Thread: Giving it all away Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027035
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Martin PC on the Pope's Synod thread: quote:
He only told ONE person to give away his wealth and follow Him. Not you. Not me.
Leo in response: quote:
How very convenient.
MPC: quote:
Got any more wooden, literal, decontextualized universalization to lay on others whilst not lifting a finger?
OK, so here's the place to give a vibrant, not-word-perfect-literal, from-context response,
How much does one give away?
Does one repudiate marriage vows and leave one's spouse/children abandoned so one can give all one's possessions in a one-shot deal to "the poor"? Since one's wife, in the context of the time the NT was written, was one's possession, and so, arguably, are any children, how does one "give them away"?
Can one assume all the non-Christians will step up and support all those Christians who now have nothing left? Why should they look after such a bunch of wastrels?*
Or is one supposed to pay attention to one's commitments, and thus apparently ignore The Word of God?
Recently, I made myself unpopular in the Diocese by questioning the validity of giving tithe to the Church, when the Church no longer offers the services (hospital care, assistance to the poor, etc.) that they once, very weakly, did. That job has been taken over by governments who do take more than the Biblical ten percent, but who do also spend said money on some form of services to most of those who actually need them. We do have universal medical care, however much one can quibble about the details. We do drive on roads that are equally available to all. Etc.
Why should the Church get more than they need?
And what good does it do to give away your job-earnings and any investments for a one-shot deal, rather than earning an income and sharing a proportion of that with everyone in an ongoing process that will continue?
*I note that Israel is getting tired of people who live on the dole and repay by endlessly reading Scripture and demanding other special privilege because they are so "pure". Why start that problem here?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Logically, we can't all give all our possessions away. If we did, they'd just be lying piled up in the street, with nobody daring to lay a finger on them, while we all starved to death. So I'd humbly suggest there's probably some sort of limit to this "universal" command.
Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on
:
I once gave up all my possessions (such as they were at the time) to devote myself to serving "the poor." Guess who ended up supporting me? "The poor." After a few months I wised up and got a job.
I'm not sure what Jesus meant exactly. I am sure that my attempt to take it literally just made me a burden on those who could least afford it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
I'm not sure what Jesus meant exactly. I am sure that my attempt to take it literally just made me a burden on those who could least afford it.
Yes - we all need to be able to support ourselves before we can care for others.
I imagine that Jesus meant we should give up our attachment to our possessions, rather than the possessions themselves. To hold them lightly and share them generously.
Having too many things is, indeed, a burden.
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on
:
For me this has always been one of Jesus’ scary sayings when interpreted metaphorically rather than literally.
I’d find it quite easy to get rid of all the objects that I owned but much more difficult to leave everything I cling to and, follow…
I cling to the routines of security built up in my life. Stepping out away from those would be a really frightening thing to do.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Let me relieve an anxious burden from you: there is very, very little danger that Western Christians are going to take this passage too far. Even the most literalistic fundamentalist is probably not going to take this "too literally". You might as well worry about giant purple earthworms rising from the center of the earth to devour Cleveland-- the odds are about the same.
So let's talk about what it DOES mean then. Clearly Jesus wanted the passage to have some "bite" or he wouldn't have used hyperbole. He's trying to prod us to do something BIG. I'm not hearing a lot of that here so far.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So let's talk about what it DOES mean then. Clearly Jesus wanted the passage to have some "bite" or he wouldn't have used hyperbole. He's trying to prod us to do something BIG. I'm not hearing a lot of that here so far.
Why?
Surely surviving and getting through whilst being kind and caring to others is hard enough?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought the comment about giving up attachments was a good one (from Boogie). Western culture is a very addictive one, with shiny toys available, lots of pleasurable activities and so on.
But there are other addictions, such as being obsessive, or being judgmental about others, or oneself, or folding one's underwear just so.
But then who said that breaking attachments was easy? It often requires an earthquake in one's life.
[ 30. March 2014, 15:14: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So let's talk about what it DOES mean then. Clearly Jesus wanted the passage to have some "bite" or he wouldn't have used hyperbole. He's trying to prod us to do something BIG. I'm not hearing a lot of that here so far.
Why?
Surely surviving and getting through whilst being kind and caring to others is hard enough?
Because, for Christians, Jesus' words have some import. Jesus said it, and meant something by it. If he didn't mean it literally, he certainly meant it to mean something. He used extreme language obviously expecting to generate a response. So rather than wringing our hands and worrying about some hypothetical literalist ending up on the street, let's try to figure out what he did mean, and how we can live that out.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
ISTM, it is very simple.
Primary message: Follow God above all else.
Secondary message: Everything that is not from God, distracts from God.
ISTM this is the root, theologically, of Paul's distaste for marriage.
[ 30. March 2014, 15:46: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
I always imagined it to mean that once one had a roof over one's head, enough food to feed our family, and, at least in this country that means having some sort of a job, then surplus money from our salary or wages went to help those without roofs, food, water etc.
Who or how you help is up to you. Scattering money thinly over various charities is probably not much use, whereas giving a regular amount to a charity of your choice, which is helping those either in this country or abroad, is more what Jesus meant.
The difficult part comes when we have to choose how much of what we see available to eat, furnish our houses with or dress ourselves is actually necessary.
I would think most of us could probably look round our homes, wardrobes and larders and feel rather guilty!
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Ciffdweller wrote:
quote:
Because, for Christians, Jesus' words have some import. Jesus said it, and meant something by it. If he didn't mean it literally, he certainly meant it to mean something. He used extreme language obviously expecting to generate a response. So rather than wringing our hands and worrying about some hypothetical literalist ending up on the street, let's try to figure out what he did mean, and how we can live that out.
Okay, I'm probably doing a pretty gory paraphrase here, but...
I think Hans Kung in On Being A Christian wrote something to the effect that the more self-abnegating recommendations of Jesus are meant to provide us with an ideal to strive for, principles to be applied whenever possible, but not to the point of causing personal or social chaos.
So, for example, if you're hiding in your basement from a burglar who has already whacked the left side of your face with a baseball bat, you don't need to go upstairs and let him hit you on the right side as well.
But, once the burglar has been apprehended and taken into cusotdy and is no longer a threat to you, your first instinct should not be "Okay, now what can I do to make this guy PAY for what he did to me?", but rather "Okay, now what can I do to show mercy and forgiveness to this person?" Even if what you can do is ultimately limited by considerations of personal safety etc, the impetus toward forgiveness should be your paramount concern.
An example from my hometown is Martin Hattersley, an Anglican clergyman and politician. Shortly after his daughter was fatally assaulted by a random drunk in a train station, he made a deliberate choice to become involved not only in victim support, but campaigning on behalf of CRIMINALS' welfare as well, including the violent ones. He has, among other things, spoken out against harsher sentencing, and in favour of prisoners' rights to vote. Whatever the merit of these positions, Hattersley's motivations perhaps encapsulate the meaning of Turn The Other Cheek.
[ 30. March 2014, 16:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I always imagined it to mean that once one had a roof over one's head, enough food to feed our family, and, at least in this country that means having some sort of a job,...
Yup, in early Acts the Christians sold everything and gave the money to the Apostles, and then met in the houses of the Christians, so selling everything didn't include their houses. Or their cooking pots, or clothes, even Jesus had clothing for the soldiers to fight over. Paul says if you don't work you don't eat - he owned his tentmaking tools, others must have owned their shops and fields and tools so they could work and eat.
It's the next part that intrigues me, Jesus says it's hard for camels or rich people to enter, and the disciples heard in that not a challenge only to wealthy but to them! "Then who can be saved?"
And Jesus' responds that it's impossible for all people (but God provides.)
So the riches aren't specifically money, it's any earthly thing we overly cling to or think makes us superior to others - which is as likely intangibles like reputation or talent as it is money or possessions.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
So the riches aren't specifically money, it's any earthly thing we overly cling to or think makes us superior to others - which is as likely intangibles like reputation or talent as it is money or possessions.
With two understandings.
One, the more one has, the more easily distracted one is.
Not can be, is.
Two, things require maintenance, this maintenance is a distraction. The distraction removes one from God.
Three, (with three understandings) as the more increases linearly, the distraction increases exponentially.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
So the riches aren't specifically money, it's any earthly thing we overly cling to or think makes us superior to others - which is as likely intangibles like reputation or talent as it is money or possessions.
This.
Anything that stands between us and God is an idol and must be got rid of, preferably in a way that helps our neighbor.
There is also Lewis' guideline, which is "I'm afraid the only safe answer is to give more than we feel we can spare." Ouch.
It is true that this command to give away all was not said to everyone (once to a potential disciple, once to the group of missionary disciples he was addressing), but the principle has relevance to all of us, and must be dealt with. Some are called to take it literally and give up everything (shudder). Some are called to support those who have nothing, either because they gave it up (say, for Christian service) or because they never had it to begin with. All of us are going to be in one of these boats.
[It's clear Jesus didn't mean that every Christian without exception should beggar himself, because his own ministry was financed by women with means, and the early church was dependent on the hospitality and charity of those who had houses, fields, money to volunteer. "Let each one serve according to the gift God has given him.... If it is giving, let him give generously. If it is showing mercy, let him do so cheerfully."]
By the bye, women and children were NOT possessions in Jesus' day. They had rights, and Jesus castigated those who abused them. The call to leave wife and children is extended to very few people (such as the twelve) and them only for a limited time (Peter certainly took his wife around with him on his missionary journeys). Anyone who thinks they have such a calling had better make darn sure of it or risk coming under Jesus' condemnation of abuse.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
It's perhaps more concerning that we think more about what we keep (and why) than we do about what we give.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's perhaps more concerning that we think more about what we keep (and why) than we do about what we give.
I think it is more concerning how we justify either.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
But it's maybe not all about our own personal spiritual development either. Our neighbors' need does play into it, and people-sitting-on-a heap-of-God's-provision-for-other-people is pure injustice. If we're stewards, then what we have is not in fact ours to do what we like with. We have a responsibility to dispose of it properly.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
This is timely as it has very much been on my mind.
I do not believe that the Lord intends us to be destitute and therefore dependent on others. Paul talks about (as mentioned up thread) needing to work to eat, he talks about making sure he personally pays his way as a tent maker and he talks about families needing to learn what it is to care for their own.
That would seem to indicate that those of us with the ability to earn should. We are then responsible for how we steward the resources that we have. As mentioned by Lamb Chopped.
It seems to me that the only way to start to get a handle on it is to treat everything we have as not our own anyway. It's not a question of " of what is mine, how much should I give?" It is a question of " how can I make best use of the resources God has given me to bless others and extend his kingdom" (parable of the talents).
I guess it boils down to how much we trust God. Trouble is it is really hard to do. I am in no position to judge anyone else as I'm sure I err on the side of making sure I and my family are well looked after before I even consider giving anything away.
So once again I find myself agreeing with Lamb Chopped and the quote from CSLewis - if we give more than we think we can afford (like the widow and her mite) we are probably at least heading in the right direction...
[ 30. March 2014, 17:45: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I do not believe that the Lord intends us to be destitute and therefore dependent on others. Paul talks about (as mentioned up thread) needing to work to eat, he talks about making sure he personally pays his way as a tent maker and he talks about families needing to learn what it is to care for their own.
Well, yes. Someone must bear the burden of your upkeep, so it might as well be you if you have the means.
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
That would seem to indicate that those of us with the ability to earn should. We are then responsible for how we steward the resources that we have. As mentioned by Lamb Chopped.
The more one has, the more responsibility to give.
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
It seems to me that the only way to start to get a handle on it is to treat everything we have as not our own anyway. It's not a question of " of what is mine, how much should I give?" It is a question of " how can I make best use of the resources God has given me to bless others and extend his kingdom" (parable of the talents).
Bad theology, IMO. God makes people starve?
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
if we give more than we think we can afford (like the widow and her mite) we are probably at least heading in the right direction...
Trick is how we view what we can afford.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought the comment about giving up attachments was a good one (from Boogie). Western culture is a very addictive one, with shiny toys available, lots of pleasurable activities and so on.
I agree about Boogie's comment. It seems to me that all [human] evil is rooted in craving.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And all human good.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - we all need to be able to support ourselves before we can care for others.
Yes. But house or house? I would argue that one cannot be a good Christian* owning the latter.
Most, of course, don't have that choice anyway.
So, house, house or house?
Car, Car or car.
*or Buddhist
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
It seems to me that the only way to start to get a handle on it is to treat everything we have as not our own anyway. It's not a question of " of what is mine, how much should I give?" It is a question of " how can I make best use of the resources God has given me to bless others and extend his kingdom" (parable of the talents).
Bad theology, IMO. God makes people starve?
Sorry, either I've not explained myself very well or I've misunderstood your point lilBuddha. How does this imply that God makes people starve? I'm confused. Happy to try and explain further if you elaborate. Isn't it that we are more likely the cause of people starving as we aren't using the resources he's given us in the way God would wish us to? (Maybe I should've clarified that I was speaking from the perspective of the haves rather than the have-nots)
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
if we give more than we think we can afford (like the widow and her mite) we are probably at least heading in the right direction...
Trick is how we view what we can afford.
Couldn't agree more....
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
I'm not sure what Jesus meant exactly. I am sure that my attempt to take it literally just made me a burden on those who could least afford it.
Yes - we all need to be able to support ourselves before we can care for others.
I imagine that Jesus meant we should give up our attachment to our possessions, rather than the possessions themselves. To hold them lightly and share them generously.
Having too many things is, indeed, a burden.
Great post.
I believe Jesus is telling us to go a little further and give up the illusion of attachment.
Stretch one of your hands out and grip it tight like you are trying to hold on to something. After that, opening your hand up so that whatever you were holding on to could be removed.
The later is a more realistic view of the things of life: our stuff, our family and friends, our health, our very lives. We really can't grasp on to it, try as we might. Any of them can be lost almost immediately in any number of ways that we can't do anything about. We can only hold it all in an open hand. We bring additional worry upon ourselves when we think we can actually hold any of it in a closed fist.
In John 10 Jesus teaches that none of his sheep can be snatched from his hands. We can't really keep anything from being snatched out of ours. So, right on. If we hold something, let us remember we can only hold it lightly, but Jesus can hold us secure.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - we all need to be able to support ourselves before we can care for others.
Yes. But house or house? I would argue that one cannot be a good Christian* owning the latter.
Most, of course, don't have that choice anyway.
So, house, house or house?
Car, Car or car.
*or Buddhist
I can only answer for myself, but my wife and I sold our 2800 sq ft house and bought a 1400 sq ft condo and we're very happy with the downsizing. Much more free time. It's like going backpacking. Having only lightweight stuff that you really need is the most fun.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
ISTM that these ideas about appropriate housing or cars is getting towards the point.
Do we have a tool, like a car, that is reasonably priced and does the job, or do we have something that shows off how much "better" we are than the mere worker who has the entry-level vehicle?*
Do we buy tools, like planes or drills, that are functional for us (most people who write here don't do much carpentry work on a regular basis) or do we buy the best in the eye-candy catalogue, even though we won't use it much?*
Do we have a house where people are welcome, even if rather dirty from whatever they were doing, or do we keep a show-piece where the "being clean and tidy" outweighs the "having guests" thing?*
The rich young man in the Bible story was told to get rid of the stuff that kept him from seeing God in the people around him. He was used to being served, having servants, and Jesus wanted him to "lower" himself to serving others. As long as he had access to the money, he didn't have to so much as see people.
*If you have something slightly better than average for a good reason, please don't apologise - we're examining what this means, not justifying every thing that one has.
[ 30. March 2014, 20:03: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I always imagined it to mean that once one had a roof over one's head, enough food to feed our family, and, at least in this country that means having some sort of a job,...
Yup, in early Acts the Christians sold everything and gave the money to the Apostles, and then met in the houses of the Christians, so selling everything didn't include their houses. Or their cooking pots, or clothes, even Jesus had clothing for the soldiers to fight over. Paul says if you don't work you don't eat - he owned his tentmaking tools, others must have owned their shops and fields and tools so they could work and eat.
It's the next part that intrigues me, Jesus says it's hard for camels or rich people to enter, and the disciples heard in that not a challenge only to wealthy but to them! "Then who can be saved?"
And Jesus' responds that it's impossible for all people (but God provides.)
So the riches aren't specifically money, it's any earthly thing we overly cling to or think makes us superior to others - which is as likely intangibles like reputation or talent as it is money or possessions.
Except in Acts 2, as you pointed out, it WAS money.
While I think your point is true, and valid, I think most of us Westerners use that as an excuse to not take the financial aspect of it seriously. Yes, it's possible to have some things-- maybe even a lot of things (see 1 Tim. re "the rich")-- w/o losing sight of God. Yet Jesus seems to be very very clearly telling us that doesn't happen too often. I think we skip too quickly to the "soft" ending w/o taking seriously the challenge here. Jesus' words sounded just as radical to his first listeners as they do to us today. He didn't intend them to sound easy or soft. If it doesn't make you gulp a bit, I don't think you're reading it right.
IMHO.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
It seems to me that the only way to start to get a handle on it is to treat everything we have as not our own anyway. It's not a question of " of what is mine, how much should I give?" It is a question of " how can I make best use of the resources God has given me to bless others and extend his kingdom" (parable of the talents).
Bad theology, IMO. God makes people starve?
Sorry, either I've not explained myself very well or I've misunderstood your point lilBuddha. How does this imply that God makes people starve? I'm confused. Happy to try and explain further if you elaborate. Isn't it that we are more likely the cause of people starving as we aren't using the resources he's given us in the way God would wish us to? (Maybe I should've clarified that I was speaking from the perspective of the haves rather than the have-nots)
If anything you have or any part of your circumstances are the gift of God, so to are the horrible situations of others. If God blessed you, he cursed others. This is not consistent with Jesus.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
*If you have something slightly better than average for a good reason, please don't apologise - we're examining what this means, not justifying every thing that one has.
Sure, but the frustrating thing is that you're not often in a position to explain just how you came by [insert object of apparent unjustified luxury] and then face embarrassment and judgement from others. I hate this, but there's no good way around it.
Example: we currently have a house that appears to be far better than a missionary family of our financial means could afford. The explanation for this is a) we once had far more money, at which time we bought it, and b) we did an almost gut-rehab on the thing, which was in such poor condition that we could actually AFFORD to buy it, and nobody else would. But now that we HAVE rehabbed the thing (and done a good job of it, if I say so myself), we have to deal with eye rollers and with people who suppose we have the level of wealth to have purchased it in that condition (ha) and who therefore hit us up for money. As if we had any.
Yet darned if I want to sell our much-loved home just because we're embarrassed by the beautiful results of our (now-hidden) hard work.
But there's plenty of times I'm tempted to put an explanatory sign in the front yard.
I suppose this must be good for the soul, somehow. Learning to overcome false shame or something. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If anything you have or any part of your circumstances are the gift of God, so to are the horrible situations of others. If God blessed you, he cursed others. This is not consistent with Jesus.
Not necessarily. It could easily be (and is, I believe) that God has provided me with X with the intent that I should use it for people A, B, and C. For example, I have a doctorate (which is a form of wealth, though at the mo unfortunately not generating dollars!). I have used this to tutor a gazillion students in the refugee community, and have used the title "Dr." over the phone, email, etc. to intimidate obstructive petty bureaucrats who were depriving said refugees of their rights, and get them to do right. (yay, we're so ethical here)
Anyway, I see this as part of my stewardship. The fact that almost all of the refugees are lacking higher education is not God's fault--it's largely the fault of the Vietnamese communist system, which punishes people educationally for having family links to the losing side. That's human sin, not God's fault. His giving me the opportunity to get the doctorate is one way God works to redress that situation--indirectly, by giving them financial benefits, and directly, by providing them and their childen with educational help.
Were I to sit on my tuchus and do crap-all to help the community, I would be sinning by withholding God's provision for other people. Rather like having a large, well-maintained bus in a transportation-less area and refusing to let people use it.
ETA: of course God has provided THEM with gifts that they use to be a blessing to me, too. So it works both ways.
[ 30. March 2014, 22:00: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Getting back to the Bible text, the Greek makes it very clear that Jesus is talking only to the rich young man. He uses the second person singular pronoun rather than the second person plural.
When Nicodemus, who was very wealthy,* came to Jesus, he was not told to sell all he had; he was told he must be born again.
I think Jesus was extremely perceptive. He could see that the rich young man cared far too much about his riches. He could also see that Nicodemus needed to understand that God, rather than religious practices, was what was important.
As far as our own giving practices are concerned, we should respond as generously as possible to the needs we see and hear about.
*According to John 19:39 Nicodemus brought a large quantity of valuable spices to anoint the body of Jesus. Only a very wealthy man could have done that.
Moo
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
you're not often in a position to explain just how you came by [insert object of apparent unjustified luxury] and then face embarrassment and judgement from others.
Example: we currently have a house that appears to be far better than a missionary family of our financial means could afford... we did an almost gut-rehab on the thing, which was in such poor condition that we could actually AFFORD to buy it, and nobody else would...
But there's plenty of times I'm tempted to put an explanatory sign in the front yard...
Yes! Put a photo out front of the worst of rooms (pre-rehab) and a sign "ask us for rehab advice."
Ah, well, people would think you are looking for rehab customers. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Now THAT would be fun. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
I've got a shot of the kitchen stripped and with eight, count 'em, EIGHT layers of ugly wallpaper showing on the walls, overlapping. Knock your eyes out, it will.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
LC, with the notable exception that you seem to be doing rather more with your talents than I am, our lives have rather a lot in common. Though our kitchen retains its peeling wallpaper, invisible to me after 20 years. I occasionally have fun imagining some sad backing music, one of my kids looking glum next to it, and the voice-over 'no child should have to grow up like this' in a kind of DIY NSPCC commercial. Others bits of the place look quite smart ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am ashamed of conspicuous wealth; my wife puts it down to my inverted snobbery, and she may have a point, but it certainly frees up that 'pile of resources intended for others well being' if I remember your phrase correctly. It's a good one.
I can rarely use my 'Dr' to other's benefit, but I've tried now and again. It's a cause of mirth in my current lab tech job, where it has been noted that I am the most highly qualified welder in the NW of England. It has also been noted, with further mirth, that none of my qualifications are in welding...
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
AIUI, the main point of this story is about obedience to the law and where it gets you.
The young man comes up to Jesus and asks what he must do to inherit eternal life. The fact that he majors on doing means that he wants to inherit eternal life through obeying the law. So Jesus quotes the law at him – you know this already, here’s what the commandments are. The young man confirms that he has indeed obeyed them (“all these I have kept since my youth”).
At this point, Jesus puts his finger on the spot where the young man’s obedience falls down – loving things more than God. He may have been obedient in all the rest, but the hole in his obedience is here. Since anyone who wants to be saved by obeying the law must keep it all, his obedience isn’t good enough. This leaves the young man with a choice – either he can accept that his own obedience will never be good enough, and that he can only be justified by grace, or he can carry on trying to perfect his obedience. In the end, he understands that his works aren’t enough, but instead of choosing to rely on grace, he goes away sad.
This is why I don’t think this is a universal command – the young man’s love of stuff is the sticking point for him, but for the rest of us, the weak point in our obedience may well be elsewhere. But we all have one.
On a separate point, some of the early believers were definitely wealthy, and while they used their wealth to help others, there’s no sign that they gave it all away. It interests me that one of the most notable of these people was a woman – Lydia, a successful businesswoman trading in luxury goods. Her wealth was of use to the early church – Paul and all his mates were her guests for an extended period of time, so she must have had a pretty big house – but there’s nothing to indicate that she sold said house and gave all the money away.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If anything you have or any part of your circumstances are the gift of God, so to are the horrible situations of others. If God blessed you, he cursed others. This is not consistent with Jesus.
Once again I find myself regretting not choosing my words more carefully. I was trying to make the point that maybe (if "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it") regarding what we have as resources that we have temporary stewardship over is a healthier attitude than regarding them as "mine".
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
With two understandings.
One, the more one has, the more easily distracted one is.
Not can be, is.
Two, things require maintenance, this maintenance is a distraction. The distraction removes one from God.
Three, (with three understandings) as the more increases linearly, the distraction increases exponentially.
Oh my this is a very lefty thread isn’t it. Full of handwringing and really quite nauseating sentimentality.
First up, LilBuddha, you make a number of claims above that seem to indicate you believe they are proven beyond doubt “not can be, but is” etc. So pony up and show us links to evidence that we are definitely more distracted by having “stuff”.
Secondly, I would like a definition of what you mean by “distracted”, because I suspect you take it to mean “not nice to poor people”.
I would also ask the ship to ponder on this whilst self-righteously worrying over whether you have too much and must give it away; do I, as a father of young children, have the right to deny them the fruits of my labour and give them all I can?
What right do I have to deny my family holidays, and nice house, a nice car and other modern possessions? What right do I have to give all that money I would save to other people, denying my family their right to enjoyment and pleasure.
My family are all I’ve got, what right do I have to make their lives more impoverished?
I wonder if anyone will post here telling us they have deliberately denied their children in order to give the money away to others.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
With two understandings.
One, the more one has, the more easily distracted one is.
Not can be, is.
Two, things require maintenance, this maintenance is a distraction. The distraction removes one from God.
Three, (with three understandings) as the more increases linearly, the distraction increases exponentially.
Oh my this is a very lefty thread isn’t it. Full of handwringing and really quite nauseating sentimentality.
First up, LilBuddha, you make a number of claims above that seem to indicate you believe they are proven beyond doubt “not can be, but is” etc. So pony up and show us links to evidence that we are definitely more distracted by having “stuff”.
Secondly, I would like a definition of what you mean by “distracted”, because I suspect you take it to mean “not nice to poor people”.
I would also ask the ship to ponder on this whilst self-righteously worrying over whether you have too much and must give it away; do I, as a father of young children, have the right to deny them the fruits of my labour and give them all I can?
What right do I have to deny my family holidays, and nice house, a nice car and other modern possessions? What right do I have to give all that money I would save to other people, denying my family their right to enjoyment and pleasure.
My family are all I’ve got, what right do I have to make their lives more impoverished?
I wonder if anyone will post here telling us they have deliberately denied their children in order to give the money away to others.
Well *obviously* I have. Deliberately denied my children in order to give money away, that is. Surely that is not unusual?
The amount I give away annually could pay for at least two weeks long-haul holiday in the sun - Disney, the Caribbean, a cruise. I'd rather give it away and have a week in a (admittedly top-end) static caravan on a holiday park in the UK. We have a good time, and someone else somewhere gets something they need.
I've given away the difference in price between a new xbox for the 8-year old and a good-as-new second-hand one, ditto ballet kit for the 3-year old.
if I gave nothing away, we could get a babysitter and eat out once a week in the kind of restaurant that gets reviewed in the newspapers, instead of once a year. But once a year is fine.
It's not about impoverishing my family. It's about appreciating the really good things we can have while still sharing.
I worry more about whether I'm feeling it enough.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
On a separate point, some of the early believers were definitely wealthy, and while they used their wealth to help others, there’s no sign that they gave it all away.
Other than the book of Acts, of course.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Duh, of course I've "deprived" my child by giving stuff to others. Start with my time and attention. Having missionary parents means you get to share large chunks of the week with random needy people taking up Mommy's time (and occupying the computer looking for work, oh, woe! no access to Minecraft!). As for money, my poor bairn has never been to Disneyland (not that I think he'd like it much, he's odd that way) or on any family trip other than to relatives. We can't afford it. We probably COULD if we didn't do things like paying for the medically indigent, etc. but hey. He goes to free public school, not private, because his parents made selfish job choices (ministry, those bastards). And he's going to have to work his ass off to go to college for the same reason, and because his parents paid to bury the indigent dead and house abused people rather than sticking it all in a college fund (Yes, I feel guilty. Would I do otherwise? probably not)
But surprise, surprise, we had a really weird result of all this. My kid (for unknown reasons) turns out to be really compassionate, kind, and self-sacrificing for his peers. He is not an entitled asshole. He is loving. And if he gets stroppy and poor me occasionally, he's a teenager. He gets over it. And then he joins the rest of us weirdoes in helping others.
Come on, it's not so rare.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
On a separate point, some of the early believers were definitely wealthy, and while they used their wealth to help others, there’s no sign that they gave it all away.
Other than the book of Acts, of course.
They broke bread in their homes (Acts 2:46), which means they hadn't given their bread or houses away.
From time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:34-35). If they'd given everything away, where did those houses and land come from?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
On a separate point, some of the early believers were definitely wealthy, and while they used their wealth to help others, there’s no sign that they gave it all away.
Other than the book of Acts, of course.
They broke bread in their homes (Acts 2:46), which means they hadn't given their bread or houses away.
From time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:34-35). If they'd given everything away, where did those houses and land come from?
But Acts 2:44-45 says "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."
Which means that those houses were not their own, but were held in common, to be used as needed-- whether for meeting for worship or for selling to help those in need. The later incident with Ananias in Acts 5 suggests that the giving was entirely voluntary (as per Peter's response) yet there was a social norm to give it all (else why would Ananias felt the need to hide the money he'd gained).
Obviously the social norm changed later on-- for reasons unknown. But to suggest that "there’s no sign that they gave it all away" when the text is clear they did precisely that, at least for a season, is false.
[ 31. March 2014, 15:21: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Oh my this is a very lefty thread isn’t it.
That's an odd thing to say.
I understand that tories who give, and socialists who give, often have different motivations for giving, or ways of describing what they are doing; and different bugbears about what they are doing in terms of possible pitfalls.
For instance, tories might experience a sense of 'noblesse oblige', or give from a sense of privilege and a typically well-developed sense of personal responsibility. They might worry about the personal responsibility of the person they are giving to.
A socialist might be unlikely to share this worry, but instead might be rather concerned about what they might see as a paternalistic attitude on the part of the tory. Seeking to avoid this, they might give from some sense of class solidarity, or some other motivation unlikely to be shared by the tory.
But the key thing is that in all likelihood they both still give, and (as very different but potentially very good) Christians, give until it hurts a bit, quite a bit, a lot. And of course the starving recipient of their help quite properly doesn't (need to) give a shit about the complexities of their respective scruples.
I deprive my kids too, as well as myself. As a result we get pleasure from small things.
We have thrown into the dust-bin the clay-minted wages of pleasure, knowledge and the connscious hour.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
While I don't agree with Mark in Manchester's ideas about left wing and conservative people's motivations, which seem a bit of a caricature, I completely agree that personal generosity is found in people across the political spectrum. There might be some people here who would like the idea that it is particular to their politics but I am sorry that deano should encourage them in that.
Of course generosity is not the preserve of Christians, but for those who are, as I know deano is, surely it is hard to take the words of Jesus seriously but not acknowledge some moral obligation to people beyond one's own family. How to respond to that obligation each person has to decide for themselves.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Slinging political phrases about rarely indicates anything much beyond a desire to avoid having to actually deal with the question.
But I'll throw one quote in anyway.
Attributed to John Kenneth Galbraith "Modern conservatism is the search for a superior justification for selfishness"
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - we all need to be able to support ourselves before we can care for others.
Yes. But house or house? I would argue that one cannot be a good Christian* owning the latter.
Most, of course, don't have that choice anyway.
So, house, house or house?
Car, Car or car.
*or Buddhist
Things change. A great many people in this country can't afford a house at all, but can afford frequent foreign holidays. (You could have a thousand weekend city breaks in Barcelona for the cost of a two-bedroom flat without a garden in a downmarket part of London. Yes, a thousand.) There are people who can afford smartphones and ipads but have no chance of buying a car. You can buy a T-shirt for less than the cost of a pint of beer, a cheap pair of trousers for less than four pints, a decent pair of shoes is cheaper than a night out.
The difference between poverty and luxury changes with circumstances. These days 30-something "professionals" with university degrees and decent jobs with companies you've heard of often can't afford to leave their parents, because they can't buy a place to live - but the men who sweep the streets can afford iphones and wide-screen TVs. Though are of course even further away from getting a decent place to live. Unless something very drastic happens and soon we'll have a generation who can't afford to have children because they have no hope of finding more than a single room to live in.
(Personally I'm an old-fashioned socialist - I see nothing wrong with prosperity at all, I just want everyione to have a chance at it - I'm with the late Bob Crowe on that one)
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
My family are all I’ve got, what right do I have to make their lives more impoverished?
I wonder if anyone will post here telling us they have deliberately denied their children in order to give the money away to others.
You make no charitable donations, then?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Because deano they need the example and experience of sacrifice, of impoverishment. To learn through the greatest teacher of all. Suffering. To be content in want. To defer gratification.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think there is a fine line between doing your best for your children and overlooking that a part of 'best' is teaching them to put people before things.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously the social norm changed later on-- for reasons unknown.
Because it's ridiculous and unworkable?
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
On a separate point, some of the early believers were definitely wealthy, and while they used their wealth to help others, there’s no sign that they gave it all away.
Other than the book of Acts, of course.
You're cherrypicking my post. There is no indication whatsoever that Lydia, who was a very wealthy lady indeed, gave all her wealth away. She was generous – having that number of people as houseguests for months on end is expensive – but I see no indication that she sold everything she earned and gave it to the poor.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Of course, the other problem about giving all our your posessions away to people who have nothing is the fact that, the very next day, they will have to give it all back to you. Because then they will be the ones with posessions and you will have nothing.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, the other problem about giving all our your posessions away to people who have nothing is the fact that, the very next day, they will have to give it all back to you. Because then they will be the ones with posessions and you will have nothing.
Ah, but then you have cashflow, the foundation of any good business ...
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, the other problem about giving all our your posessions away to people who have nothing is the fact that, the very next day, they will have to give it all back to you. Because then they will be the ones with posessions and you will have nothing.
Sounds like fun!
I've seen families after parents die, dividing the estate. Some fight over stuff and everyone goes away feeling cheated of their fair share and is still saying so years and decades later, and I've seen families where siblings are each saying "you take Dad's watch/Mom's bracelet, no you take it, no I really think you should have it" and everyone goes away feeling loved and provided for.
Mutual giving is a much happier culture than mutual grabbing/clinging.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously the social norm changed later on-- for reasons unknown.
Because it's ridiculous and unworkable?
Because they realised Jesus was in less of a hurry to return then they were to have him back.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, the other problem about giving all our your posessions away to people who have nothing is the fact that, the very next day, they will have to give it all back to you. Because then they will be the ones with posessions and you will have nothing.
I can remember having a very serious conversation with my mother, aged about 7, on this very topic. And all because I used to go to church and hear the Magnificat: He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He hath sent empty away.
There is a lady with learning difficulties in our town who takes everything literally. After hearing this teaching in church, she gave all she owned to the charity shop, and only had left the clothes in which she stood.
I like to think that was a 'jar of ointment at the feet of Jesus' moment for her, but it does highlight that preachers do need to be very careful what they actually say in church!
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, the other problem about giving all our your posessions away to people who have nothing is the fact that, the very next day, they will have to give it all back to you. Because then they will be the ones with posessions and you will have nothing.
I can remember having a very serious conversation with my mother, aged about 7, on this very topic. And all because I used to go to church and hear the Magnificat: He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He hath sent empty away.
There is a lady with learning difficulties in our town who takes everything literally. After hearing this teaching in church, she gave all she owned to the charity shop, and only had left the clothes in which she stood.
I like to think that was a 'jar of ointment at the feet of Jesus' moment for her, but it does highlight that preachers do need to be very careful what they actually say in church!
Yep. My brother heard a sermon on Phil 4:13 and went home and, convinced he could now fly, jumped off the roof and broke his arm.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I wonder of this thread has run its course, or if I might widen it and ask your opinion on the other side of money - time.
I used to have a time-consuming and sometimes stressful job, and from the resources it generated I could give money. We're anonymous here, so I can be frank and say we chose to buy a shit house in a shit area, paid it off young and chose not to move/upgrade, and could give away a large-ish percentage of income. This didn't hurt much, as we chose to run a shit car, go on cheap holidays, and have a nice peaceful life a very long way inside our means. I gave time too; a fair amount of what little was available, I guess.
Then my head imploded; or perhaps the crash I had been preparing for, happened. We now have a smaller income, though we can still give quite money easily as our outgoings are likewise still small. I'm currently working part-time in a temporary, personally-rewarding though not 'do-gooding', low-paid job, and looking after my kids. My wife is highly paid, into her career, and works long hours, by choice.
I imagine this could all be OK - but of course I wonder if God is happy with our cautious, strongly positive bank balance, belt-and-braces fearful approach to financial security, and resulting timorous approach (to put it kindly) to 'living by faith'. So far, so on-topic.
At the same time, I'm giving money because I happily spend hours under the old car, paint my own windows, pour lots of time (when kids are in bed, or at school) into my extensive hobbies, because it makes me feel good.
If I was spending cash on myself like I spend time, I'd be guilty as hell. I'm uneasy, now. I know Christianity is not meant to be an ascetic cult - at least, not for everyone - and that 'things' can be good. But things can mean time, even when they are cheap or free monetarily. I suspect in the place of the rich young man, God might say to me 'go and spend your time on the poor, not on your personal creativity'.
But then I always hear God as my Dad, giving me some kind of admonition. Bugger, it's hard to hear the real voice. What do you do to stay sane, folks? Tithe your time? Double tithe it if you can?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Time is the only thing you can't affect. Money can be income, or expenses or the reason to be working. As you've pointed out, there is some flexibility with money. But there is just an exact amount of time.
Within that time, you have to keep yourself healthy enough to function at what you must do, let alone what you would like to do. And the needs of kids are, to some extent, "musts" - you can sort out what are musts and what are wants, but some are musts.
God does not require that your relationship must suffer in order for some doing good can happen. But there are some aspects of dong good that are compatible or even encouraging for your relationship as well.
So, look for balance. "You are no earthly good if you think or act too heavenly"
And Thy Kingdom is supposed to Come on Earth, so far as possible.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
This thread is all about highlighting extremes, from the very rich to those who give everything away.
Where is the happy medium?
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Where is the happy medium?
That's the whole thread in a nutshell. Where? Lord deliver us from the poles of guilty fear and complacent self-indulgence.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
But there are some aspects of dong good that are compatible or even encouraging for your relationship as well.
Well, that's true. I've been volunteer-teaching music to ex-offenders for more than 20 years. I get a lot out of it - in fact I generally enjoy it so much, something in my head tells me I should be volunteering at something more difficult. The timing also means my wife has to come home early from work once a week and pick the kids up, which is good for everyone!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0