.
Did I misinterpret your words?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm not sure that the Bible advocates a setting up of a welfare system that feeds a whole nation.
And yet that is exactly and precisely what Joseph does in Egypt. I don't recall that the Bible castigates him for doing so.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
This is all very helpful. A fair bit has been written over the past few decades on the Christian approach to (or stance with) creation, including the human structures, ways of working and ways of behaving. I have found the following helpful, starting with some of the biblical principles. Some of these have been drawn out or referred to by others already.
[1] Creation. This is that “Back to the Constitution!” bit that Jesus employed in his debates with the interpreters of his day. In fact, it's an approach taken in the Jewish scriptures, too. “It was not like that from the beginning...” (e.g., as employed in Matthew 19) where the initial conditions are said to rule the present, even though there may have been a rupture that damaged creation.
So from this principle we can get two things:
[1a] God created everything (Gen. 1; Ps. 24 “The Lord owns the earth and all it contains; the world and all who live in it). Because Jesus believed that the principles in the creation accounts applied through time, we are valid in concluding that all humans, no matter what their economic state, are within his scope of interest.
[1b] God specifically created humans to be his vice-regents ('image') over all creation (Gen. 1:26-30; 2:15). Humans are hampered in so ruling if they have no resource. It follows that the economically poor cannot fulfil God's creation principles and that must be a matter of concern to God.
[1c] Both those sub-principles still apply in some way today.
[2] Stewardship. mousethief has brought out a catalogue of examples here. The role of God's vice-regents over creation brings with it a responsibility to rule effectively ('economically' in its traditional sense – being responsible for the effective running of the household). This is where a feel for the social hierarchical set-up in the ancient near east comes in handy, because it informs much of what we read in the biblical texts. The concept of the 'Father's House' is important. The ruler of the house – the house elder – had a responsibility for to protect all those under his (usually a 'his') hierarchy and bring stability. This was a relational thing more so than a reference to the physical house. The junior members of the 'house' had the responsibility to support the head in his role. This hierarchy of responsibility ran all the way up the culture, from family to clan to tribe to nation to empire to God. Stewardship ran both ways – which may help explain the difficult to understand parables Jesus told!
Because stewardship (part of being God's image) was relational, in any hierarchical society there is a two-way responsibility. In our era we might like to think we are removed from such a set-up, but although egalitarianism is a principle that tries to underlie our modern worldview, we are still structured hierarchically (rich and poor, speechless and advocates, etc.), the damaging difference being today that we seem to have taken away the principle of stewardship that underlay the ancient near eastern concept of stewardship. We have deemed it appropriate to ditch covenant.
[3] Advocacy. Those with the requisite skill are empowered and have a responsibility to speak up on behalf of those without that skill. A principle from the prophets.
It seems to me that these principles underlie a biblical approach to the economically poor and explain the assorted texts that others have brought out above. The Torah is indeed stuffed full of judicial findings in favour of the economically poor. Worth tapping into, it seems to me, are the following:
Abra(ha)m. Mentioned by RuthW, the covenant between God and Ab proves important. The classic bits from Gen. 12-17 include (NET Bible version:
quote:
Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household ('Father's House') to the land that I will show you. Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing. I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” (12:1-3). In effect, Abram was being asked to swap one hierarchy for another, to leave one Father's House for another, one covenant for another.
“Fear not, Abram! I am your shield and the one who will reward you in great abundance” (15:1). In other words, God was the senior over the new “Father's House” and would bring protection and stability (peace = shalom) to those under his wing.
“I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess” (15:7). Provision of a stable environment.
That day the Lord made a covenant with Abram: “To your descendants I give this land...” (15:18).
“I will make you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you extremely fruitful. I will make nations of you, and kings will descend from you. I will confirm my covenant as a perpetual covenant between me and you. It will extend to your descendants after you throughout their generations. I will be your God and the God of your descendants after you. I will give the whole land of Canaan—the land where you are now residing—to you and your descendants after you as a permanent possession. I will be their God” (17:5-8).
Jubilee. Leviticus 25. Oscar the Grouch's reference. Probably reflects what did happen when new kings were installed. For our purposes this is the natural extension of the Sabbath rules as part of stewarding the land. The land needed a complete rest. The judgment on how this was to operate was important: “You may have the Sabbath produce of the land to eat—you, your male servant, your female servant, your hired worker, the resident foreigner who stays with you, your cattle, and the wild animals that are in your land—all its produce will be for you to eat” (25:6-7).
Coming out of this is something important, it seems to me. Although it is true that the major part of biblical scope (both testaments) impacts on how the faithful/loyal community conducts relations within its borders (i.e., no direct reference to any relation to those outside of the 'Father's House'), there is reference to that class called the resident foreigner / alien / stranger / emigrant / sojourner (Toshav = תּוֹשָׁב). These were the powerless ones, reliant on the goodwill of the resident occupiers of the land. So although widows and orphans as a grouping receive special mention in the bible and were within the community (Father’s House), there was still an expectation that the stewards must act as God's image towards those not part of the Father's House; those who nevertheless where within the sphere of influence of the 'Father'.
Cosmology. Bit of a side step, perhaps, but part of the worldview of the ancient near east and therefore important to consider. I like the analyses that have been taking place in recent years into this area. Jubilee, Sabbath, and all the rest fall into a pattern that Genesis 1-2 reflect – that of the relationship between the spiritual and the material. Genesis 1-2, when seen as a parallel to the temple, which in turn reflects an attitude to creation as a whole, demonstrates God's order and plans for all creation, from his presence (Holy of Holies – the Garden), to the court of the loyal ones (Eden), out to the rest of the world. In this temple mode God's human creation has, for want of a better word, a priestly function as his image.
Land. I need to come back to this because much hinges on our stance to it. What happened to the land? What is its equivalent for Christians, if so many of the biblical principles depend on it for a role to function correctly? Assuming that the land promised to Abraham was a model for the whole world and that therefore since Jesus the Christian state is all of creation, then clearly we are not in the position of Israel in the land. We do not rule.
The real state of Christians, it seems to me, is really more that of the post-Babylonian exile. We are promised the world, but although there has been a return to it of sorts, we find others in control. We are already-and-not-yet. This was the issue Paul had to tackle when building the churches he founded. It informs his theology (which means his material-spiritual application based on the vast understanding he had of the Jewish scriptures).
So this is where the rubber hits the tarmac. The question faced is how a Christian best fulfils the image principle in a land currently occupied by the Amorites / Romans, etc. Perhaps our models should be Abraham, or Daniel, and the like.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm not sure that the Bible advocates a setting up of a welfare system that feeds a whole nation.
And yet that is exactly and precisely what Joseph does in Egypt. I don't recall that the Bible castigates him for doing so.
Joseph was acting in government, not church
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
You are correct Mudfrog, that the Bible doesn't specifically teach a welfare state. It doesn't, btw, promote a free market system, or a state separate from religion.
Which is supposed to say that the Bible written in a near Eastern, ancient and agrarian context, would find pretty much everything we do as foreign. This is why, interpreting Scripture as a rule book for living our lives today is so problematic.
Rather, Scripture does teach that God has a special concern for the poor and vulnerable. Some of us, who are politically liberal, interpret that as a theological foundation for a modern state that directs its policies towards justice for the poor. Which BTW, means more than just a welfare state, but creating just sustainable communities, where love and equity can be nourished.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
LeRoc, I wonder if you might say a little more about what you mean by 'egoism'. My first thought is of the idea that life worth living is spent serving others (which I get from Tolstoy in the imperfect quote in my mind).
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
My first thought is of the idea that life worth living is spent serving others (which I get from Tolstoy in the imperfect quote in my mind).
One problem with this is that the people being served do not always want the particular service that's being offered.
There is a saying, "We are put here on earth to help others; I have no idea what the others are here for." ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think for me, one of the key elements in thinking about how God sees the poor are the structural instructions in the OT about the Year of Jubilee. Debts were to be cancelled and land returned to its original owner...
Looking at Moses, one thing that strikes me is the newly acquired land was distributed to all families, yes? No rich vast landowners and poor impoverished land workers. Everyone had sufficient to grow his own food and feed his own family.
And yet Moses talks providing for the poor. There were no desperately poor at that moment!
I see it as acknowledgment that (for multiple different reasons) any time you start out a group of people with equivalent resources, some will become rich and some poor (and some in the middle). That's why *periodic* jubilee was envisioned, not just one restart after they caught on how to run an economically just society.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm not sure that the Bible advocates a setting up of a welfare system that feeds a whole nation.
And yet that is exactly and precisely what Joseph does in Egypt. I don't recall that the Bible castigates him for doing so.
Not exactly. First Joseph taxed everyone to build up stores for the coming famine. Wise.
But when famine hit he didn't return the food to the people he had taken it from: he sold it to them, taking first all their money then all their cattle then all their land in payment, (Gen 47:13-20), turning the whole population of Egypt into effectively slaves, at best "tenant farmers" where pre-famine they had been independent landowners.
One can read the Bible as saying Joseph enslaved the Egyptians, and then Egypt enslaved Joseph's people, what goes around comes around. Or more simply, Joseph having taught the ruling family that enslaving people is a good idea, why wouldn't the rulers eventually apply that good idea to the strangers in their midst? Either way, be careful what example you set when dealing with others! It may come back, if not on you then on your children and grandchildren.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm not sure that the Bible advocates a setting up of a welfare system that feeds a whole nation.
And yet that is exactly and precisely what Joseph does in Egypt. I don't recall that the Bible castigates him for doing so.
Joseph was acting in government, not church
Not sure your point. I thought you were decrying a government-based welfare system.
Oh and by the way, the purpose of the welfare system is not to "feed a whole nation." That's a bit of a straw man. In fact that's a hunka hunka burnin' straw man.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Anyway, the OP question is 'Does the Bible say anything about the poor?'
That doesn't suggest that the Bible should say everything, nor that we should only do what the Bible says about helping the poor.
I personally do not see that the church was set up to help 'the poor'.
Matthew 25, some would suggest, mentions the poor as 'the lest of these my brethren' and actually refers to the Jews and how the world treats them; or poor Christians and how the rest of the church treats them, rather than the poor in general.
The Acts of the Apostles speaks of the creation of the diaconate in order to serve the poor among the Christian community - rather than the entire poor class living in Jerusalem.
That said, it must be a part of Christian service and witness - a part of worship, even - for the church to show compassion and give practical aid to those who come to us in need - and so we do it gladly and pour huge resources into serving our commununities and fighting for social justice where government or local authority decisions impact the lives of people and make their lives harder.
A national welfare system, as in the one we have in the UK, might not be specifically taught, commanded or even suggested, in the Bible; but it is, in my view, the right thing to have - even with its huge problems. And I support it.
It doesn't have to be in the Bible to be right.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
Belle Ringer wrote:
quote:
Not exactly. (By which BR meant that Joseph did not set up a welfare state.) First Joseph taxed everyone to build up stores for the coming famine. Wise.
But when famine hit he didn't return the food to the people he had taken it from: he sold it to them, taking first all their money then all their cattle then all their land in payment, (Gen 47:13-20), turning the whole population of Egypt into effectively slaves, at best "tenant farmers" where pre-famine they had been independent landowners.
Well said.
It is anachronistic but Joseph might be described as the forerunner of today's "disaster capitalists" (See Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. 2007"). Those in power use crises, and manipulate those crises, to gain wealth and yet more power. It might be the banks, the arms industry, the "security advisors", and those who take billions of tax pounds/dollars to run contracts in devastated war zones.
The world economy needs the poor for anything from cheap labour, to the sex industry, as cannon fodder in war, and as easy targets for the accrual of wealth by the few. Poverty pays.
"The poor are always with you" was a statement of fact by someone who knew how the world worked.
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grumpyoldman:
The world economy needs the poor for anything from cheap labour, to the sex industry, as cannon fodder in war, and as easy targets for the accrual of wealth by the few. Poverty pays.
"The poor are always with you" was a statement of fact by someone who knew how the world worked.
This juxtaposition, implying as it does that Jesus approved of the sex industry, war, and exploitation of the poor by the rich, is obscene.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
I personally do not see that the church was set up to help 'the poor'.
Actually, the Church was set up to "be the poor", not "help the poor."
If all creation rightly belongs to God, then owning property is sinful (Christ himself told the rich man to sell all that he had and followed him).
I know that most of us cannot or will not do what Christ asks, but that is where grace comes in.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Originally posted by grumpyoldman:
The world economy needs the poor for anything from cheap labour, to the sex industry, as cannon fodder in war, and as easy targets for the accrual of wealth by the few. Poverty pays.
"The poor are always with you" was a statement of fact by someone who knew how the world worked.
Then mousethief said:
This juxtaposition, implying as it does that Jesus approved of the sex industry, war, and exploitation of the poor by the rich, is obscene.
Er, is that really what was implied?! Give us a break. How can it be concluded that because our current economy is set up to abuse the poor, and Jesus said "The poor are always with you", he actually approved? Does it fit in with any postings I have made previously?
Be assured in the first place the way we run our economies is obscene.
Be assured in the second place that Jesus understood this.
Be assured in the third place that I would not imply anything remotely like that of which I stand accused.
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
By the way, misinterpreting me like that is liable to make me even more of a grumpyoldman!
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
I personally do not see that the church was set up to help 'the poor'.
Actually, the Church was set up to "be the poor", not "help the poor."
If all creation rightly belongs to God, then owning property is sinful (Christ himself told the rich man to sell all that he had and followed him).
I know that most of us cannot or will not do what Christ asks, but that is where grace comes in.
That is totally meaningless and what's more, is nonsense!
What do you mean, 'be the poor?'
Are you saying there is virtue in owning nothing and having not enough to eat, etc, and thus being a burden on the 'sinful' rich?
And did Jesus really mean that all believers ion the Messiah must sell everything but don't worry if you can't manage it because I've got some spare grace that'll conveniently cover your wicked desire to own your trousers??
Is there anything in the Acts of the Apostles that suggests it was wrong to own anything? It would have been entirely unworkable and lets not forget that Aquila and Priscilla owned the house in which the church met in their area.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
What do you mean, 'be the poor?'
Are you saying there is virtue in owning nothing and having not enough to eat, etc, and thus being a burden on the 'sinful' rich?
On relying solely, completely on God's divine providence, yes.
Most of us can't do what Christ asked the rich young man to do. I can't, and probably you can't.
But that does not change the fact that it is a divine command, such as the command to not return violence for violence.
What does "taking up your cross" mean to you, then?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
You will, of course, realise that Jesus told only one man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. He didn't say it to anyone else. There was evidently a unique scenario here that does not apply to the universal church.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You will, of course, realise that Jesus told only one man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. He didn't say it to anyone else. There was evidently a unique scenario here that does not apply to the universal church.
If I remember the story correctly, Jesus' directive came after the rich young man stated that he obeyed the law of God completely.
How I read that is the selling of all possessions is a sign of genuine righteousness and right living of God. There is no money in heaven, nor is there rich and poor.
So I don't think you understand my point. My point is that all of us are broken sinners, in need of divine grace and are always in a state of sin. The fact that we can't sell our possessions is a sign of our brokenness, our fall from perfection.
So, I disagree with you when you say that "it doesn't apply to the universal church." No, it does apply and we fail to do it. When we own property, we deny God's sovereignty over all creation. We state that this is ours, and by extension, that this is not God's.
How can that not be sinful?
Instead of minimalizing this reality, why not see the ownership of property as evidence of our own brokenness, our own falling away from God's purpose?
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: You will, of course, realise that Jesus told only one man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. He didn't say it to anyone else. There was evidently a unique scenario here that does not apply to the universal church.
LOL, everything in the Bible is universally valid except this.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog: You will, of course, realise that Jesus told only one man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. He didn't say it to anyone else. There was evidently a unique scenario here that does not apply to the universal church.
LOL, everything in the Bible is universally valid except this.
Because the point of the Bible is not to make everyone poor. Nor is it to make the poor rich.
Everyone intuitively sees that there should be sufficiency of life's needs for everyone, and that no one should hoard what should be shared, or pursue selfish gratification at the expense of others.
The real point is about trusting in God, serving God and the neighbor, loving and helping others, and turning away from the evils of selfishness and immorality.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
There is no virtue in poverty. There is no requirement in Scripture, Tradition, reason nor experience for us to sell all that we possess. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that only poverty is a virtuous state and that owning anything is sinful.
Just look at Christ. He was voluntarily poor but he relied on the finances of others. Did he condemn the women who supported him financially for having the means?
Did he condemn anyone at all for having possessions?
No.
I believe that to extend what Jesus said to the rich man and make it a universal requirement - even though an impossible ideal - is to misunderstand what Jesus was saying to him. The whole point of the story is that this young man was proud of his self-righteousness and believed his adherence to the law could give him eternal life. Jesus however, saw that wealth (which was seen by many Jews as a sign of God's blessing) was actually the source of pride not holiness.
It is a principle that would correctly be applied to the prosperity Gospel today! Jesus would say that rather a ministry existing to preach that God blesses us financially, rather than a ministry that accumulates wealth and the outward trappings of luxury and privilege, that ministry should be using its income to give sacrificially to help the poor, heal the sick, house the homeless, etc.
THAT'S what I believe the story of the rich young man tells us; NOT that it's sinful to own anything or have some money.
As I'm sure you'd agree, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not having money per se.
[ 29. August 2014, 07:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
On the Gospel of John thread (the verse at a time one) I had noticed as we were going through it how John makes use of the theme of 'household' with the head of the house (the father) owning resources and sending his authorised deputy (the son who would one day inherit everything) on a mission. This deputy came from the father to explain the father's intentions and carried all the necessary authority from the father to ensure the mission could be completed (he comes in his name), following which the deputy would return to the father’s estate. Both father and son had a 'business' that they were engaged in (John 5:17).
There's a smack of a business trip about this, though perhaps the better picture would be of an ambassador' journey. Either way it seems that John at least used an image of someone with access to significant resources. There also seems to be a handover of this mission to the disciples, who will be empowered to continue the work – with access to the same resources.
Unless John's gospel is to be completely spiritualised away, we would have to take into account this stance from the near east: the kingdom of God as a business enterprise in some form. If the kingdom was seen that way, then it may throw light on some of the parables where a business theme is being expressed and where there is a master of the house.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As I'm sure you'd agree, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not having money per se.
Yes.
The Gospel is not about money. But it can be about the inordinate desire for money, which it condemns, or for the use of money to help the poor, which it praises.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Mudfrog, Freddy:
Is this not about having something else as #1 rather than God and ahead of all that flows from having a godly focus in life. If money is first then there is a god before God I think. I have thought this is a meaning of the gospel.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There is no virtue in poverty. There is no requirement in Scripture, Tradition, reason nor experience for us to sell all that we possess. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that only poverty is a virtuous state and that owning anything is sinful.
Just look at Christ. He was voluntarily poor but he relied on the finances of others. Did he condemn the women who supported him financially for having the means?
If there is no virtue in poverty what was Jesus doing being voluntarily poor? Surely he should have set an example and embraced the Middle Class lifestyle?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There is no virtue in poverty. There is no requirement in Scripture, Tradition, reason nor experience for us to sell all that we possess. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that only poverty is a virtuous state and that owning anything is sinful.
Just look at Christ. He was voluntarily poor but he relied on the finances of others. Did he condemn the women who supported him financially for having the means?
If there is no virtue in poverty what was Jesus doing being voluntarily poor? Surely he should have set an example and embraced the Middle Class lifestyle?
I don't accept that Jesus embraced any more poverty than the average Galilean subsistence peasant. As far as I'm aware he didn't sell the family home.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
So Jesus wasn't "voluntarily poor"?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
So Jesus wasn't "voluntarily poor"?
No. What evidence do you have for this alleged 'voluntary poverty'?
Apart from 'the Son of Man having nowhere to lay his head' (basically he was out travelling the roads at the time), what example of voluntary poverty can you give? What form did it take?
He and 99% of his countrymen were poor anyway!
[ 29. August 2014, 16:00: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
