Should Evangelicals spend more time saving the souls of the rich?

[David_Simmons]

The question for debate is in the title.

It seems to me that the Gospel of Matthew is clear that the rich are barred from the kingdom of God equally with robbers, blasphemers and slanderers.

Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto Him Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life.

17 And He said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God: but if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He said unto Him, Which? Jesus said, THOU SHALT DO NO MURDER, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS,

19 HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER: and THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.

20 The young man said unto Him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what yet lack I?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23 Then Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a righ man to enter the kingdom of God.

That seems pretty clear to me. So should those who try to save souls work a little harder on Charles Dobson, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham et al in order to save their souls since they are all rich men?

[Polycarp]

Jesus is of course speaking in hyperbole here, and that is far from the worst of sins that can be imputed to Dobson and Robertson.

Rather than wealth itself, it is the covetousness, the selfishness that hoards and does not share with those in need which is condemned in perhaps the strongest of terms:

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

Perhaps we should have a campaign directed at seeking repentance of the modern-day Sodomites who are guilty of this sin. Some of the good liberal gay Christians would probably want to pitch in and help!

[David_Simmons]

@Polycarp

Jesus is of course speaking in hyperbole here, and that is far from the worst of sins that can be imputed to Dobson and Robertson.

Rather than wealth itself, it is the covetousness, the selfishness that hoards and does not share with those in need which is condemned in perhaps the strongest of terms:

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

Perhaps we should have a campaign directed at seeking repentance of the modern-day Sodomites who are guilty of this sin. Some of the good liberal gay Christians would probably want to pitch in and help!

I suppose you can pass it off to hyperbole, but that does seem awfully convenient. When we agree with the literal word then they count. When we don’t quite like the literal words they are hyperbolic.

And I agree that Dobson and Robertson have quite an account built up, however being rich is no bar to being covetous and greedy nor is being poor. All such qualities can be present in the same person at the same time. I do think, though, that a greedy and covetous rich person can do a lot more damage in a much wider circle around him or her, than can a greedy and covetous poor person.

[elucidator]

@Polycarp

…Some of the good liberal gay Christians would probably want to pitch in and help!

Well, sure, but they’ll take just about any excuse to show off their casserole skills.

I was just reading some book excerpts on this very topic. The author was underlining a commonly heard thesis to the effect that American Protestantism in the 19th Century moved very forcefully away from a mystical Christianity into a very bourgeois, Babbit-like Christianity that tended to regard commercial success as indicative of virtue. They placed a heavy emphasis on such virtues as patience and industriousness, and a much heavier condemnation of Sloth (personally, my second favorite deadly-type sin…).

This strain of Protestantism is fundamentally, albeit unconsciously, materialistic. (If you wanted to go and meditate in a Methodist monastery, where would you go?) They tend not to be embarassed about material success, but to regard it as a signifier of grace.

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, bathe lepers…that is *sooooo * last millenium!

[smiling_bandit]

Of course, poverty in jesus’ time and poverty today tend to mean different things. Today, almost anyone who can work can get a job. If not, there are food stamps, public housing, and so on. Then, you might well starve if you didn’t work.

[Guinastasia]

@smiling bandit

Of course, poverty in jesus’ time and poverty today tend to mean different things. Today, almost anyone who can work can get a job. If not, there are food stamps, public housing, and so on. Then, you might well starve if you didn’t work.

In your industrialized nations, yes. But in the third world, (where Christianity is very prominant as well), such things do not exist.

[Muffin]

In general, rich people tend to be more politically involved and wield more political power. But in general, poor people tend to breed more. Either would be valuable to a cause.

[ITR_champion]

I think the argument that that particular passage is intended as hyperbole is reasonable. But let’s look at the big picture. The Bible spends hundreds, perhaps thousands, of verses discussing the duty of the fortunate to aid the poor. By contrast, it says nothing about abortion or school prayer, and only a few short passages on the vaguely-defined concept of sodomy. Thus it would be extremely difficult to square the goals of most modern churches with the Bible, assuming that the amount of coverage given to various topics in the Bible is proportional to the level at which God cares about them.

[David_Simmons]

@ITR champion

I think the argument that that particular passage is intended as hyperbole is reasonable. But let’s look at the big picture. The Bible spends hundreds, perhaps thousands, of verses discussing the duty of the fortunate to aid the poor. By contrast, it says nothing about abortion or school prayer, and only a few short passages on the vaguely-defined concept of sodomy. Thus it would be extremely difficult to square the goals of most modern churches with the Bible, assuming that the amount of coverage given to various topics in the Bible is proportional to the level at which God cares about them.

So do we put you down as thinking that more time needs to be spent trying to save the souls of the rich?

And I suppose a reasonable argument could be made that any passage in the Bible chosen at random is intended as hyperbole.

[SteveG1]

@Polycarp

Jesus is of course speaking in hyperbole here, and that is far from the worst of sins that can be imputed to Dobson and Robertson.

Rather than wealth itself, it is the covetousness, the selfishness that hoards and does not share with those in need which is condemned in perhaps the strongest of terms:

Perhaps we should have a campaign directed at seeking repentance of the modern-day Sodomites who are guilty of this sin. Some of the good liberal gay Christians would probably want to pitch in and help!

Don’t count on my help. Fuck Dobson and Robertson, and Falwell too.

[Polycarp]

@SteveG1

Don’t count on my help. Fuck Dobson and Robertson, and Falwell too.

I’ve never had anything negative to say about gay sexual desires before, but…

That’s perverted

[devilsknew]

@Muffin

In general, rich people tend to be more politically involved and wield more political power. But in general, poor people tend to breed more. Either would be valuable to a cause.

Wow, that’s just a sad view. Are you a capitalist/materialist/atheist? Or maybe you’re just a realist?

[uglybeech]

Vote for not hyperbole. For one thing I don’t think this has much to do with charity or the poor. This is about sacrificing everything for discipleship, and how wealth interferes. When Jesus says “go and sell all that thou hast…and come and follow me,” this was just like when he asked his disciples to drop their nets and leave their father to follow him and become fishers of men. But unlike the poor fishermen,this man couldn’t because he was too attached to wealth. Which shows not just that material wealth makes it difficult to enter heaven, but how. You get attached to it, and can’t give it up. Sort of like Marx’s golden chains of the bourgeoisie.

[Muffin]

@devilsknew

Wow, that’s just a sad view. Are you a capitalist/materialist/atheist? Or maybe you’re just a realist?

I’m an athiest, and I perceive religion as a means of gathering and using power.

[monavis]

I would think the saving of souls…rich or poor should be the business of one’s God.In my belief one should spend their time living their own good life and worry about their own salvation if they feel it is needed.
Dodson,Falwell, and Robertson are so like the Pharisee’s I would pay very little attention to their worrying about others. I see a lack of faith in anyone who worries that everyone doesn’t believe the same as they.

For the first 300+ years there was no New Testemant, the commandments were not posted and Christianity survived just fine,I do not think there was prayer in the schools, or the Government started the day with a prayer either.

Monavis

[monavis]

@monavis

I would think the saving of souls…rich or poor should be the business of one’s God.In my belief one should spend their time living their own good life and worry about their own salvation if they feel it is needed.
Dodson,Falwell, and Robertson are so like the Pharisee’s I would pay very little attention to their worrying about others. I see a lack of faith in anyone who worries that everyone doesn’t believe the same as they.

For the first 300+ years there was no New Testemant, the commandments were not posted and Christianity survived just fine,I do not think there was prayer in the schools, or the Government started the day with a prayer either.

Monavis

Sorry, I meant James Dobson…forgive the typo…please.

[SteveG1]

@Polycarp

I’ve never had anything negative to say about gay sexual desires before, but…

That’s perverted

[Homer]Doh![/Homer]

[Evil_Captor]

@smiling bandit

Of course, poverty in jesus’ time and poverty today tend to mean different things. Today, almost anyone who can work can get a job. If not, there are food stamps, public housing, and so on. Then, you might well starve if you didn’t work.

Gee, kinda makes you wonder why we have so many homeless people in America, especially homeless working people. In short I challenge your assertion that the social safety net in America exists to the extent you think it does.

[elucidator]

It is true that the immediatly fatal consequences of poverty have been largely eliminated amongst our own. The health effects of poor diet and the unavailability of routine preventative medical care attenuate the process over decades, our poor die much more slowly. We are given to regard this as progress. Perhaps it is. It’s not enough. Not for me, and not for my radical buddy, Comrade Jesus.

[David_Simmons]

@monavis

I would think the saving of souls…rich or poor should be the business of one’s God.In my belief one should spend their time living their own good life and worry about their own salvation if they feel it is needed.
Dodson,Falwell, and Robertson are so like the Pharisee’s I would pay very little attention to their worrying about others. I see a lack of faith in anyone who worries that everyone doesn’t believe the same as they.

For the first 300+ years there was no New Testemant, the commandments were not posted and Christianity survived just fine,I do not think there was prayer in the schools, or the Government started the day with a prayer either.

Monavis

Let’s not confuse “ought” with “is.” Irrespective what one ought to do, the fact is that many evangelicals evangelise for the express purpose of converting “sinners” in order to save their souls. The question is, would it be better if they worked harder on getting the rich to forgo some of their riches to save their souls rather than hobnobbing with them at every opportunity as now seems to be a popular, and respected, modus operandi.