Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for He has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you" (Heb 13:5).Be content with what you have. Not "Keep up with the Joneses." Not "Why do they have so much more than I do?" Not "Is it fair that they make more money than me doing the same work?" Not "I wish I had more." Not "I deserve better." Be content with what you have.
More convicting, however, is the "why?" to that command. Why should we American Christians be content with what we have? Quite clearly because we have the promise of Christ to never leave us nor forsake us. (As Greek scholars will point out, that is "I will never never leave you nor forsake you.") Why is that more convicting? Because every time I say, "I want more" or "I deserve better" or the like, I am saying, "Christ is not enough for me." Ouch!
Now, go back and read the stack of commands before this one. They are for brotherly love, hospitality, remembering those in prison, and keeping the marriage bed free from sexual immorality. Somehow that pile seems a lot easier when held up against, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." So maybe we have some work to do in our own lives, eh?
13 comments:
Francis Schaeffer spoke of the symbolic Jesus. This is a Jesus created by the materialist to symbolize a given cause about which one desires some sort of transcendence. They're easy to recognize because they are always concerned about fleshy material things that appeal to the fleshy materialistic person. This Jesus is all about social justice, which of course fly in the face of your post. This Jesus is also very concerned with the planet; more concerned about it even than the people that live on it. This Jesus is never coming back, he forsake us long ago and we are on our own to "save our planet". He's also very concerned about unnatural sex acts, and the rights of mothers to kill their babies, and proselytizing the saved.
But, oh to increasingly know this Jesus we read about in scripture, the one who died on the cross. Paul rightly said that all the stuff (material) is as dung compared to this surpassing knowledge of Him. I want to know him like I never have, and scripture is clear that this is not going to happen in the lap of luxury; on the contrary, such "things" get in the way. I'm praying for myself that I WILL know him in ever increasing ways, and that my life will reflect his glory in the midst of trials. I think that there is inexplicable joy in this knowledge, a joy not subject to our varying and subjective material circumstances.
Dan: "this is not going to happen in the lap of luxury."
I've noticed before and again recently how many times the Bible tells us that suffering is good for us. We are to "count it all joy", "rejoice" in it. "The joy of the Lord is my strength", to be sure, but that does not mean "the joy that I get from luxury that I'm pretty sure was given me by God."
(Or, more simply, I agree with you.)
Some modern Christians such as Rev. John Hagee try to spin the “easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven” passage into something that other Christians say is unjustified. “That should read the Eye of THE Needle,” insists the Hagee type. But others say that particular Jerusalem gate did not even exist when that passage was first written.
One thing that should be a cause of concern for American Christians is that the two major parties only seem to run presidential candidates who are wealthy. I’ve heard that even Jimmy Carter, who can come across as humble, owned something pre-1976 that was more elaborate than “a little peanut farm.”
I'm afraid I don't understand either of your points.
What does the opinion of John Hagee (a prosperity preacher who teaches that all Christians should be healthy and wealthy contrary to clear Scripture) have to do with the command to "be content with what you have"?
What does American politics have to do with the command for Christians to "be content with what you have"?
Is it your contention that only poor people should run for president?
A Christian voter could take the point of view that only sincere Christians should be elected into office.
I suppose, but since 1) the Constitution forbids a religion test and 2) there has rarely been a Christian in the White House (at least for the past century) and 3) since the Bible makes no such claim, they would be doing so on their own.
I'm still curious about the "presidential candidates who are wealthy" thing, though. First, running for office is expensive. Second, is there something inherently good about having a poor candidate? Third, did something I say suggest that a Christian can't have wealth? ("Be content with what you have.") Still baffled.
On whether a Christian can have wealth, here is some interesting exegesis on Mark 10:25.
http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/Church%20Traditions/eye_of_a_needle.htm
I'll leave it at that.
Okay, leave it at that. (I see how this works now. "I get to ask all sorts of odd, off-the-wall questions that I expect you to answer regardless of their relevance or even the number of times I've asked the same question, but don't expect me to answer any pertinent questions about my comments at all.")
The exegesis is what I've already done myself. "It is difficult (not impossible) for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Got it. Good. No answer to my question(s) to you, but we're all clear on the Mark 10 passage.
Well, since you don’t want me to leave it at that… ;-}
<>
Yes, in the natural. Without divine help, a person too poor to get his message out there would likely fail. “How dare anybody think that God should step in to help a poor candidate?” is how you will look at it, I realize.
<< What does the opinion of John Hagee (a prosperity preacher who teaches that all Christians should be healthy and wealthy contrary to clear Scripture) have to do with the command to "be content with what you have"?>>
Rev. Hagee stresses in his sermons, “The Bible says you have not because you ask not.” And don’t worry, I was perfectly aware you are not a fan of his.
<< What does American politics have to do with the command for Christians to "be content with what you have"?>>
I brought it up merely as a side topic. Sorry if you think it is an inappropriate comment to place under today’s blog.
<< Is it your contention that only poor people should run for president?>>
I would not contend that. I only suggest the POSSIBILITY from the standpoint of SOME who read the Bible—but not you—that this would be a reasonable hope. (The Beatitudes come to mind in this connection.)
Interesting. When I said, "Okay, leave it at that", you interpreted that to mean "Don't leave it at that." Hmm.
At some point it becomes obvious that you don't understand most of what I've said. "How dare anybody think that God should step in to help a poor candidate?" does not spring to my mind, but you're pretty sure that would be my take. Like recently when you suggested, "You consistently take the view, 'How dare anyone think that God will act supernaturally to intervene in human affairs?'" when I believe that God is continually intervening in human affairs. Or when you said, "You are betting all your chips on the thought, 'But there’s this afterlife where I will be safe from mistreatment.'" And now you're under the impression that Christians either believe that all Christians ought to be bloody rich or dangerously poor? Apparently none of the things I've said to you in our conversations have been intelligible (let alone intelligent) to you.
Just a helpful hint from an "older but wiser" guy to a "younger fellow". If you want to effectively refute something, you need to have a clear grasp on what that something is. You don't. And for all your questions and discussions here, you don't seem to be getting any closer to it.
Fair enough, Stan.
Allow me just one clarification. The first < > that appears in my post two hours ago was meant to read:
"First, running for office is expensive."
Somehow I must have goofed up on that bit of typing.
Peace, out.
Two things:
1. The Constitution does not prohibit the voter from having a religious litmus test for candidates. I have one, though it is not the ultimate determination of where my vote goes, but just one important factor. Wish is was as important to everyone else so that good Christians would be more common among candidates.
2. As to the post, this idea of contentment is troublesome to me. To your way of thinking, does contentment mean no further ambition for better things? That is to say, if I'm making a good wage and no better opportunity becomes available, I should indeed learn to be content with what I have as opposed to whining and pining after what others have. Yet, should a better situation become available, is pursuing that opportunity contrary to contentment? Personally, I don't think so. Thus, being content as we are is not the same as aspiring for and working toward something better. It's more a matter of how we respond to not being successful in our pursuits. Do you agree with this?
I don't think accepting a promotion or a job offer for a better position is (necessarily) ambition or discontent. We should gladly receive the gifts that God gives whether that means a better income or a layoff.
Additionally, I think a husband and/or father who is not providing for his family ought to seek to do so. That isn't "discontentment" or ambition, but love and obedience.
Post a Comment