Last night, the Theology Book Club that I meet with once a month entered into one of the most compelling conversations I have had with a group of Christians in some time. The book was Richard Foster's Life with God, which discusses the recurring exchange between God and humanity, "I am with you...will you be with me?"
As we began to discuss what it would look like for Christians to be with God (notice He does not say "I believe in you...will you believe in me?") we were drawn back to the prophets and to Jesus and their heavy emphasis on an end to violence and a giving up of "stuff" in order to do justly to others. We were struck that one of the key points of the gospel (not that we didn't know this already) was that those who have are called to have less so that those who don't have might have enough.
What was amazing was that the discussion went beyond "what if"s and moved into actual set goals. My dad (who is part of the group) vowed to purge his library and donate to those in need. One person talked about no new clothes bought for a year. I came hope prepared to do a bit of both (Rachel and I have decided on no new clothes except to replace something worn through and I am going to get rid of as many books as it takes to fit all of them on my current bookshelves -no new bookshelves).
I don't say this to hold up this group as some sort of supergroup. Just the opposite. What we realized is that we were considering the bare minimum requirements of following Christ, of really being with God.
The story we've been taught, since birth, is the story of the American dream. It is a narrative that teaches that every life stage is marked by having more. But the Christian narrative is different. It asks that, at every life stage, we have enough, and only enough, in order that others might have enough. What if all American Christians committed to simply not having more next year than they have this year? What if the money and time they saved on pursuing more was given over to the pursuit of justice and mercy and the Kingdom of God? What might that look like?
11 comments:
this is good. very good. a challenge and a call.
I don't think the call is about having enough, it's about being content with what you have. I see those as two completely different ideas.
Jana-
I agree, to some extent, except that I have often heard this (though I know you wouldn't do this) turned into an indictment on the poor. I've actually heard those who have more than enough say "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. I don't love my money, but I bet a lot of guys begging on the street do." As Thomas Merton once said, "It is easy enough to tell the poor to accept their poverty as God's will when you yourself have warm clothes and plenty of food and medical care and a roof over your head and no worry about the rent. But if you want them to believe you-try to share some of their poverty and see if you can accept it as God's will for yourself." Or, as we read in James 2:16, "If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?"
I know you aren't advocating for this kind of behavior, but I think it's where Christians can go when they make it about contentment and not about need. I agree that we must learn to be content with what we have, but I'd argue that we need to be content with less than what we have and that we can never say to those in need that they must simply learn to be content with what they don't have.
I'm not sure I understand where you're going. I don't believe that because I or anyone else has, that another has not. The resources of acquisition (spiritual or material) are not finite, they consist of education (formal or streetwise) and hard work. It is really no one's business who has "more than enough." To some, I have more than enough, to others I don't have enough. Who's correct? Unfortunately, I haven't read the book to which you reference. Maybe I'd have a clearer understanding of your precept.
My point is that Jesus and the prophets consistently call those who have to share with those who have not. I'd say it is God's business who has "more than enough" and, to a lesser degree, the church's business (at least for those within the church). Part of what we do as the body of Christ is to challenge each other to give more to those who have less. The Old Testament concept of theft (and one that Christ echoes in His teaching) is that if I have two coats and you have no coat, I have your coat. As long as there are those in the world who have more than they need and those who have less than they need, God stands with those who have less. Christ begins his ministry by proclaiming, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor." That meant bad news for the rich (as we see throughout the gospels) unless they were willing to give up some of what they had for the sake of those who had not. That seems like one of the clearest parts of Christ's teaching. The rich young ruler, the rich man and Lazarus, and so on.
I'd say that, looking at the world as a whole, you and I have more than enough. And, according to the Bible, we are called to share it.
When I read the story of the rich young ruler, it's not about him getting rid of his stuff for the poor, but for him to get rid of his stuff because it was keeping him from Christ. Giving your things away as some sort of magnanimous gesture of generosity for those less fortunate is less an act of love than it is an act of guilt.
I believe that when Jesus encountered the broken and poor, he gave them what they needed. More often than not, they did not need money: healing (John 9:1-12), life (John 11:38-44), and salvation (Luke 23:40-43).
I believe, too, your analysis of the American Dream is flawed: (from The Library of Congress)
The term was first used by James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America which was written in 1931. He states: "The American Dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."
BTW, Kester,
Thanks for engaging me in this debate. We're going to chase our own tails around this tree, but I find this much more valuable and interesting than many other things I could or should be doing! :)
these are great thoughts.
keep em coming!
Jana-
I'm not sure how you can say that it isn't about him selling his stuff to give to the poor when Jesus' exact words are "sell all you have and give to the poor." Clearly, giving to the poor (or not) is a key part of the rich young ruler's problem. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus isn't about how the rich man's money keeps him from Christ, but that it keeps him from being generous. In the most direct picture Jesus gives us of the final judgment, the criteria for being "blessed" or "cursed" is our behavior towards "the least of these".
Our problem comes when we try to separate our relationship with God from our relationship with our fellow man. God says we cannot love God and hate our brother, and yet what could be more hateful than letting our brother go without when we have more than enough? Too often, as Christians, we make loving Jesus some sort of mental and emotional exercise that never connects to the physical. But the spirituality of Christ ties what we think and feel to what we do. It is the tie between faith and works that James discusses in James 2. I cannot wish my brother well, but do nothing to help him. I cannot claim to "love" those in need, but refuse to act on their behalf. If Christ's death shows us anything, it is that love means sacrifice. God didn't simply say, "I love you" He showed us by sending His Son. Jesus says, "if you love me, feed my sheep." We cannot then simply say we "love" Jesus and not love those He has called us to love. And we cannot simply "love" those in need and neglect those in need. Christ clearly saw a connection between getting rid of stuff for the poor and getting rid of stuff because it is keeping us from Christ. We must make that connection as well.
I realize now that I made the statement "The parable of the rich man and Lazarus isn't about how the rich man's money keeps him from Christ, but that it keeps him from being generous." What I should have said (and do in different words, but just so I'm not misunderstood) was that those two are connected. The rift that the rich man creates between himself and Lazarus causes the rift that is fixed in eternity between himself and God.
Thanks for posting this.
This can cut to the quick so easily, but if we don't feel a little pain in the giving up of what we think we need, or at least what we think isn't harmful, change won't come.
I left that discussion so glad that I had gone, so glad for people who will talk about this.
Post a Comment