JESUS and MONEY

Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Jesus of Nazareth

How literally should we take the above statement from the Sermon on the Mount? As we walk along a city street, should we give to any homeless or destitute person who asks us for money, even if we think they’re likely to do themselves harm using it to buy drugs? If someone asks to borrow from us, either our money or our possessions, should we automatically comply even if they have a reputation for dishonesty? I think the clue is in the context: Matthew 5:38-48.

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy". But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The ‘evil’ that Jesus referred to was not illegality but taking advantage of people within the law, often from positions of political or social superiority. It doesn't mean that the police should overlook criminal activity or that judges should pardon it. The slap on the cheek was not the start of a brawl but an insulting backhanded slap: most people are right-handed and so a slap to someone’s right cheek (Jesus was specific about this) must be done with the back of the hand. Being taken to court for a tunic represents harsh action by creditors. Going the extra mile illustrates oppressive demands by State officials: Roman soldiers in occupied countries could require citizens to carry their baggage and equipment for one mile.

Today, we might have to endure embarrassing breaches of confidence by neighbours, malicious rumours started by work colleagues and gross misrepresentation by business rivals. We might be threatened with expensive legal action by someone who knows that we cannot afford to defend the claim; we may be put to a lot of inconvenience dealing with unjust impositions by careless or apathetic government officials.

Jesus described peaceful responses designed to embarrass the oppressors. Turning the other cheek makes a second backhanded slap difficult, to deprive a debtor of both tunic and cloak would publicly expose a creditor as punitive and a Roman solider could be disciplined for letting a civilian carry his baggage for two miles. Jesus didn’t want his followers to react instinctively to wrongdoing, to ‘fight fire with fire’ even when confident of being in the ‘right’. A more pragmatic approach is needed and Jesus’ examples should inspire similar creativity today.

In the same way, we should not interpret Jesus' words at the start of this Reflection as requiring his disciples to give to just anyone we see begging but, when faced with genuine need, we should not withhold help because we dislike the person in need. Lending to whoever asks prohibits favouritism and prejudice but does not mean to suggest that we should be open to deceit. Jesus may require us to love our enemies as ourselves but there are obvious differences in the ways we go about this.

At a basic level, we should not believe everything enemies say or that we hear about them. We should not be so quick as to assume they are in need if they have a track record of deception. We may have to be clear on the help they think they need and what they actually need and to be careful not to give them the tools to do harm, either to themselves or to others. But when a situation is clear, and the need confirmed, then positive and supportive action is required.

In the story known as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, recorded in Luke 10:30-35, Jesus illustrated what it means to love our enemies. The Israelites and Samaritans were natural enemies: although they often lived as neighbours they despised and mistrusted each other. Of the three men who saw the injured Israelite lying in the road, the Samaritan would have seemed to Jesus’ audience as the one most likely to finish what the robbers had started, taking anything they had missed and perhaps even striking the fatal blow! Yet, this is the man who was willing to risk his own safety and set aside his own agenda to stop and help.

The priest and the Levite (a temple official) may have walked past because they feared the man might be a decoy or left as bait, in the hope that someone would stop to help and become the robbers’ next victim. That fear is shared by people today. But did the Samaritan share it? As a sensible man, he must have done. But he stopped anyway!

If their religion meant anything to them at all, the priest and the Levite should have trusted God, stopped and helped. But clearly, they did not trust God enough. The Samaritan not only stopped long enough to tend to the man’s wounds, he took him to the safety of an inn and paid for his care. And he went further! He promised to pay the innkeeper the cost of any further treatment the man needed. In effect, the Samaritan wrote a ‘blank cheque’ and, in doing so, trusted both the injured Israelite and the innkeeper (probably another Israelite) not to take advantage of his generosity!

The Jew and the Samaritan may have felt like each other's natural enemy but their proximity to each other made them neighbours and the Samaritan illustrates what it means to love our enemies and to give or lend to those in need. I plan to continue this theme next weekend by looking at what Jesus meant when he said not to demand the return of possessions taken from us.

© All Souls Clubhouse Community Centre & Church and Philip Evans 2014.

Please feel free to copy, print and share these Reflections on a non-profit basis.

JESUS and MONEY

It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Jesus of Nazareth

When St Paul met the leaders of the church at Ephesus for the last time, his message concluded with this statement. ‘I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive".’ (Acts 20:33-35).

Paul’s words reminds me of when Samuel stood down as Israel’s last judge to make way for Saul to be its first king. He asked the people to confirm that he had not used his position to defraud or oppress anyone nor taken bribes. The people responded, ‘You have not defrauded us or oppressed us or taken anything from any man's hand’. (See 1 Samuel 12:1-5.)

The sad fact is that many in church leadership have used the opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of the people they purport to care for. That was true of many of the Pharisees who opposed Jesus and I think it was why Paul, himself a former Pharisee, was so diligent in doing the very opposite.

In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul explains that Christian ministry is to be funded in the same way as the ministry at the Temple in Jerusalem: that is, by way of donations from the people. He explains this to affirm his right to financial support from the church at Corinth but – crucially! – he did so not to claim the right but to waive it. We should consider his reasons carefully.

‘Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all…’ (1 Corinthians 9:4-19)

I would summarise Paul’s attitude like this. He believed that he had no choice but to preach the Gospel as God had called him to do. It therefore gave him no cause to boast! But, in order to please Lord and to be worthy of a reward (or treasure) in heaven, he did something that God did not require of him: he preached without charge.

In light of this, I ought to add that I think all churches have a duty to support their ministers. I would even go a little further and say that churches should support their ministers to approximately the same standard of living that most of the church members enjoy. There will be exceptions to this but in my view the choice to serve on a unfairly low income should be the minister’s and not the congregation’s choice. Unfortunately, during the 40 years I’ve been a Christian, I’ve come across examples of miserly churches that presume upon their minister’s sense of obligation to stay on a low income or in poor living conditions. It seems to me some churches even allow their minister’s home to become run down, only doing repair work and redecoration when he or she moves on and it’s time to attract a new minister.

Paul wanted to minister without being a burden on the people he taught. This was his choice, willing made in the service of Jesus who said that, contrary to what most people think, it's more blessed to give than to receive. In doing this, Paul both distinguished himself from false teachers visiting the churches and accumulated treasure in heaven. For similar reasons, I don't like to take fees for teaching Christians. I don’t think it would be wrong for me to do it, and I do not rule out doing it from time to time in the future, but as the subject of money can be controversial and, as there are some teachers who seek to enrich themselves by talking about it, I don’t want to inadvertently create a wrong impression about myself or put an obstacle in the way of people taking the issues seriously.

To be blessed is to be fortunate and to prosper. Giving, not possessing, is the route to true prosperity. It's a way of life that runs in the very opposite direction to the rest of society but it's necessary to being Kingdom shrewd. I don’t think that it goes too far to say that Jesus’ disciples today will not only have a very different attitude to money and possessions to their neighbours and work colleagues but that they will probably appear to them to be quite mad!

But how literally are we to take Jesus’s words, ‘Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you’? That is the subject of next weekend’s Reflection.

_____

This week I enjoyed reading, Who Am I? Saved!, by Gwynedd Jones. It’s the story of how a man with a superficial Christianity but who actually trusted in money came to find security, peace and purpose in knowing Jesus and how others can find the same. It’s an easy book to read and a good one to share; a straightforward and interesting explanation of the Gospel message by someone who has obviously spent a lot of time thinking how to present it clearly. The book is available from Amazon for Kindle and the two links below will take you there if you’d like to check it out.

www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Am-Saved-Gwynedd-Jones-ebook/dp/B00H558IOI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400780572&sr=8-1&keywords=gwynedd+jones .

www.amazon.com/Who-Am-Saved-Gwynedd-Jones-ebook/dp/B00H558IOI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400781106&sr=1-1&keywords=who+am+i+saved

© All Souls Clubhouse Community Centre & Church and Philip Evans 2014.

Please feel free to copy, print and share these Reflections on a non-profit basis.

JESUS and MONEY

Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.

Jesus of Nazareth

This is the first of some additional Reflections I’m inserting into the running order I posted on 12 February. This one is about an incident recorded in Luke 12:13-15 that I hadn’t really began to appreciate until a few weeks ago, even though I’ve been thinking about these issues for nearly 20 years! It’s another reminder to me not only that there’s always more, very much more, for us to discover in the Bible but that we can overlook some very obvious things!

The warning at the start of this Reflection is, I think, one that most readers would accept as being right and necessary in a very general sort of way. But when we realise the context in which Jesus gave it, it suddenly becomes unsettling and challenging.

Some Pharisees had accused Jesus of being in league with the devil! Then one of them invited him to dinner. Possibly exhausted, or perhaps because there were so many people around, Jesus reclined at the table without first washing his feet. This astonished the host. Jesus used the opportunity to compare ritual cleanliness with authentic righteousness but this insulted one of the other guests. It seems that Jesus left without eating anything. By this time, a crowd of many thousands had gathered and the situation was getting dangerous: ‘they were trampling one another’! Then, from the crowd, a man shouted, ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me’.

The question captured everyone’s attention! Amidst the pandemonium, Jesus had the opportunity to answer. But before we hear his response, we need to pause to consider the man’s problem.

In Israel at the time, a father whose eldest child was a son was expected to leave that son a double portion of his estate: that is, twice as much as each of his younger brothers. In this case, which seems to have involved just two brothers, the elder brother would have received two-thirds of their father’s estate and the younger one third. We don’t have enough information to know whether the man who appealed to Jesus had been disinherited entirely or wanted Jesus to apply a better standard of fairness than the law, giving him half of the estate. Either way, Jesus’ reply was stunning!

‘Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?’ Jesus replied. ‘Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions’. Not only was Jesus declaring himself to be above that sort of quarrel, what startles me is how low Jesus set the criteria for covetousness. Very low indeed. Whether the man thought that he wanted justice or fairness, Jesus called it covetousness!

What, then, does Jesus think when we ask him for things? We know that when there is genuine need, we can rely on God to provide it. On this occasion, Jesus went on to repeat what he’d said in the Sermon on the Mount about how God looks after people better than birds and flowers. But what does he think when we want a ‘fair share’ that we don’t actually need or compensation for an injustice that hasn’t disadvantaged us to the point hardship?

As I thought about this incident, I began to see for the first time why St Paul admitted that, living as a wealthy Pharisee, if it were not for the Torah (the Old Testament ‘Law’) he would not have known what sin is and, in particular, the sin of coveting. What about us? Look again at your record of the things you’ve spent your money on in the past four or five weeks. (If this is new to you, see the Reflections posted on 28 March about tracking your spending for a month and the explanations I gave in the following weeks about what to do with the information.) Look at what you’ve put under ‘survival costs’? Are all the things listed there really essential or so very important?

Please know that I’m not trying to criticise your spending choices. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have spent that money but only asking you to be clear about why you spent it as you did. To what extent are we all conditioned by the consumer society to think that life consists in possessing things? We may not be as extravagant as our neighbours and work colleagues but Paul had to look away from the norms of the circle of Pharisees he lived and worked among, to the standard set by the Scriptures. I expect he reflected on the tragedy of ‘religious’ men like Balaam and Gehazi..

Might we have become acclimatised to lots of things around us and unconsciously rely on them to help us feel secure, relax or happy? According to Jesus, people's lives do not consist in acquiring possessions: they neither define success nor afford status. In fact, quite the opposite is the preferred way for Jesus followers. He said that it's more blessed to give than to receive so that who we are and our level of spirituality is defined not by what we accumulate but what we give. I plan to reflect on this next weekend.

© All Souls Clubhouse Community Centre & Church and Philip Evans 2014.

Please feel free to copy, print and share these Reflections on a non-profit basis.

JESUS and MONEY

Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

Jesus of Nazareth

I ended the Reflection last weekend by explaining that Jesus wanted his followers to act shrewdly but not shrewdly in the same way as the dishonest manager and his master were shrewd. Rather, Jesus wanted his followers to be Kingdom shrewd: to think and behave as shrewdly in the ways of the Kingdom of God as the manager and his master were in the ways of the world. This weekend, I will try to explain the essential difference.

The Greek word for shrewdly that Jesus used to describe the dishonest manager appears only once in the entire New Testament but the adjective is used a few times. It’s usually translated ‘wise’ but it can be used of people who are either honourable or crafty and we can only know which is meant from the context.

Jesus used the adjective ‘wise’ towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, to describe those who acted on his teaching as building houses on rock, not sand. We will look at that passage in more detail later in this series. He also used it in the Parable of the Virgins, to describe the five virgins who were ready with their oil when the bridegroom came for his bride. This represents the wise Christians who are ready when Jesus returns for his church. He made a similar point when he used the word to describe the servants found doing their master’s work when the master returns from a journey. (See Matthew 7:24-27, Matthew 25:1-13 and Luke 12:35-48).

Jesus also used the word 'wise' in the quotation at the start of today’s Reflection, when he sent his newly appointed apostles out on their first independent mission. In this, we begin to see the difference between being worldly wise and Kingdom shrewd.

Jesus gave his apostles a simple message, ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand’, and told them only to go into Jewish towns and villages where they were to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers and cast out demons. He told them to minister without payment, to take with them neither money nor a change of clothing but to accept local hospitality from ‘worthy’ people wherever they stayed.

Then he told them they would be as sheep among wolves, liable to unexpected attack at any time, and so they were to be both as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. We must not overlook the important qualification: not just wise but innocent - as innocent as doves! 

Serpents are symbolic of the devil and doves of the Holy Spirit. The word 'innocent' is often translated as harmless but I think it might be better translated here as pure. The apostles were to be as wise as serpents but not have serpents' craftiness or capacity to poison; they were to be as pure as doves but not to be as vulnerable or helpless.

Even when arrested and taken before the authorities, the disciples weren’t to be anxious but to trust God to give them words to say: ‘For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you’. They would be hated and persecuted – but that was only to be expected because they would be treated just the same as their master himself was treated right up to the point of his execution. I commend to you Matthew 10, especially verses 5-20, to read and pray through.

Christians are to be wise, as wise as anyone else in society – even as wise as the devil who, disguised as a serpent, deceived Eve and led her to sin. But we’re not to be wise in the same way; we are to be wise in the ways of the Kingdom of God. We are not to be crafty or poisonous, seeking our own benefit at the expense of others, but to be as innocent, harmless and pure as the Holy Spirit seeking the good of others and leading them to Jesus.

I often have the impression that Christians take from the Parable of the Dishonest Manager that they are to be as shrewd in the ways of society as they can be without actually slipping into dishonesty and sin. But as I hope to continue making clear in this series of Reflections, God’s ways are not just a less extravagant, more honest form of behaviour than is common among the people around us in capitalist, consumer societies. It's a different, completely different, way of life! It's a life based not on accumulating money or possessions, not on trusting money to get things and to get things done, but founded and built on loving God with our whole heart, soul, strength and mind and loving our neighbours as ourselves. To be both wise and pure is to be kingdom shrewd. We see the contrast in the society’s wisdom and heaven’s wisdom in something that James wrote.

‘Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.’ (James 3:13-18)

Jesus told a parable about an unjust judge to encourage his disciples to persevere in prayer (see Luke 18:1-8). The judge did not fear God or respect people but he gave justice to an aggrieved widow when her persistent badgering began to annoy him. Was Jesus saying that God is like that judge? Or did Jesus expect us to realise how just and loving God is in comparison to the unjust judge? Similarly, in commenting on the behaviour of the dishonest manager, Jesus was not suggesting that his own followers are to be like the manager. He does not want his followers to do good and to be generous only to receive something better in return.

What Jesus really wants is for us to do the right thing, and to do it cheerfully, because it is the right thing to do. To be shrewd in the ways of the Kingdom of God, even where money is involved. I think we will all be challenged by this concept next weekend, when we see just how easy Jesus said it is to sin by coveting.

© All Souls Clubhouse Community Centre & Church and Philip Evans 2014.

Please feel free to copy, print and share these Reflections on a non-profit basis.

JESUS and MONEY

The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.

Jesus of Nazareth

The Parable of the Dishonest Manager (or Unjust Steward) is probably the most misunderstood of all Jesus’ parables because our attitudes to money, our assumptions about what it can do for us, and our beliefs about how business should be conducted are very different today. In this Reflection we begin to explore what it means to be shrewd in the ways of the Kingdom of God, rather than wise - worldly wise - in the ways of contemporary society.

People have always traded in order to earn money to live and, although there have always been greedy people, on the whole most people in history were satisfied to earn enough for their families to live in a degree of comfort. From time to time, a businessman would devote himself to commerce with the intention of maximising his own profit, and his competitors had to respond in kind in order to stay in business. But when the catalyst, the greedy businessman, was removed business gradually returned to its normal pace. That is, until Benjamin Franklin: although people deplored his approach as ‘gaining wealth, forgetting all but self’, gradually Franklin’s way became the only way to do business. Today we call it capitalism.

It’s a mistake to think that capitalism is synonymous with free trade. I suspect that idea crystallised during the Cold War, when the great rival to capitalism was thought to be communism. But a business can have more important goals than profit, such as serving and sustaining communities and adding value to people’s lives.

We tend to make three mistakes about the dishonest manager: (i) that Jesus called him dishonest because he wasted his master’s goods, (ii) that Jesus called him dishonest for reducing the debts owed to his master and (iii) that Jesus commended his dishonesty as shrewdness.

The manager was certainly underhand in wasting his master’s goods, and it was a sign of what was to happen later, but I don't think this's why Jesus called him dishonest. Crucially, the manager is not accused of theft, fraud or any ‘serious’ dishonesty: if he had been, his master would not have told him to make up the accounts but immediately put him in prison until everything was repaid! As the accusation can also be translated as ‘squandering’, I expect the manager was at fault for commonplace slacking and pilfering – the sort of behaviour that employees in every generation expect to get away with. In the UK, we acknowledge that expectation with the old saying, ‘Every Englishman has his fiddle’!

The manager was not dishonest for reducing the debts owed to his master because it was within his delegated authority to do it. In those days, a manager (or steward) had dual responsibility towards his master and those his master was responsible for: a relationship that was much more balanced than is usual today. (We see Jesus relating this to his disciples future behaviour this in the passage beginning Luke 12:35.)

The debtors were probably the master’s tenants who owed rent, although they may have been customers who owed payment for goods. The manager was responsible for the master’s business and, consequently, he was responsible for the welfare of not just the tenants and others who did business with his master but also their families. Making the reductions was therefore both morally right and the responsible social action: the rich creditor who didn't need the money reduced the amounts owed by poor people who did.

The manager was dishonest because he reduced the debts for his own selfish ends. He did it in order to secure his own future.

The manager did not care about his master’s reputation or the welfare of the debtors. Today, if a bank executive wrote off a debt on compassionate grounds, we would think it a legitimate use of the executive’s discretion. If, however, we later learn that the executive expected a personal favour in return, we would quickly change our minds and question his or her integrity.

Crucially, Jesus did not commend the manager’s shrewdness, he said only that the master commended it. The reason, Jesus went on to explain, was that the ‘sons of this world’ – that is, people who live by the standards of contemporary society – are more shrewd than the ‘sons of light’ – that is, God’s people. Jesus therefore acknowledged that the master, who lived by society’s standards, recognised in his manager the sort of shrewdness - the sort of dishonesty - that society applauded!

Did Jesus intend his followers to imitate the manager’s shrewdness? In his parables, Jesus always pointed out when a character behaved badly and, in this one, he called the manager dishonest for good reason. So the answer must be, No!

This is an important point. In fact, this entire series of Reflections turns on it. Jesus did not want his followers to be shrewd like everyone else; he did not want them to be shrewd in the ways of society. He wanted them to be shrewd in the ways of the Kingdom of God. He wanted them to be 'Kingdom shrewd'.

© All Souls Clubhouse Community Centre & Church and Philip Evans 2014.

Please feel free to copy, print and share these Reflections on a non-profit basis.