That’s rich coming from you

Posted by vincevincevince on August 17, 2009

My personal thoughts on Mark 10 verse 21:

Mark 10
17. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24. And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

I’m going to focus on 10:21:

Mark 10:21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

The teaching here is addressed to a Jewish man who has asked what he lacks before God. The man professes to have followed the commandments, by which it means the law of Moses. This is part of the covenant between God and his chosen nation; however what Jesus mentions is not directly from the law of Moses. This disappoints the man, who it is likely had hoped to be told he was righteousness in the eyes of God.

There is a juxtaposition here between two covenants; the first is the Davidic covenant, which was given through Abraham and renewed in David – a covenant of inheritance within the world. The second is the new covenant, which is with all peoples – a covenant of inheritance in the world to come. The words ‘and come, take up the cross, and follow me’ are an invitation to join into the new covenant. The reference to the cross has two meanings; the first is that to follow Christ is to die to the sinful world, the second is a reference to future events. To take up the cross, before the crucifixion would have been understood in terms of loyalty even unto death; not unlike a solider who pledges to serve even if it means being killed.

This mix of the two covenants is the key to the passage; the old covenant prefigures the new. It is a model on earth of what is to come to pass later. Where the old covenant was concerned with outwards cleanliness or that which is kosher, the new is concerned in just the same way with inward cleanliness and purity of heart.

Mat 15:11. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Before Christ, the Proverbs already point out the fallacy of riches – that having riches on earth does not make one rich.

Prov 13:7. There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing: There is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great wealth.

Later, Paul echoes this proverb in his letter to the church at Corinth. He is to be understood as saying that they are to bring the great gift of God to enrich others, though in terms of money they are poor:

2 Cor 6:10. as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

Perhaps this can be learnt from the passage in Mark: that God requires us to forsake building earthly wealth for oursleves and instead give it to the poor, that they might not be poor. The way that we treat others who are in need is the way that we treat God Himself. If we do not show love to those who are poor and needy, we do not show love to God.

The groundwork already existed from the Old Testment (e.g. Ezekiel 18 5-9) but it related very powerfully by Jesus in Matthew 25 34-40:

Mat 25
34. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35. for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;
36. naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink?
38. And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39. And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40. And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.

So; if a man has money, land or property beyond his needs, it is contrary to what God wishes, because his neighbour (by whom we mean any fellow man) who is poor and in need of support has not been given help. It is not even encouraged to save up riches for our own future needs, for God knows our requirements and if we trust him, he will give us what is right in his sight.

What man can meet this standard? Surely even the monks who claim to take these works literally have safeguarded for their future by joining the monastry. Indeed, if this is part of the standard, who can be saved?

At the last, we must realise that we cannot by our own means achieve righteousness, even though we might strive to do so. It is a mission doomed to failure. Therefore it is only through the atoning work of Christ that we are able to meet the standard; through faith in him whom God has sent we are made righteous before the Almighty.

Mat 6:31. Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32. (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

So what do you think? Do I have the wrong end of the stick? Have I grossly misunderstood something? Leave me a comment and let me know!

Passports are Racist

Posted by vincevincevince on August 11, 2009

Although the title may be a little simplistic, I’m going to discuss the difference between the concepts of race and citizenship; specifically with reference to discrimination on those bases.

Let us first quote a couple of dictionary definitions:

Race

The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the same stock; a lineage; a breed

Citizen

1. One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.
2. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Shak.
3. A person, native or naturalized, of either sex, who owes allegiance to a government, and is entitled to reciprocal protection from it.
4. One who is domiciled in a country, and who is a citizen, though neither native nor naturalized, in such a sense that he takes his legal status from such country.

Both terms are applicable to a group of people; citizens or members of a given race. Race is based upon a presumption of some form of genetic similarity; whilst citizenship is a state which depends upon one’s current relationship to a given country or state. From this it might appear that the key difference is that one is a characteristic of a people whilst the other a temporal assignment of chiefly administrative benefit, however I believe that to do so is to misunderstand citizenship.

In practice, citizenship is not based upon where you live or to whom you owe allegiance. Many people live in countries of which they are not citizens, and many owe allegiance to other countries. Foreigners are found in all the cities of the world; and yet they are not citizens. Likewise, many countries employ civil servants or maintain parts of their army from citizens of foreign nations; whilst in no way can these people be said not to owe allegiance to the country they are still not considered citizens.

When it comes down to it, citizenship is almost always obtained by means of inheritance. The citizenship of one or both parents is inherited by the child, passed down as if it were a part of the DNA – just as is the case with race. Many children born outside of the country of their parents go on to successfully claim citizenship based not upon the country they were born in and live in, but the citizenship of their parents. In just the same way; the children of white parents who are born in Nigeria are still considered white.

Citizenship, if not inherited, may sometimes be gained through a long process of naturalisation. This requires a long period of residence and usually other conditions to be met before an application will be processed. There is rarely an absolute right to citizenship after this period of time; rather it is granted at the pleasure of the awarding state. Thus, naturalisation cannot be considered a route to citizenship but rather a selective privilege.

Now, why do these distinctions matter? Usually, these are just terms which are used to label people; however, they are increasingly used as tools of discrimination. Xenophobia is on the rise in many countries, and even where an awareness of the wrongs of racism has taken root, discrimination on grounds of citizenship or nationality is being progressively strengthened.

Given that citizenship is usually a sign of descent from the country in question, being passed down from generation to generation, is it not almost interchangeable with race? If one limits a certain right to citizens of a given country, it means that the entitlement is just to those who are descendants of that nation (e.g. the same race) and those whom that nation has favoured (selective exemption). Is that not racism by another name, perhaps even worse than racism?

Racism is based upon crude genetic concepts; whereas citizenship can be tampered with by selectively granting it where it seems advantageous. It is difficult for a racist policy to make exemptions (only white people, and non-white people with a certificate of whiteness?), a trait which helps expose the inequality and unfairness of racism. Citizenship is far more cunning a tool because it allows a government to pick and choose, blurring the edges just enough to hide the divisions and discrimination it is perpetrating.

At the bottom of my concern over this issue is a realisation that entitlements which result from birth are fundamentally unfair. Whilst there is a case to be made for entitlements which are earned during one’s lifetime through merit, there is no fairness in picking and choosing between newborn babies.

Why is it that two babies, born at the same hour of the same day, should receive entirely different rights and privileges? One may be destined to a life of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa whilst the other is given the right to live and work in any country of his choice across Europe. I do not believe anyone has the right to tell the first child that because he doesn’t have ‘citizenship’ he cannot make his home and raise a family where it is best for him… it is nothing but disguised racism and xenophobia.

I would love to see an end to discrimination on the basis of citizenship; however before that can happen more people need to realise that it is in fact a wrong that needs to be corrected.