Forget about Eternal Life

Peter Peters, a respeced colleague of mine, and I often find ourselves in disagreement over the appropriate role of the church in the political arena. Arguing in favor of the church having a voice in forming public policy, he asked me what I made of Luke 18:18-25, which reads:

A certain ruler asked Jesus, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.'" He replied, "I have kept all these since my youth." When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

My first answer was that I doubt if Jesus spoke the words attributed to him. When he pressed me, I had a second answer, which was that I did my best to ignore the passage. On reflection, I decided that my first response had merit and that my second was inadequate.

Although a majority of scholars believe that Jesus must have said something like the words found in this passage from Luke and in the parallel passages in Mark 10:17-31 and Matthew 19:16-26, others see a reflection of the economic condition of the people drawn to the early church. In writing to the Jesus followers in Corinth, Paul noted that "not many were powerful, not many of noble birth." (I Corinthians 1:26) In addressing another early Christian community, the letter of James raised the questions, "Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court?" These two comments suggest that a majority of the people first attracted to the Jesus movement came from the lower classes of society, classes habitually suffering from low self esteem. One way that the poor have always dealt with their own self image problem is to hold the rich in contempt. It is not difficult to imagine that the early followers of Jesus read their own disdain for the rich back into the story. They wanted to believe that God cared more for them than for those who enjoyed the privileges of the upper class.

Given the possibility that I could be wrong about the origin of the gospel teachings concerning the rich , I decided to stop ignoring the passages and to ask myself what they might mean. The primary clues we have to their meaning are found in the context where the gospel writers or editors placed these particular words they attribute to Jesus. They have Jesus offering his negative comments about rich people in response to a request for guidance made by a wealthy man. He is like the unhappy little dog Jenny in Maurice Sendak’s Higglety Pigglety Pop! She says, "There must be more to life than having everything." The man in the gospel story has wealth, righteousness, and social prominence, but he is not content. He is totally fixated on his desire to have something more than everything. He is completely self-centered. Jesus offers a solution for his unhappiness. Jesus tells the rich man to use all his wealth for the benefit of other people and to join the disreputable band of Jesus’s followers.

In another place (Luke 10:25), Luke has lawyer asking for the same advice as the rich man, what he must do to inherit eternal life. Luke does not describe the lawyer as being rich, but the advice Jesus gives is similar. Instead of being focused on himself, the lawyer is to think about what it means to be a neighbor.

Taken together, the two stories suggest that people concerned about their own eternal life are on the wrong track. People who are seeking personal salvation have missed the point. The key to a satisfying life is keeping a balance between taking care of yourself and paying attention to the people around you.

The words attributed to Jesus imply that finding this balance between self and others is more difficult for the rich than it is for ordinary wage earners. I don’t know any rich people, but from what I read in the newspapers about celebrities, I gather that many of them are unhappy. They are not content with having everything. People who have modest incomes or who have very little, however, can be equally unhappy and equally self-centered. The advice Jesus is supposed to have offered was the same for everyone. Forget about eternal life and think about what is going on with other people.

It doesn’t really matter if Jesus himself said the words attributed to him in the stories about a rich man seeking eternal life. The stories as we have received them suggest that the followers of Jesus set aside an interest in eternal life in favor of paying attention to their connections with other people. Paying more attention to their connections with other people might well lead Christians to advocate public policies that would use their tax money to benefit people in situations different from their own. Whether in advocating public policies the church should speak as an institution or should exercise its influence through individual Christians is a matter about which my colleague Peter and I will continue to disagree.

Comments

[sA]

Jim, I'd have to agree with virtually everything you wrote in this particular post. Historicity aside, I think these passages paint a wonderful picture of the early Jesus movement's conceptual image of the "Realm of God." It is within this realm the balance between caring for oneself and connecting to neighbor is struck. I consequently believe it is within this "Realm of God" that such a balance should take place ... today. I honestly believe focusing our energies onto political realms is less helpful than focusing energies onto this "Realm of God." Now, that being said, if the "Realm of God" is virtually non-existent, or dwarfed by a misguided but huge institutional Church of sorts, and political legislation is our only alternative for the time being, then by all means, get political ... until the second coming of the Realm of God manifests (a big metaphor, of course).

[Peter W. Peters]

I agree with your exegesis of this passage but do not see how this addresses the point of our disagreement. As you say we agree that the passage may well inspire some Christians to reflect on their relationship to their material possessions and to become concerned about the inequities of wealth and the suffering that results from poverty. Where we continue to disagree is whether this is an adequate exegesis. It is true that the text per se does not lead us to the view that the church qua social organization is called upon to speak in the public arena about poverty; it is also true that very little in the gospel traditions direct the church to speak qua church. Yet in fact that is how the gospels have been appropriated. The church is called to evangelize, to witness, to proclaim, to forgive sins, to heal, to baptize etc. All actions based upon gospel imperatives.

My issue with you is that you seem to take the gospels in a too individualistic manner as if Jesus/the tradition speaks only to individuals. This is a peculiarly modern heresy. We are identified by the social place we take in our social connectedness and for Christians one of our primary social connections is that of the church.

As church we Christians choose to organize ourselves into a political society (one in which the corporate voice is given expression through whatever institutions we create) and as such this body speaks in the public arena (along with all the other voices that are there) and does so under a mandate that is grounded in the gospel encounter of the living God in Jesus the Christ.

This is why I believe that the church is living into its proper identity as the People of God when it speaks to those in power about the just treatment of the poor.