|
|
“Through the Eye of a Needle”
A sermon preached by Denise Roy
1. Introductory Question
I came to this sermon with a question. “Why would it be harder for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle?” The idea that the rich, or any category of people, might be excluded from heaven has been bothering me. When we, here in this church, focus on the question, I think we agree that God loves everyone. Still, when we, here in this church, are not focusing, I think we often find it relatively easy to condemn the rich out of hand, to associate wealth with sinfulness, as well as poverty with virtue.
a. Disco
Example
Here’s a small example. Several years ago the children—John, Leona, Amanda, big Rebecca, little Rebecca, Caroline and Andrew, maybe also Aurora and Atherton—decided they were tired of always being the object of preaching during the worship service. They wanted to teach us grownups a thing or two, so they put together a skit to present during children’s time. In the skit, heaven as a glittery disco with a bouncer at the door determining who would enter and who would be left out in the cold. The bouncer was only letting the beautiful people through the door—that is, the healthy, the wealthy, the powerful. Jesus came along and reprimanded the bouncer for excluding those in need—the sick, the poor, the powerless. Under Jesus’ watch, the less fortunate were welcomed into the heavenly disco.
So far so good—Jesus champions the underdog. But here’s the kicker—when the bouncer began opening the door to the less fortunate, she or he also began to exclude the beautiful people, and as far as I know we didn’t notice, not me and not the other adults helping the kids with the skit. If we did notice, we weren’t terribly bothered by that kind of exclusion and apparently didn’t think Jesus would be either. Why does that feel right?
2. Why we think it’s ok to exclude/judge
the wealthy
a. Matthew
19:24: eye of a camel
Well, for
one thing, we’ve got Biblical authority for that attitude, at least as it
relates to rich beautiful people.
In Matthew 19, verses 23 and 24, Jesus said that it is almost
impossible for a rich person to get into heaven. In fact, it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the
b. reasons
why rich might find it hard to approach God
It is not
hard to think of reasons why it might be hard for a rich person to approach God.
i. distraction,
even worship of false god
First and foremost, wealth, and the desire for wealth, can be a distraction from what is really important and keep us from doing God’s will. In the parable of the seeds, Jesus explained the meaning of seeds thrown among thorns: “As for what was sown among thorns, this represents one who hears the word of God, but the cares of the world and the delight in riches choke out the word, leading the person to do less and less for God.” And from 1st Timothy, verses 9-10: “[T]hose who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge [them] into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.” Material wealth can be a false god and desire for it a form of idolatry. If we cannot serve two gods for we will love one and hate the other, then if we love wealth, we must hate God.
ii. exploitation
and corruption to get and keep wealth
Moreover,
we are rightly suspicious of those with great wealth when there is so much
poverty in the world. We wonder what
level of exploitation and corruption went into amassing and maintaining that
great fortune. Certainly, this concern
underlies some of the condemnation of the rich in the Bible. The harangue against the rich in James 5 is
explained in verses 4-6, “Look! The
wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out
against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of God Almighty.
You have lived in luxury upon the earth and have gone in self-indulgence. You
have fattened your hearts in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and
murdered innocents, who were not opposing you.” We can
all think of great outrages—Enron, sweatshops, slavery, war—committed for the
sake of greater wealth.
iii. failure
to aid poor; theft—use of what is God’s for our own purposes
And who but the rich really
has the power to make a dramatic difference in the lives of the poor? Those who have vast wealth have vast wealth
that could be devoted to charity or even more fundamental reform. If reform of the economic and social system
does not take place, who is the obvious culprit, with the power and motive to
resist change? God wants us to take care of the poor and
needy; those retaining great wealth for their own purposes are bad stewards of
God’s resources.
c. reasons
why those aren’t satisfactory justifications to think of rich as particularly
sinful
Yet, I’m
still bothered by the idea that the rich should be singled out as a group of
super sinners.
i. rich have not cornered market on sin
Whatever
other markets the rich may have cornered, they haven’t cornered the market on
sin. We all know that people without
wealth can be just as distracted by the desire for wealth and just as guilty of
not sharing what they have with those in greater need. There are other distractions, plenty to go
around—fear, busyness, vanity …. We are
all sinners one way or the other. Why do
we pick out the sins of the rich as the paramount barriers to heaven?
ii. rich can be very good
Rich people can capable of great goodness and may be in a position to do more good in the world than those of us who are well intentioned but have fewer resources to devote or need to spend all our time on subsistence. I worked for Lloyd Bentsen, a very wealthy man, who as a senator did a lot for the poor by working systematically, year by year, inch by inch, to expand Medicaid health care coverage for children living in poverty and by resisting capital gains tax relief for the wealthy in favor of savings incentives for those with more modest means. After death, a large portion of his wealth will be devoted to a center for stroke treatment and prevention. Not that he was perfect by any means, and I don’t want to dwell on a debate over the relative virtue or sinfulness of the rich or poor, but point is task of assessing virtue of anyone is complicated, and that includes the task of assessing someone who is wealthy.
iii. rich suffer despite wealth
Certainly
great wealth cannot ensure happiness or shelter those who hold it from loss and
tragedy. When Senator Bentsen suffered a
debilitating stroke that left him unable to speak or walk for the last 7 years
of his life, all his wealth could not spare him and his family that pain. Wealthy people are no strangers to loneliness,
depression, addiction, illness, accidents and physical abuse.
In fact, rich people may suffer because of their wealth. Wealth itself can be a source of unhappiness. There’s an example of this that hits very close to home—to our UBC home, in fact. We are in many ways very lucky to own this beautiful building on a desirable lot near the University campus, yet for many of us much of the time, and for most of us some of the time, this wealth of ours is a source of anxiety. I’m reading an account of the family in which Sweet ‘n’ Low was invented. A disinherited member of the family is dishing up the dirt on what becoming rich did to destroy the extended family, telling how the family was torn apart by the competition over new-found wealth and prestige.
The rich need God, and the compassionate community of God, too. Why would God, and why should we, turn our backs on this particular suffering?
iv. who are “the rich?”
And who are “the rich” anyway? Do we measure by wages, income or wealth? Do we net out the unhappiness and suffering in determining net worth? Do we count the top 1%, 25%, 50%? How do we interpret the Bible’s message regarding wealth when we have a large middle class and live in a democracy affording most of us at least a modicum of power that does not depend on wealth? Many of us in this country are living in glass houses when it comes to relative material well-being and other kinds of power that can be used to make a difference for those in need.
Who is wealthier—the person who needs a minimum to be happy or the person who needs to satisfy expensive tastes to be happy? I am often struck by how little my well-being has changed as my income has increased since graduating from college and law school. In college I lived on $5000 per year. I had enough to eat, clothes, a car, fun with friends and a loving family. What do I have now that I didn’t have then? Not shelter, not food, not clothing, not love and companionship. I do have nicer and bigger, but I also worry a lot more about money. (Not that there are not legitimate worries about money—especially when food, shelter, health and safety hang in the balance, but once those minimal needs are met, worry about money may actually be worry about something else altogether—being responsible, being comfortable, having status, being important …)
3. Is there another understanding of
Matthew
If the rich
are not categorically less, or more, worthy to enter God’s presence, is there
another way to understand Matthew 19:24?
a. “eye
of a needle” as gate in
Some
say that the “the eye of the needle” in the scripture refers to an actually
gate in Jerusalem, a gate so small that a camel carrying baggage would have to
be unloaded and then go through on its knees in order to enter. Variations on this theme include stories of
ancient inns having small entrances to thwart thieves, or of a narrow mountain
pass known as the "eye of the needle.”
Although there are some who believe these tales are mythical—there is no
evidence of such a gate in Jerusalem—the lesson they teach is still a great one
for those engaged in spiritual renewal, that we must unburden ourselves,
particularly from material possessions, to come into God’s presence. Not a bad lesson to take from the scripture. Still, the unburdening message does not fully
address my concern about why it was targeted at the rich when we all carry
burdens of many kinds and whether we are justified in judging the rich to be especially
sinful. (For reasons I won’t get into,
it’s pretty clear that Biblical references to the wealthy and rich were aimed
at those with material wealth and were not meant metaphorically to mean those
rich in intangible goods such as love, talent and the like.)
b. more
helpful, Jesus was trying to show rich on even footing—it’s hard for all
I’ve read a different interpretation of the scripture that makes a lot of sense. In Jesus’ time it was common to believe that only the rich would go to heaven. Doing well, being “successful” in material terms, was a sign of God’s blessing. This belief is reflected in a number of passages in the Old Testament. Bill talked about a corollary of this belief last week—the idea that perhaps Job was not a righteous man because God allowed him to suffer so terribly. Jesus had a tough job fighting the cultural association of wealth with holiness and poverty with sinfulness.
According to the alternative interpretation of Matthew 19:24, Jesus did not mean to say that it is harder for a rich person to get to heaven than for anyone else, but rather meant to say that the playing field is level—it is no easier for a rich person to enter heaven than for anyone else. It was meant as a reassurance that wealth was not a sign of God’s special blessing and may actually be a hindrance to meeting God, a radical thought in the day. Read this way, we can understand the passage to say it is just as difficult for the wealthy to get into heaven as it is for the rest of us. It is harder for all of us to get to heaven than it is to get a camel through the eye of a needle. That is why the disciples were amazed at Jesus’ statement about the chances of the rich for heaven, saying, “"Who then can be saved?" and why Jesus replied, "With people [all people] this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." The general difficulty of approaching God for all human beings is emphasized in Matthew 7:14, "The gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Rather than inviting special judgment against the rich, Jesus might have been describing the problem humanity, mortality, poses for all of us, including those who appear to be especially blessed.
4. So, how do we get
through the eye of a needle? [Didn’t get
to this directly when giving sermon]
So, how are all of us to get through the eye of the needle? That’s the question of a lifetime, and I don’t have the answer, but I have a few thoughts regarding our attitudes toward material wealth.
a. How
far do you get giving up material goods?
If the rich face the same spiritual challenge as the rest of us, the problem of wealth is just one of many problems that keep us from approaching God. It may be a distraction from what is really important, but it is not the only distraction. A person may unburden herself from the distraction of wealth and find many others in its place. In that sense, Matthew 23:23-24 fits right in. In that passage, Jesus is speaking to rich people who are sharing their wealth, at least to the point of tithing faithfully. Nonetheless he is scornful of their effort. Tithing isn’t enough if you aren’t attending to what’s really important—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. If wealth is a tough obstacle to heaven, giving our wealth away is no guarantee either. A reading from Nirvana in a Nutshell makes this point nicely:
Renunciation—for thousands of years people have renounced
their worldly possessions, attempting to free themselves from the constraints
of the material world in order that they may truly enter onto the spiritual
path.
What are
possessions?
Temporary
physical objects—which, like human life, only last as long as they last.
You can
give them up if you want to.
But does
giving them up make you more holy?
No.
Giving
them up only makes you someone who has given them up.
b. Just
be good?
So we must
attend to the important things—justice, mercy and faithfulness in Matthew
b. Matthew
6:24-34 (read it)
That brings us to Matthew 6:24-34:
24 "No one can serve two masters. Either
she will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and
despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
25 "Therefore
I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about
your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the
body more important than clothes? 26 Look at the birds
of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your
Creator feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27
Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to life[a]?
28 And
why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do
not labor or spin. 29 Yet
I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of
these. 30 If that is
how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is
thrown into the fire, will God not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31 So do not worry,
saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'
32 For the pagans run
after all these things, and your Creator knows that you need them. 33 But seek first God’s
kingdom and God’s righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as
well. 34 Therefore do
not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has
enough trouble of its own.
Jesus there
provides a new paradigm, a different way altogether. It says to not be concerned one way or the
other. Why not like straining out a
gnat—being nicer to rich people—but being willing to swallow the camel of
poverty?
3 reasons to care about paradigm: to more fully live Jesus’ message of inclusion of love, to further our own spiritual renewal—eliminating barriers to approaching God, to be more effective in efforts to address real needs.
i. keeps us from fully living Jesus message of inclusion of love. Rather than moving to inclusion, our solution to exclusion of the unfortunate is to reverse the exclusion—to include the excluded but also to exclude the included (kind of like in the Dr. Seuss story about the Sneetches, with privilege and status being tossed back and forth between those with stars upon thars and those with no stars upon thars but the exclusionary stance remaining constant.) We are overreacting to the equation of wealth with virtue and poverty with vice if we simply flip the assumptions and equate wealth with sin and poverty with virtue. We are engaging in the same kind of judgmental dichotomization. Loving everyone means loving everyone. Jesus loved the tax collector as well as the leper and taught us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. In the end, despite all the skepticism in the Bible about the spiritual health of the rich, I find the message of love and inclusion far more powerful.
When we put money in its proper place, as one value among many, and as a representation of many kinds of value and not a value in itself, we can more easily see that we are all lilies of the field, whose splendor is greater than Solomon in all his glory. We can even see wealth, or desire for wealth, as a measure of a certain kind of neediness, a measure of the ache to replace missing self-worth, happiness, and even spiritual health with material success and material things.
ii. our
own spiritual renewal. wealth as
meaningless in itself. Toilet paper role
illustration (imagine thinking of those who accumulate wealth the same way you
would think of someone who’s accumulated warehouses full of used, useless
toilet paper roll cores—you might think them odd or even feel sorry for them,
but you wouldn’t feel envious or compulsion to follow them.)
Wealth, after all, is only a symbol. [more on wealth and income as well-being and symbolic of self-worth, industriousness, value ….] Money is not the only value/currency: Had to be paid more a lot in private law practice because working conditions so terrible. Taken a pay cut with every major job change but with increasing control over time and work product.
To be sure, wealth is a very powerful symbol and having too little of material goods is a very serious problem, so let me be clear that I’m not saying being wealthy is not an obstacle to spiritual health, that those with extra do not need to think hard about what that means and what to do about it, or that those in need are not suffering. Wealth, and the huge and increasing disparities between wealthy and poor are terrible—and growing—problems. And the Bible is deeply concerned with the problems of poverty. According the Sojourner editor Jim Wallis, in his book God’s Politics, poverty and money are the subject of 1 in 10 verses in the New Testament and 1 in 7 in the Book of Luke.
Still, we may oversimplify the problem if we equate wealth with evil and poverty with goodness. In doing that, we take material wealth too seriously. We give it too much power. We buy into materialism and the hierarchy of wealth when we resent those with wealth, feel bad about ourselves for making too little, or feel smug about having the bare minimum. We buy into a system in which those who are not rich are at the mercy of the rich—helpless to effect change—and where charity is the only solution. (It has been striking in reading for this sermon how much discussion on poverty is focused on charity rather than economic reform.) Why not pick on the lazy, the self-centered, the consumer as equally culpable? Who are we letting off the hook when we focus excessively on the sins of the rich? When we make wealth the only relevant consideration, we miss the ways the rest of us contribute to the problem, and we practice exclusion while proclaiming inclusion. We miss the chance to understand the underlying meaning of good and evil and the new vision that might bring.
Perhaps our judgment of the rich is a way of shifting blame. We give what we can, wring our hands at more fundamental change, and go on with our lives. At UBC there is probably less of that, so I don’t want to dwell on the political helplessness point. Our issue may be more attitudinal (but maybe not…). We are all sheep and we are all goats, too. As Bill said last week, we need to grapple with the intimacy of good and evil.
iii. effectiveness in addressing real needs—understanding
and negotiating with those in power
CONCLUDE