Today's religion page (B9) of the Washington Post featured a liberal theologian pushing a socialistic read of Scripture.
This week's question: "Was Jesus a social revolutionary? Why or why not?" The print edition headline for the May 12 "On Faith" feature read "What Does Jesus Want You To Do With Your Money?"
"On Faith" is an online "discussion" hosted by Newsweek and the Washington Post.
Post editors excerpted the response of "liberation theology" advocate Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite.
The Chicago Theological Seminary president urged readers to "underline all the texts about wealth and poverty" in their Bibles.
"The message of the Gospel will open before you like a flower in a warm spring rain," she added, closing by quoting from Luke 6: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God... Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.'"
Of course, the Gospel According to St. Matthew has a similar passage, but it notes that the poor who are blessed in question are those "poor in spirit."
Christian theologians and teachers studying the Beatitudes have often remarked that the passage from Luke is not to be taken as a simple swipe against material wealth.
As the online Catholic encyclopedia New Advent notes (emphasis mine):
Some scholars would attach to the former word also the sense of humility; others think of "beggars before God" humbly acknowledging their need of Divine help. But the opposition of "rich" (Luke 6:24) points especially to the common and obvious meaning, which, however, ought not to be confined to economical need and distress, but may comprehend the whole of the painful condition of the poor: their low estate, their social dependence, their defenceless exposure to injustice from the rich and the mighty. Besides the Lord's blessing, the promise of the heavenly kingdom is not bestowed on the actual external condition of such poverty. The blessed ones are the poor "in spirit", who by their free will are ready to bear for God's sake this painful and humble condition, even though at present they be actually rich and happy; while on the other hand, the really poor man may fall short of this poverty "in spirit".
One can find similar views from Protestant theologians, such as this September 2003 sermon from a Reformed Christian minister (again, emphasis mine):
I rather think that Matthew's "poor in spirit" isn't so much a contrast to Luke's "poor" but an expansion.
[...]
Quite a few of us have wealth, advanced academic degrees, successful careers, social status, and institutional power. Are these bad things? No, God wants us to achieve great things, to be successful with the gifts God has given us. Remember Joseph, our hero of the past few weeks, who did great things by his successful administration of the Egyptian economy?
The problem is that none of this brings us any closer to the Kingdom of God. It's not about your IQ, your SAT's, LSAT's, MCAT's, CV's, PhD.s CEO's, 403b's, or TD's. The Kingdom of God is about your neediness.[...]
Here's what Jesus is saying. It's right there, at those most devastating, vulnerable, secret, difficult, stumbling, failed, sinful, embarrassing, and painful experiences of your life that you're closest to the Kingdom of God.
At any rate, it is curious that the Post highlighted the remarks of one of its more liberal panelists by reprinting them in the Saturday paper, when any number of more conservative reactions from other panelists, such as Prison Fellowship Ministry president Chuck Colson or columnist and 2007 Media Research Center Gala emcee Cal Thomas, would have done just as well.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I would be shocked if the W
May 12, 2007 - 19:04 ET by Free StinkerI would be shocked if the Washington comPost had quoted Chuck Colson & Cal Thomas.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"George W. Bush simply reminds leftists everyday what they will never be. And they hate him for it." --Tammy Bruce
Well, in fairness, they did.
May 12, 2007 - 22:25 ET by KC MulvilleWell, in fairness, they did. The quotation from the liberation theologian (Thistlethwaite) was simply taken verbatim from that online forum. True, the Saturday section only cited the liberation theologian, but the Washington Post did, in fact, provide the original forum in the first place. I mean, these comments from Cal Thomas and Chuck Colson were right alongside Thistlethwaite's and others.
As for the original question, I'd recommend the two Jesuits (disclaimer: I'm an ex-Jesuit, and I think very highly of those two guys). I should also point out that the dominant morality of Jesus' time was from the Roman Empire, who pretty much believed that men were only as valuable as their social station. Romans prized certain virtues, including ambition and at times, ruthlessness. To that morality, Jesus was an extraordinary contrast.
These days, after many centuries that western civilization has been dominated by Christian virtues (OK, honored more in the breach than in fact), I don't think that Jesus' moral theories would be considered as radical. After all, atheists often criticize organized religion for not helping the poor enough ... they take it for granted that helping the poor is a virtue. In Jesus' time, it wasn't. Being poor was considered a sign of divine wrath, at least in Jesus' neighborhood.
Jesus' morality eventually turned around the Roman empire. We, who presumably support those ideals, don't need to turn to anything else as much as live up to the ideals we already have.
Well, in fairness, they did
May 12, 2007 - 22:30 ET by Free StinkerWell, in fairness, they did.
Then I'm shocked.
KC, How can someone be an ex-
May 12, 2007 - 22:44 ET byKC,
How can someone be an ex-Jesuit, i thought it was for life?
Also, if you could recommend one book by Alvin Plantinga what would it be?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I left the Jesuits while I wa
May 13, 2007 - 02:08 ET by KC MulvilleI left the Jesuits while I was still in theology, before I was ordained a priest, so no harm no foul. I'd tell the story, but at the end you'd be clutching the rug in agony, hating that you asked the question in the first place. I'll spare you the tale.
Alvin Plantinga is not my specialty, oddly enough. I like to defend faith, and that's what he's best known for, so you'd think I'd have read a lot of his work on the same topic. The embarrassing truth is that I only read one of his writings when I was writing a paper on modal logic. I just now Googled him for that work, and it's entitled The Nature of Necessity. I remember that book because it was a fairly easy read. Most philosophy these days comes from mathemeticians, and they can't help themselves from writing logic as if it was math. Every page is loaded with indecipherable formulas, and that can really be annoying. His book was a welcome return to plain English, for which I am forever grateful.
Frankly, from your question, I suspect you already have an interest in Plantinga. More than likely, you probably know more about him than I do. What would you suggest?
KCWhat i know of Plantinga is
May 13, 2007 - 10:02 ET byKC
What i know of Plantinga is that he is often cited in books i've read by William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Frances Beckwith, Greg Koukul etc. Alvin has a very good rep in the field so i thought that i should read from him directly. Fortunately i have a mathematical bent; even so parts of JPs writing on logic takes some real effort.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
“Here's what Jesus is sayin
May 12, 2007 - 19:34 ET by Dave High“Here's what Jesus is saying. It's right there, at those most devastating, vulnerable, secret, difficult, stumbling, failed, sinful, embarrassing, and painful experiences of your life that you're closest to the Kingdom of God.”
Well, maybe so. I personally wasn’t around to ask Jesus what he really meant, so I guess I should trust people who seem to know Jesus’ teachings better than me. What we DO know Jesus said was (http://en.wikipedia....):
...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24.
The parallel versions appear in Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25 and Luke 18:24-25.
The occasion of the saying, according to the gospel writers, was after a rich young man had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should first, keep the commandments (he listed only the six concerning duty to men, see also Old Testament#Christian view of the Law), sell all his possessions, and give the money to the poor, and then to come, follow Jesus. Because of his great wealth, the young man was unwilling to do this. Jesus then turned to his disciples, and spoke this phrase to their astonishment, leading them to doubt that salvation was possible for anyone. (End Wikipedia)
Modern Christianity has, in whole part, chosen to ignore this and many other similar teachings of Jesus. As Al Franken has famously and humorously pointed out, if you take a pair of scissors and cut out all of the passages from the Bible about giving all of your money to the poor, it would make plenty of space between the covers to hide Rush Limbaugh’s stash of drugs.
Do rich folks need to give all of their money to poor people to enter the kingdom of heaven? I personally don’t think so, but should CEOs and top executives who are earning 500 times more than the average employee in their company control their greed and avarice and pay their employees more? Hmmmm. Perhaps this is a modern day lesson we could all take to heart from Jesus.
Regards, Dave High
Dave:I think it's a problem
May 12, 2007 - 19:51 ET by Ken ShepherdDave:
I think it's a problem when liberals and Marxist aim to twist the teachings of Scripture to provide a religious basis for empowering Caesar to rob from Peter to pay Paul.
A contextual read of Scripture shows us that wealth and money are not the root of evil but the obsessive love thereof.
It's folly to trust in wealth or to hoard it, and Scripture teaches against both. But your CEO pay=500x average pay example is not necessarily such an instance.
CEOs are hired by company boards to perform a specific set of tasks that are highly stressful and specialized, and carry hundreds of times the risk of any average employee.
That's where the pay is "deserved."
What is pretty crystal clear from Scripture is that possessing much doesn't mean government should redistribute same but that with that possession comes a greater measure of responsibility.
"To whom much is given, much is required."
But even there, the context is much is required of us by Christ, not Caesar.
Ken:“I think it's a problem
May 12, 2007 - 20:06 ET by Dave HighKen:
“I think it's a problem when liberals and Marxist aim to twist the teachings of Scripture to provide a religious basis for empowering Caesar to rob from Peter to pay Paul.”
Wow, you really got a lot of imagery into one sentence. Liberals/Marxist twisting Scripture, Caesar redistributing wealth, etc. Writing in that style kind of muddles the central issue, don’t you think? I never suggested that Caesar should rob the rich to pay the poor, or that liberals and Marxists are in league to support such a redistribution. You interjected all of that.
To my knowledge, Jesus was a moral teacher and his central moral theme (or at least one of them) is that those who have much should give what they have to those who have not. I personally don’t agree with this as I think there is natural selection in competition, however I also don’t agree with the idea that one man at the top is worth 500 times more than the average Joe who does the daily heavy lifting. Don’t we all have kids to feed?
Tell me, what can any human being do with a salary of $500,000,000 a year? Is this not greed and avarice?
Regards, Dave High
Actually Dave the center teac
May 12, 2007 - 20:42 ET byActually Dave the center teaching is that we ALL screw up and thus need reconcilliation. Jesus came to provide for that to those who are willing
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Simple Comrade, you do not un
May 12, 2007 - 20:50 ET by Conservative VoiceSimple Comrade, you do not understand basic economics. It is fair because the market has said it is fair. The workers are getting paid what they are worth, no one is forcing them to work there...its a win win relationship.
Even in a sweat shop, the poor are earning real money that they didn't have before, it creates opportunity for them, and they are doing honest work. Something I have learned reading John Stossel's book Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity (a book I highly recommend) after the sweat shops were closed down because of people like you thinking we were abusing the poor...guess what happened? The girls who worked in these sweat shops found themselves needing money so bad they became prostitutes. Which is worse comrade?
The CEO is getting paid a fair price because the market pays it. Don't like it? Start up a company and make a billion dollars and keep 50K, give the rest to your employees.
Executive pay
May 12, 2007 - 21:53 ET by ChaitealoverIn regards to exec pay, how much anyone is paid is up to the owner(s) of the company, whether an individual or stockholders. If they decide the chosen person (one of a relative few) is worth x amount for making the company successful, and the more-easily replaceable lower level worker is worth y amount for doing the heavy lifting, that's their choice. The exec and the heavy lifter each can choose to accept the amount the job pays or look elsewhere. As to what either does with the money, that's their choice. Maybe they employ other people by spending it wisely (or recklessly), maybe they give it away, maybe they stash it in a hole in the ground; it's their money & their decision.
As far as what Jesus said about who gets how much:
When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, "Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first." The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. "These men who were hired last worked only one hour," they said, "and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day. But he answered one of them, "Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"Matt 20:8-15 (NIV)
Please don't say that the vineyard owner gave each the same amount of money, the point is that HE decided how much to pay each worker.
and the worker agreed to the
May 12, 2007 - 23:13 ET by Conservative Voiceand the worker agreed to the fair price
and at least in the US the wo
May 13, 2007 - 10:05 ET byand at least in the US the worker can stay in school (or any number of training) to get a better job,
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I agree, Ken. Jesus never
May 13, 2007 - 05:29 ET by motherbeltI agree, Ken. Jesus never once advocated that the governor of Judea should institute program after program to "help" the poor, or that His disciples become community activists to pressure the government to do more.
It's always interesting that when tax records become public and we see who gives what to charity, it's usually NOT the Liberals who howl loudest about taking from Peter to give to Paul, who contribute the most (Al Gore's measly $400 that one time is a good example.)
Comrade, companies responsibi
May 12, 2007 - 19:54 ET by Conservative VoiceComrade, companies responsibilities is not to provide jobs or create wealth for its employees, rather the market dictates what their time is worth to the company. A CEO who gets paid millions uses that money to invest, which creates even more jobs. The CEO gets paid that because the market says the CEO is worth that much. Where is your whine on how much movie stars make?
The Bible is full of giving money to the poor, but no where will you find it sanction the money should be taken by force, take 70% off the top, then give to the poor.
On the rich man story, the point was the rich man loved his riches more than God, hence he failed the test. Money by itself is not evil, its your love of money (or anything) over your love of God.
CV:Read the "rich man st
May 12, 2007 - 20:17 ET by Dave HighCV:
Read the "rich man story" again. Jesus told him to give up all of his wealth and follow him. There was no "test." It was linked to the commandments. Though I don't agree with Jesus' teachings on this point, Christians who take him literally can't ignore and/or warp what he said.
Regards, Dave High
Dave, if you don't agree with
May 12, 2007 - 20:36 ET by Conservative VoiceDave, if you don't agree with Christs teachings then it is pointless to use it in your argument. Everything in life is a test. Jesus was testing him to see if the rich man was willing to do whatever it took to follow him, and he failed the test because he loved money more.
DaveSince you admittedly know
May 12, 2007 - 20:38 ET byDave
Since you admittedly know little of the Bible may i suggest you read it? You will find that God deals with individuals, no doubt He knew the rulers heart and directed him accordingly. If you find the verse particularly compelling it is probaly due to YOUR heart.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Please define "rich"
May 12, 2007 - 21:24 ET by mikejPlease define "rich".
The poorest people in our nation would be considered middle class in most other countries. So, according to you, even the "poor" of this country should send their money to others who are less fortunate in other parts of the world?
Also, if the evil CEO making $500 million/year gives away alot of his money to his employees, then what happens if they become rich? Are then sinning as well? When one of these trailor park losers who is poor wins the millions in the lottery, should they then turn around and give it all away so that others can become "rich"?
Dave Buzzedi find it amusing
May 12, 2007 - 20:33 ET byDave Buzzed
i find it amusing that you say I guess I should trust people who seem to know Jesus’ teachings better than me. and the only person you name is the famous Biblical scholar Al Franken
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
CV/Bot: I like a lot about wh
May 12, 2007 - 21:00 ET by Dave HighCV/Bot:
I like a lot about what Jesus was teaching. For me, some of his teachings work and some don’t. There are truths to be learned from Judaism as well. I think the Buddha added a great deal of meaning to our religious understanding. I am not really hot on Islam right now. Mormonism, if you study it, can be kind of goofy, yet Mormons are generally forthright people. Go figure.
The problem is there are people everywhere who are distorting religious meaning and concepts to fit their own world views and some of their world views are pretty messed up. You may think that it is okay for some guy to make $500,000,000 a year while tens of thousands of people in his shadow aren't making a living wage. I don't. I think it is a religious, moral, and ethical transgression that the rich are inheriting this country. It is a societal-wide problem as evidenced by the exorbitant salaries of sports figures and movie stars. It is also not a new problem and I think it is something that cannot be fixed. Natural selection dictates that those with greater skills will determinately drive for ever more wealth and power. It is the boundlessness of that drive that religions have tried to control and which skives me. Although Jesus said, "The meek shall inherit the earth" the opposite is obviously true.
Regards, Dave High
Dave,Wow, you must have confu
May 12, 2007 - 21:08 ET byDave,
Wow, you must have confused morals with a Sushi Bar.(you pick those parts you like as if morals are purely subjective) As for the meek shall inherit the earth, Jesus also said my kingdom is not of this earth; He was speaking of the new earth
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg:Regarding morals and eth
May 12, 2007 - 21:24 ET by Dave Highbotg:
Regarding morals and ethics, I read an interesting, new treatise by Sam Harris, an atheist. He points out, accurately I think, that many species of animals have a moral code amongst themselves. It is based on sustaining the species and self preservation. Monkeys for example protect each other, groom each other, and take care of each other. Now if you believe that all human morality is derived from God, how do you account for morality in sub-species?
Regards, Dave High
PS – I DO like Sushi. Barbeque can be eclectic, as well.
So you do claim that morals a
May 12, 2007 - 21:29 ET bySo you do claim that morals are subjective?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg: Where did I claim that
May 12, 2007 - 21:45 ET by Dave Highbotg:
Where did I claim that morals are subjective? My point was that virtually all animal species have moral and ethical codes built into them. I contend that morals come from the need to survive amongst others of our own species and amongst different kinds of species. Most religions hold that morals come from God and must be taught by religious leaders. You could argue that all animals are creatures of God and thereby have morals. Most religions don't take this view, however.
Morals are not subjective. They are derived from self preservation and the innate need to advance the species.
Regards, Dave High
When you said that some of Je
May 12, 2007 - 21:56 ET byWhen you said that some of Jesus, some Budda, and etc; I extrapolated a subjectism in your choosing (because it is subjective). Now you claim an evolutionary morality?
They are derived from self preservation and the innate need to advance the species.
This sounds very very close to defending Hitler's super-race; if you really want to advance the race then eliminiate all who are below the 50 percentile in intelligence and physical ability. You can hold your views but be honest enough to also claim the consequences as well.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg: Remember the Hitler rul
May 12, 2007 - 22:06 ET by Dave Highbotg:
Remember the Hitler rule: “He who invokes Hitler into their argument first, loses.” It’s a bail out. It means you have nothing more to add to the premise of your argument. I walked someone else through this on this site earlier. I won’t do it again. Google “Goodwin’s Law” and learn from your mistake.
Having said that, here is my last written thought for the evening. I believe that religion introduces ambiguity and falsehood into morality. If you are a Christian, do you side with the Westfield Baptist Church and Fred Phelps who contends that all evil in the world derives from homosexuality? What’s with that guy, anyway? Do you side with the Shiites or Sunnis? Which of the three Jewish faiths do you believe in? Have the Protestant/Catholic wars in Ireland been beneficial and if so, to whom? If we all began to understand that morality is based on self preservation and the survival of the species, maybe we wouldn’t kill each other so much in the name of God.
Regards, Dave High
Dave, you invoked the tounge-
May 12, 2007 - 22:10 ET by tracheostomyDave, you invoked the tongue-in-cheek Godwin's "Law" (cough) to conveniently get out of the corner you painted yourself in.
Maybe you should consider more seriously thinking about your stance before you argue it.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
Dave,Who cares about winning
May 12, 2007 - 22:23 ET byDave,
Who cares about winning and losing? It's about locating what's true. And to cite some made-up ad hoc 'rule' to avoid answering while at the same time claiming I'm avoiding is hypocritical. I realize that bringing in Hitler is usually a name-calling but in this case your morality is equivalent
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Oh, please. My beliefs have
May 12, 2007 - 22:45 ET by Dave HighOh, please. My beliefs have nothing to do with Hitler. It pains me to even say this. If you had to compare my well-reasoned arguments to Hitler, it means you had nothing better to write. As to winning or losing, on-line discussions are essentially debates. In debates, there is generally a winner and a loser. I am a chess player. There are winners and losers in that game, too. Please understand that in poker, if your final and best card is Hitler, you have probably lost the round.
For clarity, my argument is that morality is based on self preservation and the survival of the species. How did Hitler succeed in either of these two prerequisites? He lost roundly on both counts, or so it seems to me. Please take Hitler off the table in this discussion. It is a backslide. Perhaps you are just getting tired. I know I am.
Regards, Dave High
morality is based on self p
May 12, 2007 - 22:57 ET bymorality is based on self preservation and the survival of the species
You refuse to take responsibility for the consequences for your stances. The rest of your fluff is avoidance. The whole self-preservation and survival of the species comes from 'The Origin of the Species' do you care to quote the rest of the title? What is to win here? Some foolish pride? Reason out your whole argument before declaring them well-reasoned.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I dont think he was saying yo
May 12, 2007 - 23:10 ET by Conservative VoiceI dont think he was saying you are Hitler youth, as you seem more Communist than anything else, he was just saying what you said sounds like superior race stuff.
Actually CV i was saying that
May 12, 2007 - 23:15 ET byActually CV i was saying that the consequences of his moral viewpoint would justify a Hitler. I don't know Dave from Adam, he's probaly a nice chap who needs to think about the consequences and either accept his position or revise his position
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Dave High, I agree that you c
May 12, 2007 - 23:09 ET by Conservative VoiceDave High, I agree that you can find truth in many areas, even philosophy...because God is found everywhere. As far as monkeys go, what you are talking about is not the same as religion...society to a point, but not morality in a religious sense. Society as a whole, even among thiefs, have an honor code and rules of conduct and consequences for undesirable behavior. This part is true. Where you fail to understand is the higher law that goes beyond behavior, but thoughts and intentions.
All truth can be found in Christ our Lord, but like you said, you can learn something even from monkeys.
Hi CVi think Dave has signed
May 12, 2007 - 23:31 ET byHi CV
i think Dave has signed out he did mention earlier that he was tired. I was amused that in his post he said 'human morality' then spoke of animals and was tempted to ask if animals are human. But in the end chose to remain on one topic. Like when we were talking back in the forums, it helps to focus one thing at a time.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Our Lord's teachings as to mo
May 12, 2007 - 20:42 ET by hillbillyhatfieldOur Lord's teachings as to money gifts, if obeyed, would forever banish all limitations on church work and all concern about supplies. These teachings are radical and revolutionary. So far are they from practical acceptance that, although perfectly explicit, they seem more like a dead language that has passed out of use than like a living tongue that millions know and speak. Yet, when these principles and precepts of our Lord on giving are collated and compared, they are found to contain the materials of a complete ethical system on the subject of money, its true nature, value, relation and use. Should these sublime and unique teachings be translated into living, the effect not only upon benevolent work, but upon our whole spiritual character, would be incalculable. Brevity compels us to be content with a simple outline of this body of teaching, scattered through the four Gospel narratives, but gathered up and methodically presented by Paul in that exhaustive discussion of Christian giving in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9.
1. The Principle Of Stewardship
The basis of Christ's teaching about money is the fundamental conception of stewardship. (Luke 12:42; 16:1-8). Not only money, but every gift of God, is received in trust for His use. Man is not an owner, but a trustee, managing another's goods and estates, God being the one original and inalienable Owner of all. The two things required of stewards are that they be "faithful and wise," that they study to-employ God's gifts with fidelity and sagacity—fidelity so that God's entrustments be not perverted to self indulgence; sagacity, so that they be converted into as large gains as possible.
This is a perfectly plain and simple basal principle, yet it is not the accepted foundation of our money-making and using. The vast majority, even of disciples, practically leave God out of their thoughts when they engage in finance. Men consider themselves owners; they "make money" by their industry, economy, shrewdness, application; it is theirs to do as they will with it. There is little or no sense of stewardship or of its implied obligation. If they give, it is an act, not of duty, but of generosity; it ranks, not under law, but under grace. Hence there is no inconsistency felt in hoarding or spending vast sums for worldly ends and appropriating an insignificant fraction to benevolent purposes. Such methods and notions would be utterly turned upside down could men but think of themselves as stewards, accountable to the one Master for having wasted His goods. The great day of account will bring an awful reckoning, not only to wasters, but to hoarders; for even the unfaithful servants brought back to their lord the talent and the pound at last, but without profit, and the condemnation was for not having used so as to increase the entrusted goods.
2. The Principle of Investment
In our Lord's teachings we find this kindred principle of investment: "Thou oughtest to have put my money to the exchangers" (Matthew 25:27). Money-changing and investing is an old business. The "exchangers," as Luke renders, are the bankers, the ancient Trapezitae, who received money on deposit and paid interest for its use, like modern savings institutions. The argument of our Lord refutes the unfaithful servant on his own plea, which his course showed to be not an excuse, but a pretext. It was true that he dared not risk trading on his own account; why not, without such risk, get a moderate interest for his Master by lending to professional traders? It was not fear but sloth that lay behind his unfaithfulness and unprofitableness.
Thus indirectly is taught the valuable lesson that timid souls, unfitted for bold and independent service in behalf of the kingdom, may link their incapacity to the capacity and sagacity of others who will make their gifts and possessions of use to the Master and His Church.
James Watt, in 1773, formed a partnership with Matthew Boulton, of Soho, for the manufacture of steam engines—Watt, to furnish brains, and Boulton, hard cash. This illustrates our Lord's teaching. The steward has money, or it may be other gifts, that can be made of use, but he lacks faith and foresight, practical energy and wisdom. The Lord's "exchangers" can show him how to get gain for the Master. The Church boards are God's bankers. They are composed of practical men, who study how and where to put money for the best results and largest returns, and when they are what they ought to be, they multiply money many-fold in glorious results. The Church partly exists that the strength of one member may help the weakness of another, and that by co-operation of all, the power of the least and weakest may be increased.
3. The Subordination of Money
Another most important principle is the subordination of money, as emphatically taught and illustrated in the rich young ruler. (Matthew 19:16-26). This narrative, rightly regarded, presents no enigma. With all his attractive traits, this man was a slave. Money was not his servant, but his master; and because God alone is to be supreme, our Lord had no alternative. He must demolish this man's idol, and when He dealt a blow at his money, the idolatry became apparent, and the slave of greed went away sorrowful, clinging to his idol. It was not the man's having great possessions that was wrong, but that his possessions had the man; they possessed him and controlled him. He was so far the slave of money that he could not and would not accept freedom by the breaking of its fetters. His "trust" was in riches how could it be in God? Behind all disguises of respectability and refinement, God sees many a man to be an abject slave, a victim held in bonds by love of money; but covetousness is idolatry, and no idolater can enter the kingdom of God. How few rich men keep the mastery and hold money as their servant, in absolute subordination to their own manhood, and the master hood of the Lord!
4. The Law of Recompense
We ascend a step higher, and consider our Lord's teaching as to the law of recompense. "Give, and it shall be given unto you" (Luke 6:38). We are taught that getting is in order to giving, and consequently that giving is the real road to getting. God is an economist. He entrusts larger gifts to those who use the smaller well. Perhaps one reason of our poverty is that we are so far slaves of parsimony. The future may reveal that God has been withholding from us because we have been withholding from Him.
It can scarcely be said by any careful student of the New Testament that our Lord encourages His disciples to look or ask for earthly wealth. Yet it is equally certain that hundreds of devout souls who have chosen voluntary poverty for His sake have been entrusted with immense sums for His work. George Müller conducted for over sixty years enterprises requiring at least some hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars a year. Note also the experiences of William Quarrier and Hudson Taylor, and D. L. Moody and Dr. Barnardo. Such servants of God, holding all as God's, spending little or nothing for self, were permitted to receive and use millions for God, and in some cases, like Müller's, without any appeal to men, looking solely to God. This great saint of Bristol found, in a life that nearly rounded out a century, that it was safe to give to God's purposes the last penny at any moment, with the perfect assurance that more would come in before another need should arise. And there was never one failure for seventy years!
5. Superior Blessedness
Kindred to this law of recompense is the law of superior blessedness. "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). Paul quotes this as a saying of our Lord, but it is not to be found in either of the Gospel narratives. Whether he meant only to indicate what is substantially our Lord's teaching, or was preserving some precious words of our Great Teacher, otherwise unrecorded, is not important. It is enough that this saying has the authority of Christ. Whatever the blessedness of receiving, that of giving belongs to a higher plane. Whatever I get, and whatever good it brings to me, I only am benefited; but what I give brings good to others to the many, not the one. But, by a singular decree of God, what I thus surrender for myself for the sake of others comes back even to me in larger blessing. It is like the moisture which the spring gives out in streams and evaporation, returning in showers to supply the very channels which filled the spring itself.
6. Computation by Comparison
We rise a step higher in considering God's law of computation. How does He reckon gifts? Our Lord teaches us that it is by comparison. No one narrative is more telling on this theme than that of the poor widow [Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4] who dropped into the treasury her two mites. The Lord Jesus, standing near, watched the offerings cast into the treasury. There were rich givers that gave large amounts. There was one poor woman, a widow, who threw in two mites, and He declared her offering to be more than any of all the rest, because, while they gave out of a superfluity she gave out of a deficiency—they of their abundance, she of her poverty.
She who cast her two mites into the sacred treasury, by so doing became rich in good works and in the praise of God. Had she kept them she had been still only the same poor widow. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And the two mites "make a farthing." He who, as the Superintending Providence of nature, watches the fall of a sparrow, so that "one of them is not forgotten before God," also, as the Overseer of the treasury, invisibly sits and watches the gifts that are dropped into the chest, and even the widow's mite is not forgotten.
He tells us here how He estimates money gifts not by what we give, but by what we keep—not by the amount of our contributions, but by their cost in self-denial. This widow's whole offering counted financially for but a farthing (kodrantês, a quadrant, equal to four mills, or two fifths of one cent, as three-fourths of an English farthing). What could he much more insignificant? But the two mites constituted her whole means of subsistence. The others reserved what they needed or wanted for themselves, and then gave out of their superabundance (perisseuontos). The contrast is emphatic; she "out of her deficiency," they "out of their super-sufficiency."
Not all giving—so-called—has rich reward. In many cases the keeping hides the giving, in the sight of God. Self-indulgent hoarding and spending spread a banquet; the crumbs fall from the table, to be gathered up and labeled "charity." But when the one possession that is dearest, the last trusted resource, is surrendered to God, then comes the vision of the treasure laid up in heaven.
7. Unselfishness in Giving
We ascend still higher to the law of unselfishness in giving. "Do good and lend, hoping for nothing again" (Luke 6:35). Much giving is not giving at all, but only lending or exchanging. He who gives to another of whom he expects to receive as much again, is trading. He is seeking gain, and is selfish. What he is after is not another's profit, but his own advantage. To invite to one's table those who will invite him again, is simply as if a kindness were done to a business acquaintance as a basis for boldness in asking a similar favor when needed. This is reciprocity, and may be even mean and calculating.
True giving has another's good solely in view, and hence bestows upon those who cannot and will not repay, who are too destitute to pay back, and too degraded, perhaps, to appreciate what is done for them. That is like God's giving to the evil and unthankful. That is the giving prompted by love.
To ask, therefore, "Will it pay?" betrays the selfish spirit. He is the noblest, truest giver who thinks only of the blessing he can bring to another's body and soul. He casts his breadseed beside all waters. He hears the cry of want and woe. and is concerned only to supply the want and assuage the woe. This sort of giving shows God-likeness, and by it we grow into the perfection of benevolence.
8. Sanctified Giving
Our Lord announces also a law of sanctification. "The altar sanctifieth the gift"—association gives dignity to an offering (Matthew 23:19). If the cause to which we contribute is exalted it ennobles and exalts the offering to its own plane. No two objects can or ought to appeal to us with equal force unless they are equal in moral worth and dignity, and a discerning giver will respond most to what is worthiest. God's altar was to the Jew the central focus of all gifts; it was associated with His worship, and the whole calendar of fasts and feasts moved round it. The gift laid upon it acquired a new dignity by so being deposited upon it. Some objects which appeal for gifts we are at liberty to set aside because they are not sacred. We may give or not as we judge best, for they depend on man's enterprises and schemes, which we may not altogether approve. But some causes have Divine sanction, and that hallows them; giving becomes an act of worship when it has to do with the altar.
9. Transmutation
Another law of true giving is that of transmutation. "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations" (Luke 16:9). This, though considered by many an obscure parable, contains one of the greatest hints on money gifts that our Lord ever dropped.
Mammon here stands as the equivalent for money, practically worshipped. It reminds us of the golden calf that was made out of the ear-rings and jewels of the crowd. Now our Lord refers to a second transmutation. The golden calf may in turn be melted down and coined into Bibles, churches, books, tracts, and even souls of men. Thus what was material and temporal becomes immaterial and spiritual, and eternal. Here is a man who has a hundred dollars. He may spend it all on a banquet, or an evening party, in which case the next day there is nothing to show for it. It has secured a temporary gratification of appetite—that is all. On the other hand, he invests in Bibles at ten cents each, and it buys a thousand copies of the Word of God. These he judiciously sows as seed of the Kingdom, and that seed springs up a harvest, not of Bibles, but of souls. Out of the unrighteous mammon he has made immortal friends, who, when he fails, receive him into everlasting habitations. May this not be what is meant by the true riches the treasure laid up in heaven in imperishable good?
What revelations await us in that day of transmutation! Then, whatever has been given up to God as an offering of the heart, "in righteousness," will be seen as transfigured. Not only the magi's gold, frankincense and myrrh, and the alabaster box of ointment of spikenard, very precious, and the houses and lands of such as Barnabas, but fishermen's boats and nets, the abandoned "seat of custom," the widow's mites, and the cup of cold water—yes, when we had nothing else to give, the word of counsel, the tear of pity, the prayer of intercession. Then shall be seen both the limitless possibilities and the "transcendent riches" of consecrated poverty.
Never will the work of missions, or any other form of service to God and man, receive the help it ought until there is a new conscience and a new consecration in the matter of money. The influence of the world and the worldly spirit is deadening to unselfish giving. It exalts self-indulgence, whether in gross or refined form. It leads to covetous hoarding or wasteful spending. It blinds us to the fact of obligation, and devises flimsy pretexts for diverting the Lord's money to carnal ends. The few who learn to give on Scriptural principles learn also to love to give. These gifts become abundant and systematic and self-denying. The stream of beneficence flows perpetually—there is no period of drought.
Once it was necessary to proclaim to the people of God that what they had brought "was more than enough," and to "restrain them from bringing" (Exodus 36:6). So far as known, this is the one and only historic instance of such excess of generosity. But should not that always be the case? Is it not a shame and disgrace that there ever should be a lack of "meat in God's house"? When His work appeals for aid, should there ever be a reluctance to respond or a doling out of a mere pittance? Surely His unspeakable gift should make all giving to Him a spontaneous offering of love that, like Mary's, should bring its precious flask of spikenard and lavish its treasures on His feet, and fill the house with the odor of self sacrifice!
Either obey they all or don't obey any of them.
NICE post there Ken! You're
May 12, 2007 - 21:49 ET by tracheostomyNICE post there Ken! You're right about liberals occasionally trying to read a bit of socialism into the Bible. The most popular verse I've seen twisted to this end is Acts 2:44-46.
Yet sadly, many readers overlook the economic environment they were living in--and the fact that what they did was voluntary; not imposed.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
Missing the point as usuall
May 13, 2007 - 10:15 ET by c5thenThe messiah almost always spoke in parables and metaphores, especially when teaching. He used the question that he was asked by the rich man as a teaching tool. The man was acknowledging that he thought that Yahushua ( wrongly translated as Jesus) was the messiah and was asking how he might attain salvation. Yahushua told him what to do and he turned away because he wasn't ready to do it. It had nothing to do with how much money he had or what he was told to do with it. He was unable to do what his aknowledged messia and the human embodiment of his god had asked him to do. That is the lesson here.
It is not difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven because they are rich, it is because they serve their wealth first and not GOD.
People who take the parables and metaphores litterally and try to analyze the words in them are like the dog who is being trained to fetch. The master points to where he wants the dog to go, and the dog stares at the masters finger in expectation.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic.