Care for the Poor - Unrealistic?

Presbyterian Outlook: Care for the Poor - Unrealistic?

"... Yes, I know that the Bible does teach us to care for the poor, and I accept that, in principle, just as my colleagues accept fidelity and (to some extent) chastity – in principle. But if we begin to ask the same questions about caring for the poor that my colleagues have asked about sexuality, the Bible's teaching becomes not so clear or imperative.

The Old Testament clearly teaches care for the poor. For me, that's good enough. But that's not good enough for those who wish to play the home version of the game "Marcion." If we can dismiss the Old Testament's teachings on marriage and sexuality as outdated and non-binding, the same can be said with equal force about its teachings on the poor, or any of its other teachings. And if we say that Jesus assumed and reaffirmed the Old Testament's teaching on the poor, the same can be said for his stance toward its teachings on sexuality. As Jesus proves in his teaching on divorce, if Jesus had disagreed with the Judaism of his day on any subject, he would have undoubtedly corrected our misunderstanding. ...

... Perhaps I sound like W. C. Fields reading the Bible "looking for loopholes." Such is also what it looks like when I see those who reject the historic understanding of the Bible on sex. Let me make it clear, I do believe that the Bible does command us to care tangibly for the poor. I struggle to obey, and I try not to make excuses to avoid doing so. I have no intention of scrupling that command. I would prefer that we accept both the Bible's teachings about sex and about poverty as equally authoritative. ..."

Interesting, provocative piece. Hobson is right in one important respect. Each ideological camp tends to be able to focus, with laser precision, on the nuanced contextual readings of Scripture that show that the text does not mean what their opponents think it means (for example, debunking six-day creationism or traditional sexual standards) while simultaneously proof-texting favored agendas (for example, anti-markets or more open borders.) I think most of us overreach for biblical justification for our political agendas. Instead of saying, "Here is my reasoned perspective," we want our views to carry the authority of Scripture and deny that authority to our opponents.

These topics keep bringing to mind Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. Noll makes the case that the Southern conservatives were faithful to the traditional interpretation of Scripture. Many leading abolitionists didn't care what a careful study of Scripture revealed. They were committed to abolition and willing to use Scripture to suit their ends, but they were not truly concerned about Scripture's authority in cultural matters. Yet a third, much smaller group held to Scripture's authority but also understood the critical importance of context. The first two groups dominated that conflict, and their parallel parties still prevail in theological reflection on social issues.

Comments

[Dennis Sanders]

I need to read the whole article, but it looks pretty good.

Should the solution here then be that we learn to try to be faithful to scripture and also see it in context? That's how I tend to see the Bible with both issues.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Agreed, Dennis. But frequently the driving forces in too many of these debates is the battle between literalists and people who want to accommodate Scripture to modern ideologies. Neither camp is helpful, IMO.

[Tom Hobson]

Thank you for your kind words. Make no mistake, I do not wish to minimize our imperative to care for the poor. I merely wished to pull the rug out from under those who claim that the Bible is clear and imperative on poverty, but unclear and outdated on sexuality. Not even a cultural situation that has changed drastically from what "poverty" means in the 1st century AD, can take the sting out of what James and John say about compassion toward those who are destitute. And James and John are no doubt merely channeling Jesus. I believe the best approach to Scripture is always the one that requires the least amount to be left on the editing room floor.