I knew that was where he was coming from and why I didn't respond. I could not come up with any reference that actually has the poor inheritingOriginally Posted by Rich Schmidt
I knew that was where he was coming from and why I didn't respond. I could not come up with any reference that actually has the poor inheriting
He kinda did, didn't he? Fishermen would have belonged to our lower class, maybe middle class if they were real successful.
And the early apostles were homeless, so...
Maybe he wants to do that through his Church, which we are learning to do, but we still largely prefer our own comfort.Why does He, from the splendor of heaven not just somehow keep the loaves and fish conduit constantly and miraculously open in the direction of the poor?
I don't really understand what you're saying here.Is it possible that the One who did the work of scorning the shame and enduring the cross would develop an althernative way for a group of followers (Relax, stay put and I'll send some people by to feed, clothe, water & visit you.)? This is such nonsense to me that it bankrupts my imagination and is a clear example of what Scott Peck described in The Road Less Traveled as...folks who like to eat the frosting first.
Even if one does think that the best way to love and serve the poor is to join the poor, becoming poor themselves, I don't think your conclusion is the only one. And I definitely don't think anyone has the goal of creating more poverty.This line of logic, as I see it, would have as a goal and an end (earthly) result to increase the number of poor. The outcome would be a society where no one is able to help others.
Mother Teresa seemed to have a pretty big impact by becoming poor herself.
Most good things have been said far too many times and just need to be lived. - Shane ClaibornePost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingPaul DeBaufer - "thanks" for this post
I think you got cut off mid-thought there, Dan...
Perhaps you couldn't find a reference because it's a prooftext for a particular theological bent. Everyone who follows Jesus inherits the kingdom. If the poor had stayed away and the rich had showed up He might have said "blessed are the rich." Bottom line is that blessed are those who seek and find him, rich or poor, yellow, red, brown, black or white.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Amen, and same here. I've never been able to really fit in for very long, it's just a matter of time. Never felt comfortable being around self assured and comfortable people, I keep my back to the wall if you know what I mean. But I would rather that the playing field never be level, I can be comfortable among those who don't fit in.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Mother Theresa? Poor? She worked and lived with the poor, yet she was never poor herself. She had offices around the world, she flew wherever she needed to at will, never was she hindered by a lack of money, her order is probably the richest in the world. My cousin is also a nun, she says that sisters have both nothing and everything at the same time. They are poor in that they claim nothing for their own, while they are incredibly rich because every need is met.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Hmm.... when I read this, I couldn't help but think of Matthew 19 (and its parallel in Mark 10 and Luke 18), when a man who was rich actually did show up. Rather than saying, "Blessed are the rich," Jesus instructed him to sell everything and give it to the poor... and when the man didn't, Jesus proclaimed, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
Seems like kind of the opposite of "blessed are the rich."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Hey, I really appreciate your sentiments about some kind of super-collision between poverty appreciation and poverty solutions. And, I really mean that. We may, then, be closer than I thought in regards to a working definition of "social justice." I've been spending an inordinant amount of time here and I have some projects that have been suffering as a result, so I think this is a good time for me to kick back and just check in and respond briefly (if I can do that!) from time to time. No pressure on anyone but I really do feel like my post raised some issues that should be a quality part of ongoing discussions on this subject. This thread created the new thought for me that it was the givers and not the receivers in Matt. 25 that received the "Well done" of our Lord.
Ryan my thought about Jesus taking the more difficult path to the fulfillment of His Father's will, coincides with His invitation for us to participate also in taking up our cross and following Him. Just trying to say that the "poor" do not escape the way of the cross. No one that I know who has emerged beyond poverty has simply fallen off a log, awakened and found himself with resources enough to share.
Friend,
Wes
It says that Jesus looked upon the rich man and He loved him. And that He invited this man to follow Him. Sound like "blessed is the rich" to me. So far I've only heard this preached this way once by Jorge Barros, I quickly messaged Dave McClung to tell him about it because he had once remarked that he had never heard this preached. It seems most preachers just read the "rich" part and off they go without really thinking it through.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Let's just not forget the rest of that teaching, "...but with God ALL things are possible!" That is SUCH good news!
Friend,
Wes
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Of course! With God it is possible for those of us with wealth to obey Jesus when he tells us to give it to those in need... even if he tells us to give ALL of it to those in need.
I'm not going to universalize Jesus' instructions to the wealthy man in Matthew 19 (Mark 10, Luke 18)... but neither am I going to dismiss them as irrelevant.
Yes, Jim, in Mark's account Jesus looks at him and loves him (Mark 10:21). And of course he invites him to follow... but first he instructs him to sell everything he has and give it to the poor. "Then come, follow me." The man wasn't invited to bring his wealth with him.
Like I said, that was just the passage that came to mind when you imagined what Jesus' response might have been "if the rich had shown up." Here we have an example of one who actually did and what Jesus said to him.
We can imagine Jesus saying, "Blessed are the rich," but we only have record of him saying:
"Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort!" (Luke 6:24)
and
"How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" (Mark 10:23 and parallels)
Hey! I've preached it this way... Wait... maybe I stole it from Jorge...
It is not enough to be right, you have to be like Jesus.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well the great commission is to make disciples. Yes, when we make discies we must also proclaim. But far too often we make the proclamations and neglect the actually making of disciples. Of course we proclaim while immersing people in Christ, but making disciples involves so much more than just proclamation.
It is my opinion that in feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc., we are proclaiming Christ and the gospel. Silent witness. I feel that when we do for others, loving others, we are proclaiming. The proclamation flows from the action, not necessarily subordinate to it but an integral part of it.
I don't know what the Romans passage has to do with this. No where did I suggest that I am
Or that anyone should be ashamed of the Gospel. I believe quite the contrary, one cannot be ashamed while living it, IMHO.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
Romans 1:16 was cited as an example in favor of proclamation. Good deeds and charity of all kinds are good. Only the proclamation of the gospel saves.
Friend,
Wes
We have different understandings, I'm okay with that.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
Fine. I am SO thankful for Christian, faithful, well-to-do folks! They have instructed me. They have made significant contributions to my life and ministry. And, I have watched them make profound gifts and contributions to the Kingdom. May their tribe increase!
Friend,
Wes
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This is something that I see increasing lacking in the Western Church. The Orthodox Church has a strong root in that you can not have one with out the other. So if you are doing one you will automatically do the other. They see no separation of faith and works they are one. This is what has driven me crazy about the Western Church. We seem to separate them out and then put them in some order where one is above the other. That is not so in the East they are not separate entities ever. When they speak of one they will always talk of the other.
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Jorge's title was "The Thirteenth Apostle" In typical Jorge fashion he teased around leaving us to wonder who he considered the thirteenth Apostle for ten minutes or so before revealing the one. He did a great job, first time I've heard this passage preached with some thought given to it.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I don't think it was ever separated in the Gospels either. I really want to blame it on post-Enlightenment Modernity, but James was addressing something that seems similar. I just know that I cannot separate the two.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm thankful for them, too! And I am one myself!
Happens a lot but others have carried the conversation. I have difficulty relating poor in spirit to poor. it doesn't seem to follow. I looked more carefully at the beatitudes when I learned from an English teache rthe old enlish and thus the KJV meaning of meek and learned that only a person of power could display meekness. I'm sure that some of you can give us the original greek and I suppose I could look up a transliterated version myself. It would not be my point though. Meek means weak in modern language but when used in old english its more like restraint by someone with power.
Please understand that I believe that we have a tremendous responsibility to the poor, downtrodden, oppressed. My main point I want to make is that it is not the primary purpose of the Church. It is an concurrent responsibility, incidental to our primary mission but by no means our most important one, nor do I believe it should be our primary focus. Even in Ryan's quick examples of taking care of base needs each interaction had another more primary motive such as "go and leave your life of sin", "sin no more". Jesus didn't eat with sinners just so he could be hip and cool, he did it to bring his message to those who would listen (the "church" folk weren't listening).
Nothing personal to Ryan but I have and will contiinue to ignore the question" What does (conceptual thought) look like? Its a question that, doesn't have an answer and leads to nowhere in addition to not being truly inquisitive. I am willing to answer questions that are inquisitive. I am trying my best to stay away from questions designed to be argumentative (I usually fail and fall right into the trap).
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If you read Luke 6, you don't have to worry about relating "poor in spirit" to anything... because there, it's just "poor."
Granted, he's speaking to his disciples here... but that's also true in Matthew 5. (And, of course, many of the world's poor are our brothers and sisters in Christ, to whom we have a responsibility, etc, etc, etc.)Looking at his disciples, he said:
“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 people 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 ancestors 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 everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.
I don't think I disagree with you much here, Dan. There's a part of me that wants to push back and insist that proclaiming the kingdom includes the life of the kingdom, that Jesus wasn't just bringing a message but was also bringing life itself (love, healing, etc) to these folks, and that if we bring the message without the life, we're not really accomplishing the mission. But there's another part of me that just wants to acknowledge that we agree that "we have a tremendous responsibility to the poor, downtrodden, oppressed," and leave it at that.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
The original senses of meek are in unassuming, gentle, humble. And that from around 1200 AD http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...wed_in_frame=0 I do not see anything indicating in those in positions of power, neither does that sense seem to fit the context of the Sermon on the Mount.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
The title of this thread is Social justices: A house divided against itself.
Well north of 250 posts it would certainly appear that we are divided. Glen Beck won and that is sad. At the time I spoke out pretty strongly against his intrusion into the church. I am even more convinced that I was right. When pundits start passing judgment on the theologians and meddling in the church bad things happen.
It is not enough to be right, you have to be like Jesus.Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This you speak of happened long before the CoTN, Glen Beck and anyone posting on these threads.The title of this thread is Social justices: A house divided against itself.
Well north of 250 posts it would certainly appear that we are divided. Glen Beck won and that is sad. At the time I spoke out pretty strongly against his intrusion into the church. I am even more convinced that I was right. When pundits start passing judgment on the theologians and meddling in the church bad things happen.
Let me help a little here, the oppressed are subdued (thus "oppressed"), they cannot display tameness.
Well this was all George Bush's fault. And I say this with all sincerity. Faith Based Initiatives were, while well intentioned, in my estimation that worst idea of his Administration. Sure it sounds good, the government recognizes that the church is interested in charity, so the government moves to support the churches efforts. Sounds great!The title of this thread is Social justices: A house divided against itself.
Well north of 250 posts it would certainly appear that we are divided. Glen Beck won and that is sad. At the time I spoke out pretty strongly against his intrusion into the church. I am even more convinced that I was right. When pundits start passing judgment on the theologians and meddling in the church bad things happen.
Excepting that the dumb as a rock church was willing to grant government a little control in exchange for money. Money that would have gone to help the poor with or without the aid of the church. And to make matters even worse, somehow those doling out the government money actually think that they are doing something good. Remember that the poor would get the money anyway. So, is Glen Beck wrong? No not in a million years, the church brought this criticism upon itself. The church invited this meddling when it partnered with the government. I guess the question in my mind is this. Did the world co-opt our term, or did we give it to them?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
I'm ok with this. I don't see it the same as you, but that's ok. Even if I wouldn't explicitly say that our primary mission is to proclaim good news to the poor (I might say that - it was good enough of a mission for Jesus), I do think we find God's mission among the least of these and we find ourselves among the least of these.
Actually, I have only asked questions that I truly hoped would be answered from however you believe. I have not asked any questions designed to be argumentative. I have truly sought to understand what you/others have said and believe. I'm sorry it came across otherwise.Nothing personal to Ryan but I have and will contiinue to ignore the question" What does (conceptual thought) look like? Its a question that, doesn't have an answer and leads to nowhere in addition to not being truly inquisitive. I am willing to answer questions that are inquisitive. I am trying my best to stay away from questions designed to be argumentative (I usually fail and fall right into the trap).
I truly do want to understand why you don't think taking care of the least of these is our primary concern when it seems, because of Jesus's words, it should be. I truly do want to understand what you mean by "saving souls" and what that looks like.
Most good things have been said far too many times and just need to be lived. - Shane ClaibornePost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
But they can be humble, unassuming, and gentle.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
Division has always existed, true enough. That this little division has expanded to the level of "coaching" in our publications can be laid at the feet of Glen Beck and those who marshal to his cause.
It is not enough to be right, you have to be like Jesus.
The best model I know of is the Salvation Army model for saving souls while caring for those in need. That is the closest word-picture I can give you. It you are a Naz Pastor, consider being loaned out to them for a time and see how and why they minister they way they do.
Give a child a piece of bread so they don't starve...you've done a good thing, then fail to offer them the Bread of Life ... cruel, uncaring, downright evil. This is the end result when caring for the poor takes the spotlight role over preaching the Gospel. It becomes an extension of the welfare state and has no lasting value.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Francis of Assisi is said to have said, "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words."
http://www.ceci-orlando.orgPost Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Hope you don't mind being interrupted by someone who has the blessed opportunity and calling to do both - offer bread and the gospel. The "cruel, uncaring, downright evil" thing is to do neither. In fact, if you happen to believe the teachings of a certain Galilean - which I think we both do - and had to choose one or the other, it seems he favors the pagan who meets physical needs over the orthodox believers who offer blessings, but no physical healing.
"Fully embracing the Gospel, fully engaging the world"Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Have heard that all my life. Have used it many times.
But these days, I cannot help but wonder how transferable that concept is to other life disciplines and endeavors. We would never say that to a teacher/instructor/professor/etc, entertainer, attorney, salesman, merchant, spouse, "Practice a vital aspect of your life, but use words as a last resort." Why does that apply to the gospel? Is that how we do Sunday School, small groups, Sunday services. It seems we want to say something like, "Let the pornographer, videographer, drug pushers, humanists, gamers, and on-and-on have center stage. They are free to use their best proclamations to convince children and unbelievers with their best eloquence. You Christians, yes, you, dole out your stuff, but don't say anything. Your actions will adequately communicate your proclamation.
It seems to me that otherwise intellgent people are challenging people to a game of basketball with their hands tied behind there backs. Where is this coming from? I've heard folks on NazNet making reference to this (lack of proclamation), but I must say it totally mystifies me. Play your horn, but don't use your lips. Play the piano, but don't use your fingers. Preach the gospel, but only use your voice, your capacity to testify, your ability to declare historical evidence re. Jesus Christ, proclaim the gospel that is the power that brings salvation, as...a last resort.
Did I go into a coma and wake up on another planet?
Friend,
Wes
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Craig,
Nice opinion.
Let's do a little experiment. Everyone on NazNet who attributes their definition of "social justice" to Glen Beck, please use this thread to tell us.
It seems like we should at least get a sampling of such GB influence.
And, I'd bet my weed eater that you have no evidence to support your opinion about the "coaching" in our publications being laid at the feet of GB.
But, then, eveyone has a right to their opinion.
I'll buy you lunch at Diquis in Palma Norte, Costa Rica, if you are right.
Friend,
Wes
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I don't watch Glen Beck. In a conversation with my daughter, she told me of a "hymn" sung in a Sunday morning service with a phrase something like: Jesus smiles on those who love social justice. Her comment: Really? You have one hour a week and that is what you choose to sing in your service? It made me look into it a little more. I have yet to find a published definition with which I agree with as a model for the Church.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
My wife and I hang out with and care for kids each week at the Salvation Army Booth Home in Boise. I love what SA does, and I hope to keep learning about their model.
"There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread." - Indira GandhiGive a child a piece of bread so they don't starve...you've done a good thing, then fail to offer them the Bread of Life ... cruel, uncaring, downright evil. This is the end result when caring for the poor takes the spotlight role over preaching the Gospel. It becomes an extension of the welfare state and has no lasting value.
Most good things have been said far too many times and just need to be lived. - Shane ClaibornePost Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Here is a post that I think is really helpful. It appeared on World Vision's blog in February: What does "social justice" really mean?
I quoted a lot of it, but I hope you'll read the parts I left out.Social justice is a catch-all term that has gone through many seasons of being en vogue and then going out of favor, often suffering from competing definitions and vastly different interpretations. It’s like Silly Putty — that popular substance we used to play with as kids that can be twisted and contorted into whatever shape your heart desires.
Don’t be fooled or distracted by the word “social” in social justice. Many Christians are more comfortable with the word “justice,” but if Christ is truly Lord over every aspect of our lives, then clearly this must also include the social realm.
...
Biblical references to the word “justice” mean “to make right.” Justice is, first and foremost, a relational term — people living in right relationship with God, one another, and the natural creation. From a scriptural point of view, “justice” means loving our neighbor as we love ourselves and is rooted in the character and nature of God. As God is just and loving, so we are called to do justice and live in love.
...
Social justice becomes less about “what” and more about “who” we are called to prioritize as followers of Christ. So often we get ensnared in disagreements around the “what” in relation to social justice, because it deals with often-contentious issues like budgets, taxation, labor laws, social protections, safety nets, and others.
...
Social justice is about creating kingdom space in the here and now, giving witness to the ultimate just society yet to come. So every time we use our voice and influence to get in the way of injustice — whether it’s human trafficking, economic exploitation, human rights abuses, or infants dying needlessly from disease and malnutrition — we provide a foretaste of God’s kingdom to come.
On this World Day of Social Justice, I pray that, as fellow Christians, we can re-envision God’s call for social justice, which is rooted in Scripture and faith. Let us then recommit to advancing social justice, not as an extracurricular or optional part of our faith, but as an imperative.
Most good things have been said far too many times and just need to be lived. - Shane ClaibornePost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I don't recall anyone here saying, "Don't proclaim," or "Don't use words." I've heard people say it's both words & actions, not one or the other. And I've heard some say that tangible service is a worthy end in itself, not only as a means for gaining a hearing for the gospel message.
If you're referring to the Assissi quote, I take it as a bit of hyperbole (the "if necessary" part) to drive home the point that preaching the gospel is more than just words but includes our actions/lives. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the quote, because the hyperbole can be too easily missed, so that people take it as a sort of permission to hold back on the "use words" part.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
