(No, this is not a post about drinking songs.)
Most of you, I’m sure, know the story of the rich young ruler who wanted eternal life and Jesus told him to sell all that he possessed. It was in his comments to his disciples after the young man left where he makes his camel and the eye of the needle remark. So, I’m sure most of you know the story but what do you do with it?
I was asking myself this very question while reading Wisdom of the Desert by Thomas Merton (it’s actually a translation by Merton of things ancient hermits said). These hermits gave up everything to go out into the desert and try to find God. What really got me thinking about this was reading how these hermits considered themselves unworthy sinners after years and years and years of searching and fasting and praying. The spiritual practice I do is absolutely nothing in comparison so is there any hope for me? Any at all?
So, I started asking myself: is Jesus really asking me — nay, telling me — to sell everything I own? How rich is “rich” — how rich must I be before it gets in the way? I think a sense of what Jesus was saying is found in the disciples’ reaction to his camel comment. “They were even more astonished and said to Him, ‘Then who can be saved?’ ” They didn’t breath a sigh of relief at this comment and thank their lucky stars they weren’t rich. They wondered who — including themselves — could be saved. I think this because Peter then starts defending the disciples by pointing out the painfully obvious fact that they had left everything for Jesus. Of course Jesus knew this so why did it need to be said?
So, again, I’m asking myself: Do I need to leave everything in order to follow Jesus? Of course, no self-respecting pastor is going to urge his congregation to leave everything for Jesus. No way, no how. If they did, who would pay for refinishing the hardwood floors in the sanctuary and the upkeep on the beautiful stained glass and the organ tuning and his salary! Don’t forget his salary! No. The pastor is going to talk about “attachment” to things or “letting money rule your life” or “tithing” or “coveting” or some other lousy rationalization.
The way I see it, owning something is no different than being attached to it or having it rule over you. I cannot own a car and not be attached to it. If I were not attached, I would not lock it. I would have the absolute minimum possible amount of insurance that still kept me in compliance with state laws. I’d let any of my friends drive it. I’d let my friends’ kids eat ice cream in the back seat. I’d offer to help all my friends use my car to move.
I cannot own a house and not be attached to it. If I were not attached, I would not lock it. I would not have an alarm system. I would have the absolute minimum possible amount of insurance that allowed me to get a mortgage. Scratch that. I would have a house that I could buy outright so that my mortgage payment never troubled me or kept me from tithing and giving the rest of what I owned to the poor and needy. So, I would basically be living in a shack which I probably would not be that attached to.
And what about my family? Jesus talks about leaving family to follow him. Surely he meant that I “leave” my daughter once she is grown and out of the house, right? He can’t possibly be talking about leaving her now when she is 14 months old!! Can he?
I just don’t know. What I do know is that you can think what you want about Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler but as for me, I know I’m attached to my family and to my things. I’ve got financial commitments and I make financial decisions that do not leave a whole lot left over for giving. I make decisions about what I do and when I do it that do not leave a whole lot of time for spiritual practice. And I’m not sure, yet, what it all means and what I’m supposed to do or what I will end up doing about it. But I am sure that these questions will be on my mind.
And as I write this, I feel that this is very inadequate — both my expression of my thoughts and what I’m going to do about it. “These questions will be on my mind.” What the hell does that mean? It’s meaningless. Less than meaningless. But the seed is there. I just need to let it grow. And that, itself, is trite and stupid but I cannot express it otherwise.
Do these thoughtful (understatement) questions have to be based on only one culture’s holy book? (though many have similar types of admonitions). I love Thomas Merton, but what happened to ‘there are many paths’ and ‘many mansions’? (I was told by a cleric that the camel and needle story was a mistranslation.) I also read we only found 3 lives of Jesus (1 was counterfeit) which focused on pain and suffering. The others contained stories on his sense of humor…boy could we use some of that!. Anyway the few (recorded lives) we found brought Christianity down the path of suffering instead of the freedom, joy and growth that was intended. It reminds me also of our linear theory of evolution…a bone over here, another over there and we extrapolate that this creature must have traveled over here and evolved into that. We may only know an ounce of headlines of the world’s anything, but my MO would be to pay attention to creating one’s own joy and all the other gods on the planet will create theirs. We have eternity to play these games. I think we can afford to lighten up.
Valerie,
Thanks for your comments.
Merton was a die-hard “many paths” kind of guy because he was a mystic which means that he connected with Zen Buddhists (D.T. Suzuki, for example) and Sufis and others.
And I’m using Jesus as more of a prototype than one specific “way.” For this post, I used Jesus because I’m refering to something he said. But following Jesus and following Zen are, at some level that is much much deeper than Sunday morning church and the Religious Right, the same. Or maybe they both point to the same thing. Or maybe they are different symbols for the same thing.
I LOVE IT!!!
Ken, for starters, the Rich Young Ruler needed to understand that God’s Law wasn’t just about exterior behavior (for parallel ideas, recall Paul’s comment in ROMANS 7 that what felled him in the midst of his own “righteousness” was covetousness; also, Jesus’ teaching that adultery isn’t just the actual act, but the lust that’s the germ of it). Further, the Rich Young Ruler’s particular failing was his love of riches. For someone else, Jesus might’ve addressed their particular inner idol: power lust; or sexual lust; or pride (or wasting time watching TV ). In other words, Jesus was showing the lad that no matter how “perfectly” he might have kept the externals of God’s Law, the marrow of His Law concerned what was actually going on in the soul. Had James been the one conversing with the Ruler, he might’ve made Jesus’ point this way: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” (RYR failed in respect to the 10th Commandment.)
Deciphering these kinds of sticky passages requires help from the rest of Scripture; in this case, that reveals to us that though not everybody is required to become a street person, there is the vital importance of sharing with the needy and not having our heart attached to goods (or, in modern parlance, not being materialistic/consumeristic).
Nave’s or a concordance will yield all kinds of verses, but here is a key-verse that gives us an idea how to approach this question: “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.” (2 Timothy 6:17)
PROVERBS also sheds light: “Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty [!!!] nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, “Who is the LORD?” or lest I be poor, and steal, and profane the name of my God.” (30:9)
Further, consider that the most righteous man on earth in his time (JOB 1:8), was exceedingly wealthy (if wealth in itself were an evil, that right there would’ve disqualified him from being called the most righteous man). Solomon got his wealth directly from God: “I will also give you riches, possessions, and honor, such as none of the kings had who were before you, and none after you shall have the like.” In preparation for their exodus, Moses and crew were directed by God to appropriate the wealth of the Egyptians: “[E}ach woman shall ask of her neighbor, and of her who sojourns in her house, jewelry of silver and of gold, and clothing, and you shall put them on your sons and on your daughters; thus you shall despoil [!!!!] the Egyptians.” (EXODUS 3:22)
Hope this helps a bit as you chew on this question,
MossBack
Thank you for your comments, MossBack. They are helpful. A few responses and futher questions:
Regarding Job. Yes, he was extremely wealthy — and righteous. But he was also forced to prove that righteousness. Perhaps, if he had been asked to sell everything, as the RYR was, he would have but we will never know for sure. And yes, God granted him even more wealth in the end but the main point is that Job did have to prove that he was not materialistic. There is a world of difference between my saying, “I am not materialistic. If God asked me to sell everything I would.” and actually going out and selling everything.
If you have more than you need, is that not the definition of being materialistic? No one needs a Mercedes Benz S Class. Hell, who even needs a Lexus or Acura or high-end Toyota? Spending more on your car than a lot of people earn in a year is, in my mind, undefendable in a discussion about materialism.
The Lord’s Prayer asks for “our daily bread.” This can mean spiritual nourishment but it must also refer to physical nourishment. Is this a line that only the poor need to recite? Is it not an admonishment to rely on God for your every need? Which, if it is, is an admonishment to not be even well-off, let alone rich.
Yes, God has given people great wealth. But I wonder which came first — the wealth or the proof of the person’s non-materialism and righteousness? And so I wonder how many us (myself included) have our wealth illegitimately because we have not proven ourselves. And how can we really prove that we are not materialistic without giving it all away or having it taken away?