The Chicago School of Jesus
I ran into a group of American tourists the other day. They introduced themselves as "Newborn Christians" or some such, which is fine by me, even if I don't usually include my religion when introducing myself.
We ordered some beers and got to talking about religion, politics and economics and so on, and at some point, one of them said: "Nowhere does it say in the Bible that I have to give away money". The rest nodded sagely.
Now I'm no Christian, or even religious, but I have read the Bible several times cover to cover, finding everything from the weird to the inspirational, and I am quite sure you have to be very eclectic when you read the Bible to come to the conclusion I quote above. They also didn't seem to like my (stolen) joke about supply-side Jesus, but that's fair enough, I suppose.
So, I'm a bit confused now. Are there any Americans out there who can enlighten me about this Bible interpretation? Is it a common thing?
Well, to be fair, the New Testament doesn't say you have to give away your money. Strictly speaking, faith is enough, and acts in pursuance of that faith are voluntary. It does, however, say that your wealth does nothing for you in regards to your salvation. Jesus also used the comparison of the rich man entering Heaven to the camel shimmying through the eye of a needle to make a point about fidelity of faith; if you're weighed down with earthly possessions and not concerned about helping others, than your faith is only skin-deep. In your heart, you don't believe what you're saying.
So yes, the NT doesn't require you to give away money, but it does strongly encourage it on the basis that, if you actually follow what Jesus teaches, you shouldn't have a problem with doing so.
I like your bit about supply-side Jesus. The title definitely caught my eye scrolling down the new list. I'm going to tack you onto my follow list for future posts!
Thanks for the reply and for following me, but note that I mainly post photos. It is not often that I wonder out loud about religious things.
So, Luke 12:33, for instance, should be interpreted as having been said by Jesus to his immediate disciples only and not as a general "rule" for all his followers? Or, more general, isn't Jesus supposed to have lead by example as much as by His words?
I have a couple of friends on here who are photographers, so I'll appreciate the photos as well :D
Luke 12:33 has to be taken in the context of the larger passage, which starts at 22 and ends at 34. The entirety of the passage is Christ's admonition about concerning yourself with worldly possessions. In it, He tells his followers (not just the disciples) that God provides for the little birds in the trees, and that, being human beings, God will provide for them all the things they need. Therefore, don't concern yourself with material wealth; give it away to those in need and concern yourself with your reward in the Kingdom.
Alms-giving is not a requirement of salvation, as laid out in John 5:24, 6:35, and 6:47. That being said, it is understood that if one believes in Jesus, he or she will also follow His example, as laid out by Jesus in John 14:12. I'd tell you to ask them for clarification, but I doubt they've spent enough time in introspection of their faith to give you a clear answer.
This made me giggle. In America, if someone introduces themselves as a born again Christian, we know that means to quickly excuse ourselves from the conversation and run like hell.
Couldn't you have warned us Europeans with a press release or something?