God bless us

[James Diggs]

Blessed are you who are rich, for you can give much without sacrificing much of your own comfort and are a witness of how God blesses the truly faithful.

Blessed are you who are satisfied, for you do not need to worry about going hungry and can focus on heavenly things.

Blessed are you who laugh, and do not get distracted from what is really important for eternity by the shortsighted weeping of those who futilely mourn because of, and for, a doomed world.

Blessed are you when everyone loves you, when they tell you how great you, and what a saint you are, because of your faithfulness to the Son of God. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how our fathers treated those whom they determined where truly faithful.

But, woe to you who are poor, for if you were willing to work rather than beg you would receive comfort to the degree of your effort. You need to fix your attitude and get right with God.

Woe to you who are hungry, for you focus so much on your stomach that it is difficult to seek after the spiritual bread of life so you can go to heaven when you die.

Woe to you who weep and act as a victim neglecting your own responsibility. You try to make others feel guilty because you have had no success, but you have reaped what you have sown.

Woe to you when people speak ill of you, for you are only as good as your reputation – honor is given to whom honor is due.


This is what Jesus says in Luke 6:20-26 right?

[Andy Mistak]

I almost wanted to click the laughing button, but recent conversations here and "in real life" have shown me that this is not as much of an exaggeration as I would hope.

[David Pettigrew]

We talk in America about class warfare, and how those in the bottom left-hand corner of society want to "punish" the rich through taxation, taking from them what is rightfully theirs and what they have worked so hard to earn.

Only in America would we view taking a portion of a billionaire's wealth so s/he gets to live in a decent country as "punishment". I believe the rest of the planet would gladly take that kind of punishment, instead of the kind they normally get handed (famine, war, disease, oppression.)

I wonder how long God will keep blessing those who live in ways the crowned heads of Europe could only have dreamed, and still complain of their punishment at the hands of those mean old lower classes - and pull every dirty trick in the book to hold on to as much of their money as possible.

I wonder how long God will keep blessing the church that either turns a blind eye, or vehemently defends their right to do so?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Could it be that the social and economic structures of the world so adopted and ingrained in the church that we defend them as biblical even though it means eisegesis, could this twisting of Jesus' words, actions, life, death and resurrection 180 degrees as to make the beatitudes into the opposite of what they actually say, could this be the Antichrist we have been warned of?

Thank you James for yet again speaking the truth into the situation. I know that this view is not popular and will not be accepted too well outside of NazNet. But the truth is never readily accepted. Thank you!

[Dale Cozby]

James may I quote you, you did write this right?

[James Diggs]

James may I quote you, you did write this right?

sure and yes

[Larry Parsons]

King David, who was a very wealthy man, who lived in a huge palace, yet he referred to himself as being poor and needy. “But I am poor and needy; yet the LORD thinks upon me” (Ps. 40:17). “Bow down Your ear, O LORD, hear me; for I am poor and needy” (Ps. 86:1). “Because Your mercy is good, deliver me. For I am poor and needy and my heart is wounded within me” (Ps. 109:21-22). Obviously “poor” in these passages is metaphorical and consistent with the poverty of spirit that we read in Matthew 5:3.
Where is the virtue in being poor economically? The unsaved poor are no closer to God than are the unsaved rich. There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty. If poverty guaranteed spirituality the poorest sections of cities and the large third world slums would be the safest places to live. But we know that not true!
Thanks
Larry P

[Jim Chabot]

King David, who was a very wealthy man, who lived in a huge palace, yet he referred to himself as being poor and needy. “But I am poor and needy; yet the LORD thinks upon me” (Ps. 40:17). “Bow down Your ear, O LORD, hear me; for I am poor and needy” (Ps. 86:1). “Because Your mercy is good, deliver me. For I am poor and needy and my heart is wounded within me” (Ps. 109:21-22). Obviously “poor” in these passages is metaphorical and consistent with the poverty of spirit that we read in Matthew 5:3.
Where is the virtue in being poor economically? The unsaved poor are no closer to God than are the unsaved rich. There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty. If poverty guaranteed spirituality the poorest sections of cities and the large third world slums would be the safest places to live. But we know that not true!
Thanks
Larry P

You would be correct Larry, in part. But I'm thinking that James intent here is nothing more than a flaming without the use of names. I'm a little disappointed.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

If poverty guaranteed spirituality the poorest sections of cities and the large third world slums would be the safest places to live. But we know that not true!

You mean safe like the cross?

I mean, for real, are you implying that when we're doing "right" "spiritually," then we're safe?

I don't see that in the example of Christ in the gospels, in the life of the early Church in Acts, or in the epistles of Paul, or in the Revelation of John. Nowhere does the New Testament imply this.

[Larry Parsons]

You mean safe like the cross?

I mean, for real, are you implying that when we're doing "right" "spiritually," then we're safe?

I don't see that in the example of Christ in the gospels, in the life of the early Church in Acts, or in the epistles of Paul, or in the Revelation of John. Nowhere does the New Testament imply this.

I don't think i said what you are applying. 1st I said There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty. 2nd thing I said:If being poor guaranteed spirituality then poorest sections of our cities would be the safest places to live. But we know that not true! I really don't see why you made such a statement that you did because it doesn't fit at all whatI was saying:
Thanks
Larry P

[Rich Schmidt]

You would be correct Larry, in part. But I'm thinking that James intent here is nothing more than a flaming without the use of names. I'm a little disappointed.

I think he's just pointing out that some Christians' perspectives on this issue appear to be the exact opposite of what Jesus himself said in Luke 6:

Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when men hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

23 "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
24 "But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

Matthew's version spiritualizes the poverty and hunger (poor in spirit, hunger and thirst for righteousness), but Luke's version is pretty straightforwardly about actual poverty, hunger, wealth, reputation, etc.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't think i said what you are applying. 1st I said There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty.

Perhaps not, but there is definitely a great spiritual disadvantage in being rich. I presume I don't have to quote the Scriptures that say this.

[Jim Chabot]

I think he's just pointing out that some Christians' perspectives on this issue appear to be the exact opposite of what Jesus himself said in Luke 6:

Could be? My thought is that so soon after venting on Linda, this appears to be in poor taste. Please forgive me if I appear uninterested in whatever point is illustrated. I should actually be saying this in the first person. James, I think that you know that I agree with you a lot in this area, but solidarity isn't a pick and choose kind of thing. It extends past the poor into a way of life, an unavoidable part of our being. That said, although your disagreement with Linda's theology is ok, you have failed to find solidarity in that you don't give her credit where it is due. Maybe you are correct, but in this context I for one don't think that it really matters.

[Larry Parsons]

Perhaps not, but there is definitely a great spiritual disadvantage in being rich. I presume I don't have to quote the Scriptures that say this.

Hans,If I thought of it. I should have written that there is no spiritual advantage of being poor or being rich. I believe it was Martyn Lloyd-Jones who said: Both the poor and the rich can have the dollar sign in front of their eyes.
Here a question did Jesus forget what Moses said in Deut, 15:4-5
There shall be no poor among you, since the LORD will surely bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, if only you listen obediently to the voice of the LORD your God, to carefully observe all this commandment which I am commanding you today.
Thanks
Larry P

[James Diggs]

That said, although your disagreement with Linda's theology is ok, you have failed to find solidarity in that you don't give her credit where it is due. Maybe you are correct, but in this context I for one don't think that it really matters.

I was not in any way thinking of Linda when I wrote this. That's pretty presumptuous on your part. The blessings and woes I wrote here represent what many people who claim the Christian faith today actually say and think- I believe it represents these kind of views pretty fairly. In other words, I don't think there is anything that I wrote that those who believe along those lines would disagree with- other than the fact that it may be uncomfortable to see that it runs completely opposite of what Jesus said Luke 6.

It is a pretty common view that our riches are seen as a blessing from God, a reward for our faithfulness and hard work and a sign of God's approval. Poverty is seen as not being blessed by God, a sign that people are doing something wrong and need to get right.

Ironically these views are very similar to those about 2,000 years ago when Jesus preached a sermon on hill. Anthropologists call it an "honor/shame" culture- honor is truly given to whom it is due- but Jesus turned this all on it's head. Today we live in a slightly different culture, ours is more "achievement/guilt", but marginalization of the poor along with others happens just the same.

I believe what I wrote is provocative, but I think it works because it doesn't parody but rather simply says what many people are really saying in the same format of Luke 6:20-26 as a way to contrast them with what Jesus said there. So in the end what is really provocative are the words of Jesus, not mine.

[Jim Chabot]

I was not in any way thinking of Linda when I wrote this. That's pretty presumptuous on your part.

My apologies if that wasn't the case.

Maybe you should have been thinking of her and how this may appear? It appeared to be in poor taste to me.

[Benjamin Burch]

I was not in any way thinking of Linda when I wrote this. That's pretty presumptuous on your part. The blessings and woes I wrote here represent what many people who claim the Christian faith today actually say and think- I believe it represents these kind of views pretty fairly. In other words, I don't think there is anything that I wrote that those who believe along those lines would disagree with- other than the fact that it may be uncomfortable to see that it runs completely opposite of what Jesus said Luke 6.

It is a pretty common view that our riches are seen as a blessing from God, a reward for our faithfulness and hard work and a sign of God's approval. Poverty is seen as not being blessed by God, a sign that people are doing something wrong and need to get right.

Ironically these views are very similar to those about 2,000 years ago when Jesus preached a sermon on hill. Anthropologists call it an "honor/shame" culture- honor is truly given to whom it is due- but Jesus turned this all on it's head. Today we live in a slightly different culture, ours is more "achievement/guilt", but marginalization of the poor along with others happens just the same.

I believe what I wrote is provocative, but I think it works because it doesn't parody but rather simply says what many people are really saying in the same format of Luke 6:20-26 as a way to contrast them with what Jesus said there. So in the end what is really provocative are the words of Jesus, not mine.

Thanks, James.

This post brings me straight back to why I get so irritated with the "Coveting/Stealing" language. It's not accurage or fair.

That being said, I really do want to open up some room at the table to the hardcore free market capitalists. I disagree, but I'm totally okay with their opposition to the way economics are being done today. Not on the "coveting/stealing" line. That's just silly and wrong, and unfair. But I think that they can - based upon economic philosophy - argue that the Free Market is the best way to insure the most help for the most poor people and therefore, on those grounds, everything we're doing now is wrong. That's a fine and fair opinion.

The views expressed in this parody, teamed with "coveting/stealing" language isn't.

[James Diggs]

My apologies if that wasn't the case.
Maybe you should have been thinking of her and how this may appear? It appeared to be in poor taste to me.

IF? Let me make this clear- It is NOT the case. This was in no way a personal attack against anyone. If you want me to think of her now, or anyone for that matter to whom you think what I wrote may apply, and retract what I said as a way to suggest that what I wrote is offensive and in poor taste I completely disagree.

If anyone agrees with the sentiments reflected in my list of blessings and woes I think it is probably good for them to have to wrestle with the weight of how such sentiments contrast the teachings of Jesus.

Again, I don't think what I wrote is very offensive at all to those whom believe such things- but rather its the words of Jesus that are offensive as they contrast those beliefs. If you think those words are in poor taste you will have to take it up with him.

[Jim Chabot]

James, you are missing my point. No sense in pursuing this any further.

[James Diggs]

I really do want to open up some room at the table to the hardcore free market capitalists. I disagree, but I'm totally okay with their opposition to the way economics are being done today. Not on the "coveting/stealing" line. That's just silly and wrong, and unfair. But I think that they can - based upon economic philosophy - argue that the Free Market is the best way to insure the most help for the most poor people and therefore, on those grounds, everything we're doing now is wrong. That's a fine and fair opinion.

I agree completely. I think Jesus' words are very "political" in the sense that Jesus wants us to love our neighbors (including the least of these) AS ourselves as we engage in processes by which we as a community of people navigate collective decisions. With that said, there is plenty of room for discussions about what systems people think are best for engaging in this kind of community navigation and why (hopefully in another thread though). I personally am not an absolute ideologue for any particular system as I see strengths and weaknesses in all of them.

But my intention of starting this tread is not for us to get bogged down in political arguments over systems but rather to challenge the cultural assumptions and perceptions about who is "blessed" (honored) and who needs to be careful because the ground they stand on may not be as solid as they think. Again, the words of Jesus are provocative as he turns our assumptions and perceptions on its head.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It NEVER crossed my mind that James was attacking anyone with his post or this thread. To those who believe that James is picking on them I can think of two terms; "reaction formation" and conviction. If you found offense maybe you should. But I cannot believe that James intended to offend anyone or had anyone particular person in mind. I felt that he is stating a pervasive attitude that runs throughout American "Christianity" today, even if it is an unconscious attitude. I thank James for this because maybe some people will think, maybe some who have unconsciously held these beliefs will be convicted and change, maybe not. But as the song says, "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."

[David Pettigrew]

I hate how these conversations always become about the conversation itself, rather than the topic at hand.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,If I thought of it. I should have written that there is no spiritual advantage of being poor or being rich. I believe it was Martyn Lloyd-Jones who said: Both the poor and the rich can have the dollar sign in front of their eyes.
Here a question did Jesus forget what Moses said in Deut, 15:4-5

Jesus forgot nothing. In fact, He frequently said: "You have heard it said .......... But I tell you ............"

Too bad for Moses, but the Son is more than Moses.

Luke 6 - "24"But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep."

[Hans Deventer]

I hate how these conversations always become about the conversation itself, rather than the topic at hand.

That's because we so thoroughly disagree politically, that we can't find each other theologically. So feelings get hurt (there is nothing so deep and personal as a political view) and hence we end up talking about the discussion rather than discussing the issue itself.

[Larry Parsons]

Jesus forgot nothing. In fact, He frequently said: "You have heard it said .......... But I tell you ............"

Too bad for Moses, but the Son is more than Moses.

Luke 6 - "24"But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep."

Hans,

I don't believe Jesus forgot anything either, However it seem to me that Jesus was always condeeming the rich Jewish religion leader just as he did in Luke 16:19-31. I just can't see Jesus condeming the hard working man who family is living in a nice home, both him and his wife are driving a nice car and they even have little money put away for a rain day. This man and his family is very active in the Christian community. (They could be Nazarene) I just can't believe that Jesus is condeming people like that and to me those people are rich.
Thanks
Larry P

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

I don't believe Jesus forgot anything either, However it seem to me that Jesus was always condeeming the rich Jewish religion leader just as he did in Luke 16:19-31. I just can't see Jesus condeming the hard working man who family is living in a nice home, both him and his wife are driving a nice car and has little money put away for a rain day. This man and his family is very active in the Christian community. I just can't believe that Jesus was condeming people like that and to me those people are rich.
Thanks
Larry P

I don't read anything about him being a religious leader in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The only thing we know about him is that he is rich.

[David Pettigrew]

That's because we so thoroughly disagree politically, that we can't find each other theologically. So feelings get hurt (there is nothing so deep and personal as a political view) and hence we end up talking about the discussion rather than discussing the issue itself.

One of the greatest men I ever had the privilege to pastor was also one of the most die-hard democrats I've ever known. I don't just mean ideologically, either. He gave them lots of money as well as serving on various committees. He happened to be very close friends with one of our (former) Nazarene college presidents, who was as partisan a republican as my friend was democrat. During election years, their two families would vacation together. They would watch both national party conventions on TV, each providing colorful commentary on the other fella's group.

I asked this man once how he could be such close friends with someone of such a differing political philosophy. His answer was simple: "Politics is not our uniting factor."

Both men are dead now. Pity.

[Hans Deventer]

I asked this man once how he could be such close friends with someone of such a differing political philosophy. His answer was simple: "Politics is not our uniting factor."

And they communicated in real life. I'm quite sure I could spend a great time with Judy taking pictures in on the West Coast. Might find many things to do with Jim Chabot visiting the East. But on NazNet, all we have is this forum. That narrows down greatly our communication.

[Larry Parsons]

I don't read anything about him being a religious leader in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The only thing we know about him is that he is rich.

Hans,
The clothing of the rich man in verse 19 identifies him symbolically with with the Jewish leaders. They were called by God to be a witness or share the blessing that God gave to them to the nations that surrounding them. The beggar in verse 20 is a symbol of the Gentile nations ....
Thanks
Larry

[George Wallace]

James,
I guess I am a bit thick here. I am not tracking well with your "inversion" (?) of the Sermon on the Plain. Therefore I am a bit lost. Can you provide a brief explanation of what you think this Sermon (Plain or applicable portions of the Sermon on the Mount) is about and who is being addressed?

There must be some something I am missing in order to understand your post.

Blessings
George

[Rich Schmidt]

I don't read anything about him being a religious leader in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The only thing we know about him is that he is rich.

Hans,
The clothing of the rich man in verse 19 identifies him symbolically with with the Jewish leaders. They were called by God to be a witness or share the blessing that God gave to them to the nations that surrounding them. The beggar in verse 20 is a symbol of the Gentile nations ....
Thanks
Larry

We've been down this road before on another thread. Larry, I don't see how "dressed in purple and fine linen" translates to the clothing of a religious leader. Nor do I see how you conclude that Lazarus represents the Gentile nations. Perhaps you could point us toward a source for how you arrived at these conclusions?

Edited to add: There are multiple references in Scripture to being dressed in purple or wearing fine linen. The wife of noble character in Prov. 31; Mordecai in Esther 8; the merchants from Aram who traded with Tyre, mentioned in Ezekiel 27; etc. These fabrics are always used as expressions of wealth, and none of them seem to be linked to religious leaders.

[Larry Parsons]

I don't read anything about him being a religious leader in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The only thing we know about him is that he is rich.

Who was the rich that Jesus was refering to if was not the Jewish religion leader of his day?
Larry

[Jim Chabot]

And they communicated in real life. I'm quite sure I could spend a great time with Judy taking pictures in on the West Coast. Might find many things to do with Jim Chabot visiting the East. But on NazNet, all we have is this forum. That narrows down greatly our communication.

Yes and that is why it is so important to find something good, something agreeable in each others views. I disagree with many here, but I have found that if I look, there is most always something where we can find a bit of commonality. After all it must be there, the spirit does bear witness to itself, does it not?

And I can tell you as a conservative living in Massachusetts, one must have some liberal friends, or one would have few friends.

[Rich Schmidt]

Who was the rich that Jesus was refering to if was not the Jewish religion leader of his day?
Larry

So you're basing it all on the assumption that the only "rich" people in the world of Jesus' hearers were Jewish religious leaders? So every mention of those who are rich is a reference to them? I think that's a pretty weak assumption. (To take the next step in that parable to assume that the poor man must then represent Gentiles is an even weaker assumption built on top of it. In my opinion, of course.)

[Larry Parsons]

So you're basing it all on the assumption that the only "rich" people in the world of Jesus' hearers were Jewish religious leaders? So every mention of those who are rich is a reference to them? I think that's a pretty weak assumption. (To take the next step in that parable to assume that the poor man must then represent Gentiles is an even weaker assumption built on top of it. In my opinion, of course.)

Rich,
The question that I ask was not about assuming anything. I was asking straight forward question, who were the rich during when Jesus spoke to his disciples? I will get back with you later about rich man and Lazarus right now I'm wore out
Thanks
Larry

[James Diggs]

James,
I guess I am a bit thick here. I am not tracking well with your "inversion" (?) of the Sermon on the Plain. Therefore I am a bit lost. Can you provide a brief explanation of what you think this Sermon (Plain or applicable portions of the Sermon on the Mount) is about and who is being addressed?

There must be some something I am missing in order to understand your post.

Blessings
George

George, I am not sure what it is you don't get. Here is a quote of mine from an earlier response that I think very briefly summarizes some cultural background.

It is a pretty common view that our riches are seen as a blessing from God, a reward for our faithfulness and hard work and a sign of God's approval. Poverty is seen as not being blessed by God, a sign that people are doing something wrong and need to get right.

Ironically these views are very similar to those about 2,000 years ago when Jesus preached a sermon on hill. Anthropologists call it an "honor/shame" culture- honor is given to whom they believe it is due- but Jesus turned this all on it's head. Today we live in a slightly different culture, ours is more "achievement/guilt", but marginalization of the poor along with others happens just the same.

I believe what I wrote is provocative, but I think it works because it doesn't parody but rather simply says what many people are really saying in the same format of Luke 6:20-26 as a way to contrast them with what Jesus said there. So in the end what is really provocative are the words of Jesus, not mine.

There is of course a lot more that could be elaborated on concerning this honor/shame culture and its many ramifications that Jesus confronts. Ultimately though it is about what such cultural assumptions contribute to the marginalization of their neighbors so that they do not see them nor love them AS themselves.

It is also about how God starts the redemption of the world by first identifying with those who have been marginalized at the bottom; and he calls all of us to meet him there in order to enter into solidarity with all of humanity just as he himself entered into it. What Jesus asks of us is hardest for those who already consider themselves blessed and honored despite not be reconciled to those beneath them because they are unable to identify with them.

I hope this helps. I also am going to try to answer a very good question Larry asks. Perhaps that will help as well. Otherwise I guess those who have the ears to hear let them hear.

[James Diggs]

There is no spiritual advantage of living in poverty

Perhaps not, but there is definitely a great spiritual disadvantage in being rich. I presume I don't have to quote the Scriptures that say this.

Hans,If I thought of it. I should have written that there is no spiritual advantage of being poor or being rich. I believe it was Martyn Lloyd-Jones who said: Both the poor and the rich can have the dollar sign in front of their eyes.

Maybe we do need to quote the verse, or maybe even do in experiment of trying to take a camel through a seemingly impossible small space.

Matthew 19:24
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."

Larry you assume that the reason it is difficult for the rich to enter into the Kingdom of heaven is just the love of money, and indeed this is likely part of the problem. But as you point out, you don’t have to have money to love money and put it above God and other people. Unfortunately, we (who are largely rich by global standards) have reduced the disadvantage of being rich to just this (which we can easily intellectually overcome) to domesticate and take the sting out of what Jesus said.

We like to think, ‘oh yea sure it can be hard for rich people if they are selfish- but if they are generous it is really no harder than anyone else.’ By this we totally take the edge off the very specific woe to the rich Jesus taught and water it down and make it easier for us.

But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.

Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

Before we get to these “woes”, let’s get the idea out of our head right now that when Jesus says it is difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of heaven that he is primarily talking about who goes to heaven when they die. No, when Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of heaven he is speaking about entering into the Way of the Kingdom now (of course there are ramifications for eternity but it’s not the primary point).

I believe Jesus was teaching that there actually is a distinct disadvantage of being rich. To say that he wasn’t is to deny what the scripture says. The question is what is it?

Looking at these “woes” may give us some insight. One the biggest things that stands out is that the rich simply can not relate to the life of the poor. They are comforted, well fed, happy people, with plenty of other people around like them to speak well of them. The problem with being rich is that it creates an insular world around us and distorts our view of the world and our poorer neighbors to the point that we can not identify with them.

A famous example of this was the statement by a French princess long ago upon learning that the peasants had no bread responded by saying, “Let them eat cake”. She clearly had no idea about the realities the poor faced. Of course this is an extreme example, yet our wealth creates all kinds of barriers for us to connect to our neighbors by making it difficult for us to comprehend what life is like for those who are poor.

Largely the poor and the real circumstances of their lives become virtually invisible to us even if they camp right outside our gates and we pass them by as we come and go. We may see them but not SEE them because of our assumptions about them based on our context which is insulated from the realities of theirs.

Plain and simple our wealth can keep us from the people God loves; even if we are generous with our money our wealth can keep us positionally removed from the life of the least of these among us.

I probably use this word too much, but it really is about solidarity; and the rich have a distinct disadvantage in being able to find it with the least of these because we are largely comfortable, full, happy, and have good reputation among ourselves in regard to our success.

Not understanding and finding solidarity with the poor means we often don’t understand how the choices we make uphill effect those down hill from us. The view is so completely different that we just often just don’t understand what the problems are. Because of this we compound the sins of our separation and participate in systems which only make it worse for the poor.

Being rich makes it difficult to enter into the life of the Kingdom and participate with the reconciling work of Christ not only to God- but also to our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus said these two commandments are like each other- how much are they alike? As much as we love and do (or do not do) to the least of these we have loved and done (or not done) unto God.

Our salvation isn't just some spiritual gnostic thing, it is the reconciliation of human souls holistically- the redemption of our very humanity. How God changes us to better love God and our neighbors (especially the "least of these" whom have been marginalized) is what it means to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Blessed are the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus starts the reconciliation of the world with the “least of these”; he found solidarity with them by leaving the highest place there is positionally, emptying himself, and becoming one of the least of these. The nature of the Kingdom of God is the first becoming last and the last becoming first. Jesus calls us to enter into this Way today for this is the Way of the Kingdom of God.

But woe to us who are rich because we have little idea how upside down our world is and the price those beneath us pay for a pretty (yet distorted) view of the world which insulates us from those living on the underside of our success on the right and our ivory towers on the left.

But here is the good news for even the rich

Matthew 19:25-26

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[James Diggs]

opps- delete this

[George Wallace]

There is of course a lot more that could be elaborated on concerning this honor/shame culture and its many ramifications that Jesus confronts. Ultimately though it is about what such cultural assumptions contribute to the marginalization of their neighbors so that they do not see them nor love them AS themselves.

James,
Thank you. I may be “getting it” or maybe not we’ll see. I definitely see and understand your references to "honor/shame" culture "achievement/guilt" culture. We see this behavior in Job as his friends try and convince him of his sin. We see it in the Disciples when they ask who sinned the man or his father.

I also see much truth in your “inversion” of the Sermon on the Plain. Certainly we all stand indicted of such behavior especially in the affluent West. So I don’t think (?) I have any real issue (beyond a lack of understanding ) with your statements, certainly folks act just as you’ve said and we should take a hard look at ourselves and how we live out our Faith. I think that is at least a snippet of what you were going for. Yes?

I guess my question is really more about what you understand the Sermon on the Plain/Mount to be. I think your answers to these questions may provide me some clarity.

1. Did you use the Sermon on the Plain primarily as a literary or poetic vehicle to make you valid points?

OR

2. Do you believe the Sermon on the Plain is primarily prescriptive, that is, do you see this sermon’s intent along the ‘social justice’ (for lack of a better term)?

3. I guess in plain English; What do you believe the Sermon on the Plain/Mount is about?

Last night I had trouble sleeping so I Surfed the net. I looked back on this thread and made a three column table. Column 1 was a verse by verse copy of your inversion of Luke 6:20-26, next to that I place the actual Scriptures for comparison. In the third column I placed John Gill’s Commentary Notes (His was the first solid commentary I found electronically that was also done in a verse by verse format.) I also placed Wesley’s Notes above this. I also reread both the Concise and Full Matthew Henry Commentaries of Luke 6:20...

It was the wee hours And I couldn’t sleep so I guess only a seminarian would do such a thing to “relax” any way I found it interesting, yet unless you only used the Sermon on the Plain as a literary device for making your point then I thing we have a fundamental difference of interpretation of what it actually means.

That’s why I asked the questions.

Thanks again
Blessings
George

[Paul DeBaufer]

We like to think, ‘oh yea sure it can be hard for rich people if they are selfish- but if they are generous it is really no harder than anyone else.’ By this we totally take the edge off the very specific woe to the rich Jesus taught and water it down and make it easier for us.

We like to think that being wealthy is okay IF we are charitable. But as someone recently said there is a huge difference betwixt compassion and charity. With compassion I think there must be some empathy, while charity is what we do to ease our consciences. I have oft heard it said that it is not being rich that matters but what we do with our money. Well...I firmly believe that HOW we get wealthy matters. Are we living off the sweat of others whom we are not treating correctly. Do we oppress our workers? Are they all earning a living wage? How about the workers fo our suppliers? Etc. We need to have compassion, empathy for all the people along the line not just shop for the country where it is okay to exploit the workers and enable their oppression. If our wealth is built upon the oppression of the workers we are not acting in love, and no matter how we spend it we are guilty.

I believe Jesus was teaching that there actually is a distinct disadvantage of being rich.

Looking at these “woes” may give us some insight. One the biggest things that stands out is that the rich simply can not relate to the life of the poor. They are comforted, well fed, happy people, with plenty of other people around like them to speak well of them. The problem with being rich is that it creates an insular world around us and distorts our view of the world and our poorer neighbors to the point that we can not identify with them.

Largely the poor and the real circumstances of their lives become virtually invisible to us even if they camp right outside our gates and we pass them by as we come and go. We may see them but not SEE them because of our assumptions about them based on our context which is insulated from the realities of theirs.

Plain and simple our wealth can keep us from the people God loves; even if we are generous with our money our wealth can keep us positionally removed from the life of the least of these among us.

I probably use this word too much, but it really is about solidarity; and the rich have a distinct disadvantage in being able to find it with the least of these because we are largely comfortable, full, happy, and have good reputation among ourselves in regard to our success.

Not understanding and finding solidarity with the poor means we often don’t understand how the choices we make uphill effect those down hill from us. The view is so completely different that we just often just don’t understand what the problems are. Because of this we compound the sins of our separation and participate in systems which only make it worse for the poor.

Being rich makes it difficult to enter into the life of the Kingdom and participate with the reconciling work of Christ not only to God- but also to our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus said these two commandments are like each other- how much are they alike? As much as we love and do (or do not do) to the least of these we have loved and done (or not done) unto God.

Thank you so much for this. Jesus came to reconcile the world with God and each other. How can we be reconciled when we can't identify with or even see our fellow humans? When I look past another and cannot connect or in some way identify with her I rob her of her humanity. When I pass a homeless person and hardly see him or blame him for his circumstances without knowing his story I rob him of his humanity, his image of God.

Our salvation isn't just some spiritual gnostic thing, it is the reconciliation of human souls holistically- the redemption of our very humanity. How God changes us to better love God and our neighbors (especially the "least of these" whom have been marginalized) is what it means to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Thank you so much for this especially the emphesized portion. All too often we give a head nod to Christ and belief thinking that that is all that is necessary for salvation. But as James tells us this cognitive assent is hollow/dead unless it is internalized and we live it.

Blessed are the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus starts the reconciliation of the world with the “least of these”; he found solidarity with them by leaving the highest place there is positionally, emptying himself, and becoming one of the least of these. The nature of the Kingdom of God is the first becoming last and the last becoming first. Jesus calls us to enter into this Way today for this is the Way of the Kingdom of God.

But woe to us who are rich because we have little idea how upside down our world is and the price those beneath us pay for a pretty (yet distorted) view of the world which insulates us from those living on the underside of our success on the right and our ivory towers on the left.

But here is the good news for even the rich

I can't help but think of Matthew 25 and the connection of doing for the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the outcast as doing FOR and TO God.

Again James, Thank you for articulating so eloquently what I have been feeling.