From: akguh!rjb@akgua.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: no title given
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:53:21 GMT

Dear Fearless Moderator,

He is Risen! (anticipating 04/19)

I would like this thread on Christian Poverty/Wealth to continue.
I know you have a dislike for point-by-point rebuttal and if that
be the case let me hear about it.

David's post has been edited (I hope fairly) to minimize reposted
material, but I felt it important to keep as much as I did.
>
>
>* Phil and Robert responded by asserting that I am misreading
>  scripture and creating a virtue where none exists.  They 
>  say that I might _personally_ be called to poverty, but that
>  there is no universal injunction to seek it.
>
>
>"Trusting in the Father, Christ chose for himself and his mother
>a poor and humble life, even though he valued created things
>attentively and lovingly.  Let the Secular Franciscans seek a
>proper spirit of detachment from temporal goods by simplifying
>their own material needs.  Let them be mindful that according to
>the gospel they are stewards of the goods received for the
>benefits of God's children.
>
>"Thus, in the spirit of "the Beatitudes," and as pilgrims and
>strangers on their way to the home of the Father, they should
>strive to purify their hearts from every tendency and yearning
>for possession and power."
>
>		--Rule of the SFO, Chapter 11
>
>I think the last two sentences give a good definition of poverty
>as a Christian virtue.  To restate them:  we are to be poor in
>this life since our hearts and minds should be set on the riches
>of the New Jerusalem; we must remember that we do not own
>anything which comes into our possession, but are just stewards
>for the Lord.

In this statement of the "order of things" I think we approach Buddhism
about as closely as we can in Christianity.  To Buddha, as I understand,
the major source of problems in this world was self(ego) coupled with
possessions.  His solution was to abandon material and strive toward
"nothingness".  Yours is parallel, but our Christian alternative is to
be possessed more and more by the Holy Spirit.

I cannot let go of the brutal fact from Deuteronomy that poverty is
part of the Curse of the Law and before that it was part of the Curse
on the Earth brought by Adam's capitulation to satan in Genesis.  

Poverty is evil, ugly, and destructive of life and spirit.  Wealth that
is righteously obtained and wisely used is a great blessing.

Jesus has delivered us from the Curse (see Galatians 3:13)

>
>Similarly, Robert wrote:
>
>>Generalized glorification of poverty (for its own sake) is not
>>IMO supported by Scripture no matter how Traditional it is. 
>
>Now I agree that poverty for its
>own sake is silly.  This is not, however, what I am supporting.
>Rather, I am arguing that poverty is a necessary adjunct to our
>response to the call to salvation.  This may be a fine
>distinction, but I think an important one. 
>
>
[EDITED MAT'L]
>>I don't think that you can extract from Scripture that Jesus was
>>poor.  
>
>After a brief search, I found three passages which indicate that
>Jesus cast his earthly lot among the poor and lowly:
>
[edited mat'l]

>Is 53:3--he was despised, the lowest of men, a man of
>sorrows, familiar with suffering, one from whom, as it were, we
>averted our gaze, despised, for whom we had no regard.
>
>(I am of course, interpreting this passage as a prophecy of the
>Messiah.)

The context of Is 53 is IMO the scourging/crucifixion itself.

With the exception of the Pharisees/Saducees(P/S), Jesus was well
liked by the masses of people and
not despised at all.  He was despised when He was crucified by everyone
because A.) the P/S always hated Him and B.)  the masses turned on Him
because
He did not fulfill their expectations (indeed Jews' expectations today!)
of what the Messiah was going to do from a Kingdom standpoint.  I don't
agree that we can back-extrapolate personal poverty and general dis-
repute throughout His ministry
>
>Mt 8:20--Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests,
>but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.
>
The super context for this quote is that Jesus has made the final
decision to go to Jerusalem thru Samaria where at the end of His
journey He knows the P/S crowd is going to have Him killed.  It is
a very emotional time for Him and thus a very ominous statement.

Direct context says a certain Scribe came to Him and
declared that he would follow Him anywhere.  Jesus was making it clear 
that His was indeed a full-time itinerant ministry, not for the
fatuous, horse's rear ends that were the Scribes and the P/S group.
Else why did the writer go to the trouble to identify the person 
as a Scribe ?  I do not infer a kind of poor, homeless, sort of
self-pitying Jesus in this text.

>2 Co 8:9--You are well aware of the generosity which our Lord
>Jesus Christ had,that, although he was rich, he became poor for
>your sake, so that you should become rich through his poverty.
>
This is your best text, so far, because the context of this verse
is a form of Christian Communism first seen in Acts and here suggested
to the Corinthians by Paul.  I think that the reference to Jesus is
His giving up His "wealthy" position as part of the Trinity and
subjecting Himself to humaness (i.e. the Kenosis concept of Phillipians)
rather than personal human poverty.

>Throughout the gospels the tenor of Jesus' preaching is one of
>identification with the poor and the lowly, and the injunction he
>gives is that his disciples should do likewise:
>
>Luke 15:33--none of you can be my disciple without giving up all
>that he owns.
>
>
There is no Luke 15:33 - could you reset this one for me.

>
>If Jesus did not intend his disciples to be materially destitute,
>why did he command them:
>
>Luke 9:3--Take nothing for the journey:  neither staff, nor
>haversack, nor bread, nor money; and do not have a spare tunic.
>
[edited mat'l] 
>

I think you missed an important point.  Jesus sent out the 12 to
the House of Israel without anything but their faith.  He did that 
to teach them (and us) a lesson.  Having learned that lesson He 
told them in Luke 22:35 

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye
anything ?"  And they said 'Nothing!'  Then He said unto them,
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise
his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment
and buy one."

Once we learn to depend on Jesus as our source, I believe that we
can grow and be trusted with material things.  In other words, unless
you personally hear from the Lord to renounce material goods for a
lifetime then the default position (once you've learned to depend
on Him ) is living in the material world (1/2 a :-) for Madonna)

>Now I have heard it argued that we are instead called to be "poor
>in spirit"-- we can have material wealth as long as we are not in
>turn posessed by it.  I believe that this is what Phil and Robert
>mean when they write:
>
>>(Robert) Poverty is not necessary although the willing submission
>>of everything you have is... 
>
>>(Phil) What it demonstrates is that we cannot serve Money; we
>>must serve the Lord instead. 
>
>While this may be possible, I suspect that it is a terribly
>dangerous course.  Radicals in the 60's coined the slogan: "to
>create property is to create theft".  Let me paraphrase this into

T'would be better to stick to Scripture than quote Leftists from
my youth :-)  What we have here is a tradition of the Left which
is straight from Marx-Engels to create/stimulate economic envy.
I remind you of the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20)
which primarily deals with Salvation, but like any good parable
has a natural message as well.  Basically don't worry about the 
wealth of others (especially if you can't prove criminal behavior
in its attainment).  The Leftist underlying assumption is that
you cannot obtain wealth without ripping off someone else.  I
disagree.

I have not dealt with all your ideas in one posting...too long
More to follow as time permits.

>
>Yours in Christ,
>
>David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
>

Bobby - akgua!rjb