Posted on 07/28/2014 8:11:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
That Jesus commanded His disciplesof which I am oneto love the poor is beyond dispute. Equally beyond dispute, however, is that, regardless of what growing legions of left-leaning clerics would have us believe, Jesus nevernever everaddressed the issue of inequality.
The head of my church and the most visible religious leader on the world stage today, Pope Francis, is as guilty a culprit as is anyone on this score. The Pope made headlines on more than a few occasions since his tenure began when His Holiness condemned inequality generally, and the traditional American economic system in particular, with a bluntness that would have made Barack Hussein Obama blush.
Ours is an economy of exclusion and inequality, Pope Francis insisted. Our system of inequality both results from and encourages laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. Thus, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.
Worse, the Pope informs us, our capitalist system with its inequality violates the divine injunction against killing, for such an economy kills (emphasis added).
Pope Francis may be the most well known Christian leader to conflate Jesus teachings on the proper treatment of the poor with the issue of income and wealth inequalities. But he speaks for countless lesser known representatives of Christianity.
Take Norma Cook Everist, a professor of church and ministry. In an article that she penned for The Lutheran, Everist insists that things havent changed a lick since Martin Luther said that the poor are routinely defrauded by the rich.
Inequality, Everist remarks, divides the world into makers and takers while fostering the godless fiction that some people, and even some children, are worth more than others, and that some, the poor, are of of no worth[.]
The project of reducing the Gospel to an activists manual on addressing inequality is fraught with difficulties.
First, as already noted, it is simply dishonest: there is no basis, Biblical or otherwise, for equating an obligation to care for the poor with an obligation to endorse political policies ostensibly aimed at reducing inequalities in income and wealth. Decent minded people of all faiths and no faith have long recognized the need to care for those in poverty, and Christians specifically have always been acutely aware of this as a moral imperative.
But it hasnt been until the emergence of large, centralized governments, immensely affluent, industrialized societies, and the dominance of secular, egalitarian ideologiesi.e. phenomena that dont appear until relatively late in Christian historythat anyone, much less any Christian cleric, has thought to identify compassion for the poor with the amelioration of inequalities.
Second, even the tireless emphasis that pastors place upon Jesus relationship with the poor is less than fully honest, for it is grounded in a selective reading of the New Testament.
The poor is as ambiguous as it is emotionally-charged a term. Most of the people among whom Jesus spent His time were certainly not rich by the standards of their day, and some of them did indeed live in grinding poverty. While its true that there was no middle class, its equally true that just because the tax collectors, farmers, fishermen, carpenters and so forth with whom He appears to have fraternized were not rich, neither were they all impoverished.
That todays clerics fail to make these discriminations between those to whom Jesus ministered by referring to them all as the poor reflects their awareness of the emotional and moral appeal of this moniker. After all, the poor are, well, poor: only the heartless could fail to feel for them. And the poor also lends those so designated moral authority, for being the victims of their circumstances, the poor are always blameless.
Third, this exclusive stress on Jesus fondness for the poor, whether by accident or design, conveys the impression that He was exclusively fond of the poor, a respecter of persons by virtue of their socio-economic conditionexactly what the Bible insists God is not.
This notion, in turn, further underscores a sense of moral superiority among the poor by fueling it with the fiction that their poverty is a saving grace. The poor, in other words, can too easily think that it is they, not the rich, that count for more in Gods eyes.
Some observers, like the 19th century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, thought that this, in fact, was the whole purpose behind Christianity. In referring to it as a slave morality, Nietzsches point is that it serves, and was always meant to serve, the psychological and emotional interests of the poor masses, namely their interest in exacting a sort of imaginary vengeance against the wealthy by demonizing them while insisting upon their own blessedness.
Admittedly, Nietzsche was an enemy of Christianity. But he became an enemy after having been raised Christian by his Lutheran minister father. In any event, one neednt accept Nietzsches reading of ChristianityI do notin order to see that those Christian leaders who use their pulpits to blast inequality lend it considerable plausibility.
Finally, Jesus excoriated the rich, yes; but He was no less hard on the poor, including and particularly His closest followers. Conversely, sometimes Jesus lavished praise upon the rich.
For 2,000 years, whether rightly or wrongly, Christendoms worst villain has been, not the rich and famous Herod, Pilate, or Nero, but Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus closest disciples and a poor man who relinquished what possessions he may have had in order to follow Him. Moreover, Jesus regularly castigated his poor disciples for their lack of faith, and, sometimes, compared them unfavorably with wealthy Gentiles, like the Roman Centurion whose servant Jesus healed.
Moreover, it is worth noting that besides Himself, the greatest example of Christian charity that Jesus extolled is that of the Good Samaritan, a rich man who deployed some of his ample resources to help a stranger in need.
We also shouldnt forget that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were rich members of the priestly class with whom Jesus mustve been particularly close, for not only did they attempt to prevail upon their fellow Pharisees to refrain from turning Jesus over to the Romans. Following Jesus crucifixion, both prepared His body for burial in the tomb that Joseph secured for Him.
All of this can be found easily enough in the four canonical Gospels which are read in Christian churches throughout the world every Sunday. That these points are neglected by so many ministers is due, I submit, to their obsession with combating, not poverty, but inequalities in income and wealtha topic, this Christian has been at pains to show, having nothing to do with either the whole of the Bible or The New Testament.
IB4TPWMA
Jesus was more concerned with spiritual poverty than with material poverty.
With all due respect to His Holiness - what a knucklehead.
Theological bookmark.
Christ never said that we must eradicate poverty since He gives us free will and there will always be those who create their own poverty. He understood our sinful nature.
The Left believes that mankind is perfectable and that we are basically good. They are wrong. Just look at their leaders, past and present, and you will find some of the worst sinners mankind has ever produced.
That Jesus commanded His disciplesof which I am oneto love the poor is beyond dispute.
James 2
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.