politics & pop culture

human civilization is a mix of both the ugly and the sublime. and so we offer both reflections and rants on life sandwiched between Kingdom and Empire. ++ submit an article ++

word & image

“art is a collaboration between God and the artist.” poetry and prose and image and song peel back the veil into deeper realities unobservable to the naked mind. ++ submit an article ++

story & idea

we are a part of a complex story that streams from the mouth of GOD. so we delve into scriptures, history, and thick books to find our place in God’s story. ++ submit an article ++

practice & resistance

the way of jesus is meant to be practiced. usually with others. this often requires resistance to the powers that seek to enslave us. viva la revolution! ++ submit an article ++

wit & satire

often, the most serious response to the world’s brokenness is humor. wit strips away layers of deception to reveal that the emperor has no clothes. ++ submit an article ++

Home » Featured, practice & resistance

Greed, America, and the Rich Young Ruler

Submitted by Mark Van Steenwyk on October 6, 2009 – 11:06 amComments
Print This Post

A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”

“All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Heinrich-Hofmann-Christ-And-The-Rich-Young-RulerThe Gospel of Luke (and its sequel: Acts) isn’t an ethereal philosophical text. Luke doesn’t deal with wealth and poverty abstractly, rather in Luke we see poor people and wealthy people engaged directly.

We learn in this passage that it is seemingly impossible for the rich to enter the Kingdom, for probably a number of reasons including the simple truth that the kingdom belongs to the poor (Luke 6:20).

Perhaps it is Luke’s assumption that there are no “innocent” independently wealthy people. Rather, Luke’s approach to poverty and wealth must be understood in light of Jubilee. According to the Hebrew Jubilee (which at the very least informed Jesus’ approach to economics), if someone has amassed wealth, it doesn’t NECESSARILY matter if it is directly at the expense of the poor. Hoarding would be seen as INTRINSICALLY stealing from the poor. And, as such, it would have been unjust. Take a look at Leviticus 25 to read more on what YWHW was going for with the Jubilee.

I’m not advocating that Christians practice Jubilee exactly as understood in Leviticus 25 (and elsewhere). I don’t believe we should just cut-and-paste the Torah into our contemporary Christian lives and try to live it out as-is. However, when Jesus begins to call people into the Kingdom of God, he raises the bar on Jubilee, rather than watering it down. If you read through Christ’s teachings on wealth and poverty, it becomes apparent that Jesus wants people to live in an ongoing practice of Jubilee. The early chapters of Acts show this in practice. And we can also assume that, given early church practices and teachings on wealth and poverty, they extended their Jubilee-inspired economic practices to aliens and stranger who were, in Leviticus, excluded from Jubilee.

Whenever I talk about Jubilee, people push back. Especially if they have money. The modern USAmerican understanding of justice is quite different than the justice of Jesus. Nowhere can we find in his Jubilee vision that a wealthy person needs only to give alms to be justified, since wealth comes from the Land, and the Land, which ultimately belongs to God, is granted to His people. In light of this, the call of the wealthy isn’t simply to be charitable. Charity doesn’t get at justice. Even when Jubilee ceases to be rooted in the promised land, it is still assumed that, in Christ, everything belongs to the Lord and should, therefore, be redistributed to those in need as an act of justice–not as an act of “charity.”

Before I dive back into the story of the Rich Young Ruler, I want to make a quick statement about an understanding of Jesus that often gets in the way of a healthy reading of Scripture.

We often use Jesus as an example of the downwardly-mobile. It is assumed that, in Heaven, Jesus was kinda wealthy…and that he left that all behind to slum it with the poor folks. But Jesus isn’t simply someone who decided to serve the poor. He was poor. He didn’t speak as the affluent who advocates for the poor…he spoke as a representative of the poor. I wonder if, to Jesus, it was a more condescending act to address the poor or to address the Rich Young Ruler? Maybe he looks at everyone the same–but I wonder if he held more pity for the Rich Young Ruler than he did for the poor Lepers he sometimes healed.

Whether Jesus addressed the wealthy or the poor, his goal was to call folks into a righteous relationship with God and neighbor. Jesus’ sermons and acts serve to convert the marginalized into human beings. His are acts of liberation for the oppressed and the poor.

But what of the rich and the powerful? In this encounter with the Rich Young Ruler, we see the way that they are to enter into the Kingdom. They also need to be converted into human beings.

If the poor become marginalized and dehumanized because of oppressive power and the crushing weight of social, economic, and religious systems, then the ones who wield that power and create or support those systems also become dehumanized, but in a different way.

In fact, if you read through Luke/Acts carefully, it becomes apparent that Luke isn’t simply rejecting the wealthy (it is valid to believe that Luke himself was wealthy at some point), but is instead deeply interested in the salvation of the wealthy, which requires them to divest of their wealth.

But let’s get practical. What is, ultimately, the goal of the wealthy divesting of their wealth? The goal is to share  possessions…which is what we see in the early chapters of Acts. When wealthy people come to faith, they are to share everything with the poor, who receive it. But the poor and the wealthy don’t then go their separate ways, rather, they live as family. The goal of downward mobility isn’t mere charity, but solidarity.

To Luke, and to Jesus, Mammon (money) is like a false God who woos away the Rich and keeps them from being a part of the People of God. Mammon isn’t a neutral thing–it is a perilous tool that can either purchase solidarity or serve as a wall dividing the wealthy from the poor.

So, like the Rich Young Ruler, we USAmericans are being asked to embrace the Christian Jubilee.

So, given the way the early Church ran with Jesus’ economic vision (which was inspired by the Hebrew Jubilee), how should we live?

  • Amen. I have not heard it said better! Did you ever read John H. Yoder's "Politics of Jesus?" It changed my life back in the late 70s. And you are right, Jubilee is not pouring out money to make the poor richer. That is the way of the world. Not, solidarity in Christ extinguishes not only male/female, young/old, black/white, gay straight, sinner/do-gooder, it even says out with anything that divides us-- even rich/poor.
  • Fabulously articulated. I think I kind of agreed with you on a lot of these ideas already without having put them into words yet -- you helped me think about them more concretely. I'm still new to a lot of this. I wasn't previously familiar with Jubilee and I'm still mulling over what you've said here. I especially liked the way you described hoarding/amassing wealth as "intrinsically stealing from the poor." I will definitely be directing friends to this article.
  • Kudos to The Jesus Manifesto; it's great!
    You ask, "So given Jubilee and Acts of the Apostles, how should we live? "
    I think we should live as cultural creatives, as "salt for society", not as passive "consumers" embedded in a "culture" with obvious anti-Christian roots.
    There are modern options which can be used to that end.
    See - http://LifeGivingSpring.info/simple/
    D. Stall
  • I have money - but when you talk about Jubilee, my initial response isn't to push back. The concept of Jubilee appeals to me a lot actually, yet I struggle with some aspects of it.

    It seems to me on some level that there has to be a societal - or at least communal - willingness to submit to the idea of Jubilee. As such, I find myself as an individual quite disabled to do anything. If I give all my money to the poor, how do I pay for shelter/food etc? This is a question I wrestle with often, particularly in the light of feeling like there is something better I could be doing with my life than spending most of it with the central purpose of earning money.

    Yet recently I have been thinking that the very fact that I think and struggle and wrestle with this is the very reason why I never take any action... It makes it seem OK that "at least I am thinking about it". More and more this isn't feeling OK though.

    Still, I don't really know how to move out of this cycle. Any practical ideas?
  • SarahLynne
    If your concern is simply being able to pay for shelter and food, then do you give everything beyond that to the poor? I ask this not to be shaming, but because this is something I've begun to think about. I have thought similar things and have had similar things addresses to me, not only about "how do I pay for shelter/food," but how do I be a good "steward" and make sure its somehow used well by the people I give it to.

    I still haven't come close to living into this fully, but recently I have been thinking about the role of community. As Mark mentioned in the article, the poor and wealthy lived into this reality by sharing and living in community as family. When God originally gave the jubilee commandment he gave it to people in a community. With the nuclear family as our central social structure we are shockingly individualistic and devoid of truly interdependent community. The first thing we need to do is form that somehow... other issues arise with this, like making sure you aren't forming happy little like-minded downwardly mobile educated communities (which then just ends up practicing charity as a community)... Actually, come to think of it, a way to avoid that could be to stop thinking about forming a community for yourself and looking at the way poor and marginalized peoples have established their own communities for mutual aid and support. Its my impressions that the wealthier and dominant we are the less we are able to fully live into, experience, and form community, but a sense of concern for each other and interdependence exists in the cracks of our affluence, maybe you could start looking, listening, and submitting/sharing there?

    I have some practical ideas but I am hesitant to be prescriptive. But I guess what I'm saying is you need to see if you can begin submitting and sharing within a different community that is poor or marginalized. I feel like the key here is submission and solidarity. Eventually your fate has to be identified with their fate and experience (as much as it ever can be I guess), we have to make ourselves less than. This is really uncomfortable, and I feel really lame saying it because 1- I'm not doing this well yet and 2- this could even be objectifying as long as we are talking about this in abstract terms.

    so all of this is awkward for me, but I think there are directions we can head, and I hope we can both start wrestling with this by trying some stuff out and listening more carefully.
  • SarahLynne, you write: "The first thing we need to do is form [...interdependent community] somehow... other issues arise with this, like making sure you aren't forming happy little like-minded downwardly mobile educated communities (which then just ends up practicing charity as a community)..."
    Intentional community is a remedy for modernism, a reconstituting of extended family of sorts which has been destroyed by industrialism in order to create its "labor pool" for sucking life and profit from the masses. In light of such "extended family", you are courting failure if you attempt to form intentional community with anyone and everyone, especially the hereditary poor, the multi-generational destitute with a myriad of psychological and physical problems.
    Are you saying forming community isn't a lot of work? (which it is), or that it doesn't necessitate introspection and growth? (which it does). As such it necessitates putting the other (neighbor) first, and is most definitely essentially Christian. Communal living was a fundamental part of early Christian community.
    Forming intentional community is one of the best ways available in these modern times to share with others so everyone limits their consumption. By doing so, becoming less "greedy" for things other than necessities of life, the poor are definitely helped. Then if you want to help those poorer than oneself directly, pray and I'm sure they will be provided to your doorstep. You don't have to become a social worker or missionary to the third world or to a domestic ghetto or barrio. Not everyone is cut out for that. Many (maybe most) of the poor are caught in a cycle of poverty that involves abuse (physical, verbal, sexual), addiction, hopelessness and a host of other psychological and physical problems, which can overwhelm most who desire to help but are inexperienced in dealing with such issues. As someone else has commented here, serving in a homeless shelter on a regular basis may help connect your charity more personally, but you don't have to dedicate your entire life to such.
    The early Church Fathers are clear on the role of wealth: to help the poor, not for sensual pleasure (larger yachts, diamonds, more lavish anything). But put this into perspective. In the United States, the top 300,000 earners pocketed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million in 2005. Today those who make $75-$100K annually or less are not the ones who are living on excesses that should go to help the poor; these "middle" and lower classes are those who can help the poor best by not contributing to the consumerist "system", by living frugally and sharing among themselves so that globalism isn't spreading addiction to "affluenza" worldwide.
    By living in community, few may need to continue in high powered employment necessary for "nuclear" (nuked) family, reducing stress and allowing more time to devote to spouse, children, and community. Children especially benefit from communal living where they are not institutionally segregated to learn bad habits from being indiscriminately thrown into contact with peer pressure from anyone and everyone's children.
    A new generation reared with such a "new American Dream" would do us all a world of good. We needn't confuse or equate modern humanistic egalitarian notions with what it means to be Christian or charitable.
    See: Creating a Life Together by Diana Leafe Christian, and http://LifeGivingSpring.info/simple/
  • SarahLynne
    "In light of such "extended family", you are courting failure if you attempt to form intentional community with anyone and everyone, especially the hereditary poor, the multi-generational destitute with a myriad of psychological and physical problems."

    I find this statement a bit short-sighted and class-centric (could that be a term? : ). People from any place could be characterized as having "a myriad of psychological and physical problems." I'm not idealizing the character or health of any individual poor or marginalized person. Even my limited experience is enough to be aware of these tensions, but to make a statement like that ignores the way American, capitalist values skills and certain mental states as "healthier" when they may not be. It also ignores the way our system causes a myriad of psychological and physical problems among people in the affluent and dominant culture. Sure, I'm more comfortable dealing with those kind of problems (because I deal with them myself and thus have more empathy in certain areas, and our more able to overlook certain things), but I've found the attempting to understand and submit to the perspectives and limitations from people in different, less dominant spaces, has actually been a factor in my own healing and addressing my own dysfunction (btw, doing that is antithetical to the idea of being a "missionary" or social worker. You must have misunderstood me here). I agree that everyone isn't in a place to do this, and I can see areas where I can't fully live into this ideal, which is why I try to be gracious towards myself and others in conversations like this. Your right, it would be stupid for someone to just pick up and move to the "ghetto" when they aren't prepared, but this isn't something to be rejected out of hand, and it is still important to recognize and lament our limitations.

    "We needn't confuse or equate modern humanistic egalitarian notions with what it means to be Christian or charitable."

    Your right we shouldn't confuse modern humanistic egalitarian notions. I'm not doing that, and I'm not sure why you would imply that "we" (the elusive "we" : ) are.

    anyway everything else you said was really helpful. I think those would all be good steps to take in trying to live into God's kingdom.
  • I assumed you're "confusing modern humanistic egalitarian notions" because you seem to think Christians should live in community with anyone and everyone, and that anything less is "class centric". If so, I must say I think such attitude is typical of American egalitarian secular humanistic "ideals", but isn't realistic, and may be indicative of not having spent any "real" time around the "poor". Have you spent any time around the poor to have any real idea of their incredible "neediness"? If so, how do you propose to meet their needs in a community setting?
    See A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby K. Payne http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Framework_for_...
    Even monastic communities do not have such "egalitarian" ideals because they know that members must "fit" the community otherwise it will fall apart. Monasteries (at least E. Orthodox ones) have a 1 year "inquirer" period when the monks are evaluating the inquirer and vice versa. At the end of the year, the inquirer is either invited to stay or told it is better for them to leave.
    Thinking that community should be open to anyone and everyone contributes to the top ten reasons that cause new communities to fail, not succeed. Unless we're "gifted" as psychologists, social workers, etc., we'll have to face up to the fact that many of the destitute, multi-generational "poor" have needs we can't meet and are better met by others, especially charitable organizations. We can however, still communally share with others who have less than we do, and together all reduce our overall consumption, thereby not reinforcing the oppressive global socio-economic system which puts a lot of pressure on 3rd world poor who still (unlike us) mostly live off the land, and which ultimately forces them into urban slums, making them even poorer. Communities can also consent to sponsor a poor member(s) among them, but that is voluntary, not mandatory and depends on the community.
    See Practical Tools to Grow an Intentional Community: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlMDckgqU30
  • SarahLynne
    I did not say that living in community with people similar to you is class centric, I said your comment about the mental and physical health of poor people was class centric. Then I explained why.

    In fact, I agreed that living with diverse people is very difficult and should not be taken lightly, but I don't think that it isn't possible or that you have to do it from a professional standpoint. Catholic Workers have moved in this direction. Dorothy Day did this. I do have experience in this, though I look forward to growing deeper in this direction (let me repeat, since you didn't catch that in my last post. I do have experience in this, even though I wouldn't pretend to have completed my journey in this area). This has everything to do with my understanding of family in scripture, my experience with charity as dehumanizing, Christ's identification with the poor and my experience that living with people different than me has helped me begin healing and growing in my faith. I said all of this above, and never said that living with diverse (including poor and marginalized) people was "mandatory," just that it is the direction I think we should all hope to move in, and needs to be discussed in the context of forming and living in Christian community.

    Also, I never said that living with and among the poor and marginalized was for the purpose of meeting their needs. I do think counseling and treatment centers are useful, though I affirm sharing money and life together which is something that everyone needs. In fact, it sounds to me that your understanding of what it means to live with the poor is akin to a very humanist secular social justice notion of simply "helping" them.
  • You raise a good point about giving all of the 'excess' away. I certainly don't do that as much as I could, it is an ongoing thing that I seem to challenge myself with sometimes and not think about other times. I am hopeful that aspect will continue to grow over time though.

    I agree that the only way to truly desire the response to the poor is to identify with them, although as you say this is quite challenging and uncomfortable.

    To me it seems fairly clear that knowing how to respond to what Jesus says about this stuff isn't really immediately obvious, and is quite complicated. On the other hand, Kirkegaard says that the matter is quite simple, and the New Testament speaks directly about how we should act, we just make it complicated in order to avoid action that will "ruin our lives".
  • Where is Paul Munn? ;-)
  • Even within my Capuchin community, the question of "How much do we give?" is a reality. Do we let people come in and sleep in our house? Do we give at the sake of being in need ourselves? Do we give if we know our gift will enable an addiction or perpetuate an evil? How do we say we take a vow of poverty when people live worse off than we do?

    In my experience, the "yeast" that moves one into action is that of love of neighbor. The ability to recognize not just the need, but also the insecurity of the lives of one who is poor is integral to the equation. Perhaps the one thing that the rich young "lacks" is that sense of insecurity...wondering where the next meal will come from, how the rent will be paid, how to pay for shoes for the kids.

    When a chaplain at the soup kitchen in Milwaukee, the faces of the poor became real and close to me. Knowing the names of the needy rather than lumping them into a statistic proved to be the catalyst for me.

    My thoughts are that if the "institutional amnesia" of the poor was overcome, than perhaps a more communal understanding and recognition of the Jubilee would be possible.
  • Have you seen this essay here? (I'm not sure if it answers your question, but I think it may be helpful): "Come to me, all ye who labor for a living (part 2)" and "Come to me (part 3)"

    I'd be happy to share some more specific practical ideas as well (at least the ones I've tried) if any of that interests you.
  • I read this and while I agree with it all in principle, I continue to struggle with how to respond to it. This tends to be the typical problem that I have.

    I do think it is (should be?) as simple as the article suggests, yet the fact that I don't trust or believe that enough to act only seems to indicate the weakness of my faith in God. Do I really believe that this life is one in which what I require will be given to me if I do what I am called to do? It is a question which haunts me, as my inaction every day screams the answer on my behalf.

    The concept of no longer having the 'freedom' associated with 'owning' my house certainly puts me off, yet the 'freedom' of not having the responsibility of the debt is the very thing I find attractive. Unfortunately, the more I think about changing my work situation, the less giving I am, as in my mind I now need to hoard and save as much as I can.

    And while I know these aren't the type of issues that advice alone will solve, I appreciate the space to speak them and the comments given in love.
  • Kyle, here's something I found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illcatholics/mess...

    In Celebration of Discipline, Richard Foster argues that “the majority of Christians have never seriously wrestled with the problem of simplicity, conveniently ignoring Jesus' many words on the subject. The reason is simple: this Discipline directly challenges our vested interests in an affluent lifestyle.”
    Once we have begun to cultivate the inner reality of simplicity, what might our outer reality look like? Foster offers 10 principles:
    1 Buy things for their usefulness rather than their status.
    2 Reject anything that is producing an addiction in you.
    3 Develop a habit of giving things away.
    4 Refuse to be propagandized by the custodians of modern gadgetry.
    5 Learn to enjoy things without owning them.
    6 Develop a deeper appreciation for the creation.
    7 Look with a healthy skepticism at all "buy now, pay later" schemes.
    8 Obey Jesus' instructions about plain, honest speech.
    9 Reject anything that breeds the oppression of others.
    10 Shun anything that distracts you from seeking first the kingdom of God.
  • I like this.

    I like it because it gives me 'small step' advice to bring about changes to my mindset about simplicity, rather than trying to force external changes on me and expect my heart and mind to catch up. (Ten Commandments, anyone?)

    However, I fully accept that that reason alone suggests that it may just be my subconscious recognising that at the end of the day, "less radical change" often equals "easier to ignore".
  • Biting off more than can be chewed and having great expectations from the get go is a really good way to defeat yourself before you start. Rome wasn't built in a day. If less radical change is "easier to ignore" for you, then I think you may be right, you really don't want to change at all.
  • Yes, Kyle, I see the value of identifying smaller, more achievable steps. Foster didn't mention sharing, but that's also a good habit to develop (sharing rides, tools, meals, living space, etc) and something we can start doing pretty easily.

    But I think there still comes a point where we recognize our piecemeal progress as just unacceptably far from our deepest desires for true freedom and the life Jesus promised. Achievable goals have the advantage of being within our reach, but then also the disadvantage of being within our reach. The life Jesus described (and lived) is, to most of us, obviously unreachable. So the main part of what is desired in the following of Jesus (in my case, at least) is an impossible life, a life lived only by the grace and miraculous power of God.

    And that requires a "leap of faith" (as Kierkegaard was so fond of calling it). Always a frighteningly radical move.
  • Casey
    Sanctification is a process, sometimes fast sometimes slow, but always ongoing. God is the Author and Finisher of our faith; He is more interested in our sanctification and salvation than we are.
  • mariakirby
    There was an interview on the Diane Rehm show with Micheal Sandel, a Harvard political philosopher who recently wrote a book entitled "Justice", that I thought was relevant to this discussion. http://wamu.org/programs/dr/ (I hope I did the link right.) The author is working with PBS to do a ten week series with a similar title.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes