I had a friend ask me today what my definition of a Christian is.  I resisted the question to some degree, as I remain extremely troubled by the obsession many have, with drawing lines to delineate who is “in” and “out” of fellowship, orthodoxy, or whatever.  I am not taking anything back that I said in my Word About Creeds.  Nevertheless, if I claim to want people to submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ, it follows that I must have some idea about what this concept means…at least as I use the terms.

I hope I’ve made it obvious in my writing that while I believe the Christian church–particularly the church in the United States where I live–has severely messed up its witness and faithfulness to Jesus, I am not saying therefore that the people I criticize are (necessarily) not Christians.  It will give some Christians grief to see me quote the Quran at this point, but it’s eloquent when it says:

Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ. (Al-Ma’idah, 5:48)

In other words, I presume that *all* Christians (and others, for that matter) get some things right, some wrong, and that our merciful Father will sort it out some day if, in fact, the sorting matters to him.

I am also not saying that all those who meet the criteria I give below are going to heaven, and all who aren’t are going to hell.  The issue of salvation is an entirely separate question–and in fact the wrong question to be asking at this juncture.

But with these caveats, I offer the following four criteria that I believe sufficiently define one who follows Jesus:

1. Jesus’ Divinity.  The New Testament is quite clear that Jesus represented himself as divine, and any follower of Jesus must acknowledge him as such.  This is not the same thing as endorsing classical Trinitarianism…as I have previously written, I personally believe that the “co-equal person” argument in the doctrine of the Trinity fails to wrestle adequately with those scriptures in which Jesus clearly delineated himself as other than, and subordinate to the Father.  I use the term “wrestle” quite deliberately, as I believe there’s a tension in the scriptural characterization of Jesus that can’t be fully resolved.  The Trinity is one limited, inadequate attempt to resolve it; my own characterization of Jesus as divine but submissive to the Father is another.  Either is a genuine attempt to be faithful to the way Jesus characterized himself, and either, I suggest, fulfills this first criterion.
2. Jesus’ Humanity. Just as the scripture is plain about Jesus’ divinity, it is categorical that from the incarnation on, Jesus became honest-to-goodness human flesh.  He ate, he bled, he suffered, he partied.  The Gnostic denial of Jesus’ flesh is outside the pale.  The follower of Jesus recognizes his true humanity.  (note in this and #1, I’m avoiding the classic phrase “Fully God & Fully Man.”  I think that phrase is actually nonsensical and does nothing to advance either understanding or orthodoxy).
3. Jesus’ Death and Resurrection.  The incarnate, fleshly Jesus really, truly died and was really, truly raised to life by the Father.  The many theological implications of this fact are the subject of some dispute, and I certainly have an opinion on them.  But there are genuine Christians who have very different opinions than I on what Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplished.  They are still Christians, and so am I.
4. Jesus’ Lordship. This is the point at which the I most clearly depart from the idea that a “credo,” a list of “what I believe,” is of utmost importance.  If one “believes” that Jesus is Lord, that “belief” can only be expressed in submission, obedience, and discipleship.  The fact that Jesus is Lord means that all the other things and beings that pretend to the throne are NOT lord.  Nations, individuals, belief systems, political philosophies & parties, all are subordinated to the call and command of Jesus, or else he isn’t Lord, and no amount of “believing” otherwise can change that.

I hope you noticed that all four of these criteria start with the name of Jesus.  That’s no accident.  It is the name of Jesus, and his position in your life, that makes you a Christian, or not.  And frankly, those who are, and those who aren’t, are to be found in some unexpected places.

And he told them a parable, saying, “The farm of a certain rich man bore well.   And he talked it over with himself, saying, ‘What shall I do? I don’t have space to store my crops.’   And he said, ‘This is what I will do: I will take down my storehouses and build bigger, and there I will gather all my grain and my good things,   and I will say to myself, ‘Self, you have many good things laid by for many years. Take it easy, eat, drink, and enjoy it.’   But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your life will be demanded from you. Then whose will be what you’ve prepared?’   Thus (is) the one who accumulates treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” (Luke 12:16-21, Pioneers’ New Testament)

This parable is well known in Christian circles, but at least in the Sunday Schools I went to, the message is usually something to the effect that “you can’t take it with you” (well, when it’s not fear-mongering of the “where would you go if you died tonight” variety).  Less common is to examine the lessons Jesus offers us on the economics of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus’ story begins with the statement that the man’s farm “bore well.”  This concept will be blindingly obvious to anyone who’s ever depended on the land for their livelihood, but perhaps not to the rest of us.  Any farmer knows that no matter how skilled he is, no matter the technology he brings to bear on his agricultural efforts, and no matter how hard he and/or his employees work, there is an element of the outcome of any harvest that is simply out of his hands.  The godly farmer knows that “it is God who gives the increase,” while others ascribe their harvests (good or bad) to luck, the weather, or other forces…but all know that success or failure are not entirely their own doing.

The rest of us, particularly in the West and most particularly in the United States, seem to have lost this awareness.  Listen to any “self-made man,” or to any of the many apologists for the American capitalist system, and you would think that wealth is directly correlated to hard work and creativity.  Rarely do the financially-successful acknowledge the extent to which they owe their wealth to accidents of birth, environment, and external forces.  Rarer still is any admission that the poor they so easily disparage work as hard and as creatively as they.  Even here in the U.S., not many of us can realistically hope for a significant uptick in our financial status, but most of us are one unforseen disaster away from financial ruin.  Surely, we stand or fall in part through nothing but the mercy of God.

This, of course, calls us to think about how we ought to respond if we do achieve success.  The farmer in Jesus’ parable responded in good American form:  enlarge the storehouse, diversify the investments, maybe arrange a tax shelter or two, and get ready to enjoy “the good life.”  I love what Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven ™ Life, had to say in a video I saw once (and sorry, I don’t have a link):  “If you write a book that starts ‘It’s not about you,’ and you make millions off of the sales, it might occur to you that the money isn’t FOR you.”  Rick had a point, and it’s Jesus’ point too.  If God does in fact give/enable wealth, he intends it to be used his way, not stored up for the party.

One of Jesus’ most compelling–and perhaps frightening–sayings is found at the end of the chapter, Luke 12:48.

Much is demanded from all to whom much is given. They will ask much more of the one to whom much is entrusted.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

Note: Biblical quotations are taken from The Pioneers’ New Testament, an original translation from Greek done by my Mom.  If any of you are interested in a different take from the average Bible translation, I encourage you to check it out at The Pioneers’ New Testament blog.

The other day, a Facebook friend of mine posted a big caption on his profile:  “JESUS Is With the 99%.”  Predictably, he got a bunch of “likes” from his liberal buddies, and just as predictably, he got some major pushback from his conservative friends.  The Christian camp has divided along the usual lines, with one side loudly shouting that Jesus would join the rowdy crowd occupying the parks of our major cities, and the other side decrying the suggestion that Jesus might be even a tiny bit “socialist.”  Sadly, if not entirely surprising, the proclamations on either end of the spectrum seem to reflect the political biases of the speaker with little, if any consideration for what Jesus actually said.

Whether or not Jesus would be with the whistle-blowing, bucket-thumping folks camped out in the parks is an interesting thought exercise, and one I’ll address in a bit.  Quite apart from this question, any reasonable reading of the gospels and the prophets should make it patently obvious that Jesus would absolutely NOT be defending the Wall Street bankers and financial elite against whom the protesters are shouting.

In this regard, the biases of conservative American Christians have gone unchallenged for far too long.  For the most part, I try to stay away from obviously partisan issues on this blog, but sooner or later we have got to face the fact that the Bible message is blunt and troubling:  when their interests collide, God sides with the poor and marginalized against the rich and comfortable.  When American Christians attempt to wrap a mantle of divine blessing around those in the upper strata of capitalism, they do violence to the clear message of scripture.  Let’s take a look at some examples:

Usury Even before they entered the promised land, God explicitly forbade his people from charging interest when they loaned money to each other.  Exodus 22:25 is the first such command, and in verses 26-27 it goes further to state that a cloak given in collateral for a loan must be returned at night so the debtor can stay warm.  One might be tempted to say this only applies to charging interest to a fellow-believer (Jew in those days) who is poor, but just before in verses 21-24, God forbids other sorts of oppression of the sojourner, the widow, and the orphan.  That context suggests to me that God might see anyone who is at economic disadvantage as “my people who are poor.”  Leviticus 25:35-37 and Deuteronomy 23:19 reinforce the prohibition against charging interest to “a brother,” although Deut. 23:20 explicitly permits charging interest of a foreigner.

Lest we think this is just an antiquated concept from the Mosaic law, take a look at Ezekiel 18:5-18.  Here, Ezekiel repeatedly refers to taking interest as an “abomination” worthy of death right up with robbery, adultery, and idolatry (see verses 8, 13, and 17).  These verses echo strongly the Levitical law both in forbidding usury and in criticizing those who fail to return collateral.  Nehemiah chapter 5 relates a similar account.

In stark contrast, the “financial services sector” embodied in Wall Street depends heavily upon the charging of interest…often exorbitant interest.  While mortgage rates are at historic lows (for those who can qualify, that is), credit card interest is another matter, ranging from 10-14% for normal usage, but jumping as high as 30% for delinquent accounts.  Factor in the myriad fees banks are now piling on top of their interest charges, and “usury” is not an unreasonable noun.  There was a time when we actually had anti-usury laws in the U.S.  More accurately, we still do in State law, but Federal law supersedes it for “National” banks.

What is more, the most usurious of rates and fees are most likely to fall on the poorest and least-educated of borrowers.  This is in part due to the fact that they are deemed the highest-risk and most likely to default, and the usual defense of usury on the part of lenders is that the rates are high to compensate lenders for the risk of losing their money to default.  I would counter that the recent rates of profit (and compensation packages) posted by the large banking institutions in this country suggest that whatever risk exposure they may have has been more than countered by the rates they charge, and of course mitigated even further by the taxpayer-funded bailout of the banking sector.

Likewise, the foreclosure of homes, cars, and other collateral clearly runs counter to the Biblical injunction to return a man’s cloak to him at night.  Again, one may respond that the lender is only carrying out the terms of a loan contract into which the borrower freely entered.  But is this true?  I actually read the terms of my home mortgage before I signed it…all 30 or 40 pages of fine print.  But how many, particularly among the less-educated, could understand those terms even if they did take the time to read them?  And how freely have they entered into a contract when they see the loan as the only thing between them and hunger or homelessness?

No, the Biblical injunction is that, at least where the poor are concerned, lending should be done not for the investment benefit of the lender, but for the moral and vital support of the borrower.  The world sees otherwise, to be sure.  God’s math is different, and no amount of free-enterprise posturing can defend Christians from the fact that we are complicit in an industry that blatantly disregards the law of God.

Interestingly, we could learn a thing or two from Islam in this regard.  When American Christians hear the word “Shariah,” they usually think of oppressed women, thieves getting their hands cut off, and all manner of capital offenses including converting from Islam.  It is indisputable that some countries do implement Shariah in this manner.  However, there’s another side to Shariah that, if Christian Americans knew about it, might scare them even more, and that’s laws guiding finance.  I encourage interested readers to check out this article on Shariah-compliant investment to learn more, and even Google “shariah investment” to see how it’s being implemented.  While some Christians might get lost in the legalism of the above article, the key elements are:

• Muslims must choose investments only in companies whose business activities do not violate the principles of Islam;
• Muslims may not invest in a company or fund that either charges interest or borrows money on interest;
• If a Muslim invests in a company (for capital growth or operating purposes), he may not do so on terms of a guaranteed return (i.e. interest), rather he must take what amounts to an equity position where he will share in the profit OR LOSS of that company.  In other words, a Muslim investor must have “skin in the game.”

I’m not sure how this would work in the case of a home mortgage.  I don’t have an Imam to whom I could ask this; perhaps someone reading can help me here, but if I understand these principles correctly, I’m guessing if a Muslim were to lend money to someone else (Muslim or not) to buy a house, he’d have to do so solely on the basis of shared equity…that is he’d share in the gain or loss in value of the property at resale.  Perhaps he could also charge rent to the homeowner in proportion to his ownership share in the house, and maybe work out a declining-balance calculation whereby ownership gradually transfers from the lender to the borrower.  However, I’m pretty sure the American model where the primary risk rests with the borrower who may lose his home and assets, and where only the lender is protected by tax-funded bailouts, is in violation of Muslim Shariah.  I think it’s in violation of Judaeo-Christian principles as well.

Infinite Accumulation A repeated refrain among Christians when they are faced with Biblical challenges to their wealth is to respond that God does not forbid or curse wealth itself, and this is true.  The patriarchs were rich.  The kings of Israel were rich and at least with David and Solomon, those riches are portrayed in the Bible as God’s blessing…however it’s important to remember that the prophet Samuel warned against the king and his cronies accruing wealth (see 1 Sam. 8:10-18).  Some of Jesus’ followers were rich, too.

But the law of Moses has some interesting provisions that would have prevented the permanent creation of a wealthy class such as we see throughout history.  I refer, of course, to the laws of sabbatical and Jubilee.    Take a look at Deuteronomy 15:1-11.  (I mean it.  Take a break from this article and go read the law.) God provided in his law that debts (except to foreigners) would be canceled every seven years.  He also provided that generous assistance to the poor was a non-negotiable requirement.

Now go read Leviticus 25–the whole chapter.  In addition to the Sabbatical year described above, in the fiftieth year, any non-urban real estate that had been acquired over the last 49 years reverted to its familial ownership (and property was to be valued pro-rata by the number of years till Jubilee).  Taking interest or profit from the poor is expressly forbidden (Lev. 25:36).  (as an aside, have you notice that conservative Christians who advocate lower taxes on the basis of the Mosaic tithe, seem to have collective amnesia about Jubilee?  Coincidence?  I doubt it…)

Fast forward to Jesus.  I have never encountered a Biblical scholar, conservative or liberal, who disputes that the “year of the LORD’s favor” Jesus announced in Luke 4:18-19, refers to the year of Jubilee.  They may try to spiritualize it, but they don’t deny the allusion.  Jesus himself said very little else about debt, though I can think of no reason “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” somehow excludes debts of the financial sort.  Of all the “you have heard it was said/but I say to you” statements Jesus made, however, I can think of none that justifies the infinite pursuit of acquisition –and indifference to the poor– that marks American society today.

WJOW? So…would Jesus occupy Wall Street?  Obviously I don’t know.  I suspect he would not be camping in the park and thumping drums with the protesters, but I rather think he’d show up there just the same.  He’d blast the corruption and greed of the bankers with every bit of the zeal he showed when he cleansed the temple (John 2:13-17)  or when he lambasted the Pharisees for their nitpicking on the edges of the law while neglecting justice (Luke 11:39-44).  I do think he might encourage the folks who are there to at least be nice to the poor schmucks who will have to clean up the mess, and encourage people to keep the place neat while they’re protesting (after all, he did have his disciples clean up after the crowd in John 6:12).

I do know this…he’d be more likely to be in the park than in the boardroom at Goldman Sachs.  If the Goldmans were ever to invite him in, he’d go, but if they listened to him, I think they’d wind up behaving rather like Zacchaeus in Luke 19:8.  If you ever see bankers giving half of what they own to the poor, and returning fourfold anything they’ve taken by unjust means, then you’ll know that Jesus has …finally… been to Wall Street.