that we tend to think of Jesus' encounter with the rich young ruler, as recounted, as the beginning and end of the story / he had his big moment / and he blew it ...
but we know that other people who were associated with Jesus / managed still to own a house (Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, for example) / they couldn't have sold everything / surely it would have been unfair of Jesus to lay down a condition for one person (which that person found difficult), and not expect the same of everyone ...
let's look on the bright side (of life) / let's imagine that the rich young ruler didn't just give up / what could he have done? could he have been one of the early Christians, who did sell everything ...
very few people nowadays give up everything to follow Jesus / even missionaries have a career / arrangements are made for their children to be educated / Church of Scotland ministers don't get to own the house which they live in while they work / but they can save (actually, I don't think that it's right that Church of Scotland ministers are put in this complicated and anomalous position / and, anyway, it doesn't help to make sense of the original question / it implies that some Christians are expected to follow the path of not owning stuff / while others aren't) up / or the church makes arrangements so that when they retire they have somewhere to live (what's the difference between a minister relying on his or her employer to take care of what happens when he or she retires, and me paying into a workplace pension scheme) ...
No comments:
Post a Comment