In a recent town hall meeting, a former Google executive asked President Obama to raise his taxes. The attendee stated that he had done quite well at the company and has chosen not to work any more. Through his increased taxes, this individual wants the government to continue investing in Pell Grants, infrastructure and job training. This call for the rich to pay more taxes is similar to the one Warren Buffet heralds when declaring he should not pay the same or less taxes than his administrative assistant. Leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties are crying "foul" and vehemently accusing their respective opponents of engaging in class warfare. Both groups maintain that the other is pitting the small number of those who have against the larger number of those who have not. Thus with taxation as their primary artillery, the Right and the Left are doing battle over the Rich and the Poor.
Nothing New
This discussion, if one wants to call it that, over leveling the financial playing field is not new. Much in this country's political landscape, from Populist ideology to New Deal praxis, has centered on equal access and opportunity for all. Yet, almost 2,000 years earlier than these movements, first century C.E. New Testament literature points to similar struggles. Particularly, the Gospel of Matthew speaks to the minuscule percent of the population controlling magnanimous wealth.
The Gospel writer records a king giving a wedding banquet for his son. This royal figure sends his slaves to invite the who's who to the celebration. They decline. Too focused on their own wealth, the king's peers disregard his request. However, more than merely discounting the message, his colleagues kill the king's messengers. The biblical narrative maintains that the slaves die at the hands of the rich. The slaves die performing a duty for their rich, regal master. Perchance to avenge the loss of his "property," the king sends his troops to destroy the murderers and burn their cities.
While Matthew's Jesus speaks the parable as a means of addressing Roman imperialism and abuse of power, the passage is clearly a polemic highlighting social and class hierarchy. It is a verbal assault against a top-down society. There was no middle ground or middle class. The rich ruler uses those under his authority to advance his personal cause. His subjects lose their lives as a result of their subservience and submission. The slaves are fodder in a fight among the wealthy. They lose their being, perhaps all they have, because one person of means slights another one. Yes, there is the possibility that, in the king's rage, he kills because he cared for his murdered slaves. However, one cannot discard the sense of honor and shame connected to having a royal invitation ignored. The king needed some means to recover from an embarrassing situation. Thus, he uses his power to kill and force "compliance."
Determined to have his cake and eat it too, Matthew records, the king as sending more slaves into the streets to invite any and every one to the wedding feast. Now there is no forethought of class standing or status on the social ladder. If a person is available, s/he can come. Yet, when it seems that there is a happy ending to a sad story, the king tosses one of the new attendees out of the banquet over a matter of attire. Class warfare is not a new phenomenon.
Same Old, Same Old
While there are indeed distinctions in the types of "invitations" the rich send out today, so much is still the same. There is something unique about this "invitation" by Buffet and others like him to pay more taxes. What is not so different from the first century to the 21st century is that such a small number of people in society control so much. Matthew's polemic against Roman domination and imperial wealth rings true of this day and age. In the United States the richest 10 percent own more than two-thirds of the nation's wealth. The Forbes Top 400 each had a net gain of about 12 percent whereas the average American only had a gain of 8 percent.
Like the slaves in the biblical text, Americans in the middle and lower classes live subordinate lives. Like those the king sent out, many struggle daily with doing the "king's" bidding and begging just to survive and make ends meet. Many get caught in power "fisticuffs" and lose their homes, their jobs, their families and their lives. While Congress and the White House debate over the debt ceiling, their "subjects" risk losing unemployment benefits. As the oligarchs argue over the budget, federal workers "under their rule" face a possible furlough.
Political pundits and powerbrokers insist on arguing over terminology -- whether it is "class warfare" or "socialism." On the contrary, people at the bottom of the social ladder cannot afford to banter over such nomenclature. It does not matter what people call it. The bottom line is that this is a fight for survival. It is a fight for the right to own a home, to work, to eat, to educate our children and to have a secure future. This one is a battle where the executive with Google wealth must fight alongside the waitress who barely earns a living wage. This is a war for persons from all socio-economic classes. Yes, this is class warfare.
Editor's Note: ON Scripture is a series of Christian scripture commentaries produced in collaboration with Odyssey Networks. Each week pastors from around the country will approach the lectionary text of the week through the lens of current events, providing a religious voice that is both pastoral and prophetic.
Matthew 22: 14 sums it up nicely: "Many are called but few are chosen."
Stephanie appears to be using a different lens to interpret Scripture that, perhaps, is more suited to her political or social worldview.
Read more: http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/23887/eVerseID/23887#ixzz1aPiIz1Xj
No _ YOU SUPPOSEDLY 'love' Jesus, but only to a point. The article, is a twisting of its intended meaning. SHE loves Jesus as long as it is a Jesus that suits her political/economic agenda. Your empty smear is typical of Leftists. The Bible also speaks against smearing, gossiping, bearing false witness against others, etc.
You just showed your hypocrisy and double-talk.
Leftists love to love THEIR OWN Jesus, "ANOTHER Jesus" (2 Cor 11:3-4,13-15).
Calling yourself "the cutest" sounds like pride, a biblically-defined sin.
You & Leftists typically do NOT love the Jesus of the Bible, while they love their own agenda and distort the Bible and invent a 'Jesus' according to their own image.
The author is a case in point.
Liberals cannot be trusted with the Bible to "accurately handl[e]" (2 Tim 2:15 NASB) it.
So much writing to say nothing..
Such a rightist thing to do....
But to say that Liberals cannot be trusted to accurately handle to Bible, that is unfair. No political party qualifies you to handle the Bible, its God's message of hope to the world, so please do read that book. To get a clearer understanding of it, you have to pray for God to open you up to His truth while you go, and don't forget to take the Bible in its context, without trying to add your own meaning.
One last thing, all this polarization of otherwise intelligent people really sucks. God bless.
Matthew 25
35‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
They are in the New Testament.
They are Jesus’ words.
Matthew 25: 35-40.
The Gospel According to St. Matthew is the first book in the New Testament.
It goes on to say:
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
P.S. I wrote better off not wealthy.
http://fi.somethingawful.com/customtitles/title-kung_fu_jesus.gif
I believe that Jesus would be against those individuals who violated his laws in dealing with hedgefunds (and I'm certain that all hedgefund managers are not criminals), but he would also be as against people taking matters into their own hands, such as demonstrating hatred toward people because they happen to be wealthy.
Be responsible for the problems in the first place and then be the solution.
But since so many rightwingers claim to be religious this is useful.
This time is no different.
Line em up boys!
This is one of the reasons I left the Church. They are mostly Paultians, not Christians.
Yes, the whole verse says "The first shall be last, AND the last shall be FIRST."
So when you tax enough to make the rich the last, then the rich has to become the first.
Also, why not be responsible and check CONTEXT!.
"For the kingdom OF HEAVEN is like ... SO the last will be first, and the first last. For many are CALLED, but few CHOSEN.”
The whole passage, the the passage immediately following, is concerning salvation. It teaches that people may be 'saved' later than others, have less works than others but they still get to heaven- still get 'paid' the same.
"Unless one is born again, he cannot enter the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN."- Jesus in John 3:3. See also John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 14:6, Rom 10:9-10.
She is someone who can't be trusted as a pastor.
That said, I DO think Christ understood the concept of class warfare insofar as he always stood on the side of the poor & common folk against the brutal oppression of the wealthy & powerful. To stand with those who oppress is clearly un-Christian; those who profess to be Christian and stand with the elites--economic & political--are this era's Pharisees.
No, it cannot be interpreted within "the human sphere" with classlessness, etc., etc. Parables have one basic meaning & purpose. Reading your agenda into it does not make it so.
Be responsible and check CONTEXT!.
"For the kingdom OF HEAVEN is like ... SO the last will be first, and the first last. For many are CALLED, but few CHOSEN.”
The whole passage, the the passage immediately following, is concerning salvation. It teaches that people may be 'saved' later than others, have less works than others but they still get to heaven- still get 'paid' the same.
"Unless one is born again, he cannot enter the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN."- Jesus in John 3:3. See also John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 14:6, Rom 10:9-10.
Being called, chosen is salvific, relating to salvation.
It's clear. hose who just want to add their own opinions and politics into the text show they want the Bible to submit to them.
I would be more concerned about THEM as those who only "profess to be Christians".
The Pharisees Jesus was denouncing are hypocrites.
Not those who give milluions to World Vision, Samaritian's Purse, etc.
They also twisted the Bible to suit them bevcuase of their "tradition". In this time, we could substitute "tradition" for opinions, agenda, political/social goals, etc.
Jesus told them:
"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
- Mark 7:13
He also denounced them saying:
"You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
"'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
- Matt 15:7-9.
If anyone wants to take the passage rip it out of its proper interpretation, context, and misapply it, as they do the other scriptures, and if they want to actually place their own political traditions above the texts themselves, then they fit this passage as the real Pharisees.
Strange that the Secular & Religious Left complains about the Right politicizing things.
The Left does the worse job by far, of the Bible and abusing it for their ends.
The weakest and most selective of what slivers of the Bible they chose to use- misuse and abuse, that is.
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."
- 2 Tim 2:15 NASB
I can respect a political and religious conservative who strives to live a live true to the Gospel, as I try to do (and I suppose you might label me as the Religious Left). What I fail to understand from the Religious Right--and I've tried to do so--is what often seems to be a reluctance to embrace the words of Christ that don't fit with the current social & political climate. Would Christ support our wars in Iraq & Afghanistan? Would Christ see it as okay that over 45 million Americans don't have ready access to health care? Would Christ blame the poor for being poor because they were lazy & irresponsible? Would Christ side with the Wall Street bankers and not with ordinary working men & women. Perhaps I'm just ignorant (certainly a possibility, I admit), but I fail to see how these were mere contextualized positions that Christ took. Perhaps you can educate me.