bald man blogging

How Far Will We Go?

23 Responses to “How Far Will We Go?”

1. 
   Mike
   7 March, 2007 at 10:16 pm

   Well, I’ll jump in with the first question.

   After a dozen years in the investment industry, followed by a handful of years in ministry, I do not believe it is possible to pursue both “the dream” and the Kingdom. In fact, I think they’re pretty much the opposite ends of the spectrum. One is about me, one is about the other.

   Reply
2. 
   rantz grotto
   7 March, 2007 at 10:51 pm

   Sacrafice. How much and what are you willing to sacrafice? You made some decisions based on what you thought was right for you and your family. Not everyone is willing to make those same sacrafices (Not that you even consider them all sacrafices, but others might). To move to a poorer area with older homes you gave up the ability to be in a more upscale neighborhood. I too made a similar decision, but I wasn’t willing to go as far as you did. I had other things on my mind, things I wasn’t willing to sacrafice. Does that make me a worse person than you? Does it make me a better person because I didn’t make those sacrafices in the name of my family? I don’t think we can judge like that. We all have limits to which we are willing to go for whatever reason. I wanted to make sure that my kids were able to attend a fairly decient public school because I believe that is important. It was evidentally not as important for you. You have mentioned some of the things you are teaching your children and are able to expose them to because of where you live. Those are important things to you, but not as important to me. Are those things important because of our religions? Maybe partly they are.

   I don’t think that a life of total poverty makes you better than someone who has things. It is easy to say that Donald Trump has it easy because he’s rich. Is it true? I think Trump has just as many hardships as someone who lives on welfare or makes minimum wage. I think Trump needs just as much help and encouragement as anyone else. It just might be a different kind. We need to make sure that we embrace people from all walks of life. We need to understand the rich and the poor. We need to talk with the blacks and the white and every other colour. We need to tolerate people of all religions. WE NEED TO EMBRACE EVERYONE! In that we can truly find peace. That to me is the true way of salvation.

   Sorry for the sermon. I’ll shuffle off now.

   Reply
3. 
   Bald Man
   8 March, 2007 at 9:27 am

   Mike,
   Thanks for stopping by. I, too, am coming to the same conclusion as I think the tone of my post indicates. This leads me to a follow up question: To what extent has The American Dream appropriated and redefined the call of Christ so that the two appear not just compatible with one another, but to co-exist in a mutually beneficial symbiosis with one another?

   Rantz,
   For us it wasn’t about making the right decision for our family; neither was – or is – it about whose better or worse. At least not as I look at it. It was about faithfully following Jesus, about taking his vision of the Kingdom seriously.

   And I didn’t say that poverty makes a person better. I said Jesus identifies with the poor. Serving the poor and being present with them is sacramental: it is a way to serve God and be in God’s presence. Here’s a link to the Parable of the Sheep and Goats I refer to.

   I don’t think I advocate intolerance or exclusion. I guess what I am questioning is the extent to which some, perhaps many, self-professing Christians are actually following Christ. I’m trying to do this with humility in the face of what I think are obvious perils. It’s easy to tell others to change their shoes; it’s much harder to walk in their shoes.

   Reply
4. 
   Mike
   8 March, 2007 at 9:59 am

   That’s a great follow-up question. And to an extent, I think you’ve already answered it. The American (and Canadian) Dream and the redefined call of Christ (with the emphasis on redefined) are now symbiotic to the degree that one cannot question that relationship without being considered exclusionary.

   You’ve gone to the heavy guns with The Sheep & The Goats. For a lot of years that parable did not exist in my Bible (or in my church). I guess those pages were stuck together or something.

   The other challenging passage of course is the account (note it is not a parable) of The Rich Young Ruler. I know, the western church has turned this into a metaphor. “It’s not really about money, you know. It’s about what the man loved more than God.” OK, let’s go with that for a minute. Like it or not, for 99% of us in the west, that is money. And stuff. And security.

   Note that Jesus did not compromise when the man proved unable to comply. Jesus didn’t respond by asking if selling half of his stuff was more managable. And he didn’t let the man consider what was best for his family. Instead, he gave him the criteria, and let him walk away. That’s the part that really blows me away. Jesus stood stood there and watched the man walk away.

   I think between these two passages much of our western theology goes right out the window.

   Reply
5. 
   rantz grotto
   8 March, 2007 at 10:22 pm

   Baldman: I was not criticizing you, I was stating that we all walk in other people’s shoes differently. You have talked before about (or maybe it was your lovely wife) wanting to make sure your children were exposed to people of other races and cultures. I would also like to do those things. I choose to do that by sending them to a public school in a diverse neighborhood. That is not the route you took. Neither your way or mine can be called correct, but same shoes different paths.

   I guess I don’t understand why you are chosing the goat and sheep story. My understanding of it is that there are two groups, one that chose to help others and one who didn’t. I don’t see that wealth was listed there. I know that Jesus said that the cheesemakers will inherate the Earth, but does that mean that only they are deserving? There were many ways in which those who gave helped others, not all of them were issues of money. What other ways can you give back? What if that giving helps you financially? Do you then have to give all that back?

   One difference between today and Jesus’ age is that there was a HUGE cultural difference between the peasants and the ruling class. While there is a difference now, it is not the same. I think that should be taken into consideration for your reflection as well.

   Reply
6. 
   Bald Man
   9 March, 2007 at 9:30 am

   Mike,
   It is… let’s use the word “interesting” how we decide which words of Jesus should be taken literally and which are really just a metaphor, yeah?

   Rantz,
   Sorry if I got overly defensive; it sounded as if I miscommunicated, so I wanted to clarify. It gets tricky comparing and contrasts lives, doesn’t it? (Hence my trepidation in writing this post to begin with.) You and I are coming at things from different points of reference, so there is even less grounds for me to judge you by the standard I use, and vice versa. It’s like a footballer and a basketballer critiquing each other… perhaps even more like a footballer and a flautist. Even if we understand intellectually the core values and aims of the other, there isn’t much overlap. The aid one can give the other is limited.

   Now if Christians are talking, even one’s of different tribes (e.g. Catholic, Baptist, etc.), then there more common ground. To continue the metaphor, we might now be playing the same game… perhaps even the same position. It is easier to speak into one another’s lives accurately and insightfully. Make sense?

   For me the key words in the Parable of the Goats and Sheep are when Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me,” and similarly to the other group, “I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.” With these statements Jesus is identifying with the poor, the disabled, the imprisoned, etc. Serving “the least” is like serving God. This line of thinking goes way back in Jewish history.

   So, here’s my question put another way: If Christians want more of God – a greater connection to God and a fuller experience of God – and if God locates himself and identifies himself with “the least,” then why do Christians pursue the American Dream, a goal which when achieved puts the greatest possible distance between the individual and “the least?” I get security and safety and family and education and all the rest. But if these are not God’s highest values – and I don’t believe they are – then why do Christians still tend to orient their lives around them? Moreover, why do Christians permit or even participate in redefining the Gospel and life to which Jesus calls them so that they are compatible with the American Dream?

   Reply
7. 
   Norm
   10 March, 2007 at 7:15 am

   Baldman, the problem lies in that most christians are still carnally minded. Though the term ,”carnal christian”, is used, I dont believe that is a correct term, because you cannot be carnal and be a christian at the same time. Paul said in one of his epistles that to be carnal minded is to be an enemy of God. To be a true christian one would have to give up everything worldly related and pick up the banner[cross] of Christ, which means one would have to follow the teaching in MAT 5-7 commonly called the beattitudes. Of course thats not what most christians prefer. This is especially true here in America, where one has the opportunity to raise his status , upward mobility, and so places the emphasis on what “I WANT,” not what “GOD WANTS.”

   Reply
8. 
   Rantz_Grotto
   10 March, 2007 at 1:24 pm

   Baldman: You are correct about coming at this from different perspectives, so I consulted with a flutist to see what you were saying. According to her views, the idea is to serve God and help those less fortunate, not to serve God and be the less fortunate. By living for the American dream you have the oppertunity to help more people. If you make $100,000 you can give more to charity than if you make $6,000. If you have great skills that allow you to work in a high paying job, you can also volunteer those skills to help the less skilled. Usually those who are living the American Dream have weekends off work. Those days could be filled with projects to help those in need. In the parable God did not say, “You BECAME one of the least” he said “Just as you DID for one of the least.” because the least in America have more than the least in other countries, does that make them less deserving?

   Reply
9. 
   Bald Man
   11 March, 2007 at 12:00 am

   Norm,
   I get what you’re saying, but I think we have to be cautious on a couple fronts, first when we demonize the “world” and second when we make the distinction of “true Christians.” Like I said, I’m pretty sure I get your point, but I think that we can easily miscommunicate with sweeping language like that… Then again, perhaps you are intentionally making sweeping statements.

   Rantz,
   If the American Dream were about maximizing your potential in order to maximize your generosity, you might have something. But, the American Dream is quite different than that. It’s about maximizing your potential in order to maximize your comfort, your wealth, your status.

   And there is something qualitatively different between serving the least and giving money to those who serve the least. I’m not saying the latter isn’t good, but I will say it is inferior to the former.

   Finally, what qualifies as need in the US is too often skewed by the wealth surrounding it. I’m not trying to dismiss the reality of hunger and poverty in the US, but we approach the conversation with the right perspective. Every three seconds a person – probably in the global south – dies from preventable poverty. Every discussion of money, of wealth, of need, of “the least” must begin here. To begin anywhere else is to turn our backs on hundreds of millions of people and the reality of their circumstances.

   Reply
10. 
    Norm
    11 March, 2007 at 6:00 am

    Rantz, Though this could be considered a sweeping statement, it is not meant to be. As you pointed to the example of the rich young man, he went away upset because he was more into his wealth than giving. The typical christian teaching for today is the “Prosperity gospel”. When the Lords teachings are towards all for the common good in light of the coming kingdom. We then should not allow ourselves to be caught up in the way of the world . Doesn t it say “this present evil world”? Hey, I didn t write the book, but religion is not what God wants. I believe he prefers us to love justice, take gare of the widow, and embrace hospitality with our neighbor.

    Reply
11. 
    Norm
    11 March, 2007 at 7:41 am

    Sorry, I was addressing Baldman.

    Reply
12. 
    Mike
    11 March, 2007 at 10:19 am

    Norm – I like what you had to say, but I’d make one small change. I think

    …he went away upset because he was more into his wealth than giving.

    should read

    …he went away upset because he was more into his wealth than Jesus.

    Reply
13. 
    rantz grotto
    11 March, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    Baldman: I don’t often say this, but I think Oprah was right in going and starting a school in Africa. Now, I don’t think it was right that she limited who was able to attend, but education is the key. There is no reason I can figure out why there is not safe drinking water in almost every country in the world, but there isn’t. I think part of that is because the people don’t know how to make it such. Our policy with Brazil was (and still might be, I don’t know) that we would give them things if they didn’t cut down the rainforst. One thing we would not give them was education. We need to spread our knowledge and that knowledge will hopefully help the people.

    Norm: Your last statement was beautiful. If more people believed that I think this would be a much better world.

    Reply
14. 
    Bald Man
    11 March, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    Norm,
    I’ll add my kudos to your closing remark, too. James wasn’t just making it up was he?

    Mike,
    Since you make a distinction between “giving” and “Jesus,” can you elaborate on what the differences are, particularly since giving seems so central to following Jesus?

    Rantz,
    Funny you should mention Oprah. I consider her the senior pastor of the nation’s largest congregation. She says, “Read this book,” and millions do. I doubt there is a single more influential voice among American women. Imagine if she upped the ante and challenged her massive audience to take a few specific steps with regard to serving “the least?” Write your senator; give to this charity; boycott this business. Maybe she’s headed down that road, but I suspect she has greater sway than even she suspects.

    As far as why hundreds of millions lack clean water, rudimentary education and basic health care, I’m far more cynical than you. I think I’ll make that a separate post, but it boils down to the global reach of the new American Dream and the consolidation of power into the hands of those most indoctrinated by it.

    Reply
15. 
    Mike
    11 March, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    Hey B-Man, let me elaborate.

    I think the distinction is important. The man could have kept his wealth, thereby maintaining his ability to give lots in the future. (This seems to be similar to an argument being made here. We justify our pursuit of wealth by talking about all the good we can do with it.) So in a strange way he may have been perserving his “giving power” by walking away.

    Instead, I think this is about being obedient, and following Jesus. (I don’t think I’m being clear about that, but that’s the best I can do at the moment!)

    Reply
16. 
    Norm
    12 March, 2007 at 6:15 am

    To further elaborate on the rich young man. His unhappiness was that he was not willing to give up his riches because that involved sacrifice. Jesus said that one must be willing to give up everything to follow him. That is sacrifice. He also said we are not to store up our treasures on earth where moth and rust corrupts and robbers break in to steal, but to lay up our treasures in heaven where nothing is stolen or can it be polluted, because where our hearts are there our thoughts will be. [Literaly speaking] To follow the Lord one must be willing to make sacrifices whatever they may be for each one individually. If our hearts were totally on the returning King and the coming kingdom, then we would accept that we are just pilgrims here for a short time in light of our eternal rewards to come.

    Reply
17. 
    Rantz Grotto
    12 March, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    Baldman: I’ll try and keep my true thoughts about the most racist and sexist woman to walk the airwaves to myself, or at least until I write up my blog I’ve been planning to post for a while now.

    Reply
18. 
    Bald Man
    12 March, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    Rantz,
    Fair enough. But agree or disagree with her opinions, I don’t think her influence can be denied.

    Reply
19. 
    rantz grotto
    12 March, 2007 at 10:40 pm

    No, her influence can’t be denied. She is as you said, one of the most powerful people in the US today. And while I wish I could agree with more of her philosophies, she is not total evil either, just… mostly evil.

    Reply
20. 
    Rantz Grotto
    19 March, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    I think in light of the conversation here, I would like to ask how it is that the Christian religion can group itself with the Republican party here in the US. To me this seems to be a classic example of what you are saying about the American Dream and the Christian Ideal going in opposite directions. How can big business which is all about making money at the expense of the people be in bed with Christianity which is all about helping their fellow man and doing the right thing and charity? The following article brought this idea to me again today.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_re_us/religious_right;_ylt=Ammnnn70nEUUh7ESlEgUb3kDW7oF

    Reply
21. 
    Bald Man
    20 March, 2007 at 12:56 am

    That, my friend, it a great question; and one many Christians – including myself – are asking.

    My short and customarily cynical response is that the Religious Right have allowed Christianity to be defined by a hand full of issues – abortion, gay rights, state sponsorship of religious iconography. They have have not lost the forest for the trees; they have lost the forest for the rocks and missed the trees altogether. I think… I hope they are discovering that the Republican Party has no real allegiance to them. They are simply a constituency that was successfully manipulated for political and financial gain.

    Reply
22. 
    Bald Man
    20 March, 2007 at 12:59 am

    Sorry, I have an addendum…

    I don’t hold the Republican party in any special contempt; they’re doing what political parties do: pursue power and wealth through the political process. My contempt is aimed at the religious figureheads who were either duped themselves or chose to dupe their followers.

    Reply

Trackbacks

1. Christian Carnival CLXIV
   16 January, 2010 at 6:46 pm