Care for the Poor

John 12:8 For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."

8 τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε.

This was Jesus' rebuke at Judas Iscariot's false piety.  Judas wanted to rebuke Mary for "wasting" the perfume on Jesus' feet.  He suggested that they sell it for 300 denarii (roughly a year's wages) and use the money to help the poor.  Of course, Jesus knew Judas' heart and that Judas wanted to pocket his normal take of the till.  This is the reason Jesus gives him in defense of Mary's act.

I think this is an oft-abused verse among American Christians.  A lot of us tend to vote Republican for various reasons, many of them good.  The Republican party does a better job on the issue of abortion, for example.  And I don't think that it is the government's job to take care of the poor.  It is the church's job.  However, this verse is sometimes used to absolve us from our duty to care for the poor.  It is true that the poor will always be with us, but that does not mean we should sit idly by.

I have used this verse in defense of Capitalism against Communism.  In a sense, it is true.  Yet I can't help but think that one of the implications of this verse is that our care for the poor is a form of worship of Jesus.  This is very convicting to me.  How about you?

Fighting in Cyberspace

I've just spent the last 30 minutes or so reading a big battle in the blogosphere about homosexuality and Christ. I'm not going to link to it because it is so disturbing. On one hand you have a woman who is open about living in a homosexual lifestyle and calls herself a Christian. On the other you have a woman who was delivered from the homosexual lifestyle, but then is proud of her husband for "ripping Deb to shreds" in his radio show.

This debate represents everything that is wrong about both sides of this issue. One side cherry picks the Bible and reads it very liberally. It figures that Christ loved sinners, so it's OK if we sin. And after all, isn't the command against lust? And since I'm in a monogamous relationship it's OK. The other side comes across like the "God hates fags" crowd. This just sickens me too.

When I read the Bible I see a message of love and acceptance for all sinners. But I also see a message of repentance. Both sides seem to miss half of the equation. I can handle the side that reads Scripture very liberally as I know how darkened my understanding was when I lived in habitual sin. But the side that focuses just on wrath is much worse because they should know better. To me, neither side is "getting it".

Now are they saved? That's not for me to say. But my instinct would be to say no on both sides. Given the rhetoric, it looks like they either both are or they both aren't.

Ephesians 4:1-7 ESV
(1) I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
(2) with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,
(3) eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
(4) There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--
(5) one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
(6) one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
(7) But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.