Tag: Jesus

Jesus would make a lousy dinner guest

As we await the coming of the cute little baby Jesus, remember that He grows up to be that pain-in-the-neck guy who wants us to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, tend to the sick, and visit the imprisoned.

A few weeks back, one of our pastors gave this great sermon. She started by asking the congregation to play that game whereby you invite three people, living or dead, to a dinner party. We were to share our picks with people sitting near us.

The pastor then said that most of us church folks probably had Jesus on the list, and the congregation murmured in agreement. But do we REALLY want Jesus at our soiree? Because He could be quite annoying.

Look at some examples: one woman, Martha, puts on a nice meal, yet Jesus sides with lazy Mary who is just hanging out listening to Him. At a fancy gala, Jesus allowed “that woman” to wash his feet – with her hair? He ate with sinners, including those tax collectors, who were ALWAYS ripping off people. Not to mention his last dinner where, by the end of the night, he had been denied, betrayed, and taken off to prison.

I saw this story – don’t know if it’s apocryphal or factual, and it really does not matter – about how church members mistreat a homeless man in church, unaware it is their pastor in disguise. I DO know, having gone to various churches over the years, that the narrative rings true. So does Sharp Little Pencil’s Memo To Shrinking Churches.

So as we await the coming of the cute little baby Jesus, remember that He grows up to be that pain-in-the-neck guy who wants us to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, tend to the sick, and visit the imprisoned. Did I mention He is REALLY IRRITATING?
***
Why I Still Go To Church.

God bless the talents

“to fulfill Matthew 25:34-40 of the New Testament by providing nutritional food to the hungry, clean water to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, affordable shelter to the homeless, medical care to the ill, and humanitarian supplies to prisoners. “

Ever have one of those eureka moments when you realize that one piece of information you have is related to another piece? Then it’s OBVIOUS when it had not been.

My wife’s reading this book about education, and there is a reference to the Matthew effect, basically this: “Early success in acquiring reading skills usually leads to later successes in reading as the learner grows, while failing to learn to read before the third or fourth year of schooling may be indicative of lifelong problems in learning new skills.” (This suggests that services such as Head Start are vitally important.)

It was the naming, though, that brought me up short. It is dubbed for a verse in the New Testament, Matthew 25:29 -“For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him, that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” This is described in my wife’s reading as a very un-Sermon on the Mount type sentiment, that Sermon also being found in the book of Matthew.

The verse in question is at the end of Jesus’ parable about the talents, where three guys get 10, 5, and 1 piece of money, and the first two double its value by investing, while the third one buries his. He is chastised by the moneylender in the story. You can read several interpretations of the text here. The sentiment is echoed in Matthew 13:12, the explanation of the sower of seeds parable, which observes that “for whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” Context, though, everything, which is why one oughtn’t to mine Scripture for single verses.

Interestingly, the story of the talents takes place just before that cool stuff that inspired Matthew 25: Ministries, “to fulfill Matthew 25:34-40 of the New Testament by providing nutritional food to the hungry, clean water to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, affordable shelter to the homeless, medical care to the ill, and humanitarian supplies to prisoners. Additionally, Matthew 25: Ministries is committed to fulfilling Matthew 25:40 by educating the public on the conditions and needs of the ‘least of these’ and by providing resources for action.” This is the Jesus narrative that makes sense to me.

But that’s not what the revelation was. It’s that the parables of the talents and/or the sower, which I’ve read several times each, is the basis for the lyrics of the song God Bless the Child, which I’ve heard many times:

Them that’s got shall get
Them that’s not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news

Yes, the strong gets more
While the weak ones fade
Empty pockets don’t ever make the grade

Here are recordings by Billie Holiday, the co-writer with Arthur Herzog, Jr.
Billie Holiday, an earlier (original?) version
Blood, Sweat and Tears, from the second, hit, album, and the first with David Clayton-Thomas on lead vocal

J is for Jesus

There are lots of examples how Jesus was hardly passive, thus clearly inspiring the nonviolent direct action of Martin Luther King Jr and others.

As I have noted, I’ve been reading – very slowly – a book by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, Jesus for President. The subtitle is Politics for Ordinary Radicals. The title had concerned me what it might be promulgated, but that turned out not to be a worry. The book is coming from a Christian POV, but not a traditional one.

Jesus for President shows the political backdrop in the early first century and how subversive Jesus was. “Jesus spoke about a throne, and Herod wasn’t on it… His campaign slogan was ‘Jubilee,'” a topic I’ve addressed recently. Here is a brief video of Claiborne [LISTEN].

The book has a lot to say about war and the environment and patriotism, and I hope you read it. Certainly, in the case of the latter, it spurned my post about the American flag. But let me give you just a taste.

I had the profoundly great opportunity to see the late author Walter Wink speak about a decade ago, and his reflection about “Jesus’ creativity in his teaching” was amazing. Claiborne and Haw write about him at length.

In turning the other cheek (Matthew 38-42), “Jesus was not suggesting that we let people sadistically step all over us. When hit on the cheek, turn and look the person in the eye. In the orderly Jewish culture a person would only hit someone only with the right hand… if you hit a person with the left hand, you could be banished for ten days…”

“When someone drags you before the court to sue you for the coat off your back, take off all your clothes, exposing the sickness of their greed… ‘You can even have my undies. But you cannot have my soul or my dignity.’

“When someone makes you walk a mile with them, go with them another mile… Roman law specified that civilians had to walk none mile but that’s all…” The soldier could get in a bit of trouble if someone literally went the extra mile for them.

There are lots of examples of how Jesus was hardly passive, thus clearly inspiring the nonviolent direct action of Martin Luther King Jr and others.

I previously discussed Zealot by Reza Aslan, who is a Muslim. I find it interesting that these two books, even though they come from very different angles, are clearly saying that one has to understand the context of Jesus’ time on earth to really understand parts of the message. From what I know, it’s clear in both books that Jesus was a troublemaker, showed antipathy for the earthly authorities that oppressed people, and was most definitely not a wuss.
***
Notes on Jesus II. Daniel Nester’s recollections of being an altar boy.

 


ABC Wednesday – Round 13

What a Christian can learn from a Muslim about Jesus, by way of Dostoevsky

“The Church’s conception of Jesus is inextricable from the Church’s political, religious, and economic interests—that their Jesus may not be who Jesus actually was.”

I’ve got to read this book!

You may not know the name Reza Aslan, but you might have heard about the controversy about an interview that FOX News religion report Lauren Green did with him about his book Zealot, about the life of Jesus. She questioned how a Muslim could write about Jesus, and he kept repeating his extensive credentials as a religious scholar. The storm over her amateurish piece helped the sales of his book reach #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.

More interesting to me was this interview with John Oliver of The Daily Show. Aslan is addressing the Christian POV, though not focused on the Christ aspect of Jesus. Aslan disputes the notion of Jesus as a detached, celestial spirit, argues that the early Christian leaders never meant for the Gospel of Jesus to be taken literally, and attempts to answer the question of what Jesus would actually do were he alive in modern times. Aslan notes that if one knows nothing else about Jesus, knowing of the crucifixion is mighty informative since the cross was a punishment usually used on those the authorities considered trouble to the state.

The item that most intriguing me about him, though, was The Book That Changed Reza Aslan’s Mind About Jesus, an article in The Atlantic. The book in question was The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, read when he was 16.

“I first read this book when I was a Christian: a firm, devout follower of Jesus. Someone whose impression of Jesus was wholly a result of what the church told me he was. When I read The Brothers Karamazov… my eyes were opened to the notion that the Church’s conception of Jesus is inextricable from the Church’s political, religious, and economic interests—that their Jesus may not be who Jesus actually was. This rocked my world, even back then. I could sense that I was never going to be the same…

“I think Dostoevsky is saying that we must never confuse faith with religion. We must never confuse the institutions that have arisen, these man-made institutions—and I mean that quite literally, because they’re all run by men—who have created languages to help people understand faith, with faith itself. I, as a person of faith, read the same story and did not see it as a repudiation of faith the way a lot of atheists do. I saw it as a challenge to always remember that those who claim to speak for Jesus are precisely the kind of people that Jesus fought against.

“One of the things that’s fascinating about Jesus is that he refused to recognize the power of the Jewish authorities to define the Jewish religion for him. In this time, the priests had a monopoly on the Jewish cult. They decided who can enter the presence of God, and who could not. Which means of course that the lame, the sick, the marginalized, the outcasts, the ‘sinners,’ were divorced from communing with God. And Jesus’ ministry was founded upon not just rejecting that idea, but claiming the absolute reverse: That the kingdom of god that he envisions is one in which the priests, the aristocracy, the wealthy, the powerful, would be removed. And in their place would be the weak, the powerless, the marginalized, and the dispossessed. This was a reversal of the social order. In other words, it’s not just about the meek inheriting the earth. It’s about the powerful disinheriting the earth.

“I think that, obviously, is an enormous threat to the power-holders whose authority came from—precisely as Dostoevsky says—from their ability to appease a man’s conscience. Pay us your dues, your tithes, bring us your sacrifices, submit to our authority, and in return, we will give you salvation. And Jesus’ challenge to that idea was based on the notion that the power for salvation does not rest in any outsider’s hand: that it rests within the individual.”

For the Bible tells me so

If Jesus had any bias, it was in favor of the poor, the downtrodden.

No, these are NOT my positions. Or His.

So this is what happens on a regular basis in the past decade or so. The particulars are almost unimportant, though I’ll give you an example anyway.

1. Someone will say something I think is outrageous, and justify their position by citing Jesus, God, and/or the Bible. Current example: Rep. Stephen Fincher’s defense of Congress slashing $4.1 billion + from food stamps over the next 10 years was from the New Testament, specifically 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” As the article notes, “Because many of the members of this sect believed that Jesus’ return was imminent, they stopped working. They figured why work when Jesus would be back at any moment to sweep us all into heaven?” Interesting that the people of first-century Thessaloniki sound like certain current Christians – though not all of them – who believe polluting the earth is OK, even good because the Lord will come back soon to fix it.

2. Other folks will sneer, “See how Christians are!” This is inevitably followed by calls to ban religions because if we did that, it’d all be SO much better. Usually, the “liberal church” will be called to task for not repudiating the original offending comment.

Rinse, repeat.

I have said again and again (and again and again and…): beliefs like those of Fincher do not reflect all of the Christian church or all the Christian people. In fact, if Jesus had any bias, it was in favor of the poor, the downtrodden.

May I make it clear, please: next time some yahoo proclaims the word of God as a tool of oppression (and/or stupidity), just assume I oppose it. I may not mention it all the time, because that’s what I would be writing about ALL THE TIME. I’m not interested in doing that; it would be boring for me, and quite possibly for you.

I stole this from some Facebook friend of my sister’s: “Some people think they are Christian evangelists, but instead they’re being self-appointed ‘Bullies for God.’ (I just made up that term.) Remember, ‘the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God’ – James 1:20. It’s the GOODNESS of God that leads to repentance (Romans 2:4) not anger, badgering, hostility, and contempt.”

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial