The debates over the Rich Young Ruler passage often focus on
a perceived soteriological dilemma, the fact that Christ seems to suggest that salvation
could be attained by deed, in this case the keeping of commandments completed or
perfected in the liquidation of assets followed by large-scale charitable
giving.
This is language that stands in direct contradiction to
Evangelical understandings of grace and saving faith and thus the words of
Christ are usually reckoned as hyperbolic, functioning as an exposé of the
man's sins, not meant to be taken as a literal command that's meant to be
followed.
Indeed a case can be made that Christ often speaks
occasionally, he pivots and confronts people where they are at so to speak and
pushes one side of truth in order to correct them and make a point. Error is
often overemphasis on one point or the neglect of another and truth is often
two-sided and even multifaceted. Thus, people can be dealt with by addressing
their errors by emphasizing an opposite point, even though the opposite point
could (if taken to an extreme) also result in error.
For example I have often used the illustration of baptism.
When talking to a Roman Catholic I am going to downplay the efficacy and
objectivity of baptism because of Catholicism's tendency to theologically
neglect and discount the need for substantial, spiritual and vital
heart-change, the role of the Holy Spirit and the importance of faith which in
terms of their theological framing is highly subjective. They will say I speak
like a Baptist, which of course I am not.
But when talking to a Baptist I am likely to emphasis the
efficacy, objectivity and necessity of baptism and to warn against
anti-nomianism and the Evangelical tendency to downplay means and externals in
their almost exclusive focus on the spiritual, individual and subjective. They
usually end up thinking I'm some sort of Catholic, which I'm not.
Some would say I'm wildly inconsistent and incoherent but
this is not the case. Their inability to understand is rooted in a flawed and
less than Biblical epistemology. This is a complex issue that can be approached
and understood from different angles and yet if one aspect or facet of truth is
emphasized and prioritised to the downplaying or exclusion of others, then error
becomes not only manifest by the appearance of 'problem passages' and
theological knots, it begins to creep and work itself out in other areas of
doctrine.
This approach I advocate and I believe is employed by Christ is
occasional, meaning it addresses the errors by emphasizing the opposite extreme
and thus in that sense it's hyperbolic. And yet in another sense, it's not
hyperbole but rather an attempt to expand the persons thought-framework or
system.*
Contrary to the functional understanding at work in
Evangelical circles, the New Testament doctrine of saving faith is not merely a
case of knowledge and intellectual assent. There are passages that speak of
faith in very basic terms and indeed on one level it is very simple. The
confession of faith is not complicated in itself and yet its implications are
profound and sweeping. Saving faith as evidenced in many passages not least of
which is Hebrews 11, is cast in terms of trust and even obedience. While
Justification and all its wonders and glories are part of this equation, the
real essence of New Testament salvation is found in the concept of Union, of
being 'in' Christ and participating in His death and resurrection. Union is
attained, actuated and perpetuated through the work of the Holy Spirit and
mysteriously at the same time through the Spirit's outworkings in our lives in what
we can call space-time. This is expressed in a series of concepts which range
from adoption to sanctification, mortification and glorification. The
Scriptures also reveal wonders concerning how these processes, events and
applications of Christ's work through the actions of the Holy Spirit are tied
to eternity and the mind of God. A simple focus on justification (or election) and
a definition of faith that is reduced to an episode of experiential
intellectual stirring is not the faith of the New Testament. It is not a faith
that lives, perseveres, focuses on heaven and dies to self.
This concept of mortification has been all but lost in modern
Evangelicalism and thus this passage regarding the Rich Young Ruler presents
real dilemmas. The use of money and its rejection in terms of life-focus is
part of this self-denial or mortification that is actually at the heart of
saving faith. Had the Rich Young Ruler made an idol of his money? Yes he had
and he was in love with the status it gave him, the respect and the power which
represent the real dangers to be found in serving mammon. You see the passage
cannot be divorced (as it often is) from the subsequent statements regarding
riches and wealth. The common understanding is to suggest that because 'with
God all things are possible' it is therefore (in the end) okay to be rich.
There might be some dangers but you'll be alright, you'll pass through the eye
of the needle as it were. In fact, the possibility spoken of is most likely in
reference to the changed heart, that even the rich hardened heart wholly given
over to idolatry and pride can in fact be broken, humbled and brought into the
service of heaven.
Many have sought to twist this passage and explain away its
meaning. Dispensationalists of the old school would dismiss it as a gospel not
relevant to the Church Age. Roman Catholics extract from this passage the Counsels of Perfection and the erroneous
concept of supererogation. Hyper-Calvinists focus on the fact that Jesus
'loved' the young ruler (in Mark) and thus he must have been one of the elect.
Others have tried to focus on the Rich Man's problems, his self-righteousness,
his (by some accounts) insincerity regarding the identity of Christ and
Christ's affirmation that no one is 'good'.
And yet they deliberately ignore Christ's words which
demonstrate that the young man's obedience was at best superficial, outward
expressions of rule-keeping but lacked the substance which is only attainable
through the Spirit-wrought changed heart, the gift of faith, a faith which is then manifest and expressed
in deed and life.
If that rich man had responded and followed Christ's
commands, the actual works, the charitable giving as it were would not have
saved him. These wouldn't be 'earned points' that would push him past the salvation-barrier
(as it were) and grant access to eternity. That's the wrong way to look at it,
a point Paul makes clear in Romans. Rather, his works as both Paul and James
would also make clear demonstrate and testify to the reality and presence of
saving faith. The works don't save him but if they're absent then so is the
saving faith, the trust and obedience that is necessarily present in order for
one to own salvation and have a credible profession.
Following Christ is to bear one's cross and embrace suffering
and self-denial. That's a key component to what saving faith is and had the
hardened heart of the rich man been able to do this it would indicate the work
of the Spirit within him. These expressions are of course flawed and fail which
is why we through the Spirit groan and look with such expectation toward the
salvation which yet awaits... often expressed in future yet-to-be-completed
terms – which once again completely defies common Evangelical and even
Confessional Protestant categories and definitions. By focusing only on certain
facets or aspects of soteriology and prioritising them at the expense of others,
they have presented an out-of-focus, skewed and reductionist picture that in
some cases has further degenerated and become fatally flawed.
Jesus was absolutely serious and yet His words were not a
simple if-then equation but rather an occasional expression of a far deeper and
spiritual situation and dilemma.
In terms of antithesis, the meaning here is clear and it's
one that Christ has already spoken of in the Sermon on the Mount and it's an
oft repeated refrain in the epistles... mammon and saving faith don't mix. Does
this mean we are called to live in Franciscan-like poverty? No, but probably
something far nearer to that paradigm than the indulgent security and
respectability of the Middle Class, a veritable mammon-reverencing paradigm, a
model that virtually weds personal essence and ethics to one's status and
wealth.
We needn't fear to possess money or handle it. It's a tool
but contrary to the assertions of many compromised Evangelical teachers it's
not a neutral or amoral tool. Yes, it can be used for good things. It can be
used to aid the Church and thus by implication it can help to facilitate the
building of the Kingdom of God. But once again, it's not neutral. An abundance
begins to immediately corrupt and men are quickly swept away and choked by its
cares and seduced by its temptations.
The attitude we are to have with regard to money is best
expressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. It's part of a world that's passing away
and so its hold on us should be weak as should be our hold on it. We handle it
but handle it lightly and at a distance.
There is great confusion on this point and through many false
and unbiblical arguments centered on the concept of Stewardship and with it an
embrace of usury, the modern Church has been possessed by the idol Mammon and
is now its slave.
The attitude that Christ is attempting to convey to the
self-righteous worldly young man who has found peace with God's commandments by
stripping them of spiritual context and meaning is a message badly needed by
today's Church, a Laodicean Church if ever there was one. It reckons itself
rich and so mightily blessed by God but in reality most of Western Christianity
is poor, blind and naked, a point Christians in the Third World know all too
well.
But more than that and I wish the Christians in places like
Latin America, Africa and Asia would understand this... the Western Church is
not just spiritual impoverished but its compromised, dangerous and heretical
and yet it continues to exert great influence in their sectors. The corrupting
influence of mammon redefines the Kingdom and has a profound and absolutely
cancerous effect in the realm of ethics. In defense of mammon Christians turn
to violence, call on the state for defense and vengeance and support an
economic system that steals and kills. It is a form of apostasy and thus we
come to understand that Christ's words are meant to be taken literally. They
are an indictment against various Christian groups and traditions that have
sold out to mammon and have (without realising it) followed the young man and
walked away from Christ, rejecting Him. They follow a Christ of their own
creation, a counterfeit that affirms them in their worldliness.
Faithfulness leads to opposition, persecution and
ostracisation. Christians who flourish in the world and in the realm of
business have in many (I won't say all) cases compromised and what they deem to
be blessing is in fact a testimony against them, a mark of their lack of faith.
Truly they glory in what ought to be their shame.
All the more in this techno-industrial age, the Christian who
insists on following the New Testament in the realm of ethics, finances and the
family will find himself in a position far removed from the Middle Class. We
work and we'll make enough to eat and get by and that's all we're told to
respect or even want. We are to associate with the lowly and we're certainly
not called to seek 'greatness' as the world reckons it. The words of Christ in
Luke 16 concerning what the world esteems as being abomination in the sight of
God have been forgotten, ignored and rejected. The words at the end of what we
call Matthew chapter 19 reiterate this point, the last shall be first. In other
words the world order so esteemed by Evangelicals shall be flipped on its head.
It's an abomination that will be destroyed. The lowly, those least esteemed and
despised will (as it were) be first. This of course is not a reference to the
poor and downtrodden in a universal or absolute sense as poverty is not the
gospel in itself. Rather this is a reference to Christians who are (if
faithful) the low and despised. What an antithetical message to the intuitions
and proclivities of modern Evangelical Christianity which for the most part
despises the poor and works against them. This is but the lesson of 1
Corinthians 10 applied once more. The False Church and the functional apostates
in the Old Testament also behaved in a similar manner as the prophets make
abundantly clear.
Will we be destitute? Is that our calling? Maybe sometimes (and
there are certainly degrees of destitution) but most of the time this won't be
the case. However, in the world's eyes we will most often be reckoned poor,
less than properly secure and certainly unworthy of respect and yet that should
hardly concern us. Again, poverty and mammon-rejection are part and parcel the
outworkings and application of mortification and cross bearing. We are poor in
spirit but contrary to Evangelicalism's attempt to explain the concept and
ethics away, we are also often called to poverty or something like it.
It would be far worse, more dangerous and more
faith-compromising to be reckoned among the rich and among those who profit
from suffering and the harm and manipulation of others.
Dominionism is world-affirming and thus mammon-affirming.
This is the orthodoxy of our day and thus the teachings of Christ in this
passage regarding questions of faith, salvation and our posture and antithesis
in opposition to the world and what it esteems are lost and even met with
considerable hostility.
That's what we're told to expect from the False Church.
-------
* 'Both/and' approaches to epistemology and theology can
become problematic but tend to do so when they embrace extra-Biblical paradigms,
the 'both' becoming Scripture and extra-Scriptural paradigms. When such
constructs are contained within and in subjection to the Holy Text they reflect
a correspondence of Biblical doctrine even if such expressions defy the
coherence that so many desperately seek and erroneously believe to be
necessary. The problem in that case is with regard to their criteria for
coherence which ends up trying to tie-down or force eternal revelatory
mysteries into space-time or sense-temporal logical frameworks. For some this
stems from a false and frankly reductionist view of God that confuses laws and
temporal mechanisms of creation (such as the laws of logic) with the essential
nature of the Creator.
No comments:
Post a Comment