Why Rich People Will (or Won't) Go to Hell (by Dr. Marvin A. McMickle)
Dr. Marvin A. McMickle delivered the following sermon on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) at a public witness and rally during Sojourners' "Reviving Our Spirits: Transforming Our Politics" conference in Cleveland last weekend. Dr. McMickle is pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Cleveland, Ohio. + Click here for the full sermon text.
The parable of Jesus found in Luke 16:19-31 involves two men who share the same space but live worlds apart from one another. One of them was a rich man (Dives is the Latin word for rich man) and the other was a poor beggar named Lazarus. The rich man was defined both by what he wore and what he ate. The parable said he was dressed in purple; a color so expensive to make in the ancient world that only royalty and the very wealthy could afford such garments. The parable also says that he ate sumptuously every day. He ate the best cuts of meat, the finest desserts, the best wines and probably the most costly fruits and vegetables. Everything about that man spoke of money, luxury and privilege.
Sitting just outside his door sat a beggar named Lazarus whose body was covered with open sores. We learn two things about Lazarus; first, he would happily have eaten any crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. The text does not say that he did eat the crumbs from the rich man's table. That is a detail the writer would not have overlooked. The text says that he would have gladly eaten the crumbs if they had been offered to him. However, the rich man inside that house was so oblivious to the presence of Lazarus that it never dawned on him even to offer Lazarus his crumbs.
Second, we learn that the dogs that searched for food in the garbage heaps of the town would come by and lick his wounds. No Jewish man would want any uninvited contact with dogs; but especially not with the scavenger dogs that lived in and ate from the garbage piles. The danger was not that the dog would get sick from contact with the open sores on Lazarus. The danger this text describes was that the bacteria carried by the dog from the garbage it ate would be transferred to Lazarus through his open sores making his condition even worse. For every luxury enjoyed by the rich man there was a counter balancing misery experienced by Lazarus.
The text shifts to a scene where Lazarus dies and goes to heaven where he is seen sitting in the arms of Abraham. The rich man dies, goes to hell and is continually tormented in the flames. The question raised but not explicitly answered by the text is what the rich man did that warranted his ending up in hell? The text does not say he was cruel or unkind. The text does not say he blasphemed against God in any way. In fact, the text does not say anything about why the rich man ended up in hell. The answer, however, had to reside inside the parable or it would make no sense. There is only one thing this text suggests as a possible reason for why this rich man went to hell; and it was not the fact that he was rich. The Bible says it may be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19: 23-24), but it is not impossible.
The sin of the rich man was not in his material wealth; it was in his spiritual poverty. It was in his lack of concern or compassion for Lazarus who sat just outside his door, but who received no notice from the rich man who must have passed by him two or three times every day. The sin was that for all the wealth of the rich man, he still fell under the judgment of the lyrics by Harry Emerson Fosdick who said that some people can be "rich in things but poor in soul." The rich man ended up in hell because he lived in close proximity to Lazarus and his pitiful conditions, but he did nothing and said nothing that could alter that poor man's life.
The sermon from this text could very well begin with the task of determining who Lazarus is and who the rich man is in the life of the 21st black Baptist church. In my book, Preaching to the Black Middle Class,I recall that when I was a teenager back in the 1960s and in the days of Black Power I was inclined to read this parable through a racial paradigm and cast the rich man as white society and Lazarus as the oppressed black masses. That reading of the text always allowed me to assume the position of the victim and never feel compelled to take any action myself. After all, I was Lazarus being bypassed and overlooked by the rich, white man.
I later came to realize something very important about the Bible. Dr. James A. Sanders, one of my Old Testament professors in seminary used to remind us that any time we read the Bible and came away feeling better about ourselves it was a pretty good bet that we had misread the text. The Bible does not exist to comfort us in our present condition and allow us to comment on the sins in the lives of others. The Bible exists to disturb us and make us confront the sin in ourselves. Only after I learned how to read the Bible did I realize that this parable is best read from a class paradigm and not a racial paradigm. This text is not about people of different races; it is about people in any race that are separated by economic disparities.
When I realized that, this text began to work on me in some very different ways. I am the pastor of a black, middle class congregation here in Cleveland. In the context of the 21st century most black churches and the people seated within them are much more like the rich man than they are like Lazarus. The people in the neighborhoods around most of our churches are much closer to Lazarus than the preachers and people gathered inside the sanctuary. That being the case, the basis upon which God will judge the church has less to do with what any of our churches do that is focused inward on the people who belong to our congregations. The message of the parable is that God will judge us, indeed God will send us either to heaven or to hell based upon what we do for Lazarus who is seated right outside our doors.
The church where I serve is an inner-city congregation in Cleveland, Ohio. The U.S. government has determined that my city is the poorest city in the country, and my congregation is situated within the poorest neighborhood in the poorest city in the country. That is the context in which every action we take as a church must be considered. Every Sunday morning when our members pull into the parking lot of the church driving their Lexus, Cadillac, Mercedes Benz and Jaguar cars, they have driven into the poorest neighbor in the poorest city in America. When they walk into the church building dripping in mink coats and Rolex watches they are sitting in the poorest neighborhood in the poorest city in the country. Every ministry we undertake, every stewardship decision we make and every special dinner we plan for ourselves is overshadowed by the unavoidable and inescapable reality that Lazarus is sitting right outside our door.
Every church that is similarly situated must realize as we do, that we have two separate and distinct congregations. One congregation comes to church on Sunday and occasionally they return during the week. The other congregation comes in and out of the building all during the week in need of food, child care, an HIV/AIDS test, a job referral, a hot meals or a helping hand. The church dare not pass these persons by as they sit just outside our doors. We are the rich man and they are Lazarus. Whether any one of us ends up in heaven or in hell will be determined, in large measure, by what we say and do about Lazarus!
The rich man in the parable of Jesus ended up in hell because he paid no attention to Lazarus who sat just outside his door. Lazarus also sits just outside the doors of most of our churches. I wonder where you and I will end up. The answer to that question depends upon how we respond to Lazarus! Before we direct our attention to the social and political institutions of our nation, let us as Christians and as people of all faith traditions be sure that we are not guilty ourselves of passing Lazarus every day and never sharing even the crumbs from our table!
Now that we have considered the claim that this passage makes upon the faith community, let's stretch the lens through which we read scripture and see that this same side-by-side economic disparity extends to our entire society. We live out the Lazarus paradigm every day in towns and cities all across America. We are the richest nation in the history of the world, and yet we tolerate poverty and human suffering that is on par with what one might expect in some impoverished corner of the globe. We have right here in Cleveland, Ohio some of the finest medical facilities and doctors to be found anywhere in the world. We also people who are among the 45 million American citizens without any medical insurance. They have the sickness, but they cannot afford the cure.
I mentioned earlier that two consecutive census reports announced that this city where you are convened, Cleveland, Ohio is the poorest major American city in the country. I want to warn you that statement is only partially true, and in some respects it is altogether misleading. It is true to say that the people who live within the city limits of Cleveland are among the poorest in the country. However, the people who work in the towering skyscrapers you see behind you but who take their wealth home with them into the surrounding suburbs are anything but impoverished. When you look at Greater Cleveland as a whole, this is the 12th wealthiest region in the country. Lazarus sits right outside the door, but as in the biblical parable the rich man passes by and pays no attention to the poor man, the sick man, the hungry man that he passes by every day.
Part of the problem is the geography that confronts us as we stand here today. Just behind me sits Cleveland Browns Stadium where the average player earns $4 million a year. One block away, just barely in sight sits the Cleveland Board of Education where the average income of teachers is just above $40,000 a year. What does it say about our society when we spoil our professional athletes and starve our public schools? There is something wrong with any society that pays 100 times more to people who tackle than it does to people who teach!
In large measure the problem is a lack of political wisdom in terms of who we elect and a lack of political will on the part of those who promise us everything but then deliver on almost nothing. How do you account for a president who ran as a "compassionate conservative," but once elected he asks for more money for weapons and wars then turns around and vetoes a bill that would provide health care for children? It is Dives and Lazarus! How do you account for a Congress that votes a pay raise for itself and enjoys the finest health care insurance in the world, but does not have the courage or conviction to establish a living wage or some form of universal health care for the working men and women of this country? It is Dives and Lazarus! How do you account for a Democratic Party that was elected in order to change the policies of the preceding four years, but to date it is governing with the same disregard for the neediest in our society? It is Dives and Lazarus! How do you account for a presidential election cycle where very rich people are running for the highest office in the nation, but not one of them, including Hillary or Obama have set forward an action plan to deal with poverty and misery in this country? I tell you, it is Dives and Lazarus all over again!
The time has come to transform our politics so we can transform our society. The time has come for people of faith and conscience to live out their faith and act on their conscience. Back in 1967 when he decided to speak out against the Vietnam War, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "There comes a time when silence is betrayal." Those words remain true today. It is betrayal for us to see the problem but say nothing. The paradigm has something of a global message as well.
It was 40 years ago when our nation came to a crossroads as the War on Poverty was promised, but the war in Vietnam was being promoted. Today a war on poverty is desperately needed, but instead we are engaged in a fruitless and futile war in Iraq. 40 years ago the cost of war was $500,000 per day. Today we spend that same $500,000 in less than three minutes. In the course of a day we spend almost $274 million; in the course of one day! We have great wealth as a nation. We could provide health care to every citizen. We could provide adequate housing for every citizen. We could provide quality public education. We could provide at least a living wage for every worker. But we do not do these things. Why? It is because today, as was the case 40 years ago, we seem more focused on a foreign war than we are on the welfare of our own people.
It is betrayal for us to talk about the problems but do nothing to remove them. It is betrayal to $3, 170. 98 per second on the war in Iraq, when that same money could repair our infrastructure, educate our students, or provide housing and health care for our citizens. Therefore, be silent no more; let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream. Be silent no more; "whatever you do to the least of these you have done unto me" says Jesus. Be silent no more; Dives and Lazarus are still living side by side. Dives keeps getting richer and Lazarus keeps sicker and poorer. Be silent no more; raise your voices, use your votes, live out your values, and lift up the vocabulary of the Kingdom of God. Let us resolve, and encourage others to resolve that we will stand on the words of the prophet Micah who declared:
He has shown you what is good,
And what does the Lord require of you,
But to act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God!
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Maybe instead of us forcing our religion on the country we might could buy health insurance for those in need or supplement wages to get people to this "liveable wage"
Of the 50 million without health insurance. 10 million are between 20 and 30 and believe this is a waste of thier resourses, so these would be the cheapest to cover. Another 20 million are illegal alliens, this will be much more difficult, but I'm sure we could find these people and help them.
The hardest people to cover will be the remaining 10 million as they are very difficult to cover do to their past medical experiences.
I paid for my own health insurance for more than 15 years, for my family of 4 it is close to $550 a month.
Posted by: roger | October 25, 2007 12:14 PM
Sorry the remaing 10 million are just between jobs and insurance and will be covered within 6 months so we don't need to deal with them.
Posted by: roger | October 25, 2007 12:20 PM
The silence in response OUGHT to be deafening.
There is absolutely no moral response possible other than agreement and then ACTION.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 25, 2007 12:26 PM
I think it was Reinhold Niebuhr who said that the British National Health Service (NHS) was the only instance he knew of Gospel values embodied in the public policy of any nation - and there are some in authority in the UK who want to go down the North American route.
One implication of Dr McMickle's sermon is that Christians in Britain ought to be sitting down in their thousands outside the offices of the Department of Health to protest against any move towards the situation he describes. And, yes, one reason for the proposals to move away from the founding principle of the NHS (free access to adequate healthcare for all) is that the UK government too, seems to be much happier funding disastrous conflicts overseas than properly financing the healthcare of its own people.
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | October 25, 2007 12:45 PM
Please.
Health insurance for a family is now $1500 per month bought privately, and that's out of after-tax money, which means its actual cost is far more.
That is $18,000 per year after you pay taxes on that income - 15% in FICA alone.
So on a gross income for that family of $27,000 (minus that 15% FICA)... yeah, right. I guess they can lighten up on the video games and giant screen TVs, or not buy that new SUV. Or maybe pitch a tent somewhere and get in line for the soup kitchen.
Oh, I forgot. All the uninsured are just people who are either illegal human beings or young healthy people or people who will have health insurance again in a couple of months. Nothing to worry about as you sip your latte and surf the web as an all-expenses-paid company perk before heading out to a morning coffee break before the next meeting where nothing is accomplished except to rack up some more well-compensated hours. Or something like that.
Your words, Mr. Dives, have little flames flicking around them, indicative of where the hard-hearted heart that made them will be going unless repented of.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 25, 2007 12:54 PM
McMickle is soft-pedaling the issue. The end of the 25th chapter of Matthew (which must be cloaked in right-winger's Bibles) says flatly that anyone who sees one who is sick, naked, hungry, in prison, thirsty or a stranger and does not "serve" them is going to hell. We liberals can perhaps talk our way out of that, but the biblical literalists cannot. If what they say is true them all American Christians are going to hell. Every time right-wing Christians open their mouths they should be asked about this statement of Jesus. Since the Compassionate One (that would be the Beloved Leader) has made such a point of his Christian Faith, he should also be asked about it at every news conference.
Posted by: dg | October 25, 2007 2:18 PM
What scares me is the implication that some who receive access to health care might not really be poor.
What's the problem? We're supposed to pitch the whole program so that we don't accidentally give help to someone who's not desperate?
We pay for our own insurance, too; we've gone without. But I'm really sure that what we do for other people isn't supposed to be dependent on what has happened to us. I can't see that anywhere as something Jesus advocated.
Posted by: open eyes | October 25, 2007 2:57 PM
dg, is Jesus speaking to the republics of the world, or is he speaking to his followers?
Beautiful sermon. Profound insights. I'm indeed convicted. Still not sure that it's government's job to do what the church was called to do, however.
At the end of the day, that's the issue that divides conservative and progressive Christians: who's job is it to feed Lazarus? And both sides have strong arguments.
Posted by: Blake | October 25, 2007 3:20 PM
And unfortunately, largely, Christian conservatives (or is that conservatives who go to church) have become the most vocal proponents of militarism and war expenditures without limit, which suck up all available tax dollars, to the growing exclusion of all else.
The strategy is just to argue forever to prevent any change in the status quo - that is, in essence, to be purely conservative, standing astride history and yelling, "stop!!" as per William F. Buckley's observation.
As noted, a lot of politically conservative religious organizations have extremely wealthy individuals serving on their boards. For example look at the connection between Focus on The Family's board and Blackwater USA, the sudden benefactor of huge contracts that it didn't have before these same conservatives began plumping for war.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 25, 2007 3:37 PM
Good message about truth. I would argue along the lines of a personal relationship with God is, just that, personal. Let it be said that it starts and ends with "me." Talking about legislating compassion is not the compassion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I pray that people will respond with reght, personal, at-home action, and not just with thoughts or more nationalistic religion.
In the words of Henry Nouwen, "you cannot think your way into a new way of living, you must live your way into a new way of thinking."
Posted by: roger | October 25, 2007 4:20 PM
The NHS has huge support in the UK. No politician dare change the basic premise of being free at the point of access. All the moves in the UK are about getting private organistions involved in the provision - very different from the US. (From the UK.)
Posted by: Brian Wichmann | October 25, 2007 4:42 PM
N.M. Rod, I'm a conservative Christian (or a conservative that goes to church, if you will).
I don't support or endorse Focus on the Family. I think they've overstepped their boundaries. I wish they would leave politics alone altogether. And yet, I still have trouble saying that it's the government's job to carry out the calling of Jesus. What do you do with people like me? We're not all Kool-aid drinking, FoFers.
Thanks.
Posted by: Blake | October 25, 2007 4:56 PM
Blake makes a good point, the only difference in what conservative and liberal Christians believe on this issue is how much the federal government should contribute to assisting people acquire health care. That's it.
But this minor difference about levels of benefits somehow enables liberals to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude simply because they go into a voting booth and flip a different lever. It amazes me. Liberals act like this is the real sacrifice, flipping a different lever or checking a different box. Not the hours upon hours and millions of dollars that both liberal and conservative Christians spend each year helping the less fortunate. That's not what matters to liberals, it's the couple minutes taken each year to vote for someone. That's the action that enables them to say "I care, you don't." Makes me laugh...
Posted by: Eric | October 25, 2007 5:05 PM
But this minor difference about levels of benefits somehow enables liberals to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude simply because they go into a voting booth and flip a different lever.
Voting is about authority. If you're supposedly "helping the less fortunate" but not encouraging them to vote, run for office or become activists -- the kind of things that make them feel they can make a difference -- because you're afraid of how they might vote, how is that being compassionate?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 25, 2007 5:12 PM
Funny how people can assert how generous they are (by citing their own convenient numbers "proving" it so) and yet the problem continues to worsen.
I guess there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics."
It seems a whole lot of people are very comfortable with their own personal gospel of self-statisfaction, just as the good Reverend pointed out.
Historically, we can predict that the war will grow to consume all available resources.
So there will definitely be winners in this particular zero-sum game, but it won't be among the increasing numbers of the vulnerable.
I would imagine that eventually most of the posters on this blog will eventually have to count themselves among those losers.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 25, 2007 5:27 PM
Perhaps it would help if we looked at the problem of the poor as one of how wages are set.
There are two things primarily at work. One is the natural tendency for the cost of anything in surplus to decrease. Thus if there is a surplus of laborers, their wages will tend to go toward zero. Then there is the problem that a poor person (unlike a rich one with savings) cannot with-hold labor and wait for a good price (laborers have to eat). It would be lovely if the free market would choose to pay the full cost of labor, but that is not going to happen. The question is, is there any entity besides government that can prevent people from stealing labor?
Posted by: dg | October 25, 2007 6:17 PM
If, as a poster here avers, the JFK quote, 'Truly, on this earth, God's work must be our own" is false and it's NOT government's responsibility to do the work of God, then is it the only responsibility of Christians getting involved in government to make sure that nothing reflecting Christian morality is enacted by government?
I guess organizations like People for the American Way and Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be well pleased if that were the motivation all these religious right folk had involved themselves - to keep God out of government!
But since no one can really sit on the fence, in the words of Bob Dylan's song, "You Gotta Serve Somebody" - it may be the devil, or it may be the Lord, but you still gotta serve somebody.
I guess if it's not government's responsibility to do God's work, then it must restrict itself to the work of the Devil alone - a task it does seem to be aiding in increasing spades of late.
War is the purest form of sin, some participants have said after observing it up close, so I suppose we are becoming particularly refined in our governance.
In reality, we know full well that people troubled by only two "values" - and they are real values, by the way, if sincerely held and not for hidden psychological reasons of dominance - have few other values outside of those that they won't dispense with very quickly for their own convenience.
I predict quick conversion, though, when they themselves begin to feel the pain others have already experienced. But only then.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 25, 2007 6:19 PM
It's good to see that we're recognising our agreement and our differences on this issue and not simply slinging labels.
We agree that there is a problem and that as Christians we have a responsibility to aid and and assist.
We disagree as to what role, if any, the government has in this.
If we lived under dictatorships, then we would still as Christians seek to aid and assist the poor. We might still petition the dictator for their aid as well (as did Joseph, Nehemiah and Esther) but we would recognise that the primary responsibility was ours.
In democracies the situation is messier. We still have the primary responsibility to act as individual Christians (I haven't heard anyone argue contrarily). We still could legitimately petition our government for their assistance in this endeavour. But we also have some small measure of authority and responsibility as voters to direct the course of the government.
If we agree that we are called to aid the poor, then the question becomes, to what lengths shall we go to aid them? Shall we walk the extra mile and offer up our cloaks? Shall we petition government on their behalf? Shall we use our vote for their benefit?
Or shall we just, to return to the sermon, offer them the scraps off our table? I propose that if we can do more then we should, and one of the areas in which we can do more is in the political sphere.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | October 25, 2007 10:40 PM
Trent,
Characterizing all the time and money spent by Christians assisting the poor as "scraps off our table" is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. Why, in your mind, are the sacrifices millions of Christians make to help the poor considered "scraps" while pulling a certain lever in a voting booth and trying to get others to vote the same way allows people who post here to adopt such a holier-than-thou attitude? And I'm not talking about Jim Wallis, he genearlly doesn't so this; I'm talking about the commenters. Just read the comments above and think about it.
And when it comes to petitioning the government, it's not even that one side is saying "give the poor X amount" and the other side is saying "give the poor nothing." The difference is really only in what X adds up to or the method in which way X is distributed. The difference is actually very slight when you think about it.
When it comes to health care, I'd bet that most conservative commenters would have no problem with the federal government giving every low-income person in America a voucher or a refundable tax credit to go out on the market and buy health insurance. I certainly don't. I have no problem at all with my tax dollars being used to fund such a program. But people here act as if someone doesn't support a UK-style health care system then they don't truly care about the poor, regardless of how much of their own time and money they spend doing so. All that seems to matter is what policy position one supports.
Posted by: Eric | October 26, 2007 7:18 AM
I just don't see why some Christians have a problem with the idea of the government helping the poor. Try a thought experiment: If our society was 98 percent evangelical Christian, had the cross on our national flag and ten commandments plus Jesus' two as the agreed-on basis for our laws and policies, don't you think that government would have solid policies in place to help those who are less fortunate? In other words, would you feel okay about government assistance to the poor if our government were a Christian theocracy rather than a pluralistic democracy? I wonder if this "Christian opposition to government solutions" comes from a distrust of secular government and the separation of church and state that we currently enjoy.
Posted by: I and I | October 26, 2007 10:23 AM
Is the United States a nation? What makes a nation? Do its citizens have any obligations to each others as a community?
I suppose some people view it as a political entity founded upon personal selfishness, where no one owes anyone any obligation whatsoever.
It is true it was founded as a kind of free-for-all colony, wresting whatever land and wealth existed from the prior inhabitants by any means necessary.
I guess in the end that de facto beginning will inform our national character, and unfortunately our relationships or lack thereof to each other and those with others in the world.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 26, 2007 11:23 AM
Everyone seems caught up on the issue of whether or not government should play a role in helping the poor, the homeless, the disenfranchised of our world. WE are the government, unlike nations where there is one party or one-person rule. WE are the ones who have failed to hold our representatives accountable for their immoral wars, their self-indulgence, their ineptitude.
WE need to make the system work to follow a moral purpose...not make a generous donation to a cause, then home in the SUV to our oversized home and resource-wasting lifestyle. Jesus didn't offer for us to sit on our hands and be saved. He offered us the challenge of following Him, no matter how painful it might be. He wasn't distracted by the cost of helping a suffering humanity. He showed us the Way, and challenged us to follow it.
If we fail to mold our nation's policies to the Will we profess to follow, we deserve nothing from Him! After all, in America, we still have the opporunity to govern ourselves, in spite of the efforts of some to undermine our system in the name of "national security".
A nation which dedicates itself to endless war will be consumed by it.
Please pray for peace, and dare to SPEAK OUT!
Peace.
Posted by: Doug & Jan Parker | October 26, 2007 11:31 AM
Helpful and compelling but lacks adequate treatment of economic and world community particulars. The argument is weakened by over generalization. Over generalization seems to be the self-serving tool of much persuasive speech. I know that the occasion's limitations did not allow for a more in depth treatment, but I could have appreciated some humble acknowledgement that it is hard to know how to effectively address human suffering and that good men need to look to God as they act courageously. Thank you, however, for the prodding.
Posted by: Steve | October 26, 2007 11:33 AM
Would the rich man have been saved by petitioning government to help the guy outside his door? This is a misapplication of scripture.
Posted by: kevin s. | October 26, 2007 12:49 PM
We can say - with certainty - that the rich, everywhere and always, do make sure to petition their government (since they control it) to make certain that there is no interference with their own limitless accumulating of wealth, including making sure none of the money they spend to influence government will be used to undermine their own position, which they would fear petitioning to help Lazarus would certainly do. Who knows where that might lead, what unexpected consequences to personal comfort might arise as a threat from what might seem at first like a simple act of compassion!
I am confident the rich man was a politically engaged, respected community businessman belonging to all the right civic and supposedly charitable organizations and able to call on at a moment's notice cronies within his government to address his subtlest concern.
The lesson was as timely then, in the heart of ancient Judea, as it is now, in the heart of corporate America. People haven't changed at all.
Let's face it, it's all about "I'm alright Jack, keep your hand off of my stack." Not fake and supposedly high-minded political philosophies of freedom, which are really subterfuges to try to put some sort of moral lipstick on an immoral pig.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 26, 2007 1:47 PM
It continiues to amaze me how ignorant liberals are on the economy and how they continue to twist scripture to fit their socialist views. The left in this country continues to demonize the rich without any understanding that the rich are what makes this country run. How hard is it to figure out that without the rich there are no jobs. Liberals solution to every problem is to raise taxes on the rich. Does not work. Why do you think companies are leaving the USA and outsourcing jobs? Could it be our unfair tax code? No it couldn't be that. It has to be that they are all greedy and want more money for themselves. How ignorant can you be?
Can you imagine if the open market was like our tax code? Let us say you want to buy a car or a house. They look at your income and lets say you make 50,000 a year. The car or house would then be sold to you at a certain price. Lets say you make 100,000 a year. Tha same car or house would now double in price for you because you make double the money so therefore you can afford it. How stupid is that? Why then do you we put up with it in how we pay our taxes? Could it be because we as a people are ignorant?
I know this will be an inconvient truth but the war is not taking any money away from funding programs like health care or the poor. The Govts job whether you like it or not, is to protect us not take care of us. For a preacher to preach such falsehoods is very disheartning to me.
One last question for you libs out there or anyone that favors raising taxes on the rich- When that happens how does that make your life any better? The dirty little secret is that taxes just do not get raised for the rich they get raised for everyone. If the drive by media would report the truth we would not be having this conservstion. If pastors would teach the truth we would not be having this conversation.
Posted by: Doug | October 26, 2007 2:00 PM
N.M. Rod - You asked some questions: "Is the United States a nation? What makes a nation? Do its citizens have any obligations to each others as a community?"
I'm going to assume when you say "nation" you mean "country." The first answer is an obvious yes. The second is less easily answered, but I'd say a country is a group of people living within defined borders who are ruled by the same governmental structure. What would you say a country is?
The third question is easy. Yes, a country's citizens do have an obligation to each other. Determining what those obligations are is a tougher question and every country is different. What do you think the obligations of U.S. citizens to each other are?
Posted by: Eric | October 26, 2007 3:00 PM
I and I - The vast majority of Christians I know don't have a problem with the government helping the poor. I think what a lot of Christians have a problem with is other Christians saying that particular policy solutions are prescribed by the Bible and Jesus' teaching.
Posted by: Eric | October 26, 2007 3:08 PM
"The rich are what makes this country run."
"Without the rich there are no jobs."
"The war is not taking any money away from funding programs for health care or for the poor."
Anyone who doesn't subscribe to these statements is said to be a liberal, a socialist, essentially an economic illiterate, a political cretin.
Being wealthy, regardless of the means achieved, is an indication of God's blessing?
Those statements are hardly a coherent economic theory that describes reality, nor are the supposedly alternative straw man arguments that posit some pie-in-the-sky utopian blather conformant to the views of those who don't believe simplistic views of the wealthy as unmitigated selfless benefactors of mankind.
Last I looked, the wealthy are sinful human beings, just like every one else, and subject to the same selfish impulses and the urges to dominate. What is true is that the wealthy have more scope to exercise their sinful urges, have more power to do so with more far-reaching consequences and less restraint.
You know, there have been regimes in the world where there are oligarchies of the very wealthy, who own almost all land and control all financial institutions, and consequently the government apparatus, with masses of people nevertheless mired in the most grinding poverty and without redress.
Those situations didn't grow up overnight. They developed because people allowed them to, without conscience, as if the board game of Monopoly with its one-sided outcomes is a valid model for organizing a just human society.
I do know that if a corporation can buy almost-slave labor in a foreign country with no labor or occupational health laws and no responsibility to the employee, that looks enormously attractive for short term profits for the elite managers and the shareholders. From a self-interested financial perspective of those rich, it makes no economic sense to keep costs high by providing jobs here, where employees want things like health insurance or reasonable working conditions and pay, customary to the standard of living found here. That hurts the bottom line!
The person who says that a war is essentially free, one costing so far directly near a trillion dollars, raised through taxes, ignores basic economics and the wisdom of history, in which war is always inflationary - without exception - and the advice of Sun Tszu, in The Art of War, who warns the ruler conducting war, that "a long war has never been in the economic interest of any nation, great or small" and that the economic consequences are always to bleed the country's wealth away from other national tasks to its great detriment.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 26, 2007 4:21 PM
Let's have some fun. How's this idea?
How about the government tapping the Alaska oil to pay off the national debt and help the poor. Then we might have some economic room to do some real good, both privately and publically.
Yes, I know that's not capitalism. We would have to be concerned about opening flood gates.
Posted by: Steve | October 26, 2007 7:11 PM
The Alaska government already shares oil revenue with its residents by paying them a significant royalty each year, direct to each individual.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 26, 2007 7:18 PM
I'm speaking of a more significant drilling effort for the sake of more people.
Posted by: Steve | October 26, 2007 10:13 PM
Eric,
do you do a bit (scraps) or do you do whatever you can? If you only offer your own time or money for the poor (even if it's a considerable portion) but do not exercise your authority on their behalf (politically) then you are not doing all you can.
The good news from the story is that Lazarus was only after the scraps, he didn't expect a seat at the feast.
No-one is suggesting or has suggested here that government responsibility should replace individual Christian responsibility, though some posters persist with this myth.
The good news on this post is that we've progressed from 'not the government's job' to 'we disagree as to what the government can best do.' That is progress.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | October 27, 2007 8:24 AM
"No-one is suggesting or has suggested here that government responsibility should replace individual Christian responsibility, though some posters persist with this myth."
There is an inherent trade-off, however. If you fund programs for the poor, those programs cost money, which cannot then be used on behalf of the poor. I am not one to argue that we should oppose this or that program because it is the church's responsibility to help the poor, but we cannot pretend that one element does not affect the other.
At any rate, as a conservative, I have always pulled the lever that I think will most benefit the lower classes. I have no keen interest in benefitting the rich for their own sake.
Posted by: kevin s. | October 27, 2007 12:34 PM
I thought the Church was supposed to be the Church - not a political party. This sermon speaks nothing concerning what the Church is to do. Jesus did not advocate political action. He went out of His way to avoid that trap. The CXhurch is to address the problems of poverty, sickness and suffering - not elect politicians to do the job for it.
Politics today has become an excuse for the church to do nothing. This is true for those on the left and the right. If Kingdom people spent half the time, money and energy they spend in the political fray on doing somethinf then and only then will the situation of the poor improve.
Posted by: Rick Holloway | October 27, 2007 3:20 PM
Jesus didn't come to teach governments anything. He taught this parable as an example of personal responsibility, not governmental or political responsibility. "The poor are always among us..." are some of His words, meaning, 'you will always have opportunity to implement My teachings because there will always be someone to receive.'
Too many Christians today shirk their personal responsibility by getting over-involved in politics thinking they can do a greater good by electing the right leaders to make the right laws that will serve the masses. If only the "right" leader could be elected, the hungry would be fed, the homeless sheltered, the sick made well, and the imprisoned visited. Jesus didn't teach that! The rich man went to hell because he didn't help ONE man who was right outside his door. In Matthew 25, Jesus makes no mention of how we didn't do enough politically to get the job done. It is a personal responsibility.
This means that every Christian who truly believes and follows Jesus Christ should be more concerned about the poor, hungry, naked, homeless, and imprisoned than about themselves. The great cathedrals and mega churches are not the ministry of Christ and cannot take your place for getting the job done either. They are not ministering to the needs of anyone except those who attend, with flashy, over-indulgent youth events, programs that you can nearly pull up and order from a drive-through window, and big productions that supposedly evangelize but really just draw attention to themselves. In the end, it is all about them and their own. Even if they do have "outreach" ministries, it doesn't mean that every member of the church gets credit for it. In my old church of 3000, less than 100 members actually ministered in the inner city for a program of feeding and ministering to the poor. Other people liked to talk about what great things their church is doing in the community, own it like it is theirs, but haven't once stepped foot on the inner city streets! It is disgusting to me, and Jesus says it disgusts Him too. Take heed of His warnings, as there will be many who cry out, "Lord, Lord" and He will not know them. They will be cast to hell along with the rich man because they failed to see what was right in front of them.
Personal responsibility means YOU personally need to offer food, shelter, clothing, and comfort to those around you that are right outside your door. Jesus also said to sell what you have and give the MONEY to the poor. Directly to them!! Not to some big charitable organization that eats up most of the money themselves. Give it directly to that drunk, stinky, mentally ill homeless guy (even if he goes directly to buy more booze), give it directly to the strung out prostitute (without procurring her services), give it directly to the single mom with 5 children (doesn't she know what contraception is?), give it directly to those who are directly in your path!!
Posted by: K. Plescher | October 28, 2007 5:15 PM
Trent, let's be honest, no one does "whatever they can." We all could do more, both of us included. I could make greater sacrifices and give more and devote more of my time to helping those in need. But you'll never convince me that political activism MUST be a part of this in order to fully live out Jesus' teachings. There's absolutely nothing inherent in political activism that goes against Jesus' teaching, in fact, it's often quite compatible.
For an example of where I'm coming from, read Bob Massey's posts above. Do you really believe that someone who devotes their life to ministering to those girls isn't doing enough if he or she isn't also engaging in political activism?
Posted by: Eric | October 29, 2007 1:15 PM
Zacchaeus, a tax collector, has to be seen as a government operative. Jesus, by making impact on his life, affected his behavior, which, in turn, adjusted the attitude of that part of the system that impoverished the poor. What the church cannot escape as part of its calling is the confrontation of the systems that stack odds against the poor. Sometimes that may well be in policies that governments make and sustain. The church cannot be silent. This may mean a call to our congressperson or senator. It may mean some other kind of voice or march on Washington, if necessary. But indeed, it is not the only way or the only role of the church.
Additionally, when Jesus forgave that paraplegic and then healed him, it is evident that Jesus' concern was not only the misery and sin of the paraplegic - he was also clearly invested in affecting the thinking of the Pharisees. If the Pharisees were both religious and political in agenda and nature, I think this is clear evidence, again, that in the economy of God, part of the Church's work has to be a ministry that constantly exposes and aims at adjusting the thinking of principalities and powers, be they the private or the public sector, the rich people in our pews weekly or the lawmakers in Washington. After all, didn't the Pharisees have something to do with the law as well?
Posted by: Michael Friday | October 29, 2007 10:01 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?