Number of things Jesus said about giving away your money: A lot.

Number of things He said about petitioning Caesar (i.e., the government) to take from neighbor A to “give” to neighbor B and considering it charity on your part: None.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is a professor and former President at Chicago Theological Seminary and she wrote the piece below.  As I think you’ll see, it is more evidence that a seminary designation means nothing until you peel back the layers to see what people believe.  She is a prime example of a false teacher.

Her premise is that in the passage in Luke 18 about the rich young ruler Jesus was telling us to redistribute wealth via the government.  Here’s the passage in question.

Luke 18:18–30 (ESV) 18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’ ” 21 And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 23 But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” 28 And Peter said, “See, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

This was timely considering that at lunch today a non-believing friend asked me about the basics of giving from a Christian worldview.  Now on to her analysis, which is basically the opposite of what the Bible teaches.

Jesus to the rich young ruler: “distribute the money”

She fails from the title onward.  Jesus said for the young man to distribute his money, not someone else’s.

A deal President Obama struck with Republican leaders last week will extend tax cuts across the board including, controversially, to the richest Americans.

While it may indeed be “controversial,” is it that illogical that if tax cuts are extended then all who pay taxes would receive the same extension?

Some politicians argue that religious values should be reflected in the public square. Should this faith-based view of politics be applied to the economy? Jesus said, “Whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Right.  He said, “Whatever you did to the least of these . . .”  He didn’t say, “Whatever you asked Caesar to do by taking from others . . .”

Also, as we’ll soon see, Ms. Thistlethwaite is pro-abortion.  I wonder how she reconciles that with her “least of these” theology?

. . .

Once a rich young ruler came to Jesus, wanting to know what it took to be “good.” ‘I’ve kept all the commandments since my youth,’ the young man said, bragging a little.

A little?! How about, “That was a spectacularly wild lie on his part.”

Well, Jesus replied, “there is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money.” But the young man, “who was very rich,” turned away. Jesus’ comment? “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18: 21-25)

Note how she stops at verse 25.  If she would read the rest of the passage she would get a better idea of Jesus’ point: “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”  He also answers the “Who can be saved?” question, which I assume that Thistlethwaite and similar false teachers ignore.  After all, if Jesus answered who can be saved then that means some are unsaved.

All too true. It’s also easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a bill with the rich paying their fair share of taxes to get through Congress. Not gonna happen.

Was that Jesus’ point?

But that’s the moral thing to do. Our tax policies in this country are a way to help our neighbors who are the “least of these,” as Jesus also notes.

How outrageous of her.  That isn’t what Jesus noted.  He did say one thing about taxes in a separate passage, which was basically, “Stop whining and pay them.”  Matthew 25 had nothing to do with taxes.

We “distribute the money” so that we can help those who are the most vulnerable like children, the sick, those with handicapping conditions, and the elderly. It’s a way to “distribute the money” to those of our citizens who want to work and can’t find it. We give unemployment benefits to people thrown out of work while they struggle in hard economic times to find another job. We pay taxes to educate our young, keep our bridges from falling down, and support our troops.

But that isn’t what Jesus addressed in the passage.  If it was, why didn’t He force the rich young ruler to give?  The young man walked away and Jesus let him.  And Jesus didn’t go forward with a fundraising campaign or any lobbying of Caesar to get to the young man’s money.  The passage wasn’t about taxes and “giving” the money of others.

Politicians love to pontificate on how we need to restore “Christian values” in the public square, but that’s mostly limited to denying equal civil rights for gay Americans, or controlling women’s bodies. When it comes to what the bible says about wealth and poverty, however, you’ll never hear that touted as morality in the public square. No, no. That’s “private.”

Note the multiple fallacies and her true religion: Liberalism.  No one is denying civil rights for gay Americans.  They are welcome to marry someone of the opposite sex.  Whether they want to or not is their problem.  Skin color is morally neutral; sexual behavior is not.  She mocks black Americans with her civil rights blather.

And the “controlling women’s bodies” bit makes for a good bumper sticker, I suppose, but is easily disproven.  Pro-lifers want to protect the bodies of females and males in the womb.  Thistlethwaite thinks the mother should be able to have them crushed and dismembered.  Got any Bible verses for that?  It is a scientific fact that they are human beings and a theological fact that they were created by God.   This isn’t science versus religion.  Theological liberals oppose science and religion when it comes to life.

Baloney. The bible is filled with references to the religious imperative to “remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10) and “the worker deserves his pay.” (Luke 10:7)

Yep.  What workers have not been paid?  And yes, there are imperatives for believers to remember the poor with our money. It doesn’t say, “Remember the poor with your neighbor’s money.”

When Jesus went to Jerusalem, he “sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury.” (Mark 12:41) Jesus watched what people did with their money. He sees the money-changers in the temple charging pilgrims an exorbitant rate of exchange and he turns over the tables in anger, saying, “‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of thieves.” (Matthew 21:13)

So?  If this is going on in her church then the church should do something about it.  What a non sequitur.

For those who have eyes to see, the real moral values in scripture are about loving God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourselves, and that includes what you do with your money.

That includes what you do with your money.  Is this so hard to understand?  Your money, not your neighbors’.

Even though it’s harder for Congress to pass through the eye of a needle than to pass legislation that will “distribute the money” in a fair way, I hope and pray they will. That’s real Christian values in the public square.

No, that’s her politics disguised as religion.

And one more thing: I don’t want my grandchildren saddled with paying off a huge deficit caused by giving more tax breaks to the very wealthy.

Boo-hoo.  I don’t want mine saddled with paying off Obama’s stimulus bill (mainly paybacks to his cronies) and his un-Constitutional health care bill, among other things.

If she wants to take the passage literally, why hasn’t she sold all her possessions and given the money to the poor?

And as Stan noted in his post, why do people like her ignore passages like this one:

I prefer to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord (Philemon 14).

(Not surprisingly, I found the link to this at the site of false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.)

14 thoughts on “Number of things Jesus said about giving away your money: A lot.

  1. Neil,
    It’s amazing that she could miss the entire point of the passage. It’s about inheriting eternal life… alas, this is why liberal denominations are falling by the wayside. They take the words of Christ and twist it to their own advantage. Sick.

  2. She makes a big issue out of how the taxes are there to help the needy. The problem with this scenario is that very little of what the gov’t takes in goes to the needy. It mostly goes to the greedy, pork-barrel projects, pay-offs to unions, supporting Planned Parenthood, National Endowment for the Arts, etc, etc, etc. I’d wager that 75% of gov’t spending is unConstitutional but legislators don’t care what the Constitution says.

  3. As always, in these whiney laments about how the rich are being let off scott-free, it is ignored just how much they give in revenues to the federal gov’t. Every time tax rates are reduced, the same thing happens, and it was true for Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and when it was done in the 1920s: that evil group, “the top 2%” pays more revenues to the federal gov’t in both real dollars as well as a percentage of total revenue. Some people don’t understand the relationship between tax rates and behaviors, so they don’t understand how raising taxes can lower revenues to the feds.

    Also, as was suggested by Glen, what is paid in taxes doesn’t necessarily translate to more for the poor. That’s a function of gov’t directing the use of tax revenues. Of course, the federal gov’t could do a whole lot more for the needy by getting the hell out of the way of business and letting the market do its thing.

  4. Unless you live in some tiny little sovereign, democratic community, all governments need tax revenue to survive and administer their services. The “American” way of life requires massive amounts of tax revenues to support the various state administered institutions necessary for the security of individuals to pursue their various interests.

    That being said, everyone’s upset because these aren’t the only things tax revenues are spent on. In fact, some of the things that we, as taxpayers, finance are downright appalling. I’d say ‘look no further than our domestic policy,’ but some of our operations abroad would shock anyone who calls themselves Christian… I wont provide examples; just go look it up or you wont believe me, anyways.

    All of this is so far removed from charity it’s laughable. Such a small percentage of our tax dollars are allocated to the causes that help the needy that Brooks’s premise has nearly no legitimate basis. Besides, look at how the money is administered, the inefficiency is self evident and drowning in what would best be described as thievery. As for the redistribution of wealth, well, Jesus gave the man a choice, did he not? The choice was salvation or riches. This is an individual choice. It is in our hearts and minds, and without the choice our relationship with God has little meaning.

    If you want to show good will towards men, show them your good will. You can’t let a bureaucratic institution administer it for you, while simultaneously administering your ‘good-will’ through corporate welfare bailout spending legislation and strategic overseas low intensity military conflicts.

  5. The bulk of our tax money goes to hold and expand our imperialist footprint, which is not in line with scripture. But we are told by Jesus to pay our taxes, so we should pay all that is due.

    As far as social programs are concerned, the church dropped the ball on that decades ago. Now it is too little too late. Most churches are more concerned with building funds and comfort for their members. In our materialistic society, consumerism trumps charity every day of the week, even among “believers.”

    Most families have both parents working and thereby have sacrificed their children’s upbringing to keep up with the Joneses, depending more on teevee and daycare to instill the proper values they need to learn. Evil is so intertwined with good in our society that it is hard to differentiate between the two.

    That said, I do not believe it is the government that should be caring for our underpriviledged and poor, but as a Christian I cannot stand by and allow them to go uncared for. If we are followers of Christ we are compelled to help in any way possible. We are to be His hands and feet, spreading His love to all we encounter.

    To whom much is given, much is expected. Unfortunately those with the most tend to be the ones that do not pay their fair share of taxes and many do not give a considerable amount in comparison to their income to charity. There are a few exceptions, but not enough to turn the tide.

    Yes there will always be the poor among us, but that is no reason for apathy or complacency. I do not know the answers, but I know my heart as God does. There will be an accounting. To be living in the richest nation in the world and yet allow so many to die annually for lack of food, shelter, or healthcare is not going to bode well on judgment day.

  6. Well, I would point out that the biggest problem is that God loves a willing giver, and taxation is the exact opposite of willingness.

    Second biggest problem is that this would then be creating a theocracy: after all, you would be basing your tax systems not on the desires of the people, the mandates of the Constitution, or the legitimate needs of the government, but upon religion. That’s a theocracy. Saving unborn babies from being stabbed in the head with a fork is just implementing the basic principle of non-aggression that is a bedrock part of every civilisation that survives for more than a decade; changing our tax system to suit someone’s theology is theocratic.

    GRRR!

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s