If Christ truly is Wisdom, then I think the first thing to understand is that He's never just saying one thing, but rather many things to many people in many times. And those things aren't all just right there in a simple reading of the text (which has been distorted by the confusion of tongues across space and time anyway). Think of the gospel like Socrates, or a Zen koan: something you sit with, and it goes to work on you (like this aspect clearly has).
I think you're right about the poor. Maybe they weren't always this way, but probably most of the poorest throughout human history were. They're just the worst: you offer them some seed to plant, and they grind it all up for bread then ask you for more the next day. You give them your coat and they trade it for a six-pack as soon as the sun comes back out. They could get the richest inheritance imaginable, and they'd squander it all for a bit of short-term hedonism.
I think that coming to grips with this might be the point, because if the goal of being a Christian is to become like Christ, then we need to learn to see like He sees. How it feels to go out of my way to help some ungrateful bum can't be too far away from what it must feel like for Him to help me. When times are tough, I'll run to him with my problems, then as soon as things clear up, I go back to wallow in my own sin like nothing ever happened. I don't deserve what He gives me, just as the poor don't deserve what I give them. To give it anyway lets me participate in Him, even if in a small way. Maybe Lazarus is redeemed because he knows he's a piece of shit, not worthy to do more than dream of the scraps at the Master's table, and yet he cries out for mercy all the same. Maybe the rich man is damned because he thought clearing the incredibly low bar of not being Lazarus was enough to justify him.
I think that maybe the difficulty of having any compassion at all for those who are so contemptible helps us appreciate the Lord's compassion for us, who, by His standard, are at best ever-so-slightly-less contemptible. Probably it was never intended to be packaged up into a massive societal program, because societal programs cannot actually love, or repent. Even worse, they falsely absolve us individuals of our need to love and to repent. But that just makes it more difficult, because, in order to heed His call, we have to meet these people as He meets us: face-to-face, with all the ugliness on display. To show love and compassion as He shows us, who have done nothing to deserve so great a gift. What does that actually look like, I don't even know. I do know that it isn't the stock answer that society gives: stacks of cash and endless validation. He sure doesn't do that for us, because He knows it isn't what we need. Unless maybe in some rare situations it is. Wisdom is hard.
Kind of invigorating to read a real gripe with Jesus taken as seriously as possible, and then to read the author's decision to commit to his Lord anyway. That's some very Ecclesiastes shit, and I think we'd all be stronger Christians if we were willing to do this and not walk away.
But also, I have to join your imagined chorus of responders and say that I agree that Jesus' poor and our poor aren't of the same species.
"The helpless" need to be more subtly identified now that we've basically made material goods hyper abundant. A sickness of the spirit is much more insidious now.
Jesus wanted us to help those who are seeking bread and water. A lot of folks want neither. They want power, and their poverty is just a situational embarrassment.
You've written the comment I came here to write, in part (the Ecclesiastes part is golden, but I wouldn't have thought to include it).
The only thing I would have added is that in the second and third world, the situation is a little more complex than our host has described. I've worked as a missionary in a second world country (using Parag Khanna's term) in the Balkans, and some of the problem is cultural, some of the problem is individual, some of the problem is institutional (corruption, bureaucracy), but a big part of the problem is situational. The factory owners run tight margins - if they have to pay their workers even a tiny bit more, the big Euro country that buys all their product will go to Bangladesh. These are working families, and their kids will learn English and/or German in school and leave the country if they're able. The medical programs in-country are full, but the domestic market (and even the foreign market) for doctors is only so big.
The honest business leaders know that their culture doesn't have the Protestant work ethic, and lament that, but even if they did, their country is still in a squeeze.
"Back then, maybe it really was the case that lots of good, otherwise normal people were brutally oppressed by the social structures of their day, kept down and economically destitute and dependent through no fault of their own."
Well, for starters, about 20% of the Roman Empire's population were slaves, many of whom would be literally worked to death either in mines, agriculture, or naval galleys, with short and miserable lives. There was no technological ability to produce abundant excess capital (recall that the primary economic production engine was agriculture, heavily labor-constrained), so the few rich people who did exist relied entirely on both slave labor and poorly paid laborers (recall that Jesus also condemns those who withhold the fair wages from workers!). The rich could cheat their laborers because the poor couldn't afford lawyers and the magistrates would side with their rich buddies anyway. Slavery meanwhile overall devalues labor, which is why economists unanimously agree that slavery is horrible for the economy long-run (and largely why the American South's economy stagnated and failed to industrialize, leading to their defeat in the Civil War). Even more, tax collection was heavily skewed in favor of the rich, because they could (and did) bribe tax collectors and assessors to reduce their tax burden, so the tax collectors would both be personally enriched and turn around and demand even more from the plebs; even still they would demand more than necessary from the poor, to skim off the top. (The Diocletian reforms somewhat lessened this because the empire became more centralized and bureaucratic and stopped outsourcing/subcontracting tax collection.) This is to say nothing of the lack of family planning, debilitating chronic diseases, and no formal social safety net. Recall also the legal barriers to advancing above your class. The entire thing was designed top-to-bottom to be highly extractive for the benefit of a few elites, much like the Soviet economy really (or any other autocratic regime that doesn't respect property rights and political freedom).
Basically, the economy of the Roman world was as close to zero-sum as it gets and it wasn't until the exponential productivity gains caused by the Industrial Revolution(s) that the default state of men went from "90% poor dirt farmers and a few hyper-wealthy elites" to something more. Once the average Joe stopped needing to work 24/7 just to get enough calories to survive, the structures completely changed.
I agree with the premise on great evil amongst the poor (and having grown up poor can attest). However I think it is the wrong interpretation of how Jesus treated them or wanted them to be treated. He was predominantly amongst the poor and preaching to the poor precisely because that is where much of the evil was- literal demonic possession in many cases. Why would the Lord be amongst those who were already close to him… But his teachings weren’t the twisted veneration of the poor we seem to do today and which your article correctly diagnoses. There was no toleration from the Lord for the evils of the poor- there was compassion and mercy yes; but those who truly turned to Christ and followed him had to renounce who they were entirely and become someone else. His disciples had to forfeit their very names and identities, their families possessions, their habits and dysfunctions. That is the opposite of what we demand of our poor sinners now. We ask how best we can cater to their continued dysfunction rather than demand or encourage that they repent of it- and shame those who would even suggest there is something evil and morally wrong about that dysfunction. I think the Prodigal Son covers this too, and covers my point above— the father didn’t sacrifice the fatted calf until the son had humbled himself and been truly transformed and repented of his evil casting it aside in humility. What we do now in our society is sacrifice that fatted calf before the wayward son has repented, when he is still arrogant cruel and proud. Then we sacrifice another and another and another. It is a twisted and evil enactment of Jesus teaching.
I think my thoughts on this are backed up by the Lords other teachings. The Good Samaritan in particular is used as a bludgeon to push back against the idea the poor or the stranger can be evil. Yet the central thesis of the parable is that the traveller was attacked by the Lestai — who literally were bands of evil poor people from rural areas. The judgement upon these people is implicit in the tale and in the comparison with the actions of the Samaritan who was a wealthy man likely a merchant given his personal mount, money to pay the innkeeper, and line of credit etc… we can also infer the traveller himself was a man of wealth or means given he was targeted robbed and stripped. This tale then is more about the moral character of two wealthy men from different cultures contrasting against the bands of feral poor roaming the countryside preying on the innocent.
But I agree something has gone fundamentally wrong with our moral judgement when it comes to the poor, and if anything evil is spreading and growing within that demographic rapidly, almost as if that was the intention.
Great comment. You are right, a huge difference is the fundamental of repentance! Today the centrality of repentance is completely overlooked. “Now go, and sin no more!” That part is conveniently left out in the modern world.
Have volunteered for years every winter at a place the homeless can stay for the night during cold weather. The dysfunction, unwise choices, and just plain immorality and craziness I observed was over the top. We had to run a tight ship with firm standards,
a security guard and immediate consequences to maintain law and order.
Oh brother, do I wrestle with this as well. It’s going to have to be a long conversation with God for me, too. My mind as of right now goes to one of (or a combination of) three things:
1. That we are, as you suggested, possibly called to actual self-annihilation (perhaps both as individuals and as civilizations/societies). I hope not, because I am not sure I really have it in me.
2. I mean…when you try to read Jesus as a moral teacher, a WHOLE LOT of what he says makes no sense. In fact, having been raised under the common assumption that Jesus is, in fact, THE moral teacher, I’ve become convinced as an adult that many adults before me and after me have to ignore a WHOLE LOT of what is in the Gospels in order to continue seeing Jesus in this way. On the other hand, in recent years I have seen some suggest that the proper way to see Jesus Christ is NOT primarily as a moral teacher, and that the teachings he did give — though no doubt full of wisdom and insight and gold — were not necessarily literal instructions for all people and all times. That they were often off-the-cuff and directed at a specific audience.
On the one hand, this makes a lot of sense to me. Jesus seems very often moody and mercurial, frustrated, and hyperbolic, which is consistent with this idea. In a couple of instances (I believe you’ve pointed this out somewhere in earlier pieces) he seems to be unaware of the full picture (even of himself) and possibly seems to have gotten a couple of things wrong. Also consistent with the idea that direct, specific moral teaching wasn’t the point. On the other hand, I worry that this is a bit of cope, that it lets us off too easy. But then AGAIN, doesn’t all grace let us off too easy? Haha I dunno, *wrestling*
3. That we actually — maybe not ALL of us individually but collectively — have already addressed Jesus’ concerns for the poor. As someone else pointed out above, he basically said to feed and clothe people. I mean here in the west, everyone really is fed. Yes, some people might be skipping meals and/or eating less than the best food. But nobody starves to death. This wasn’t true in Jesus’ day and wasn’t true until very recently. Same with clothes: who is involuntarily naked? Maybe not everybody has the nicest wardrobe but there is AMPLE free and cheap clothing for all of the poor. Even if we extend this to immigration, by and large we are pretty decent to “the stranger”! To say nothing of the fact that no one would ever have referred to literal millions of people as “the stranger”, they would have called them “the foreign invasion,” even Jesus. We’re STILL mostly pretty nice! Prisons still suck, but we no longer really lock people up and throw away the key, or execute all of them. They get food and exercise and small amounts of entertainment. No leprosy. So like what if our contemporary drive to exalt the poor is not really what Jesus intended but is instead us spinning our wheels in vain, looking for a problem where there isn’t one? Jesus doesn’t say we have to make all the poors’ DREAMS COME TRUE, does he? Or to make them invincible to all cause and effect? That’s what I feel like people are chasing.
Interesting. Id be curious to know what these interpretations of what Jesus was *one about* - if not morality - was. I mean, when I read Jesus as a moral teacher I’m honestly thinking: “most retarded moral teaching ever - impossible by design”. But if he’s talking about something else, that would be interesting. I just cant figure *what that is*
I first want to say that I'm sorry to hear about your mom's dog, that is terrible trauma.
This is an interesting article. I think another reason for the well-off being kinder is simply the human condition - when our needs are met, we have the capacity to be more giving, whether that is with our time, money, or kindness. Our needs aren't just physical, they are also metaphysical, and I know from personal experience, just a good night's sleep will increase my ability to be compassionate. In the final analysis, we have to want to change, but that takes courage. When no one around us is trying to become better, it makes it even harder.
Interestingly your request of God's account is my understanding that no one is too far from being saved. "But for the grace of God, there go I."
I am reminded of a post I read today about Jeremiah 29. "(The Lord) says, ‘Build houses for yourselves. Make Babylon your home. Plant gardens. Eat the food that grows in them. Marry, so that you have sons and daughters. Find wives for your sons to marry. Let your daughters marry too. Then they also can give birth to sons and daughters. Your descendants should become more and more, not fewer. Work well to help the foreign place where I have sent you to live. Try to make it a successful place. Pray to the Lord that it will do well. If it does well, you will also do well.’" (5-7)
If we can make peace with where we are at, the peace of the Lord will come upon the circumstance, and conditions can improve. But this is something that needs to be taught. The poor (everyone, really) needs to be ministered to, so that they can be encouraged to overcome.
Lastly, I believe the saying "The Lord helps those who help themselves" is taken essentially from the Quran. Benjamin Franklin was a high ranking Freemason, so I think it would be fair to say that he learnt that sentiment there, where he would have most likely come into contact with those teachings or influences
This was genuinely fantastic. I began writing my own reflections here as a comment under your post but they ended up being so long and draw out I decided to publish them as an article. So you can find all of my thoughts there :)
You offer a lot of important corrective to the West here Yoshi. The command to help widows and orphans gets much more difficult when the widow is paranoid and nasty. Though I suspect that's part of the point to the Lord's commands like this, as "anonymous coward" says much better above. While it seems like we idolize the poor, and that's probably a little true, I think more of the issue with the Socialists/Communists (and Christians!) is that we all sense this subconsciously, and so we've set up this abstract traffic in indulgences - donate/pay so that you do not have to do the hard work of loving the poor as they actually are, just as medieval indulgences became a payout to avoid working out your salvation in fear and trembling.
Though for all of your universalism Yoshi, it seems strange you don't contrast with cultures less touched by Christianity. Asians, Hindu, (and from what I can tell, Muslim) cultures seem to have a shocking level disdain and indifference to any of the poor, deserving or otherwise, basically with the mindset that they all deserve it. It seems pretty reasonable to suppose this is the default human culture without Christianity that the Gospel is preaching to.
It also seems strange that you don't mention the sins of the middle class or wealthy, who have enough luxury that they spend quite a bit of time covering up, abstracting, or philosophizing to excuse their sins. Indeed, its almost the mark of the middle class and above that we spend effort on *appearing* better (whereas the poor literally don't have the time and energy to pretend). Is the executive who adjusts a spreadsheet to ensure his bonus, while leading to the cuts of thousands of jobs for no other reason, really going to have an easier time at the Judgement than Auntie Pearl caught in a generational cycle of sexual abuse? I guess it comes down to who repents, but my guess is it is harder for Auntie Pearl to hide it than our executive who is otherwise nice and friendly and churchgoing, and who has generations of philosphers (i.e., economists) not only excusing but praising his decision. Hell as something we choose becomes much more believable when you imagine the horror of that executive facing the reality of his decision - I might well rather run away from the Lord at that point myself than face what that meant for my life and decisions.
Even if what you say about a guy juggling the books is true and happening, which I doubt actually does very much (executives tend to want to maintain their employees if they need them for the company to keep working), juggling the books and firing people is simply not on the same level as rape and murder, which the poor get up to all the time
“whereas the poor literally don't have the time and energy to pretend”
What? The poor in my city have nothing but time. Scores of them just doing absolutely nothing all day, just milling about smoking weed and complaining about how racism is the reason they can’t get ahead (in a city where the mayor and entire city council are the same race as them).
The poor folk who are working their butts off are the illegal immigrants working the kitchens and doing landscaping. The ultra poor Americans aren't working hardly at all.
This was a really thought provoking read, thanks! I'm wondering if some of our issues with the "poor" arise because we've moved so far away from relationship with our neighbours for the most part. I've never personally lived 'poor', more like a frugal low-medium socioeconomic level, but I have friends and acquaintances who have, and there's definitely more room for evil.
How much does our loss of connection with the poor surrounding us (our neighbours) and our increased awareness and sense of responsibility for 'the poor' (whole countries full of very different individuals) affect both our perceptions of the poor (more rose colored glasses and safe distance) and how we interact with them. It's easier to keep an idea of the noble poor if you never get closer than a poignant news piece.
The traditional TradCath teaching is that the materially poor who lust after riches enough to steal them and run scams and whatnot are actually rich at heart, they just are not allowed to get what they want as punishment for their sins.
This is what Nietzche was talking about with Christianity being a slave religion, ie it's for the poor man, not the rich man, who will have some other more productive and reasonably selfish beliefs.
I have been saying for years, and much to the chagrin of my family, that Lazarus has created his own sores. An opinion I formed here in this century. thank you for providing clarity.
If Christ truly is Wisdom, then I think the first thing to understand is that He's never just saying one thing, but rather many things to many people in many times. And those things aren't all just right there in a simple reading of the text (which has been distorted by the confusion of tongues across space and time anyway). Think of the gospel like Socrates, or a Zen koan: something you sit with, and it goes to work on you (like this aspect clearly has).
I think you're right about the poor. Maybe they weren't always this way, but probably most of the poorest throughout human history were. They're just the worst: you offer them some seed to plant, and they grind it all up for bread then ask you for more the next day. You give them your coat and they trade it for a six-pack as soon as the sun comes back out. They could get the richest inheritance imaginable, and they'd squander it all for a bit of short-term hedonism.
I think that coming to grips with this might be the point, because if the goal of being a Christian is to become like Christ, then we need to learn to see like He sees. How it feels to go out of my way to help some ungrateful bum can't be too far away from what it must feel like for Him to help me. When times are tough, I'll run to him with my problems, then as soon as things clear up, I go back to wallow in my own sin like nothing ever happened. I don't deserve what He gives me, just as the poor don't deserve what I give them. To give it anyway lets me participate in Him, even if in a small way. Maybe Lazarus is redeemed because he knows he's a piece of shit, not worthy to do more than dream of the scraps at the Master's table, and yet he cries out for mercy all the same. Maybe the rich man is damned because he thought clearing the incredibly low bar of not being Lazarus was enough to justify him.
I think that maybe the difficulty of having any compassion at all for those who are so contemptible helps us appreciate the Lord's compassion for us, who, by His standard, are at best ever-so-slightly-less contemptible. Probably it was never intended to be packaged up into a massive societal program, because societal programs cannot actually love, or repent. Even worse, they falsely absolve us individuals of our need to love and to repent. But that just makes it more difficult, because, in order to heed His call, we have to meet these people as He meets us: face-to-face, with all the ugliness on display. To show love and compassion as He shows us, who have done nothing to deserve so great a gift. What does that actually look like, I don't even know. I do know that it isn't the stock answer that society gives: stacks of cash and endless validation. He sure doesn't do that for us, because He knows it isn't what we need. Unless maybe in some rare situations it is. Wisdom is hard.
Great comment, thank you
Man this comment hit me hard.
This is deep fried solid gold, anonymous coward!
"[H]e thought clearing the incredibly low bar of not being Lazarus was enough to justify him"
Ooh, I love that!
Sophia is feminine and a creature, at least according to Proverbs. Jesus is Logos but almost certainly not Sophia.
Kind of invigorating to read a real gripe with Jesus taken as seriously as possible, and then to read the author's decision to commit to his Lord anyway. That's some very Ecclesiastes shit, and I think we'd all be stronger Christians if we were willing to do this and not walk away.
But also, I have to join your imagined chorus of responders and say that I agree that Jesus' poor and our poor aren't of the same species.
"The helpless" need to be more subtly identified now that we've basically made material goods hyper abundant. A sickness of the spirit is much more insidious now.
Jesus wanted us to help those who are seeking bread and water. A lot of folks want neither. They want power, and their poverty is just a situational embarrassment.
We need to sharpen our discernment.
I agree, thank you 🙏🏻
You've written the comment I came here to write, in part (the Ecclesiastes part is golden, but I wouldn't have thought to include it).
The only thing I would have added is that in the second and third world, the situation is a little more complex than our host has described. I've worked as a missionary in a second world country (using Parag Khanna's term) in the Balkans, and some of the problem is cultural, some of the problem is individual, some of the problem is institutional (corruption, bureaucracy), but a big part of the problem is situational. The factory owners run tight margins - if they have to pay their workers even a tiny bit more, the big Euro country that buys all their product will go to Bangladesh. These are working families, and their kids will learn English and/or German in school and leave the country if they're able. The medical programs in-country are full, but the domestic market (and even the foreign market) for doctors is only so big.
The honest business leaders know that their culture doesn't have the Protestant work ethic, and lament that, but even if they did, their country is still in a squeeze.
"Back then, maybe it really was the case that lots of good, otherwise normal people were brutally oppressed by the social structures of their day, kept down and economically destitute and dependent through no fault of their own."
Well, for starters, about 20% of the Roman Empire's population were slaves, many of whom would be literally worked to death either in mines, agriculture, or naval galleys, with short and miserable lives. There was no technological ability to produce abundant excess capital (recall that the primary economic production engine was agriculture, heavily labor-constrained), so the few rich people who did exist relied entirely on both slave labor and poorly paid laborers (recall that Jesus also condemns those who withhold the fair wages from workers!). The rich could cheat their laborers because the poor couldn't afford lawyers and the magistrates would side with their rich buddies anyway. Slavery meanwhile overall devalues labor, which is why economists unanimously agree that slavery is horrible for the economy long-run (and largely why the American South's economy stagnated and failed to industrialize, leading to their defeat in the Civil War). Even more, tax collection was heavily skewed in favor of the rich, because they could (and did) bribe tax collectors and assessors to reduce their tax burden, so the tax collectors would both be personally enriched and turn around and demand even more from the plebs; even still they would demand more than necessary from the poor, to skim off the top. (The Diocletian reforms somewhat lessened this because the empire became more centralized and bureaucratic and stopped outsourcing/subcontracting tax collection.) This is to say nothing of the lack of family planning, debilitating chronic diseases, and no formal social safety net. Recall also the legal barriers to advancing above your class. The entire thing was designed top-to-bottom to be highly extractive for the benefit of a few elites, much like the Soviet economy really (or any other autocratic regime that doesn't respect property rights and political freedom).
Basically, the economy of the Roman world was as close to zero-sum as it gets and it wasn't until the exponential productivity gains caused by the Industrial Revolution(s) that the default state of men went from "90% poor dirt farmers and a few hyper-wealthy elites" to something more. Once the average Joe stopped needing to work 24/7 just to get enough calories to survive, the structures completely changed.
I agree with the premise on great evil amongst the poor (and having grown up poor can attest). However I think it is the wrong interpretation of how Jesus treated them or wanted them to be treated. He was predominantly amongst the poor and preaching to the poor precisely because that is where much of the evil was- literal demonic possession in many cases. Why would the Lord be amongst those who were already close to him… But his teachings weren’t the twisted veneration of the poor we seem to do today and which your article correctly diagnoses. There was no toleration from the Lord for the evils of the poor- there was compassion and mercy yes; but those who truly turned to Christ and followed him had to renounce who they were entirely and become someone else. His disciples had to forfeit their very names and identities, their families possessions, their habits and dysfunctions. That is the opposite of what we demand of our poor sinners now. We ask how best we can cater to their continued dysfunction rather than demand or encourage that they repent of it- and shame those who would even suggest there is something evil and morally wrong about that dysfunction. I think the Prodigal Son covers this too, and covers my point above— the father didn’t sacrifice the fatted calf until the son had humbled himself and been truly transformed and repented of his evil casting it aside in humility. What we do now in our society is sacrifice that fatted calf before the wayward son has repented, when he is still arrogant cruel and proud. Then we sacrifice another and another and another. It is a twisted and evil enactment of Jesus teaching.
I think my thoughts on this are backed up by the Lords other teachings. The Good Samaritan in particular is used as a bludgeon to push back against the idea the poor or the stranger can be evil. Yet the central thesis of the parable is that the traveller was attacked by the Lestai — who literally were bands of evil poor people from rural areas. The judgement upon these people is implicit in the tale and in the comparison with the actions of the Samaritan who was a wealthy man likely a merchant given his personal mount, money to pay the innkeeper, and line of credit etc… we can also infer the traveller himself was a man of wealth or means given he was targeted robbed and stripped. This tale then is more about the moral character of two wealthy men from different cultures contrasting against the bands of feral poor roaming the countryside preying on the innocent.
But I agree something has gone fundamentally wrong with our moral judgement when it comes to the poor, and if anything evil is spreading and growing within that demographic rapidly, almost as if that was the intention.
Great comment. You are right, a huge difference is the fundamental of repentance! Today the centrality of repentance is completely overlooked. “Now go, and sin no more!” That part is conveniently left out in the modern world.
Have volunteered for years every winter at a place the homeless can stay for the night during cold weather. The dysfunction, unwise choices, and just plain immorality and craziness I observed was over the top. We had to run a tight ship with firm standards,
a security guard and immediate consequences to maintain law and order.
Oh brother, do I wrestle with this as well. It’s going to have to be a long conversation with God for me, too. My mind as of right now goes to one of (or a combination of) three things:
1. That we are, as you suggested, possibly called to actual self-annihilation (perhaps both as individuals and as civilizations/societies). I hope not, because I am not sure I really have it in me.
2. I mean…when you try to read Jesus as a moral teacher, a WHOLE LOT of what he says makes no sense. In fact, having been raised under the common assumption that Jesus is, in fact, THE moral teacher, I’ve become convinced as an adult that many adults before me and after me have to ignore a WHOLE LOT of what is in the Gospels in order to continue seeing Jesus in this way. On the other hand, in recent years I have seen some suggest that the proper way to see Jesus Christ is NOT primarily as a moral teacher, and that the teachings he did give — though no doubt full of wisdom and insight and gold — were not necessarily literal instructions for all people and all times. That they were often off-the-cuff and directed at a specific audience.
On the one hand, this makes a lot of sense to me. Jesus seems very often moody and mercurial, frustrated, and hyperbolic, which is consistent with this idea. In a couple of instances (I believe you’ve pointed this out somewhere in earlier pieces) he seems to be unaware of the full picture (even of himself) and possibly seems to have gotten a couple of things wrong. Also consistent with the idea that direct, specific moral teaching wasn’t the point. On the other hand, I worry that this is a bit of cope, that it lets us off too easy. But then AGAIN, doesn’t all grace let us off too easy? Haha I dunno, *wrestling*
3. That we actually — maybe not ALL of us individually but collectively — have already addressed Jesus’ concerns for the poor. As someone else pointed out above, he basically said to feed and clothe people. I mean here in the west, everyone really is fed. Yes, some people might be skipping meals and/or eating less than the best food. But nobody starves to death. This wasn’t true in Jesus’ day and wasn’t true until very recently. Same with clothes: who is involuntarily naked? Maybe not everybody has the nicest wardrobe but there is AMPLE free and cheap clothing for all of the poor. Even if we extend this to immigration, by and large we are pretty decent to “the stranger”! To say nothing of the fact that no one would ever have referred to literal millions of people as “the stranger”, they would have called them “the foreign invasion,” even Jesus. We’re STILL mostly pretty nice! Prisons still suck, but we no longer really lock people up and throw away the key, or execute all of them. They get food and exercise and small amounts of entertainment. No leprosy. So like what if our contemporary drive to exalt the poor is not really what Jesus intended but is instead us spinning our wheels in vain, looking for a problem where there isn’t one? Jesus doesn’t say we have to make all the poors’ DREAMS COME TRUE, does he? Or to make them invincible to all cause and effect? That’s what I feel like people are chasing.
Interesting. Id be curious to know what these interpretations of what Jesus was *one about* - if not morality - was. I mean, when I read Jesus as a moral teacher I’m honestly thinking: “most retarded moral teaching ever - impossible by design”. But if he’s talking about something else, that would be interesting. I just cant figure *what that is*
I first want to say that I'm sorry to hear about your mom's dog, that is terrible trauma.
This is an interesting article. I think another reason for the well-off being kinder is simply the human condition - when our needs are met, we have the capacity to be more giving, whether that is with our time, money, or kindness. Our needs aren't just physical, they are also metaphysical, and I know from personal experience, just a good night's sleep will increase my ability to be compassionate. In the final analysis, we have to want to change, but that takes courage. When no one around us is trying to become better, it makes it even harder.
Interestingly your request of God's account is my understanding that no one is too far from being saved. "But for the grace of God, there go I."
I am reminded of a post I read today about Jeremiah 29. "(The Lord) says, ‘Build houses for yourselves. Make Babylon your home. Plant gardens. Eat the food that grows in them. Marry, so that you have sons and daughters. Find wives for your sons to marry. Let your daughters marry too. Then they also can give birth to sons and daughters. Your descendants should become more and more, not fewer. Work well to help the foreign place where I have sent you to live. Try to make it a successful place. Pray to the Lord that it will do well. If it does well, you will also do well.’" (5-7)
If we can make peace with where we are at, the peace of the Lord will come upon the circumstance, and conditions can improve. But this is something that needs to be taught. The poor (everyone, really) needs to be ministered to, so that they can be encouraged to overcome.
Lastly, I believe the saying "The Lord helps those who help themselves" is taken essentially from the Quran. Benjamin Franklin was a high ranking Freemason, so I think it would be fair to say that he learnt that sentiment there, where he would have most likely come into contact with those teachings or influences
This was genuinely fantastic. I began writing my own reflections here as a comment under your post but they ended up being so long and draw out I decided to publish them as an article. So you can find all of my thoughts there :)
You offer a lot of important corrective to the West here Yoshi. The command to help widows and orphans gets much more difficult when the widow is paranoid and nasty. Though I suspect that's part of the point to the Lord's commands like this, as "anonymous coward" says much better above. While it seems like we idolize the poor, and that's probably a little true, I think more of the issue with the Socialists/Communists (and Christians!) is that we all sense this subconsciously, and so we've set up this abstract traffic in indulgences - donate/pay so that you do not have to do the hard work of loving the poor as they actually are, just as medieval indulgences became a payout to avoid working out your salvation in fear and trembling.
Though for all of your universalism Yoshi, it seems strange you don't contrast with cultures less touched by Christianity. Asians, Hindu, (and from what I can tell, Muslim) cultures seem to have a shocking level disdain and indifference to any of the poor, deserving or otherwise, basically with the mindset that they all deserve it. It seems pretty reasonable to suppose this is the default human culture without Christianity that the Gospel is preaching to.
It also seems strange that you don't mention the sins of the middle class or wealthy, who have enough luxury that they spend quite a bit of time covering up, abstracting, or philosophizing to excuse their sins. Indeed, its almost the mark of the middle class and above that we spend effort on *appearing* better (whereas the poor literally don't have the time and energy to pretend). Is the executive who adjusts a spreadsheet to ensure his bonus, while leading to the cuts of thousands of jobs for no other reason, really going to have an easier time at the Judgement than Auntie Pearl caught in a generational cycle of sexual abuse? I guess it comes down to who repents, but my guess is it is harder for Auntie Pearl to hide it than our executive who is otherwise nice and friendly and churchgoing, and who has generations of philosphers (i.e., economists) not only excusing but praising his decision. Hell as something we choose becomes much more believable when you imagine the horror of that executive facing the reality of his decision - I might well rather run away from the Lord at that point myself than face what that meant for my life and decisions.
Even if what you say about a guy juggling the books is true and happening, which I doubt actually does very much (executives tend to want to maintain their employees if they need them for the company to keep working), juggling the books and firing people is simply not on the same level as rape and murder, which the poor get up to all the time
“whereas the poor literally don't have the time and energy to pretend”
What? The poor in my city have nothing but time. Scores of them just doing absolutely nothing all day, just milling about smoking weed and complaining about how racism is the reason they can’t get ahead (in a city where the mayor and entire city council are the same race as them).
The poor folk who are working their butts off are the illegal immigrants working the kitchens and doing landscaping. The ultra poor Americans aren't working hardly at all.
This was a really thought provoking read, thanks! I'm wondering if some of our issues with the "poor" arise because we've moved so far away from relationship with our neighbours for the most part. I've never personally lived 'poor', more like a frugal low-medium socioeconomic level, but I have friends and acquaintances who have, and there's definitely more room for evil.
How much does our loss of connection with the poor surrounding us (our neighbours) and our increased awareness and sense of responsibility for 'the poor' (whole countries full of very different individuals) affect both our perceptions of the poor (more rose colored glasses and safe distance) and how we interact with them. It's easier to keep an idea of the noble poor if you never get closer than a poignant news piece.
I think you are certainly describing part of the problem.
The traditional TradCath teaching is that the materially poor who lust after riches enough to steal them and run scams and whatnot are actually rich at heart, they just are not allowed to get what they want as punishment for their sins.
The late, great Kathy Shadle used to say, "The modern poor are the rich Jesus used to complain about" or words to that effect.
This is what Nietzche was talking about with Christianity being a slave religion, ie it's for the poor man, not the rich man, who will have some other more productive and reasonably selfish beliefs.
He made some good points.
This is true. After a while in Africa, you realise most people there are just evil compared to the West.
Most of them will lie and steal for easy money, but won't do honest work.
Once they've stolen the money, from aid or whatever, they waste it straight away. Massive adverts for Johnny walker everywhere.
If someone does pull themselves up through hard work and saving, his lazy poor neighbours will often try to kill him.
Im embarrassed by how honest this is compared to my own conversations with God. Excellent piece, thanks for wrestling.
I have been saying for years, and much to the chagrin of my family, that Lazarus has created his own sores. An opinion I formed here in this century. thank you for providing clarity.