Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
-- Luke 6:20
While I believe social justice (according to the outlines of the Bible) is not optional for Christ's church, I believe it is an implication of the gospel not the gospel itself. Here are some reasons why:
1. The gospel is the news of the work of Christ -- sinless life, sacrificial death, bodily resurrection -- which is already done. The gospel is also "the kingdom" that was coming in Christ's ministry, that he inaugurated in his life, death, and resurrection. But whether we use the gospel definition of 1 Corinthians 15 or the gospel definition of the synoptic gospels, the gospel is news of something that has happened and that he has done. Therefore, anything that happens now and done by us, is not the gospel message itself, but the Christian's living as if that gospel message is true. (Of course, even our works are sourced by God's work, according to Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2:12-13, etc., but I maintain that when we begin contributing to the work, it ceases being "the gospel.")
2. Related to that, If the gospel's content includes economic justice for the poor, it means that the gospel includes work that Christians do, and if the gospel includes work that Christians do, we end up "preaching ourselves" and stealing the glory of the gospel that is due God alone. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 4:5, "For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake." We are the servants of others -- including in the work of providing for the poor -- but we preach him only as the gospel, and this distinction is held for Jesus' namesake.
3. Economic justice is a sign of the good news, but not the news itself, in the same way that Jesus' miracles of the healing of the blind or raising of the lame were not the good news, but signs pointing to the gospel of redemption of creation. We see this delineation perhaps most starkly in John 6 when the crowds were eager to eat the signs (bread) but demurred on eating the signified (Christ's flesh).
4. Economic justice is temporal justice. But the gospel's justice is eternal. None of us gets to take money with us. Loving our neighbor in the way of providing for the poor demonstrates that our treasure is not monetary. But to argue that monetary justice is content, not implication, is to muddle the eternal treasure of Christ with treasure that rusts and decays. The miracles were not "permanent." Those healed still died. Those raised died again. Those given food and money were hungry and in need again.
5. Related to that, interpreting "good news for the poor" as economic justice is to misdirect focus off Christ as the super-fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and make the same mistake as most of Jesus' Jewish audience whose messianic expectation pictured him literally overthrowing the Roman occupation and establishing political kingship in Jerusalem. Now of course, Jesus did do that. He was proclaiming his Lordship -- and in effect denying Caesar's -- but the way he was doing that was not the way expected. That Jesus is Lord has profound effects on how Christians live, including economically, but those are effects of Christ's Lordship, not the content of his Lordship. Some would suggest this view merely "spiritualizes" the promises of God, and while there is a way some do that in disharmony with the Scriptures, we should at least say that what the Bible calls "spiritual" is not un-real. Further, I would not go as far to say Jesus merely spiritualized the kingdom; he was really there, he was really Lord, he really offered his tangible self to follow and trust and to die, and this incarnational reality and sacrifice and resurrection is not un-real at all. Indeed, there is nothing un-real about the promise of a risen Lord securing new bodies for us in a new heavens and new earth to come.
If we reduce the gospel to its implications, we will have to make sense of how the gospel proclaiming "liberty to the captives" would have encouraged John the Baptist while he languished in prison, awaiting execution.
6. The good news for the poor Jesus preaches is not economic justice, or else his own ministry was fairly a failure, as we don't see too many examples of them providing money for the poor, and in fact they were occasionally lacking for things like food and money themselves. It also makes James and John's gospel encounter with the blind man in Acts 3 a consolation prize. They had not silver and gold, but they had something far better.
7. "Good news for the poor" meaning "economic justice for the poor" is an eisegetic reading. Take a look at Luke 7:22, for instance: And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them." Notice that Jesus doesn't say "the poor receive money." The blind get sight back. The lame get mobility. The lepers get restored flesh. The dead get life. But the poor don't get un-poor. They have the good news preached to them. I believe this good news is not money, but the treasure of Christ, the satisfaction of Christ.
8. This is not out of step with the larger Gospel paradigm of "the gospel of the kingdom." It makes perfect sense of the Beatitudes, for instance, which promise "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20. How does it promise the kingdom to the poor? Not in giving money, but in turning the tables on how the have's and have-not's are regarded. No, the promise to the poor is not that they will be rich monetarily but that they will receive the far greater blessing of eternal life in Christ, the approval of God, the status of co-heir with Jesus. In the world's fallen economy, the poor are at the bottom of the barrel because they have not the power of money. But in God's economy, money is not power, and therefore the rich, the powerful, the lords of the earth are humbled, and the humble are exalted.
If the gospel for the poor is economic parity aren't we preaching the gospel of middle class-ness? Or, dare I say it, the prosperity gospel? The reason the gospel of the kingdom is good news for the poor is not because the Son of Man comes handing out cash and prizes but because it upturns the economic values of the world. In God's kingdom, the rich man has his reward now and he will perish later, but the poor are elevated, saved, made "rich toward God" (Luke 12:21).
9. If the gospel's content includes economic justice, it makes little sense to say we believe in this gospel with the gift of faith. I don't need faith to believe I will receive money, but merely an open hand. The requirement of the spiritual "open hand" of faith for grasping of the gospel demands that the gospel promises something immaterial (as of yet).
So with all that said, I reiterate that care for the needy (whether poor or hungry or naked or ill) is a command of God binding on his people and to be obeyed as joyful gospel witness. And so like all good works, they are worshipful responses to the gospel of Christ's finished work, not the gospel itself.
12 comments:
Jared,
I like a lot of where you are going with this, but I think you've failed to address one aspect of it (unless I just missed it in there somewhere), which is this: if the good news of the kingdom is as you say it is, why does Jesus specifically say that "yours is the kingdom of God" to the poor. Doesn't there seem to be a, "And thus if you're rich, yours isn't the kingdom of God" as an implied opposite? What is it about being poor that makes the kingdom specifically for the poor here?
Two ideas come to mind, briefly: (1) Being poor-in-money almost inevitably makes someone poor-in-spirit. If you have no money and your life consists of begging, you're not likely too prideful to take the free handout of the gospel. And the gospel, of course, is quite free indeed. The poor will be poor in spirit, so they'll be less inclined to work for it, and more inclined to have the attitude of the tax collector praying in the temple in Lk. 18.
(2) By contrast, it's "hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom" because he has gained so much already. He doesn't want the handout, and he also doesn't want to sacrifice his wealth to gain Jesus. That tradeoff looks too much like sacrifice and not enough like the greatest gain that ever was.
Perhaps we get confused because of our pseudo-Gnosticism? Perhaps we all forget that physical things (like money) have real effects on spiritual things (like pride). But if we recognize how integrated our body and spirit are, it begins to make more sense.
Andrew Faris
Someone Tell Me the Story
Andrew, good questions.
I think this comment of yours gets close to how I'd approach that: Being poor-in-money almost inevitably makes someone poor-in-spirit. If you have no money and your life consists of begging, you're not likely too prideful to take the free handout of the gospel.
I think it's that, plus the whole thing about the kingdom's "economy" setting things rightside up.
I think there's a parallel between "Yours is the kingdom" to the poor and "The kingdom belongs to such as these" about children.
Jared, I've often wondered if the good news to poor was (and is) more related to the false perception that the poor were cursed by God and the rich were receiving His blessing. (ie. Peter's question of who can be saved when Jesus tells him that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle).
Also, the poor seemed to be limited in their ability to participate in temple life and therefore have a much greater limit on their access to God. Jesus blew open those doors to give everyone direct access to the Father by coming as the true Temple.
Thoughts? I've never heard anyone else explain it the way I've been considering it.
weave73, yes, I believe that's part of it as well. We see that too in Jesus' healings. It wasn't just good news to have working limbs and what-not, but also to now have the religious "uncleanness" removed.
All of that signs, I believe, to the spiritual reality of the forgiveness of sins that justifies.
N. T. Wright spent a bit of time pointing out what I'm sure others have, that within the Mosaic law the healings restored people to community where their deformities had made them unclean and not just in some spiritual sense. Lepers were health risks. People born blind did not have many options for work. The poor may not have been given money but in that society they would have been given physical health through Jesus' healings to go work. I appreciate a desire to avoid the appearance of a prosperity gospel but the physical healings Jesus performed would, particularly in that time and place, have had real economic consequences for people who were unable to work or worship with fellow Israelites.
Some amazing points, Jared! I was confused on #8 though. In rereading it, it still seemed like those who are monetarily poor will in the end enter the kingdom of God. Did you mean poor in another sense, or is that it?
Thanks again for your writing! I got a few chunks of wisdom to truly ponder.
Yours,
Ryan
Wenatchee, yes. See my comment above to weave73.
There is so much to the "already" of the kingdom, but I think we have to see temporary signs of spiritual (realer) realities in restored access to the temple/system that Jesus said was going to be replaced itself.
Ryan, good question. No, I'm not saying that the poor automatically will be saved by virtue of their economic poverty any more than I'd say Jesus' words about riches and rich men automatically disqualify the economically advantaged (middle class/rich) from heaven.
The 2nd paragraph of Andrew Faris' comment gets at good clarification to what I mean there.
Good times!
I have a question that, while not exactly on the subject at hand, follows logically from the discussion.
I was recently in Austin driving around with some friends and on almost every street corner there are homeless people begging for money. We gave as often as we could and one of our friends riding around with us said, “I noticed that you guys give as often as you can. Do you believe that as Christians we should give every time we see someone like that?” My wife and I had come to that conclusion a while ago and gave our reasoning for why we give as often as we can. Jesus’ command to give to the poor and sharing the gospel with the poor etc.
This sparked discussion in the car and several objections were raised. The common “They’ll use it on booze.” And “Jesus’ command to give is a guideline for generosity”.
Do you have any posts or know of any posts that cover this topic of when and how often and to what extent we are to give? Thanks again!
Anonymous, I read Jesus there to be speaking directly to personal interactions, so my personal guideline -- and others disagree, of course -- is that we are to give to those who ask of us. The only exception I make is if I have clear evidence that giving will be harmful. That precludes making the assumption that a fellow will use it on booze or what-have-you. And he may. But I figure it will be better to show up in heaven having been taken advantage of then to show up having prejudged people and been stingy.
Most times I'm able to tell the person why I'm giving to them too.
Now, one caveat could be that Jesus didn't say "give exactly what they ask of you," so when a fellow asks me for gas money, I sometimes will offer to get him a gas card or put gas in his vehicle for him. If a fellow asks for $5 but you legitimately need $4 of that for something, you could give him $1, or whatever.
The gist is to not refuse to show hospitality to strangers, as some are entertaining angels unawares (Heb. 13:2).
Just my 2 cents.
Amen and amen on the comments as well as the well needed post. Thanks Jared and others. God Bless Now!
Post a Comment