Well, it looks like we are having some great dialog on the issue of Justice in our modern culture, and just how that plays out. I want to address a couple of posts by two people I believe are trying to be what God has called them to do and be, and have a sense of.
I am not sure how else to converse, so I am going to just do a point/response method of discourse here. It is a bit jagged, but for this purpose, I think it will work, so please bear with me.
Dan supplies the first counterpoint by giving us a look at the faithfulness in his own life and the life of his community, how they are attempting to do the Gospel in relation to the Katrina disaster and staffing the Red Cross. To paraphrase the Lord, my post was directed at those who are "sick", not those who are "well" and have no need of a "physician". But as always I am glad to see into people's lives of faith, and how they are working out their salvation.
Erin then brings up a book that says "Church has given up her prophetic voice into Western culture, and settled for merely being a chaplain within the system. Instead of questioning the basic consumer principles of unsanctified capitalism, we speak against materialism." For decades in the last century the Church was a voice speaking out against godless communism, and now that the capitalism as "won", we are, for the most part, silent on the attendant curses of empty materialism. Dan does not want us to "confuse capitalism with fraud, theft, and piracy" and he is quite correct in saying so, but Benedictine spirituality teaches me to seek the balance between the two extremes, and I think that is where God is wanting us to go, to find a place of freedom AND justice.
The next point that I want to address is when Dan mentions that many people think that the "Church should adopt the economic system of the Old Testament Law", "but they never want to stone the adulterers, homosexuals, or witches". He is exactly correct in this matter. The Law is the Law, if you want to live by it, you must do it completely, not pick and choose. While my post was inspired by a study of Amos, the Church is not Israel, and Hebrew Law is exactly that, however Amos is not the reason I am interested in the poor and marginalized of society. The reason is how Jesus Himself modeled a life of service to the poor, and how He always was concerned for their welfare.
When He began His ministry one of the very first statements He made was in Luke four where He reads from Isaiah "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor", then when asked by John's disciples for His messianic credentials in Matthew 11, His response is "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them." The Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, and constantly throughout the Gospels, Jesus identifies with the poor and downtrodden of His society. This is why I am interested in the subject, not Hebrew Law, although God's concern for the poor shines through in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as in the Christian Scriptures.
I see a tension between Dan and Rick's (rhymes with kerouac) points about the "deserving" poor. Clearly , by human standards, making things worse by enabling someone is not a good situation, however just as clearly Jesus Himself showed us the ultimate in sacrificial giving to those (me personally) who don't deserve it. I am not sure how to resolve this thinking, and I need more study but at this time, I personally feel that I can't know who is deserving, who will change their life in the future, and who won't, so I have to side with giving to even the undeserving, because I did not deserve the Gift of God.
Great dialog, I hope it continues.
† Deus est causa causarum et ens entiutn
† He is the Beginning and Being of beings
That's better stuff! Some of the thoughts I addressed to Rick, God bless his heart, in the last comment I made on your other post, bear on some of the comments made in this post.
Despite certain disparaging comments--ahem! made about the use of reason and logic, I have to continue to use them. From my point of view, most of the "heat" in this discussion is coming from what I perceive to be flawed views of "the poor," "help," and the Pauline Corpus. The assumptions seem to be that "the poor" are identical with "people who have no money," "help" must be monetary or material, and Paul's words don't carry the weight of authority, whereas Jesus' do. I would dispute all three points, not out of an unloving, gracious attitude, but a desire to obey the whole counsel of Scripture and to do some good rather than enable self-destruction. Not all people without money are "the poor," "help" that results in the immolation of the recipient is no help at all, and the whole purpose of Paul's scriptural instructions is to help us discern between "helpful help" and "hurtful help." Once an understanding on these elementary points is at least understood (perhaps agreement is too much to be hoped for!), we might be able to have a discussion without flinging brickbats.
Posted by: Dan Paden | October 04, 2005 at 07:22 PM
I am glad many of you are enjoying this discussion and I hope we all find it illuminating.
I will definitely come down on the side that Paul's words, while authoritative, have somewhat less importance than the words of Jesus. The historic Churches generally have treated the Gospels as the "new Torah" and more important than the rest of the Christian Scriptures. For example at any of them, the Gospel reading is always separate from the other Scripture readings in the Liturgy, and generally preceded by songs, candles, and crucifers. This pattern has remained steady from the most ancient times. Perhaps it may be better stated that Paul must be interpreted by the words of Christ, not vice versa. This may be what you are sensing in the references to Paul.
Also, I am wondering, is the giving of alms (for want of a better word) all about the recipient? Actually I think it is at least as important what goes on in our hearts, as the action of making donations. I think Jesus is talking about the spiritual implications of giving and doing works of piety in Matthew 6, and He seems to focus the chapter on the giver of the alms, not the receiver.
Matthew 6:1-4
"Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. "So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Posted by: Monk-in-Training | October 04, 2005 at 09:54 PM
I tend not to see it as a question of one section of scripture being more authoritative or less authoritative, but as both being authoritative, period. Reasoning from such a stance, you immediately conclude that if you interpret two pieces of scripture in such a manner as to make them contradict each other, you have interpreted them wrongly. This is the whole crux of the matter, my contention being that it is not possible to reconcile Jesus' teaching on the poor and Paul's instructions vis-a-vis the slothful, young widows, etc., unless you understand that they are not necessarily talking about the same two groups of people, nor are they necessarily thinking of helping one's fellow man in consistently materialistic terms.
No doubt that giving is important to the giver as well as to the receiver; that is yet another reason why one should be diligent not to wreak chaos and destruction with one's giving.
Look, genties and ladlemen, what I'm saying here is simple enough, and firmly supported by scripture (if you operate with an interpretive viewpoint that assumes that Paul agrees with his Master; I wouldn't have thought that would be an issue): give, generously, knowing that what you have is a gift from God, to be used with wise stewardship, to glorify Him and not yourself, the wise stewardship to include the very obvious facet of not helping people to ruin themselves. The only reason that it doesn't floor me that this is in contention at all is that I've run across it so consistently.
As I've mentioned, I have to give y'all credit for zeal and kindness, whilst taking exception to some of your conclusions. And, where applicable, I deeply appreciate the honest consideration of views different from your own. Thanks.
Posted by: Dan Paden | October 05, 2005 at 06:45 AM
my thoughts:
the Law forbids Jews from contact with non Jews, those who are not part of the Old Covenant, not circumcised, not keeping Kosher
You write "The Law is the Law, if you want to live by it, you must do it completely, not pick and choose. "
We cannot be Christians, faithful to what Jesus has commanded us to do and keep the Law too. They are incompatible.
Shalom
Posted by: Lorna | October 05, 2005 at 02:55 PM
dan
I too think that Jesus and Paul are in agreement...that Paul espouses, promotes, and expounds upon Christ's principles. In Terry's new Torah terms, Jesus is Moses and Paul is Ezra or a Rabbi teaching the application.
However, I do think it is important to remember that one does come first. Jesus and His teachings are the foundation and Paul builds upon that foundation. Too many times I believe we approach it the opposite way...Paul's teachings become the foundation and Jesus' words are intrepreted through Paul. It's not invalidating one or the other, it's a matter of knowing which one is necessary as a priority to fully understand the other.
I think in the words and life of Jesus you will find both forms of gracious love or charity...the discerning and the frivolous.
Posted by: jimmy | October 06, 2005 at 09:00 AM
Also, I'm not sure that Paul can be used to always support either rational, responsible giving or capitalistic systems. In his strongest words on giving found in 2 Corinthians 8-9, he says things like this:
"[verse 9] For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich."
This doesn't sound very rational...becoming poor so that others might have the opportunity to be rich--especially since no one has shown themselves worthy of that grace.
And concerning wealth and giving:
"[verses 13-15] Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."
Paul is not talking here about equality of opportunity. He rightfully acknowledges that opportunity is never equal...but that God's desire is that there exists (at least among his people) an equality in the ability to provide because his people share with one another. This doesn't sound like either capitalism or communism...this is Kingdom thinking. Perhaps one of the problems for us as Christians is that we keep wanting to only allow two systems of economics. God's grace may allow for another way.
Posted by: jimmy | October 06, 2005 at 09:14 AM
I like the term Kingdom thinking :)
Remember too Paul was practical. He arranged collections from the Gentile communities to support the pool in Jerusalem.
Fund raising is spiritual word. All that we do for God is :)
good discussion here (grin!)
Posted by: Lorna | October 06, 2005 at 01:50 PM
It is a good discussion, but responding point-by-point is rapidly turning into an exegetical exercise that will require commentary-length output!
By the time we cover each and every New Testament verse concerning giving, the poor, and wealth, in context, my beard will be touching the floor. From a standing position.
I am about ninety percent done with a whole post on this subject. It is going to be longer than is really good for a blog-post, yet it is obvious that even it will fall completely short of dealing with all the necessary issues.
I'll ask one more question, just something to throw out for people to chew on: on the assumption that there are at least some circumstances under which you could not support giving to at least some people, how do you draw the distinctions? Or is my assumption incorrect, and you would say that is necessary to give under all circumstances to some people, or under all circumstances to all people, or under some circumstances to all people?
Posted by: Dan Paden | October 06, 2005 at 06:39 PM
In some cases, it is necessary to give to all people.
A look at Old Testament law (not with the point of making it law, but with the purpose of seeing into the heart of the God who initiated it) will bear this out, in my mind. Farmers are forbidden from harvesting all of their crop, leaving some for those who travel by (deserving or undeserving). Every seven years, all debts are cancelled, benefitting those who are prudent as well as the imprudent. Every couple of generations, all land reverts back to the family that originally owned it, insuring that the children and grandchildren of those who gave the farm away don't have to live with their parents mistakes. Grace apparent in the law.
It sounds to me like Dan is saying, "In all cases, help, but if giving money is going to do more harm than good, don't give money." It's hard to disagree with this. It is a fairly narrow view of giving to say that money is the only way to do it.
As far as individual giving goes, the bottom line, to me, is relationship. I should be in relationship with the people who I seek to help, so as to know what their needs are and how best to meet them. Unfortunately, we in the American church are, all too often, content with throwing money in a plate and accepting our modern day indulgence.
Posted by: stephen | October 08, 2005 at 09:44 PM
Stephen, that's perfect. You put it better than I did.
Posted by: Dan Paden | October 09, 2005 at 06:10 AM
What a good discussion. I've been thinking along these lines myself the last few months.
I agree the church has abandoned it's prophetic voice in regards to capitalism.
I agree helping the poor isn't always monetary.
I've also been stumped by the question of who is deserving. At least for now my approach to this conundrum has been to meet the need instead of just give cash. For instance, if a person asks for money for food, I'll go and buy them something to eat right then if it's practical. If not, I'll give them some money and trust the Lord they'll spend it on food. If they spend it on crack, then that's on them, not me. To me there's not much difference between a crackhead blowing my money on dope and a preacher blowing my gift on personal ego projects. Their action isn't my concern, only mine concerns me. The rest is between them and the Lord.
As you all have mentioned, another question is when is enough enough? I give what I can afford in most cases and only beyond that when especially prompted by the Holy Spirit. So, if I only have $10 I can give, that's what I give and I don't beat myself up for not giving more because the welfare of my family comes before others.
I really have enjoyed this blog and the discussions here. These topics are the meat of the matter as far as I'm concerned. It's all about relationships.
Posted by: Brian Enis | October 20, 2005 at 12:10 PM