How wealthy can you be before you are no longer a Christian ?

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119916494#Comment_119916494

Jesus?

probablyunavailable

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105250#Comment_119105250

The “eye of the needle” referred to a gate in the wall of Jerusalem.

looksee

Why would it be a problem to get a rope through a gate?

probablyunavailable

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120035403#Comment_120035403

For those who saw a camel as a mistranslation, they probably see the saying as a rope through a needle.

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120034494#Comment_120034494

That refers I think to a sub gate to one of the main gates of Jerusalem, which like all gates were closed at night. It would be hard to get a camel though this gate for pedestrians, but not impossible.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120034494#Comment_120034494

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120050073#Comment_120050073

A commonly-repeated story, but there is no evidence that such a gate existed in Jerusalem at the time the gospel text was written, and the explanation involving a gate doesn't appear until about a thousand years after the time of Christ.

Another reason for discounting the "gate" explanation is that the "eye of the needle" figure of speech isn't unique to the gospel. It also turns up in the Talmud and in the Qu'ran as a metaphor for impossibility . The "gate" explanation for the gospel use of the phrase is that the camel has to be unloaded before it can pass through the narrow gate; thus a rich man must be willing to dispense with his wealth in order to enter heaven. But this doesn't work for other uses of the phrase; in the Talmud an elephant going through the eye of a needle is a metaphor for the truly impossible; there's no implication that an elephant can do this if it sheds its load. An in the Qu'ran, an apostate can no more enter heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle — again, there's no implication that any kind of load-shedding will make this possible.

The gate/load-shedding explanation really only became popular in the nineteenth century, when tourist guides in Jerusalem would offer it to visiting Europeans and Americans, who found it comforting because of the embarrassingly obvious contrast between their wealth and the poverty of Jerusalem at the time. The tourist guides would point to a particular gate and claim that it was known as "the needle's eye", although in fact it hadn't existed at the time of Christ and had never been known by that name. The implication of this explanation is that being wealthy isn't a problem for the Christian as long as you're not excessively attached to your wealth. But, awkwardly, that's almost certainly not what Jesus was saying.

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120058442#Comment_120058442

Perhaps it is a sort of 19C Protestant gloss, but our Lord often spoke at times in a figurative, deliberately exaggerated way, for He hardly suggested a Christian tear off a limb, pluck out an eye, rather than sin, but instead to dread sin. The Pharisee of the parable who publicly paraded his supposed holiness to evince the admiration of others, an ancient virtue signaller, was a notable target. Someone poor through a lack of effort to better himself (a danger in this country where a web of benefits can be lost through working, and blaming others is encouraged by a few state funded, but surely less in 1C Palestine where the fruits of idleness were fairly bitter, limited and even fatal) hardly stands above a well off older man or woman donating large sums for a church or furnishing, statuary therein, yet that itself is not really how someone is saved or lost, but rather through devotion and avoidance of sin where someone shows himself or herself a 'predestined soul' as St Louis Marie de Montfort said. Anyhow, churches, chapels and shrines depended particularly on professionals, graziers and other strong farmers to provided sufficient to ensure there were large and well decorated, fitting places for worship. Centuries earlier in Rome the first Masses were held in decorated rooms of the better off Christians, not so much catacombs which were places for funerary feasts plus Masses said on the tombs of martyrs on appointed days. The connection between wealth or poverty and salvation is limited, and more really incidental. Now more would be expected from him who has more to give, perhaps pay for painting or even a shrine, but wealth cannot be damning.

NaFirinne

It is not up to anyone to determine whether someone is a "Christian" or not based on their wealth or material possessions. Christianity teaches that faith in Jesus is what makes a person a Christian, not their wealth or social status.

There is no specific threshold of wealth that would disqualify someone from being a Christian. Some Christians may choose to live a simple, humble lifestyle and may not have a lot of material possessions, while others may have more wealth and success in their professional lives. What is most important is how a person uses their resources and treats others, rather than the amount of wealth they have.

There have been many wealthy people throughout history who have been Christians, including billionaire businesspeople, politicians, and celebrities. At the same time, there are also many poor and humble people who are Christians. Ultimately, it is not wealth or material possessions that define a person's faith, but rather their relationship with God and how they live their life according to Christian principles.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120063236#Comment_120063236

There's nothing at all in the gospels, figurative or otherwise, to suggest that any of the evils associated with wealth are redeemed by building or decorating churches, chapels or shrines, but there's plenty to suggest that they might perhaps be redeemed by using wealth to provide for the poor, to care for the widow and the orphan, etc. Jesus didn't tell the rich young man to use some of his surplus wealth to redecorate the local synagogue, did he? He was to sell all he had and give it to the poor. "Fitting places for worship" aren't, in the end, important; if there are no fitting places for worship then you can worship in unfitting places, can't you? And that worship is just as acceptable to God.

I take your point that Jesus often spoke in an exaggerated and figurative way — or, at least, we are too scared to read what he says in other than an exaggerated and figurative way. There's plenty of evidence in the gospels themselves that the audiences he addressed did not understand these teaching to be figurative — they take them to be literal, and therefore too challenging or wholly unrealistic, and this lead to people rejecting him, turning away from him or dismissing him. In fact, this is true of the "eye of a needle" passage itself - when Jesus says this the disciples. . .

". . . were greatly astonished and said, 'Who then can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'"

So Jesus is explicit that the "eye of the needle" isn't a passage about loaded and unloaded camels going through narrow gates; it's a metaphor for outright impossibility. But we really don't want to hear this.

Two consistent themes that run through the gospels are (a) rejection of power and (b) rejection of wealth. Humans are tempted to place their faith in power and wealth - to look to power and wealth to protect them. By our words we may profess faith in God, but by our actions we display faith in power and wealth. The radical message of Jesus is not only that power and wealth cannot save us, but that they can in fact damn us, by distracting us from a saving faith in God.

dickdasr1234

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067382#Comment_120067382

Wealth & power verboten?

The Catholic Church is a bit of farce in more ways than one!

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067419#Comment_120067419

And not just the Catholic church, perhaps.

But this is to miss the point. The discussion here (and indeed the teaching of the gospel) is not about what churches or religious institutions should do; it's about what Christians and Christian communities should do.

dickdasr1234

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067427#Comment_120067427

My apologies, I was labouring under the illusion that Catholic clergy were Christians and very prominent members of the Christian community.

Is the Pope a Christian?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067433#Comment_120067433

He's not the only Christian.

dickdasr1234

'twas but a pun on "Is the Pope a Catholic?"

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067438#Comment_120067438

I know. But the same goes for your non-punning question about the Catholic clergy; they're Christians, but they are not the only Christians and there is nothing in the gospels to suggest that they are held to different standards when it comes to wealth from lay Christians.

dickdasr1234

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067458#Comment_120067458

And there was me thinking that clergy were the intermediaries between us and God, the educators and role models.

I would have thought there was a greater obligation on them to walk the talk. Was not their abuse of trust all the more hurtful given the piety they professed?

The Church, God's representatives on earth, actively and collectively behave in a manner that makes nonsense of the scripture by which the rest of us are encouraged to abide.

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067382#Comment_120067382

The renunciation of the world is a very ancient Christian idea, and so from sometime in the third century in Egypt and Gaul the numbers who withdrew became a noticeable element, yet this was followed any beyond an heroic minority economic activity would atrophy, although monks themselves made empty places thrive, and when later lewd wreckers like Henry VIII destroyed them, it took centuries for towns and rural areas to recover. The Catholic Church drew converts in ancient Rome, in fact saw natural increase as women converts no longer feared abortion or exposure of infants (traditionally a Roman father had complete say if a child was kept or abandoned for slavers), and could avail of social care. Yet this wealth cam substantially from the generosity of wealthier converts, who mostly didn't give everything, but were generous. Their homes were not always the biggest in Rome, but these had rooms fitting for the Mass. Lullington in Roman Britain was a probable example more distant from the city. This money would provide the means for deacons to be able to give to the poorest and widows from diaconiae, which later took over the role of the corn dole as imperial authority retreated east. Saying that giving up wealth is the only way is frankly ahistorical. The Church drew on generous believers who had great responsibilities in the world which they could never possibly or justly give up. Also anyone who actually works a bit with poor people will often know many are poor through addiction and utter carelessness with money. Just giving an addict or beggar, often the same thing, a deal of money is just stupid, and doesn't help.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120068437#Comment_120068437

Can you find anything in the gospels to back up your views on the status of the clergy? In particular the view that the clergy have a greater obligation to avoid wealth than the laity do?

dickdasr1234

Nah, only going on what was beaten onto me by the Christian Brothers.

Deja Boo

If heaven has a low income requirement, I might just get in after all.

Wealth is relative, given what our forefathers subsided on and what we are able to fritter away today.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668293#Comment_119668293

I worked for the man who persuaded Gates to part with his money and who sat on the board of the Gates Foundation. What his money is achieving is phenomenal.

He's looking after his kids...so what?

I think of the vaccination programs and research the guy is funding. I'm not aware of him building a rocket to get to space unlike some others.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Peregrinus

Gates has pledged himself to give away "virtually all" of his fortune during his own lifetime. Now, Gates's fortune is so huge that he could give way virtually all of it and still retain enough money that neither he nor any of his children would ever have to work a day in their lives and would still never know any kind of economic insecurity. But, still, strictly speaking Gates is probably coming closer than most of us to observing the commandment to "sell all you have and give it to the poor".

Which makes the point that I don't think their are any strictures in the gospels, or in the scriptures more generally, on acquiring wealth (as long, obviously, as you don't acquire it dishonestly, oppressively, in an exploitative manner, etc). It's your attitude to wealth, what you do with it, your dependence on it that is problematic. The rich young man wasn't wicked simply because he was rich. But his riches brought him particular moral challenges, and particular moral obligations, that wouldn't have arisen for a poor young man.

There is, I think, a difference in tone between the Old Testament texts, which mostly present riches as basically a blessing, but one that carries significant moral obligations, and the Gospel texts, which present riches as basically a problem, a barrier to following Jesus in an authentic way.

Hotblack Desiato

Which makes the point that I don't think their are any strictures in the gospels, or in the scriptures more generally, on acquiring wealth (as long, obviously, as you don't acquire it dishonestly, oppressively, in an exploitative manner, etc).

That's that for Gates, so.

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067438#Comment_120067438

Some would be doubtful if Pope Francis is that, unless he was grievously misquoted, and judging by some of the vague blather to be found these days on vatican.va, perhaps not. Traditionis custodes was a measure devoid of charity, a punishment for Catholics who loved the Mass of Ages, a nasty slight to the late Benedict XVI (Rest In Peace) justified because some weirdo on Twitter says Francis isn't Pope; based on an idea that the Church was defective before V2; which on the basis of raw numbers in the richest and poorest parts of Europe, was utter nonsense. The Spirit of V2 (the aesthetic horror of the eternal 70s that Francis loves, and only loosely based on Council documents), not some vague 'social change' emptied churches. The New Order is jarring and noisy, filled with elevator muzak (praise on the worst praise music), and most sermons I hear are vague nonsense (if a priest did say something Christian or Biblical, he'd be for the high jump, career-wise). Anyhow the idea that someone who betters himself in this life will be behind some random who drinks and plays Playstation V or Nintendo Switch all day in their (nearly free) forever home from the Council, is patently absurd, not based on reality. Out of context quotes don't make it so. Catholic Ireland is dead and gone, it's with [O'Leary or rather Abp McQuaid, long calumnated by various doddery boomers like that drunk who works for the Indo] in the grave. It is slowly being rebuilt, almost from scratch.

A lot of rich Americans preserve their wealth through charitable trusts which are headed by family members drawing huge emoluments. Giving away his wealth is a very tax efficient strategy. It is like how certain mediaeval lords gave land to monasteries which, alongside prayers for the living family and their immortal souls, could act as relatively safe places for family wealth and a son becoming an abbess or abbot was probably preferable to him becoming a head in a basket alongside Dad. The wealth is given to them to accomplish what a Bill Gates (population reduction) wants or Carnegie (education, and his libraries remain wonderful and have somehow survived the ravages of county council ownership) wants. Bill Gates won't give away his farmland.

Hotblack Desiato

What emptied the churches was education and communication. People's horizons widened beyond their PP's vision of holy Catholic [location] where everybody knew their place and didn't ask questions. Only a tiny number of practising Catholics find a mass in a language they can't understand to be more attractive (in fairness, maybe those few do understand it)

homer911

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120068437#Comment_120068437

At the risk of side-tracking this thread, clergy should not be viewed as intermediaries. Your faith relationship is directly with God.

dickdasr1234

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120097940#Comment_120097940

I don't actually have a 'faith' relationship and have great difficulty respecting the intellect of anybody who does, particularly those who attempt to preach the bible.

I was merely relaying the garbage that was fed to me and my contemporaries at church and school.

The Pope, in my book, has got to be a politician in order to ascend to his position. Enough said.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120084267#Comment_120084267

Jesus' instruction is given to one young rich man. It doesn't seem to me to be a command to all people and I have only heard of monks selling all their possessions and giving the money to the poor, not laity.*

Be careful of the temptation to take something Jesus said and systematize it.

If everyone could meet Jesus and ask them what their salvation depended most on, he might have a different answer for each person based on that person's weakness. A person with no infatuation with money but a bad temper could be told to stop getting angry ("wrath").

*But if it is a rule for everyone then surely it is expected that people must repent when they cannot follow such a difficult rule - and thus repentance rather rule-following is 'the point'.

growleaves

@dickdasr1234 'I don't actually have a 'faith' relationship and have great difficulty respecting the intellect of anybody who does, particularly those who attempt to preach the bible.'

If you think the conclusions to metaphysical and existential questions are pre-decided by the level a person's intellect is at then I'm guessing you're not much of a heavy-hitter in the intellectual department yourself.

NSAman

three fiddy

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120098763#Comment_120098763

You make a good point. But the story of the rich young man doesn't exist in isolation. If we read the gospels as a whole, they are almost unremittingly negative about wealth. This isn't the only occasion on which following Jesus is equating with abandoning wealth. The Twelve all did so (and are not behind in pointing out they have done so) and in Lk 14 Jesus tells "large crowds" that "those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples". The Pharisees are "lovers of money"; the money-changers in the Temple; Judas betrays Jesus for payment. So this is a pretty constant theme.

Wealth, in short, is, if not inherently evil, consistently a problem - a barrier, a stumbling block. In the gospels, the only good associations with wealth are (a) giving it away to those who need it, or (b) throwing parties. Mostly parties appear as a metaphor for the kingdom, but occasionally Jesus goes to actual parties given by actual rich followers, or at least potential followers.

But, you're right. Wealth isn't intrinsically evil. It's problematic because of our propensity to idolise it — in the sense of, to place our trust in wealth when we should be placing it in God. But that's massive; it's presented in the gospels as the the dominant characteristic of wealth. And, in our own time, in a world gripped by materialism and with wealth distributed in a deeply unjust way, this ought to trouble us a lot more than it does.

dickdasr1234

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120098798#Comment_120098798

I did say that I had 'great difficulty'.

That flows from my (obviously erroneous) assumption that there is a correlation between intellect and logical processing.

I do understand that the psychological void varies on an individual basis and is entirely unrelated to intellect. How one addresses that void is another matter.

The idea that one set of religious beliefs should take supremacy over others has bewildered me from a very early stage in my life.

The idea that peasant myths from the desert of 2000 years ago still prevail today leaves me even more bewildered.

I have witnessed so-called 'Christians' sneer at Australian Aboriginal belief systems and look askance at burkha-wearing Muslims.

For me, objective observation/reasoning (totally unrelated to intellect, obviously) can yield only one conclusion.

dickdasr1234

Has growleaves left?

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120084267#Comment_120084267

"There is, I think, a difference in tone between the Old Testament texts, which mostly present riches as basically a blessing, but one that carries significant moral obligations, and the Gospel texts, which present riches as basically a problem, a barrier to following Jesus in an authentic way."

That would imply a difference between the Jewish and Christian view of wealth?

homer911

Has anyone reflected on Deuteronomy 8:17-18

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+8%3A17-18&version=NLT

Graces7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120101409#Comment_120101409

Excellent post. Expresses perfectly. Wealth for what it can do to heal etc not for luxury and excess also..."Sell all you have and give to the poor." is sheer beauty. Putting the basic needs of others before money for its own sake,