Drew
Member
All right, let's go with the theory that Jesus' words are intended for the rich young ruler because of his particular personal issue with putting wealth ahead of Jesus. I do not like this theory all that much because I see no reason to make such a "person-specific" presumption in this case and not in other interactions Jesus had. But to show I am a sporting type I will, for the sake of argument, agree that Jesus is not talking to us all when he says "give everything to the poor". Let's see where such a position leads us.
Presumably, you will all agree that the story of the rich young ruler is in the Bible because it has some kind of relevance to people other than the rich young ruler. Therefore, I think that we would all agree that some of us alive today are like the rich young ruler and that for that group of people, Jesus' words do apply. And what did Jesus say? Did Jesus say to the rich young ruler: "Go away and get your priorities straightened out, but you can keep your stuff"? No. He said "Sell everything you have and give to the poor". So if we are going to be consistent we need to say that for those of us who suffer from the same problem as the rich young ruler, we are being asked to actually give up our all our stuff.
Note that I think Jesus is engaging is a little bit of an overstatement when he says "sell everything" I think it is eminently reasonable to assume that he is saying "sell everything except the bare essentials". Ironically, I suppose one could argue that I am taking a "softer" position than Jesus when I make this assumption and that we should indeed sell everything. I will not debate such a position (yet) since those Christians who have responded to this thread argue that I am being too "severe" in my interpretation of this story - not too soft.
Note that if we "conservative evangelicals" are going to be consistent in how we interpret the scriptures, we really do not have the option to say (for those of us who are like the rich young ruler) that Jesus is calling for a "change of heart and that we get to keep our DVD players". Consider Jesus' admonition against lust. If we applied the "you need to change your heart but you can keep your stuff" type of philosophy here, we would wind up with something like "OK, you can keep your sexually impure thoughts, just make sure that you are more focussed on me than on your sexual fantasies". My point is that I really think there is no middle ground here - to "keep our stuff" really cashes out to not putting Jesus first. There seems to be a place where can we feel that we can keep our DVD player and still love Jesus more, but I think a real analyis shows otherwise. This analysis now follows.
Suppose that we Christians are seated in giant auditorium. On the left side of the stage are a number of starving Africans and a number of children with cancer. On the right side of the stage is piled all the things we own that are not real necessities. So the pile will include TV sets, any car costing more than, say, $15,000, our plane tickets to Disneyland, our leather sofas, diamond engagement rings, etc. etc. The needs manifested on the left side of the stage are not imaginary - they are real and we can do something about them - we can convert the stuff on the right side of the stage into money (e.g. by selling it to the non-christians who have never claimed to follow Jesus' self-sacrifice - and admittedly that is another issue) and then buy food for the starving Africans and cancer research for the dying children.
What is my point? Well, I suspect Forest Gump would say "Selfish is as selfish does". Here is where the middle ground that we Christians cling to disappears. Quite simply, how can we possibly say that we love Jesus more than our stuff if we are not willing to convert it into $$$ to help "the least of these"? So I am saying that the only possible world in which we get to keep our pool tables and swimming pools is one where there are no dire needs that could be redressed, at least in part, by giving up our luxuries. So yes, it is possible to be wealthy and love Jesus more than our money, but only in a world where all of these needs have already been met. We clearly do not live in such a world.
Please do not tell me I am being "self-righteous" - I will clearly say that I probably have about the same amount of "non-essential" stuff as the rest of you.
Presumably, you will all agree that the story of the rich young ruler is in the Bible because it has some kind of relevance to people other than the rich young ruler. Therefore, I think that we would all agree that some of us alive today are like the rich young ruler and that for that group of people, Jesus' words do apply. And what did Jesus say? Did Jesus say to the rich young ruler: "Go away and get your priorities straightened out, but you can keep your stuff"? No. He said "Sell everything you have and give to the poor". So if we are going to be consistent we need to say that for those of us who suffer from the same problem as the rich young ruler, we are being asked to actually give up our all our stuff.
Note that I think Jesus is engaging is a little bit of an overstatement when he says "sell everything" I think it is eminently reasonable to assume that he is saying "sell everything except the bare essentials". Ironically, I suppose one could argue that I am taking a "softer" position than Jesus when I make this assumption and that we should indeed sell everything. I will not debate such a position (yet) since those Christians who have responded to this thread argue that I am being too "severe" in my interpretation of this story - not too soft.
Note that if we "conservative evangelicals" are going to be consistent in how we interpret the scriptures, we really do not have the option to say (for those of us who are like the rich young ruler) that Jesus is calling for a "change of heart and that we get to keep our DVD players". Consider Jesus' admonition against lust. If we applied the "you need to change your heart but you can keep your stuff" type of philosophy here, we would wind up with something like "OK, you can keep your sexually impure thoughts, just make sure that you are more focussed on me than on your sexual fantasies". My point is that I really think there is no middle ground here - to "keep our stuff" really cashes out to not putting Jesus first. There seems to be a place where can we feel that we can keep our DVD player and still love Jesus more, but I think a real analyis shows otherwise. This analysis now follows.
Suppose that we Christians are seated in giant auditorium. On the left side of the stage are a number of starving Africans and a number of children with cancer. On the right side of the stage is piled all the things we own that are not real necessities. So the pile will include TV sets, any car costing more than, say, $15,000, our plane tickets to Disneyland, our leather sofas, diamond engagement rings, etc. etc. The needs manifested on the left side of the stage are not imaginary - they are real and we can do something about them - we can convert the stuff on the right side of the stage into money (e.g. by selling it to the non-christians who have never claimed to follow Jesus' self-sacrifice - and admittedly that is another issue) and then buy food for the starving Africans and cancer research for the dying children.
What is my point? Well, I suspect Forest Gump would say "Selfish is as selfish does". Here is where the middle ground that we Christians cling to disappears. Quite simply, how can we possibly say that we love Jesus more than our stuff if we are not willing to convert it into $$$ to help "the least of these"? So I am saying that the only possible world in which we get to keep our pool tables and swimming pools is one where there are no dire needs that could be redressed, at least in part, by giving up our luxuries. So yes, it is possible to be wealthy and love Jesus more than our money, but only in a world where all of these needs have already been met. We clearly do not live in such a world.
Please do not tell me I am being "self-righteous" - I will clearly say that I probably have about the same amount of "non-essential" stuff as the rest of you.