In the last few years, I have read a Lutheran pastor telling me that non-violence is the heart of the Gospel. I have heard an Episcopalian priest tell me that creating a society, by building a system that cares for the poor is at the center of what Jesus taught. Similarly a pastor from my own denomination and a nice Methodist minister have assured me that without striving for justice in our communities/nation/the world, our other "Christian" works are meaningless. One meant racial justice, another meant economic justice, I am sure there are lots of other justices to be sought. Myself, I yearn for cosmic justice, which is foolish this side of heaven. I don't recall reading anyone saying that confessing corporate sin is the heart of the gospel, but I think I've heard some come close.
The marginalised get invoked as the center, and James tells us that true religion is caring for widows and orphans, very specific examples of that. I have even written in online conversations comments sections that I partly agreed with them about the marginalised, noting James's comment, only to be greeted with steadily growing anger if I try to put them first on the list as Scripture does. [No, no, no, I don't understand. That was because in that society the father was the one who supported the family, but today we do things differently, and the marginalised means...] I notice that the biblical examples are things you mostly do yourself, or perhaps give money to a church warden to do face-to-face, while modern examples are increasingly in the direction of supporting policies, getting society to do things, and ultimately not giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
There is a widespread belief that one can only become wealthy by cheating or at least gaming the system, so that leveling the distribution of goods is in itself a form of justice. If you are rich, a taint of evil attaches to you. Interestingly this works in reverse as well. If you are seen as a good person who cares about the poor, then you are not viewed as wealthy. Bernie Sanders. Nancy Pelosi. The Clintons and Obamas. If you ask some Christians if those are wealthy, they will suddenly remember that yes, yes they are. Yet somehow it doesn't stick. They have sort of Jedi mind-trick about it. These are not the wealthy you are looking for.
From another direction, I have heard that when one is a Christian, Bible study should be the center of your life. I think immediately of a Baptist church I knew that had a table with an open Bible on it where an altar would be in other churches, a spotlight shining down on it. Others will say it is prayer that is the heart of the gospel. Forgiving others has been nominated frequently, as has evangelising, or more generally "leading people to Christ." When I heard about the concept of a one-word sermon (as if) I mentioned it to a wonderful pastor I knew when I was first a Christian, who excitedly told me he knew exactly what he would preach for that. "PRAISE!" Another focuses on discipleship.
Across history some have advocated that poverty is the key that turns the lock, or contemplation, or obedience. CS Lewis noted wryly that Christians will tell you all sorts of things are most important, including taking the sacraments or dying to self. Yet in another place he had a go at it himself, suggesting that grace is the heart of the gospel.
I have mentioned Jaroslav Pelikan's Jesus Through The Centuries a half-dozen times here. Well, that's another score of Jesuses, each a heart of the gospel in its time. There is enormous overlap among these multiple hearts*. (Ugly metaphor. Sorry.) They are all rather true, interrelated, and worthy of contemplation, but some are farther from the center than others, when one puts them all on the buffet table at once.
9 comments:
I have come to the conclusion that the average pastor today wouldn't recognize Christianity if it bit him in the ass. If the gospel has a "heart" -- does it really need one?--- it would seem to be the life, teachings, death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Jesus. Everything else would have to come in second, at best.
It seemed to me that what Jesus called people to do was follow Him, without specifying what that would mean in all cases.
Well, I can't hep but think it odd seem s odd whenever a purported Christian insists that one particular single focus is the essential element for worshiping a God that created everything, is present everywhere, is all-powerful, all-knowing, possess unlimited justice, mercy, kindness, and love.
How dare any man clam that devotion to a God as limitless as that to be so narrowly circumscribed?
The "widows and orphans" in the letter of James are not intended as a metaphor for "the marginalized". Everyone just assumes that. By widows and orphans, James means (A) widows and (B) orphans. And not just any widows and orphans, not widows and orphans as a class, but specifically those members of our own Christian communities who have lost husbands and fathers and who stand in need of the community's support. And the reason they are entitled to support is not because they're marginalized and God likes those kinds of people best. No, the reason they are so entitled is because they are members of the covenant community.
None of this means that you can't be generous to others who are outside the community. If you want to start a ministry to the widows of the world, feel free. Go for it. Knock yourself out. But that is simply not what James is talking about in his letter. He is saying "Be sure to take care of your own."
I grant that James is not alluding to so general a class as "the marginalized,' but I don't see any indication that he is limiting his reference to the widows and orphans of the congregation. If you look at the context, the preceding verses are of a very general nature, and the following verses are a short essay on "Don't show favoritism." Not a congenial context for narrowing the scope of "aid widows and orphans in their distress."
1 Timothy 5 gives a bit of context to what the church was doing
It's "don't show favoritism among the members of the congregation", and "Don't make distinctions among yourselves." We see at verse 15 of Chapter 2 that James is indeed speaking of what is owed to fellow Christians; he says "And if a brother or a sister be naked and in want, etc." These are not universal precepts; they are rules governing the congregation. Again, one is free to go beyond what James is saying. But he is saying what I claim.
Apparently, I don't proofread on the weekends. Sorry about that.
I don't know that I can resolve the doctrinal issue tightly. The Parable of the Good Samaritan would suggest that we should do something for those we see lying by the side of the road, whoever they are, but the widows and orphans are those that are singled out with command. Paul thinks we have some responsibility for believers hurting in other cities. As a practical matter, I treat those that God has put in front of me as up for consideration as an actual command. But I am to seek out widows and orphans, not just wait until they cross my path. While that sounds like a clear distinction, on the ground it gets to be pretty murky, not resolvable except by prayer.
Post a Comment