“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” -Matthew 25:45-46
Much of what modern day Christianity in the United States seems to be about is the after life. The big question being “where will you go when you die?” The general belief by most Christians is that the answer to that question has something to do with whether or not you believe you are a sinner and Jesus died for your sins and you accepted him as your Savior. There are plenty of nuanced disagreements on the details of how that works (ones churches have split over and others have been burned at the stake because of), but that is more or less the general agreed upon answer. I won’t disagree with that conclusion. What I would like to do is simply present some words of Jesus that at the least complicate matters a little. The verse above is from the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which in my opinion, seems to be the longest and most clear cut statement Jesus makes regard the after life.
It seems to be a pretty straight forward statement that: how you treat the “least of these” determines where you go at the end of your life. Or, to put it more succinctly, “Feed the poor or go to hell.” Yet, anytime I’ve heard these verses mentioned, in a church sermon or elsewhere, the salvation/afterlife piece disappears. The story and the verses are used as a calling to serve those in need. Maybe as an appeal to spend one night a month in a soup kitchen or to sponsor a child. Never though, do we talk about the call to give to those in need as if our very salvation depends on it.
I know we’ve pieced together a pretty solid collection of verses to create your typical salvation message. You can breeze through Romans Road or the 4 Spiritual laws, but it troubles me a bit that Jesus says our salvation has at least something to do with how we treat the “least of these” and yet I’ve never heard a salvation message that even mentions it. Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t anyone else just a little bit concerned about getting to the pearly gates and finding out the prayer asking Jesus into your heart when you were six just doesn’t cut it?
I totally share your concerns. An un-named person whom I respect and love is a huge advocate for a view called "Free Grace" (seehttp://www.freegracealliance.com/am-i-going-to-he…
And, though I really do see our relationship with God as being governed by his limitless love, I fear that in the rush to put Paul's teaching on Grace at the forefront of the Christian world view, salvation gets treated as a "legal transaction" rather than a saving relationship and thus leaves the teachings of Christ as secondary "aides". Also, to define faith as "being convinced of something" seems a little shaky to me considering that 1) there are many things we are "convinced of" imperfectly, and 2) that we are often "convinced" of something and then later "convinced" of the opposite. (I can think of many things in my life where this is the case).
So, what do we make of the many warnings in the gospels concerning the balance of what we do with what we say? What do we make of the catastrophe we see in American society (and most wealthy nations), where civic pride, financial gain, and personal comfort are placed high above the values and purpose we see in Christ Jesus?
Do these questions in any way mean that I do not believe that Salvation is in and only through Jesus Christ the Son of God? NO! He says himself that he is "the way, the truth and the life" but He also says many other things which Evangelicals have somehow managed to categorize as good but not critical.
All that to say… I feel ya bro.
I hear you man, I have heard more from Bono about Gods call to help the poor then I have from preachers.
Ariah, wondering if you have ever read/heard the interpretation of this passage as detailed here (http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/i-am-the-least-of-these).
In this view, "the least of these," corresponds to Jesus' disciples – something we have a heard time seeing when Christianity is wedded with the power structures of the day.
In this case, people are judged not on works per se, but on the basis of what/who they place their faith in as exhibited by their response to the work of God in and through the people of God.
In this view, failure to respond to the proclamation of the good news of God's Kingdom by caring for Jesus' disciples (think of Jesus sending out the disciples in pairs), is equated to failure to respond to Jesus himself.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily the definitive interpretation of this test or that it answers all our questions, but it does significantly shift the way we think of and engage the text I think.
Hmmm… that gives pause for thought. I guess I can see how someone could come to that conclusion. At the same time I don't like where it ends up. We then get split up into a "us"/"them" camp. If your in the "us" camp then your already safe, but if your in a "them" camp then how you take care of "us" determines your fate? Seems a bit confusing and maybe a bit backwards.
Wouldn't you say that if that is the case, then the only way for you and I to get into the "least of these" crowd is by caring for the least of these before us? How does that work?
Okay, that rambling might not have made that much sense, I'm wondering specifically, what does this interpretation of the passage look like in day to day life? Of the church? of the Body as a whole (globally) etc.
Not sure if I can see how some sort of "us/them" camp is finally unavoidable – sheep and goats, righteous and unrighteous, lost and found, sick and healthy, all biblical metaphors that speak of an "us/them" sort fo reality into which Jesus speaks, acts, and directs. The point, I think is not the elimination of all "us/them" distinctions, but the transformation of how we understand God's design for thinking of and engaging them.
Like I said above, the application of this text is complicated when those who follow Jesus are not rendered hungry, thirsty, lonely, naked, sick, or imprisoned on account of their faithful lives as disciples. But the assumption, I think, is that disciples will already be doing the sorts of things described in this text and thereby be in the "least of these crowd," by our Christlike identification with them.
As far as what it looks like today… I hope it means for more solidarity with the poor and oppressed, but the sort that alters how we live and doesn't leave our lives unaffected.
If the interpretation that we are playing with here is accurate, it would seem to involve the abdication of the positions and systems of power and privilege that the Christian church has become accustomed to. We can stop waiting for the broader culture to do its marginalizing work on the church and just go ahead and embrace it preemptively.
My recent post Tweets for the Week: 2010-05-10
So, I think we end up at mostly the same place. And I think in both cases the church is falling far far short of what we are called to do. Is that fair to say?
I once heard Rob Bell talk about faith. He said most of us tend to make Christianity into a box. You're either in or your're out of it. Often our main concern in evangelism is making sure people have "fire insurance."
Rob said, however, that Jesus' approach was to invite people on a journey. It's not so much where you're at (in or out), but what you're seeking and doing along the way.
He wasn't focusing on the Sheep & Goats passage, but I think it goes along with it. The journey Jesus invites on is to follow Him. And He went about healing the sick, preaching the good new (gospel is a singular word, enhancing the novelty of Christ's message) and casting out demons (seems like we forget that part, too). On our journey following Him we should be paying attention to "the least of these" like He did.
Well said. I'm much more comfortable with the journey approach. I'm glad I have my "fire insurance" though too, if only to appease those people who come checking
Man, Ariah, you know hoe to pick em'. As you know, I am the Youth Minister of a United Methodist Church. I have heard you say that you are not so concerned with denominations as you are with following Jesus, and to some degree that is what I respect about you faith walk. I do believe, however, that you have tapped into something that feeds deep into our very understanding of God. I think that you would agree that everyone understands God in a different way (if not, feel free to correct me there, I am making an assumption), but I think that we, as Christians, do a poor job of defining what that looks like and how we can manage Christian brotherhood in light of our differences.
As an example, I believe that God's saving Grace is a gift. Since it is your son's birthday, I will use that to further illustrate. If you gave him a birthday present, and said "If you trust in me, I will give this to you. But if don't say that you trust me, then I will keep this gift and you will just have to wait until you can make a better choice," the impression that he would get is that you do not love him unconditionally. I believe that our choice to follow Jesus is about ushering in the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, and that we have nothing to do with what happens to us after death.
Now, that may be shocking to some (actually, I know it is, because I have arguments about it at work all the time), but the interesting thing about the disagreement is that if you believe that Grace is a choice, and not a free gift, then you will not likely be able to work with me on discipleship. If you believe that Grace is a gift, however, you will likely be able to work with anyone on discipleship. Jesus was pretty sharp, and I believe that he presented this passage as a clear dilemma – Is what you value the same as what I value? If not, then you have not chosen to be my disciple, and you are not ushering in the kingdom here on earth, and so you are not guaranteed any relationship with me beyond your earthly existence. He goes beyond the daily argument over the means of Grace, almost like he saw that coming, and said "Why don't you just care for the poor and the oppressed and be done with it!" He is not suggesting that the different interpretations of his message are not important, just that they should not keep us from doing the work that set out for us as His followers.
Yes, I like the baptizing of babies; yes, I take communion at an open table, where all are welcome who want to receive God's free gift of grace; No, I don't believe people who have made bad choices on earth are destined to live in eternity apart from God. I believe that those things are important to our understanding of God and our daily choice to follow the teachings of Jesus, but I don't believe that they replace the need for us to make that daily choice and to go where Jesus leads. That is the true mark of the Disciple.
As I said, you sure know how to pick em'.
My recent post Elana Kagan – Supreme Court Nominee (Editorial)
And you know how to keep my thoughts grinding. I think we've had these conversations at length of a good number of years now, sad it's not in the same kitchen together though.
I think this post, and much of where my thoughts are right now, have little to do with my view of God, grace, salvation, etc. I mean, ultimately I think they have a ton to do with it, as your getting to in your comment above. But, for me, it's almost stemmed out of a frustration with the philosophical and theological bantering. I guess it's like I don't want to hear any more discussion on the matter at all (ironic as I'm writing long blog posts and comments and hoping for others to chime in and do the same), I just want to look out, find a group of people that are living out that "love one another" lifestyle and go join them.
love this conversation
So this has been bouncing through my mind since you've posted it, and here's what I'm thinking at the moment.
I agree, but then I disagree (or rather I see it as a part of a different framework)
"Feed the poor or go to hell" – I agree, in that seeing the poor and not helping the poor is not consistent with loving our neighbor as we love ourselves. In this we show that we do not follow Christ as much as we say we do.
"Feed the poor or go to hell" – I disagree in that I'm hearing the implication that grace does not cover disobedience in this aspect. Now, I don't think that grace/salvation is about just saying the right incantation (sinners prayer, believer's baptism, whatever) and then you're good for eternity, I think it is about re-orienting one's life, and following God. So I believe that someone who is following Christ should be on this trajectory. But I also believe that we fail to meet God on this and other aspects of following Christ. Those failings are tragic and huge, and it is into those tragic and huge failings that God steps in with grace.
So I guess in a sentence I agree with "Feed the poor or go to hell" exactly the same amount that I agree with "Tell the truth or go to hell" and "Don't murder or go to hell", no less and no more.
My recent post What do you do with your art/culture.
Richard, I hear you. Like I said, I'm not trying to question others interpretation of salvation. There's both centuries of theology and a majority of Christians who hold the saved by grace belief. I just find this passage personally challenging and I think it should be challenging to the church as well. Paul said something about working out our salvation "with fear and trembling," so I think there's reason for passages like this to give us pause.
this was a big question for me during my exodus from the Jesus camp.
I discovered that the sinner's prayer was a modern invention. I think this would be very troubling for the ministers that labor so hard to get people to say it…how did people get saved for the first 1800 years or so without it?
i was always bothered by how Jesus clearly taught about serving the poor, yet the church seemed more concerned with saying those magic words. I would even hear things like "feeding people/serving people/plug in anything service related, doesn't matter if you don't save their soul"
But Jesus spent a lot of time feeding people.
He also said the kingdom of heaven is here.
I soon realized heaven was going to be a pretty miserable place for people that spent their lives dividing themselves into "us and them" camps and viewing everyone as sinners….the mansion has many rooms after all, and they were going to be full of people…and prostitutes, and theives and people of other races…hardly a comfortable scene for a judgemental person.
If there is an afterlife and we havn't spent this one learning how to get along with people and treat them well, we may very well opt out of heaven (the only argument I can stoumach any longer for a hell!)
***
I can't get my brain around the idea that a loving God would condem someone to torture (or the absence of god/love/happiness) for all eternity for not acknowledging the infinite and unknowable in a certain defined way.
life, to me, seems like it has to be lived, and about living, and learning to do it well.
there is just no way a finite mind can comprehend the infinite, and I refuse to believe God is so powerless and hateful that he needs our affirmation or he can't save us from a system that he created.