I know that Thomas Merton quotes probably account for around 60% of my blog content, but what the hell, I found some more really good ones yesterday on the bus.‘A man cannot be a perfect Christian – that is, a saint – unless he is also a communist.
If Christians had lived up to the Church’s teaching about property and poverty there would never have been any occasion for the spurious communism of the Marxists and all the rest – whose communism starts out by denying other men the right to own property.
There is only one true doctrine about property rights… Those rights exist and cannot be denied, but they imply an obligation, which… would mean that most Christians would be living with something like the communism of the first Apostles.
No one denied those men the right to won land, or to keep what they owned… Yet that right implied an obligation to satisfy the needs of others as well as their own.
If you have money, consider that perhaps the only reason God allowed it to fall into your hands was in order that you might find joy and perfection by giving it all away.’
A very challenging perspective.
11 comments:
I would most definately have said recently that communism is the ideology most closely linked to the Bible. And I probably still agree.
But recently, I looked properly at Leviticus 25 where it actually talks about the year of jubilee. It makes very interesting reading.
The idea is that each person in Israel was given an equal amount of land. They were free to buy and sell land as much as they wanted, but after 7 years, it would HAVE to revert back to the original owner.
There were ither parts to this, but I was quite suprised by it, because it sort of knits together communism and the free market. It doesn't limit those who want to expand businesses etc, but it does say that it wont last forever.
It is very refreshing, because it will also stop people thinking that the accumulation of wealth or possessions is a worthwhile goal. It isn't bad, God didn't restrict trade in that respect, but it shouldn't take over ones life.
What d'ya reckon?
Oh Jon, I don't want to hear about Communism, I want to hear about Baby Matthews.... do more of the pixie posts...
Yeah that's exactly it Han. It is a really interesting worldview. I'm still working out what it fully means for us today.
I guess it was a clever way of stopping people looking back on their lives and thinking becuase they have x amount of land that they have achieved something of eternal value.
Basically, I think God was trying to please both Jon and Trev, and so came up with this idea.
Tim, interesting thoughts about Lev. 25. Not sure what I make of it. Would God be happy if a very clever venture capitalist ended up owning all the land in Israel subjecting 99% of the people to abject poverty as long as he gave it all back after a period of time?
I think Merton was more referring to the NT examples that we have where
'neither was there any one needy among them. For as many as were owners of land or houses sold them and brought the price of the things they sold, and laid it down before the feet of the Apostles. And distribution was made to every one according as he had need'.
The emphasis seems to be centred around redistribution of wealth (both OT and NT). So I certainly don't buy the 'it's okay to be really rich in the face of others poverty as long as your attitude is great' argument. We have a stack of parables in the NT that deny this (sheep and the goats Mt. 25, good samaritan Lk. 10, rich man and lazarus Lk.16). Merton seems to be saying that accumalating wealth is not a problem as long as you don't keep it to yourself.
Anna, baby pictures coming soon.
Jon, I hear what you're saying, it is difficult to imagine what it would look like. Although I don't think Merton is suggesting that we sell everything and leave our responsibilities behind. The emphasis is on providing for those who have nothing from what we don't need. Redistribution, not self-imposed poverty. Sharing our needs amongst more people than the family unit is not the same is risking it all.
And thanks for exposing my deep dirty secrets on the net! Seriously though, it has to be about priorities. Increasing the amount of money spent on food by going organic would limit the amount of money I had to give to other projects etc. The big question is what should come first. I have some initial thoughts but I'm open to persuasion.
And by the way, I'm not doing this at all. We earn loads of money (comparitively), own a house and live really well. Just in case you thought I was getting on a very high horse.
The difficulty is working it out. Reducing it to personal choices about where to spend our money just doesn't sit right with me. I keep reminding myself about the Schindler's List post I did back in Feb 2006, it pretty much sums up where I'm coming from.
Jon, you're not being a dick, and it takes A LOT to piss me off so don't worry.
However, I don't think I explained myself clearly. How much money somebody earns isn't related to what I was saying. My point was that where our money goes is a judgement call. There is only so much money in the pot and we all have to decide where it goes. So, not purchasing from Tescos and buying local and organic would result in less money being given elsewhere. I don't deny that purchasing local and organic is better than purchasing from Tescos. The real question is, in what way is purchasing from local organic farms going to benefit others, and is that better than giving money to a local soup run or Christian Aid?
My current ill-thought-through position is that it isn't but I remain open to be convinced. I think that the important issues are,
1) Is it possible to select your products so that your purchases from Tescos are ethical? (Through using the Good Shopping Guide for example).
2) Is it worth separating out the issues of climate change, organic farming and GM products? (it seems to me that climate change should take equal precedence with issues such as world hunger but the other two are not as important).
3) There are probaly other issues but I'd like to know your response.
And with regards to the whole legalism vs. overflow of the heart stuff, I guess we're never going to agree. I've been having this debate with evangelicals for a while and I'm in the minorty there too. I might do a post about his in the coming months. Let's not forget that Jesus also taught us how to pray and church history is littered with people who considered structure and discipline important. In short, I believe that practice actually contributes to forming our attitudes and personality, but more of that later.
If this doesn't make sense it is because I've had a few beers while wathcing the Osprey's destroy Sale with a wonderful last minute try. Whoot Whoot!
ok, girlie time.
Firstly Jon, you have a little baby growing inside your wife!! (that is very exciting!)And I dont want to use that as emotional blackmail, but its important that the little one gets the best stuff.
Dont worry, I'm not going to suggest for a moment that your wife turns into a woolly veggie. Our nutritionist friend suggests that the only people that actually need meat are pregnant women and growing children, for the rest of us it just rots in our gut.
Cheap food is cheap for a reason. Supermarkets strangling farmers for the highest crop at the lowest price has meant that farmers are forced to resort to pumping their foods full of chemicals, and meat full of antibiotics, all so the supermarkets can reach the lowest prices.
So spending little on food, I would argue, is not spending wisely. Even supermarket organics still push farmers to produce perfect looking products because people cant cope with bruised pears anymore!
by choosing to buy from a farmer, we are promoting sustainability, making sure our bodies are healthy, and looking after our local commerce too.
and like Jon said, giving money to charities is brilliant and highly commendable, but lets look at the reasons that charities have to be there in the first place. If everyone bought fair trade, that would eliminate the need for charities to support families oppressed by the free trade market.
I realise if we're looking on a global scale, britains problems are miniscule, but we still live in a society where a huge proportion of children are malnourished, depite the amount of choice available. so choosing to eat properly, andhelping others to make informed choices about what they eat is also making a dent in a global problem.
I realise I now sound like a hemp wearing, dreadlock sporting, soap dodging hippy, but I promise my nails are still manicured!
jon/jon....
i think it is more valuable to shop ethically at tescos.
realistically small shop will have a negligible impact on food markets/trends.
tesco and co. aren't going away, and is seems more valuable to me to try and change consumer demand within the system.
Monsieur Matthews.
Referring to your point about my point about your original point, of course this venture capitalist would be a naughty boy. I wasn't trying to say that Leviticus 25 gives us a complete understanding of justice and wealth. A holistic approach is needed where you take into account Acts 2, and the bits where Jesus talks about the poor.
I was making a point about a couple of things. Firstly, I really used to think that the Bible was basically a pre-Communist Communist manifesto. But Lev 25 doesn't seem to be trying to set up a society like that. People still have rights to buy and sell and own and accumulate, but there is a principle in place that works to stop people endlessly exploiting others. Add to that putting others above yourselves, and sharing as everyone had need, and I think you are able to get a good picture of living and giving in the Bible.
Scriv, I do need you. How's the chickens?
Scriv and Jodes, you've nearly convinced me. I've saved tescopoly.org into my favourites and will give it a good read before I make a decision. You're right about the principle thing, I'm too bloody inconsistent.
Cat, great point and I think I agree. With family comes responsibility that will inevitably place tensions on your resources. That is something that I had never considered before, thanks for the insight.
Luke, I'm not sure. It's such a difficult issue to understand. I'm beginning to feel more confused than before this all started. Aaarrgghhhh!
Lovell, you've convinced me. We are now in full agreement.
what?
Post a Comment