-
Website
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2009/06/come-to-me-all-ye-who-labor-for-a-living-part-3/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
this part was awesome to read because its the same excuse every christian gives me... because its a convenient thing to say. "well i would love to fight for a better kingdom but we all know it can't happen on earth so there is no point."
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done. On earth as it is in heaven.
I'm not proposing a theoretical economic system, or any economic system at all. I'm just describing Jesus' life and example, an example we can follow right now, without any change in our economic system. Jesus lived as he did right in the midst of the world of his time, with the economic system of his time. The fact that he was able to live as he did was simply a miracle. God provided for his needs through the gifts of others, which was not because of an alternative economic system but the inspiration of love in people's hearts. All kinds of people helped him, not just those in his "community." And all his needs (and the needs of his disciples) were met, just like those of the birds and lilies.
And so it can be for us. Our economic system may be somewhat different from the one Jesus lived under, but our God is the same, and it is his promises and his work that make it possible to follow Jesus in this way.
As for how to fund advances in science in medicine, that's pretty much a hypothetical question, since I don't think many people in our (or any) society will ever follow Jesus' example very far. So, in general, societies will continue to run as they do. Only the lives of those who follow Jesus will radically change.
I do believe that a person could live through generosity. Generosity creates a social obligation that returns more than what was given. However, to do it in true Christian spirit, our generosity should not be limited to a particular demographic: rich, poor, family, friend, young, old, etc. Also, there must be no expectation of return favor, otherwise it is not a true gift. This has more to do with the spirit in giving than the qualifications of the receiver. Thirdly, gift given must be desired by the receiver, not necessarily what we might want to give. Of course the ideal is if our talents or ability to give match the receivers needs and wants, but if the gift is to be an expression of love, it is the needs of the receiver that is more important than the talents of the giver.
The true test of living only on generosity is being willing to live in want; when you can trust God to provide even when you are hungry, or thirsty, or cold, or isolated, or sick in some way. I am not suggesting that we cannot make our wants known to others, but if we are living by generosity we should not become beggars. There is, within the history of the church, numerous people who have lived Jesus example. Reading their biographies might give you a clearer picture of what is involved in such a life.
I even believe that one could live without money altogether. In fact humanity has done so for thousands and thousands of years. But, I also believe that God has given us agriculture (as a gift, not a curse) and money for a purpose. The fact that these things have been used for evil purposes has more to do with our hearts, than the qualities of the gift.
That being said, I do believe that Christians can follow Jesus example and still participate in the present economic system. I think it is just as important to fund advances in science, medicine, technology, education, and the like. Our economic system is very effective at doing that in a way that benefits the most people.
I believe that in either situation we can let our hearts be lead astray if we are not staying connected with the Holy Spirit. (And I concur with Ted that our understanding of the Holy Spirit is mediated by humanity in every context.) We can become arrogant and pharisaical, and fail to love those whom we are generous with. And we can become like Martha, so focused on getting something accomplished that we forget why or for whom we are working.
I never questioned the use of money. Jesus used it himself. The difference was that his money was also a gift to him from others.
Jesus participated in the economic system of his time, too, to some extent (i.e. buying food). What he seems to have been free from is the necessity of selling his time and work to others in order to meet his own needs. This is an amazing freedom.
As I think I have presented fairly clearly in this essay, the question is not whether it is allowable for a Christian's work to be part of (and determined by) our economic system (profit, bosses, customers, contracts), but whether we truly have to work that way. Pretty much everyone I have talked to says we do have to ("...in this fallen world"). This is a heavy burden and most people I have talked to, especially Christians, say it is an undesirable situation; they would rather have the freedom to do the work they love, the work they feel called to do by God, to the extent they find it satisfying and good for others. But instead they have to first work for most of their day (most of their lives) to pay their bills, and that work is dictated by people and policies that (to varying extents) do not reflect what they believe in or the God they wish to serve. They are told, and believe, that they have no other choice. The "hard realities of life," they call it. Or perhaps "a necessary evil."
I'm pointing out that Jesus said otherwise, and lived a life that proved a real (and radically different) alternative is possible. He called it "the kingdom of God," where "freely you receive, and freely give." And he invited us to join him in living it, right now.
Jesus also taught and showed that the more perfectly we follow his example (including in the area of economics), the better witnesses we are to the good news and freedom he came to announce. And the power of God to provide, much more generously than capitalism (or any other system). When we consent to live under the bondage of our society's economic system, our actions and choices tell other people that there is no other option, that they also must accept that bondage in order to survive. No matter what our words might say, our actions speak louder.
I agree that it is important for Christians to seek to live in the freedom of Christ. "The Have To" aspect often has to do with the fact that Christians get themselves in debt. Debt is a slave master, and once encumbered there is a required obligation which can take away from the joy and freedom that we have in Christ.
Part of the reason people choose the slave master of debt is due to how they feel they must fulfill their basic needs or aspirations in life. This is where a close evaluating eye, and a creative mind is helpful. There are basic needs, but generally they are a lot more modest than what most Americans consider their needs to be. And there is "more than one way to skin a cat" as I was always told. There are a lot of creative solutions out there, we just have to be brave enough to be different, and willing to accept that we might have to try several different ideas before we find something that works for us.
I've noticed that in other posts you have not been comfortable with the word responsibility. I don't think being responsible takes away our freedom. I do think that God has called us to be responsible.
But people who live simply also have to pay the bills, and I have heard many "radical" Christians lamenting the necessity they feel to get a job (instead of, for example, giving all their time to serve the poor). Then there are the poor themselves who, for a variety of reasons, must work long and hard to afford basic necessities. Jesus directed his good news (concerning economics also) especially to the poor, and not surprisingly they heard him gladly.
So shouldn't we also be living and sharing this amazing good news?
(As for "responsibility," I think Jesus' words at the end of Matt 6 and in Lk 12, quoted above, clearly relieve our responsibility for providing for ourselves and allow us to freely, in love, turn our attention to caring for others. For more on "responsibility," go here: "the dreaded word.")
Your statement: "What he seems to have been free from is the necessity of selling his time and work to others in order to meet his own needs. This is an amazing freedom." Seems to imply that you assume that before Jesus started his preaching ministry he did not sell his time or work to meet his needs or the needs of his mother and siblings. Or that the example of his paid work before his ministry was not part of the example we should follow.
I read your post about your difficulties with the word responsibility. I find that the recognition of our responsibility for our actions is what brings us to repentance. I believe that when God gave us dominion over his creation, he was giving us responsibility for it. I will agree that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities without his Spirit, but there is still an onus on us to live faithfully.
As our children have grown, we have stressed to them that 'freedom comes with responsibility'. Driving responsibly does not diminish the joy of driving, or the freedom to drive. But just the opposite. We don't have to worry about running into someone, getting pulled over, or having an accident when we drive responsibly. The same can be said of work, those with the most responsibility have the most freedom (and usually the most pay). Those that take the most risk get the most reward.
Whether we get paid for our time and effort or it is a gift does not determine whether or not it is a form of play, an act of faith, how we free feel. It is our attitude that counts. When we are responsible with what God gives us (time, money, other resources) then we can have confidence that he will provide what we need. A good example of this is test taking. When we are responsible to study then we can relax when taking the exam, having confidence that God will bring to our mind what we need.
To live responsibly with what God has given us takes lots of creativity (play? work?). I have spent the past three years (at least) at the poverty line because my husband is starting a BAM. I have struggled with whether not spending money is more an act of faith because I'm exercising self-control or I should exercise faith and spend the money, trusting God will provide when the time is right. I have done a bit of both. God has been opening my eyes to his provision, in a way that I had not seen before. Everyday, I am learning about opportunities that are being wasted. I am learning to re-evaluate what I really need, and let my need drive my shopping rather than what I want.
It is not just the middle class American who has a problem with overspending, a lot of poor people have the same problem. I've seen poor people who work long hours to make ends meet, but I've seen many, many more poor people with entitlement attitudes who don't make the most of the opportunities that they do have. Who feel like the stuff makes the man, who spend more time griping about injustices experienced, than being thankful for the grace received. In this country, many middle class Christian families came from humble beginnings. When those poor people became saved and started practicing the fruit of the Spirit, they raised their kids more responsibly (and lovingly), and became wealthy enough to send their kids to college, so their kids had a much better standard of living than their parents. The middle class in succeeding generations has forgotten the Spirit that got them there, and use their wealth to hide from their pain.
Jesus' ministry was primarily to the hurting, to bind up the broken hearted. The hurt of the poor is usually more obvious. The wealthy hurt too, but theirs tends to be hidden. When you make statements like "Jesus directed his good news (concerning economics also) especially to the poor, and not surprisingly they heard him gladly." I feel like you are being selective about who you think is deserving your gifts, ministry, etc. I don't feel like Jesus' example supports such selectiveness.
I'll let others decide from their job experience whether they agree that freedom in work is just a matter of "attitude." My own experience is that whether you are paid or not, an employee or a volunteer, makes a huge difference, both in the freedom of the work itself (divided concerned about profitability vs. single-minded concern for quality) and the freedom of the relationships (boss-employee, employee-client vs. gift giver-receiver). And Jesus told his disciples, not just to change their attitude, but actually change their way of interacting with people: "Freely you have received, freely give" (or, as some translations have it, "You received without payment, give without payment" Mt 10.8).
The reason I bring up the example of Jesus before his ministry again is because I find it is more consistent with the rest of scripture than the point of view you have. You pointed out that “Jesus participated in the economic system of his time, too, to some extent (i.e. buying food).” and “I never questioned the use of money. Jesus used it himself.” Using money to buy food is engaging in a contract in the same way that someone gets paid for their work. The fact that Jesus bought things is an implicit affirmation of wages not a gift economy.
Jesus further affirms wages when he sends out the seventy two disciples. He tells them not to take a purse when they went out preaching but to stay at one house and accept the hospitality offered because a workman is worthy of his wages. The hospitality that the disciples receive is their pay. Paul reaffirms this when he writes to Timothy.
While I think that a person could live a faithful life practicing a ‘gift economy’ I don’t see that Jesus advocated one type of economy over another. I find it very distressing when the Bible is used in such a manner. I believe that we tread into the dangerous waters of heresy when we try to use the Bible for what it was not intended, whether that be science, history, economics, or geography.
What I find is that Jesus’ teachings are emphasizing our attitude towards God. It is not just adultery that is sin, but lust. It is not just murder that is sin, but hatred. Jesus is sold out on loving God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength and advocates removing any hindrances to doing so. He uses extremes to illustrate his point, advocating cutting off hands, feet, and plucking out eyes. Selling all we have, and giving it to the poor, is another example of getting rid of something that would cause us to sin; something where we might worship instead of God.
Not having money does not change our attitudes. Not having a job does not change our responsibility to work. I believe that when Jesus says ‘Freely you have received, freely give,’ he is asking us to give generously what we have receive as a gift. I do not believe that he is necessarily advocating a lifestyle that is dependent upon gifts.
Selling is something completely different. Now we put ourselves in the place of demanding money before we will provide the goods or service that others need. We are asking for a contract or agreement to ensure that we will receive as much (or more) in return for anything we give. These things demonstrate an attitude that seems to me goes directly against Jesus' teaching and example. (Unless, of course, we are selling in order to give all the money away, as when Jesus said, "Sell all and give to the poor....")
Also, Jesus' directions to his disciples to accept the food and shelter given to them is quite different from "receiving pay" for their service (which Jesus told them to give "without payment"). In their visits in towns, they taught and healed very many people (for free) and only received hospitality from one family (according to Jesus' directions). This is not reciprocation or a trade for services rendered. They gave to many people, and some people gave to them, the gifts all determined by the needs of each, not an equal trade or individual deal.
I'll just add that I never characterized any of this as defining sin, or describing any economic system (as I clearly stated previously). This is Jesus setting an example and telling us what perfect love looks like in our interactions with others, many of which are "economic" interactions. He did that all the time, referring to all areas of our lives.
(Oh, and if you wish to discuss Paul's take on this, there's some comments about that after Part 2: click here)
It also bears a certain resonance with the anarcho-primitivist assumption that paleolithic hunter-gatherer life, the primary mode of existence for humans for much longer than we've been experimenting with civilization, was characterized by a small amount of very low-level labor, mostly dealing with obtaining and preparing food and the construction and maintenence of relatively temporary forms of shelter. In other words, their only work was a lot like camping, something we do for leisure. As a student of the intersection of radical thought and Christian theology, I am particularly grateful to you for making this connection (it would help a lot if you could publish a book on the topic in the next year or so -- could you get on that, please?).
Your reading of the relevant texts is pretty strong. I think we would do well not to too quickly dismiss the life you describe (and live) as something that is impossible, or come too quickly to the conclusion that this can't be what Jesus called his followers to simply because most of us aren't prepared to take that step. When the resurrected Christ appeared to the disciples, they had gone back to work because they thought he was dead. Work was the Plan B they executed when Plan A -- following Jesus -- no longer seemed available.
Having said that, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Joan's perspective. It is not unthinkable to me that God's call might fall outside of our expectations, no matter how exegetically informed those expectations might be. I bristle -- predictably, I'm sure -- at the idea of a single developmental line of spiritual formation. I would even go so far as to suggest that God might call us to surrender or forgo a particular badge of spiritual distinction to serve some divine purpose or another. Maybe it doesn't happen all the time, and of course it's notoriously difficult to chapter-and-verse that sort of thing, but I think it's at least plausible. I think Peter was confident he knew what a good Jew could and couldn't eat before God sent him a picnic of unclean foods.
I also wonder to what extent this might be parallel to celibacy. Paul encouraged it; Jesus modeled it. I think there is evidence that among the early Christians, at least in some areas, it was more the rule than the exception. There are really good reasons to choose it. Most of us don't. Sadly, with this as well as with your admonition to abundant life, it's too easy to let that be the end of it.
I don't dismiss Joan's perspective (in the comments in Part 2). But it is not much of an argument. I agree "God's call often falls outside our expectations," but how often does God's call fall counter to Jesus' teaching and example? And the argument that "I'm following God's call" doesn't carry much weight (especially when that call doesn't mirror Jesus' life); many have claimed that God told them to do things which turn out later to be quite a misunderstanding of the divine will. (I'm not referring here to Joan, of course.)
And I don't see celibacy as central to Jesus' message of radical trust in God, while our dependence on wealth (and income) does seem central, and was much talked about by Jesus. Then again, celibacy may be experienced by some as freedom and an invitation to a fuller life. I personally have experienced fuller life after being married (following 37 years of celibacy, though the first decade or so of that was easy), and it seems even more of a gift and a joy when the burden of provision for wife and family is carried by God.
My point was that the arguments for and against each seem to evince a similar structure: choice X seems to be the normative ideal, and although there seems to be a good deal of grace afforded those who did not choose X, even in the scriptural record, it still remains the ideal and one that we ought not summarily dismiss. Both would seem to live on in vestigial form in monastic and mendicant orders.
Those of us who do not make those choices -- I have made neither choice -- are often content to find a single exception to the ideal and say "Ah! There! I'm okay," when maybe it would serve us well to ponder a little deeper and ask ourselves why we don't feel that step is available to us. This series has challenged us to do that.
In response to this: "how often does God's call fall counter to Jesus' teaching and example?" -- maybe never, but then Peter probably felt the same about God's call falling counter to Torah (given the story in question, there might be a pun in there somewhere). I suppose one could argue that Peter, at least in retrospect, didn't really understand Torah, but then, we don't always understand Jesus.
Additionally, I might ask how often your assessment of Jesus' teaching and example has changed, or how often you have come to a yet-deeper understanding of that teaching and example, which would at least slightly alter the standard by which you measure God's call. If you're like the rest of us, that's a bit of a moving target. Not in a crippling way, to be sure, but one that might adjure us to remain open both to God challenging our ideological purity and to the perspective of others, whether they are making "much of an argument" or not.
I'd agree also that Jesus is "a bit of a moving target." But not in the sense of dodging our understanding of him, since he went out of his way to make himself and his ways known to us ("I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you." Jn 15.15). He's always moving ahead of us, urging us on, inviting us further out of the boat.
George Müller of Bristol, England, who died in 1898. Here's a passage about him from The Varieties of Religious Experience (by William James):
Further research on Muller revealed: He would not accept a salary for his ministry. He refused to borrow money, and paid in full for every purchase. He believed that "to lay up stores or hoard money was inconsistent with a life of faith." And while the general needs of his ministry were known, as a rule neither he nor his co-workers asked people for money. Yet for years God fed, sheltered, and clothed him and his family... plus teachers, and missionaries, and thousands of orphans! He writes: "In all my experience I have found... that if I could only settle a certain thing to be done was according to the will of God, that means were soon obtained to carry it into effect."
Maybe that's enough for one comment. I was also thinking of the farmer here who became a full-time peace worker (with CPT, though he has left them now due to internal politics). He began by following a passion, like Muller followed a need he saw, and God supported them in their work.
My own experience in voluntary poverty and "giving without payment" started with pilgrimages all over this country, then caring for a disabled man in an intentional community, then work at a Catholic Worker house (shelter and soup kitchen), and now offering spiritual retreats for the poor. I can give more specifics if anyone has questions.
Then Mother Teresa is also known for some holy antics. Like when she left the Nobel Peace Prize in the coat closet of the award ceremony auditorium. Or like when a rich man came to offer her money, but she refused him, inviting him instead to spend time with them back in India. All that to say, I don't think either of them "pandered" to the deep pockets of their day in order to get by. They also seemed to recognize the potentially compromising influence of money (respect too) to the fidelity of their work.
The story you wrote (Holy Fool) intersects with this as well. Good stuff.
I remember one day asking myself: I see where they got this (from Jesus) but then why just clergy and missionaries, why not all of us? Aren't we all followers of Jesus' teachings and example?
Americans Celebrate 10 Millionth 'Bring Yourself To Work Day'