Religion...

[mean]

Oh, I know! It's just hardly what Jesus would do, based on what I perceive to be any rational reading of everything he was about.

[phuqueue]

Christianity hasn't really been about what Jesus would do since about ten minutes after Jesus died

[shinatoo]

Christianity hasn't really been about what Jesus would do since about ten minutes after Jesus died

Generalize broadly much?

[phuqueue]

Well is it possible to generalize narrowly?

[shinatoo]

Well is it possible to generalize narrowly?

Touche'.

[earthling]

Joel Osteen resigns, cites "lack of faith," leaves Christianity.

Was a hoax..
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 418266.php


Megachurches are a curious phenomena in the US compared to say Europe, which has very few in this age (outside immigrants). Are these an extension of those who are attracted to TV evangelists?

A friend of a friend from UK once on the topic of what is up with American evangelism (compared to Europe) suggested that countries with evangelical followers in first world countries seem to be directly proportional to same countries that do not support or treat medical care as a public utility. Thoughts?

Looks like TX is king of megachurches, Chicago and LA in top 10 too...
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/26/americ ... ide_2.html

[AllThingsKC]

The Bible teaches a lot about wealth and money. It's ok to be wealthy. The LOVE of money is what the the Bible warns about. Jesus said it was easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven (talking about the love of money, not simply having money).

The Bible also teaches the concept of "to whom much is given, much is required." That seems like a decent way to judge churches or televangelists. IMO, a good church is one that is constantly reaching out to the community in non-spiritual ways (as well as spiritual, of course). Free community dinners, free Christmas gifts, clothes, school supplies, car repair, grief support, disaster relief, etc. are some ways churches can help their community. But, all that takes money. Money has to come from somewhere.

I'm not familiar enough with Joel Osteen to know what his church offers its community. But, with their kind of resources, if his church isn't heavily involved in the Houston area, shame on him.

[mean]

Sure, that's one interpretation, but I personally don't find that to be a very literalist reading. Given your support for gay marriage and support for other issues, I don't find it surprising that you're not a literalist and have a fairly liberal view on Jesus's teachings on wealth. But I think if you're honest with yourself and read the NT with an eye to Jesus's literal meaning, you'll find that what he's saying is more like, "Don't amass wealth because it is immoral. Give it to the poor and you will find your riches in heaven," rather than, "Go ahead and amass ridiculous wealth, but give a little of it to the poor."

[chaglang]

But if I have all this money, obviously that's an expression of God's will, because it happened.

[AllThingsKC]

Sure, that's one interpretation, but I personally don't find that to be a very literalist reading. Given your support for gay marriage and support for other issues, I don't find it surprising that you're not a literalist and have a fairly liberal view on Jesus's teachings on wealth. But I think if you're honest with yourself and read the NT with an eye to Jesus's literal meaning, you'll find that what he's saying is more like, "Don't amass wealth because it is immoral. Give it to the poor and you will find your riches in heaven," rather than, "Go ahead and amass ridiculous wealth, but give a little of it to the poor."

You are absolutely right that we're dealing with just one interpretation here, and there are several. You're also correct that we need to try to look at the NT in a literal way as often as possible. The problem comes with interpretation, because you can't always be literal. For example, when Jesus says he is the "bread of life," I wouldn't take that to mean he is literally a loaf of bread. So, knowing when the Bible is literal/figurative is a key.

When it comes to what Jesus said about wealth and money, proper interpretation is just as complex as anything else in the Bible. But, at no time did Jesus say wealth/money was immoral. IMO, the NT teaches that God looks at the heart/motives of our actions, rather than the actual actions. Under that interpretation, it would be ok to have massive wealth. (Of course, I have to be careful with that viewpoint because it's easy to get into the whole "God wants us to be rich" thing, which is another issue).

While I don't think God wants everyone to be rich, I don't think he wants everyone to be poor either. I don't really have a problem with say, Dave Ramsey, who teaches people how to get out of debt. Debt is a major factor at keeping people poor. I don't think Christians can honor God with their debt.

Forgive me if I'm throwing too many issues into what Jesus said about money.

[pash]

.

[shinatoo]

Jesus is not talking about the amassing of wealth, or the love of wealth. He was talking about what he always talked about. Faith in God over faith in things. The young rich man obeyed the letter of the law, but his faith was in his wealth. It's a readers digest version of the story of Job, except in this version he was unable to pass the test.

[mean]

When someone says they are a loaf of bread, it's pretty easy to assume they're being figurative. When they say, "Anyone who does not give up all their possessions can not be my disciple," and, "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me," and, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also," it's hard for me to accept that he means something completely different than what he actually said, explicitly and repeatedly. Creates too much cognitive dissonance for me to try and rationalize how all that actually means he was saying it's cool to be rich. Some people enjoy that kind of thing; just give me a headache.

"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also," seems to me to suggest pretty clearly that Jesus felt morality was tied to wealth, and not in a good way.

Anyway, not trying to change your mind. I'm sure that's not possible. Just expressing my take.

[AllThingsKC]

I think we both know we're not likely to change each other's minds. All we are doing is expressing our opinions, nothing wrong with that.

I would interpret "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" to apply to just about anything. It is one of the 10 commandments to "not have any gods before God." I have always been taught that anything could be "a god before the God." What a person puts before God, that's where their heart is. So, IMO (keep in mind everything in this post is strictly my opinion) the verse is saying that if you value your job/sex life/entertainment/money/whatever more than God, then that's is where your "treasure" is (rather than having your "treasure" in God). In other words, I think "treasure" is referring to more than just money/wealth in this case. Although I am sure many Christians put their wealth/money before God, so that verse would apply to them in that way.

Jesus also said, "the poor you will always have with you." That implies that no matter how much is done to help the poor, there will always be poor people. Not that it means Christians should do nothing, but that no matter how much is done, the problem will never fully go away.

[mean]

Technically it could apply to anything, but in context I think the meaning is pretty obvious.

Ultimately you have to read it and decide for yourself. I think we've both read and decided, so it's probably pointless to repeatedly explain to each other why we decided the way we did.

[AllThingsKC]

I agree it might be pointless to try to discuss our various view pionts. But, I enjoy reading other people's opinions. So, I look forward to yours.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I am not sure what books you had to read in school but one that I had to read was The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. For some it just may be a simple book about the made up adventures of a young boy and an escaped slave. For others it is a rather complex story about a portion of American society before the Civil War, some think it is racist, others think it is anti-racist. Anyway it is a book that can have many interpretations, often depending on one's preconceived notions or bias.
The Bible can be treated much the same way. One can usually find a quote or a story in it to support one's stance on an issue. And what complicates the interpretation of the Bible are the many different versions that have been published that may tweak a word or two here and there.
With regards to the Bible and wealth I have been taught that wealth itself is not bad (like the saying money is the root of all evil) it is what one does with it. Another take is how did one accumulate one's wealth? Did you act like a robber baron?

[phuqueue]

akp's interpretation is basically how I've always taken the eye of the needle line as well. If at some point in your life you find that you've amassed a great deal of wealth, that in and of itself is not a dealbreaker, but if you die wealthy, it means you kept all that money for yourself and it's going to be pretty difficult to justify that to God. You aren't meant to hoard vast material wealth on Earth, you're supposed to use what you have to help others. If you do that, you'll be rewarded in Heaven. It's fine for these megachurches to rake in cash from their followers -- it's not fine for that cash to go into ministers' pockets.

That brings up an additional wrinkle for guys like Osteen, too. These megachurch ministers aren't just run of the mill wealthy, they're wealthy through preaching. It doesn't require a great deal of cynicism to see what they're doing as basically exploitation. Preachers are meant to be conduits for the word of God. There is something especially sleazy and disconcerting about people who use that position to enrich themselves. Even if you read the Bible as saying that there's nothing wrong with wealth per se, surely there should be something wrong with taking advantage of your role as the voice of God on Earth to acquire that wealth. A quick google search shows that Joel Osteen is personally worth $40 million. When he dies, God will decide whether he had good reason to just sit on that money when he was surrounded by poverty -- and according to the Bible, the answer will probably be no.

[aknowledgeableperson]

it's not fine for that cash to go into ministers' pockets

This doesn't apply to all but many ministers of these large churches do not draw a big salary from the church. True, the salary is probably in the 6 figures but given their responsibilities the salary may be reasonable. Where they really rake in the dough is via book sales (to many in the church) and personal appearances.

[phuqueue]

it's not fine for that cash to go into ministers' pockets

This doesn't apply to all but many ministers of these large churches do not draw a big salary from the church. True, the salary is probably in the 6 figures but given their responsibilities the salary may be reasonable. Where they really rake in the dough is via book sales (to many in the church) and personal appearances.

Right, but the reason anyone cares what they have to say enough to buy their book or pay them to speak is their position as a minister. I suppose these are technically discrete revenue streams but they're all bound up together.