Port workers against the war

It is clear that there is a lesson for us here - it is not just about this one person, no matter how uncomfortable that makes people. Note what Jesus says shortly after his declaration to the ruler:

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

This is not a "one person" lesson. We know this because Jesus broadens out the implications for rich people in general. You really have to tap-dance to make this text not demand generosity to the poor on the part of everyone.

And the "socialism" versus "salvation" argument is yet another example of how enlightenment thinking has people buying into the non-Scriptural argument that we'll run this present world according to our (read: "full-on capitalist" in some circles) values, since the goal of the Christian is really all about "going to heaven when we dies".

When one actually stands back and thinks about it, I cannot think of anything more silly than applying the principles of the Kingdom in our private lives only and leaving the administration of our society to secular ones. Jesus is Lord of all, including how we run our societies.

Yes, the question on the table is salvation. But the only reader who will not see this text as Jesus demanding generosity to the poor is the reader who has already decided not to allow this possibility.

 

A meaningless gesture.

Even less effective.

 

Yes, And don't think much of them, try getting a load out of the port in Seattle. They don't do much work, but they do cry a lot and are very well paid for it. Also the port in Long Beach, Ca. is a mess also. I have called them socialist, because of their lack of work, or lack of work as far as a trucker thought and they just smiled and said, more pay less work and look at how hard you have to work. They had a point.

 

Good synopsis of why many unions have outlived their usefullness.

 

You have to tap dance to make this about generosity to the poor at all. At least not in the way you are trying to justify. It just isnt there. And I never suggested it should only apply to one person. That was never implied in the least. This passage was about submission and sacrifice. Nothing more.

 

It would still be a waste of time and have no effect on Iraq policy.

 

I don't. Jesus was talking about private charity not state sanctioned theft through coercion to enable the state to buy itself friends and arm enemies.

 

"We" ?

Wishful thinking. Never happen.

They enjoyed the day off and made no real political statement at all. I suspect that many of the workers that took the day off actually support the war.

 

I believe that one of the great errors of 20/21st century western Christianity is its failure to understand that the Kingdom values that Jesus espoused constituted a model for us on how to run the world.

Not on how to run only our private lives, but the whole of human society. We have compartmentalized the kingdom values to the point where we have given up efforts to enshrine them in all structures of our society - including government.

The overall New Testament picture does not support this "we'll run our personal lives by scriptural principles, but run our society by secular ones" kind of philosophy. Jesus is declared Lord of all. He is not declared Lord of our "private charity" while we run our own government by a different set of principles.

In order to understand the scriptures, we need to know some history. At the time of Paul, the word "gospel" was used to announce the ascendence of a new emperor to the throne in Rome. I keep bringing this up and no one challenges me on it. Given this meaning to the term, the recipients of Paul's letters (remember, he wrote them 2000 years ago in a different culture) would have understood this to mean that Paul is claiming that Jesus supplants Ceasar.

The Kingdom that Jesus initiated and that Paul proclaims is not only about our "private lives". It is about how the world is to be run now that Christ has been declared King.

When we make statements about how this and that teaching (such as the rich young ruler story) are about "private actions" and should not inform how we run our governments, we are massively missing the point.

Jesus wants his kingdom values to be enshrined in the way we govern our societies. The wealthy and the powerful do not want to read things this way - since it demands of them the very thing that caused the rich young ruler to become distressed.

 

Great point! :jesus: