It's interesting that one metric of judging the gospel is how often YHWH/Jesus expressed "concern" for specific groups, and in what settings this concern was expressed.
Well, it's safe to say that Israel was one group that YHWH expressed concern over.
He was concerned that Israel would adopt the barbaric practices of those in the land He led them to, and other lands that they conquered. He was so concerned that His people not be defiled by these barbaric practices, that He took some pretty extreme measures to protect Israel. Yet those instances of showing concern were somehow bad.
When Israel DID, repeatedly, adopt the pagan practices of their neighbors and otherwise show contempt for YHWH. He manifested His concern by sending them warning after warning including telling them what the consequences would be. Yet they ignored Him and they ended up conquered and enslaved.
YHWH showed His concern for Israel by sending His own Son into their midst. Jesus did all sorts of things to demonstrate His role as Messiah, yet Israel demanded His death.
Jesus showed concern for Matthew the tax collector (a reviled role at that time, especially because of their theft), in that He called Matthew as one of His disciples.
Jesus showed concern to Zaccheus by going to his home, sharing a meal, and sharing The Gospel. Because of Zachheus sense of guilt for his sin, he publicly repented.
Jesus showed concern for a Roman Centurion who's daughter was ill, by healing her and commending His faith.
Jesus repeatedly spent time with various members of the Jewish ruling elite, answered their questions, and was never recorded condemning them.
Jesus apparently showed concern or something for Joseph of Arimathea, and at least two other Pharisees who argued against having Him killed.
Ultimately, I think that the problem represented by this philosophy is that is easier and neater to deal with people by putting them in a group, and then condemning the group, than it is to deal with people as individuals and based on their individual actions and thoughts. It's obviously easier to make facile generalizations like "The poor/marginalized are X.". or "The Pharisees are Y.". "Or "The Roman Army was a tool of oppression.". Yet we see Jesus dealing with people as individuals, not as just a part of a group.
Jesus could have chosen to avoid the people in certain groups, yet for some reason He identified with people as individuals.
Perhaps the best example is the Samaritan woman at the well. The circumstances of their meeting would have suggested to most Jews that this Samaritan woman was twice unclean. Obviously she was Samaritan, and just as obviously she was a woman who'd struggled with sexual issues. Not only did Jesus ignore those two red flags, He was able to speak to her in a way that addressed her as an individual. He was able to demonstrate His knowledge of her past, yet offer her mercy and hope. I suspect that the folks who lump people in groups, would likely have looked at her checked off the Samaritan box, checked off the "loose woman" box and walked away from the well until she was done drawing her water.
Maybe the problem is thinking that Jesus is limited to the boxes we use to characterize "the other".
7 comments:
If one accepts the notion of a perfect God of love and grace who loves all of humanity, as I do and perhaps you do, as well, then it's a given that the God of Love lives every human. That, to me, is not in question.
But if one also values and takes seriously the teachings found throughout the Bible, then one can easily see that while God loves the world, God and Jesus are repeatedly cited as being especially and specifically on the side of/watching out for/has specific concern for the poor and marginalized. They are the category of humanity that God, Jesus, the prophets specifically literally identify as a concern for God, in ways that other categories of humans are not specifically identified. Just objectively, measurably.
Agreed?
From there, it seems like we can reasonably conclude at least two things at the same time...
1. God loves everyone
2. God specifically, literally identifies the poor and marginalized as objects of God's love and concern. At least in the biblical witness.
Both things can be true at the same time, don't you think?
Dan
From olivergospel.org...
"With more than 2,000+ verses in the Bible (wow!) about loving the stranger, widow, orphan, impoverished, immigrant, and helpless among us … the Bible makes it clear that this is important to God’s heart and the Christian walk. Just like He rescues and provides for us – so should we for others."
Other sources say the same thing.
How many verses do you think there are specifically identifying the rich, the well-off, the gainfully employed and healthy people as specifically identified by God as a specific object of concern?
Why the difference?
Why the specific literal emphasis on the poor and marginalized, do you think?
Given the sheer volume of this theme, how do you think we should view this emphasis by God?
Dan
"If one accepts the notion of a perfect God of love and grace who loves all of humanity, as I do and perhaps you do, as well, then it's a given that the God of Love lives every human. That, to me, is not in question."
Obviously, if one accepts your philosophy about these things uncritically and in total, then that would make some sort of sense. Fortunately, not everyone accepts your hunches. What you think "the question" might be is of no interest to me at all.
"But if one also values and takes seriously the teachings found throughout the Bible, then one can easily see that while God loves the world,"
Yes, we do hear that YHWH loves "the world" and language that speak of all of humanity. But that sort of all encompassing language is not compatible with a philosophy that focuses on people as sub groups of "the world".
"God and Jesus are repeatedly cited as being especially and specifically on the side of/watching out for/has specific concern for the poor and marginalized. They are the category of humanity that God, Jesus, the prophets specifically literally identify as a concern for God, in ways that other categories of humans are not specifically identified. Just objectively, measurably."
So, you've moved from YHWH loving "the world" in a general sense, to YHWH being "especially and specifically" favorable toward one particular subgroup based solely on their economic/political status. Again, it's your personal, subjective hunch based on taking cherry picked proof texts, out of context, in order to back up your preconceived hunches about what YHWH should be like.
"Agreed?"
No.
"From there, it seems like we can reasonably conclude at least two things at the same time..."
This sentence always kills me. It assumes that the preceding claims are 100% objectively True and proven to be so, then provides an excuse for Dan to jump off of that subjective base into flights of subjective fancy.
1. God loves everyone
2. God specifically, literally identifies the poor and marginalized as objects of God's love and concern. At least in the biblical witness.
"Both things can be true at the same time, don't you think?"
If 1 is objectively true, then 2. is redundant. Unless you are claiming that YHWH has some sort of tiers or degrees of His love, which would seem to refute your claims about His love being perfect.
Shocking. Dan found one source that agrees with his subjective hunch.
What's even more shocking is that Dan's source is an advocacy group that necessarily has a financial and personal interest in pushing a specific interpretation of scripture.
I'm not objecting to this group or what they do, just to suggesting that they are some sort of unbiased, scholarly source.
"Given the sheer volume of this theme, how do you think we should view this emphasis by God?"
With extreme suspicion.
Dan has a well known propensity of piling on whatever is superficially related to an issue as actually promoting his position. When one looks over Dan's "exhaustive" and nauseating series of "the Bible and Economics", one easily sees how much is not actual teachings on either wealth or poverty, but merely teachings on some other issue using parables about rich and/or poor to make the point. As I've stressed to him at his blog, in many cases, the point is not the poor, but a lesson for those who ignore or oppress them. That is the concern is not for the poor at all simply because "the poor" are mentioned. So when we consider that fact, and add to it those places where God/Christ is showing concern for wealthy people, the scales balance out a bit more.
But throughout the course of Scripture, there was...as there is today...an imbalance in how society regards both rich and poor. God addresses this imbalance, but is not showing favoritism for the poor as Dan wants to pretend is the case.
I give little credence to Dan's eisegesis and his reliance on out of context, proof texts, cherry picked to support his subjective philosophy.
Post a Comment