"She called the cops on Jesus", and Other Notes For some, there really is no difference; they all look the same, or sound the same, or think the same, or whatever. Isn't that how it goes? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! John Burnett, for Weekend Edition: A new religious statue in the town of Davidson, N.C., is unlike anything you might see in church. The statue depicts Jesus as a vagrant sleeping on a park bench. St. Alban's Episcopal Church installed the homeless Jesus statue on its property in the middle of an upscale neighborhood filled with well-kept townhomes. Jesus is huddled under a blanket with his face and hands obscured; only the crucifixion wounds on his uncovered feet give him away. The reaction was immediate. Some loved it; some didn't. "One woman from the neighborhood actually called police the first time she drove by," says David Boraks, editor of DavidsonNews.net. "She thought it was an actual homeless person." That's right. Somebody called the cops on Jesus. "Another neighbor, who lives a couple of doors down from the church, wrote us a letter to the editor saying it creeps him out," Boraks added. Some neighbors feel that it's an insulting depiction of the son of God, and that what appears to be a hobo curled up on a bench demeans the neighborhood. What is interesting is that this isn't so difficult. As the Rev. David Buck explains, "We believe that that's the kind of life Jesus had. He was, in essence, a homeless person." Sculptor Timothy Schmalz, a Cathloic from Ontario, Canada, told NPR he offered the sculpture to St. Michael's in Toronto, and St. Patrick's in New York, and that neither accepted. Now, according to NPR, Catholoic Charities of Chicago is preparing to install its own cast of Jesus the Homeless, and the Archdiocese of Washington is considering the acquisition of a third statue. The controversy is instructive, even indicative. St. Michael's explained through a spokesman that with the cathedral under restoration, they had no prerogative at this time to add new art to the site. To the other, the spokesman also acknowledged that in considering the sculpture, church leadership "was not unanimous" in its assessment of the piece. Which brings us back to no news, or who called the cops on Jesus. One Carolina local called the police because she thought the statue was a real homeless person sleeping on a bench on church property. Another complained in a letter to the editor of the local newspaper that the statue "creeps him out". And this is the thing: "It gives authenticity to our church," he says. "This is a relatively affluent church, to be honest, and we need to be reminded ourselves that our faith expresses itself in active concern for the marginalized of society." The sculpture is intended as a visual translation of the passage in the Book of Matthew, in which Jesus tells his disciples, "As you did it to one of the least of my brothers, you did it to me." Moreover, Buck says, it's a good Bible lesson for those used to seeing Jesus depicted in traditional religious art as the Christ of glory, enthroned in finery. "We believe that that's the kind of life Jesus had," Buck says. "He was, in essence, a homeless person." † † † And then there is this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Perhaps I didn't watch enough FOX News this week; that is to say, I forgot there was a prayer breakfast this week, and it's hard to tell what's up with the so-called War on Easter. Nonetheless, it would appear that President Obama put the breakfast event to good use, apparently asking Bishop Gene Robinson to offer a prayer following presidential remarks. The Bishop, as you might imagine, was quite excited. † † † Those who would simply write off the religious as a monolithic bloc of dense idiots with neither the desire nor faculties to communicate coherently should take note. These are little things, by the grand scale of the human endeavor. But they are important little things. That there are people of faith working for a genuinely better world instead of simply pitching blindly for their own salvation is worth noting. What we see in these episodes is a classic contest of faith. This comes back to sola fide. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3.16, RSV) In my lifetime, for instance, this is an argument well past its shelf life: If one proposes that evangelicals are conducting themselves in an "un-Christian" manner, many have responded with the classic Johanine verse about simply believing. By faith alone. And sola fide is important, here. To wit: Are acts entirely separate from faith? As Bart Simpson once explained: "I think I'll go for the life of sin, followed by a presto-change-o deathbed repentance." Therein lies the problem in separating acts from faith. The difference lies in reserving a proposition unto itself, an isolation of John 3.16 from the rest of the Gospels. Jesus the Homeless reminds of the connection 'twixt faith and acts. Whatsoever one does or does not do to the least of Christ's brethren, so also one does unto Christ. Belief in salvation is one thing, but the question remains as to what that actually means. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ reminds: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." And this is the point of forgiveness and redemption. Humans are frail; in striving to be perfect as God is perfect, they will fail. God knows what is in people's hearts, or so the saying goes. How many will reject that striving toward perfection? Or refuse to do good unto the least of His brethren? This is a neurotic symptom, as the logic doesn't even begin to make sense: I can run around being cruel to my neighbor and fighting for my own prosperity over someone else's necessity. I can do poorly unto the least of His brethren. But, hey, as long as I believe I'm going to be saved .... Of course it doesn't make sense. But as much as we might complain of such behavior among our politically influential Christian neighbors, what do we owe those who do not fit that hideous frame? Is a mere label, such as "Christian", sufficient to demonize and condemn? Religious? Theist? In the question of faith and acts, it really shouldn't be difficult. At some point, it seems a metaphysical escalation of the domestic abuser who hits because he loves you. Meanwhile, there is an important discussion taking place in some faith communities, one that can result in small, progressive steps forward. Then again, if one is focused merely on the evils of "theism" or "religion", we ought not be surprised if he fails to notice. While the atheistic evangelism has very good reason to resist the frontline superficiality and vice of a widespread malady of faith, it does nobody anywhere any good if they let the people they so disdain as ignorant and foolish define religious faith. It almost seems a self-perpetuating surrender. No, really. They're idiots. Yet it is ... what ... inescapable? ... easier? ... simply more fun? ... to let them set the debate? Which is well and fine. Why would anyone object to others playing Checkers? And if the theistic blocs one disdains want to turn a game of Checkers into the ultimate battle for Life, the Universe, and Everything, what rational reason is there to accommodate? Perhaps it's fun to harangue the psychiatrically impaired vagrant ranting on the streetcorner, but we cannot pretend that sort of behavior is useful, especially if we are expected to ignore more genuine expressions of faith. ____________________ Notes: Burnett, John. "Statue Of A Homeless Jesus Startles A Wealthy Community". Weekend Edition. April 13, 2014. NPR.org. April 19, 2014. http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/302019921/statue-of-a-homeless-jesus-startles-a-wealthy-community Robinson, Gene. "President 'preaches' at the Easter prayer breakfast". Twitter. April 14, 2014. Twitter.com. April 19, 2014. https://twitter.com/BishopGRobinson/statuses/455721689444528128 Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. "BABF06: Faith Off". (n.d.) SimpsonsArchive.com. April 19, 2014. http://www.simpsonsarchive.com/episodes/BABF06 Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
It doesn't take faith to be nice to homeless people. I don't think religious people are dense idiots, it's just one area of life in which they are mistaken. Faith is not itself a virtue, no matter how many good works they want to dress it up in. I don't think a moderate liberal faith is an incremental improvement, in some ways it's worse than fundamentalists, because they make faith seem like something benign, like a source of morality, which it is not. The same thing which motivates some to do good, motivates the uncritical acceptance of ideas like salvation is based on belief alone. It's the uncritical aspect of faith that leads to irrational ideas. If once in a while it happens on a rational idea, it's not because it leads there, it's because even a stopped clock is right twice a day. People don't need to be treated like infants, who's "imperfection" means they can't confront reality except through the filter of a fictional hero.
A little research shows that the parable of helping the "poor" isn't really referring THE poor in any universal sense. The people Jesus is referring to is "the least of these my brethren." So who were Jesus' "brethren"? His "followers". Fellow Christians. The parable is thus a mandate to help feed and clothe and minister to fellow Christians, not to the poor in general. "In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus teaches that when the Son of Man comes in his glory, he will separate sheep and goats along certain lines, saying: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." (ESV v40) And again, "Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." (ESV, v45) To whom is the King referring when he says "the least of these my brothers?" Does the word "these" refer to a particular group of persons present or is "the least of these" an idiom? matthew idiom "Brothers" in Greek "The Greek word for "brothers" here is adelphoi (Strongs G80). This means literally "brothers". However, it can also mean "countryman" or "followers". The NET Bible (which uses the most current translation, taking advantage of the latest in linguistic scholarship) translates this as "brothers and sisters". The footnote for this says of this word: Grk “brothers,” but the Greek word may be used for “brothers and sisters” (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 1, where considerable nonbiblical evidence for the plural ἀδελφοί [adelfoi] meaning “brothers and sisters” is cited). In this context Jesus is ultimately speaking of his “followers” (whether men or women, adults or children), but the familial connotation of “brothers and sisters” is also important to retain here. They show that Jesus is clearly speaking of his followers here even though they retain the familial connection. Contextual Analysis If we look at the entire context that you site (verses 31-46) we can see that there is strong support for Jesus meaning "followers" when he says brothers The parable is talking about a King that separates out everyone on earth into two groups: the sheep and the goats. On his right will be the sheep that will enter heaven and on his left, the goats who get sent to eternal punishment. In verses 34-36, Jesus says that the sheep helped him out when he was in need. Verses 37-39 are the sheep asking "When did we see you?" Jesus replies with verse 40 (as you mention in the question) saying that if you did it to the "least of my adelphoi" (brothers or followers), then you did it to me. Following the story down further, the opposite is true with the goats. However, when the goats ask "When did we see you?", the King (in the parable) replies: Matthew 25:45b (NIV) 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' This response shows further support for the translation of "brothers" as followers because here the King is indicating that whoever did not help the least of the "these" (implying the "goats") did not help him. Additional support We can see this theme played out elsewhere, showing that these "brothers" are followers of Jesus: Matthew 10:40-42 (NIV) 40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. 41 Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.” This is Jesus speaking to his disciples. Clearly, there's additional support for interpreting this passage later in Matthew (and the word adelphoi) as "followers". "Least of" It's interesting that Jesus uses this phrase. It seems to indicate that there is a "sorting order" or a way to organize his followers. If this is true, this means that while any one of his followers are still considered his followers, there are some that he considers "greater" than others and one in particular that he considers the "greatest". We can see this in opposition of the phrase "the least of". Summary Clearly, "the least of my brothers" is referring to the followers of God. This parable encourages us to help out other Christians since that would be directly helping out God."---http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...-the-least-of-these-my-brothers-in-matthew-25
