Blessed are the Poor, Damned are the Rich

Jesus began his Sermon on the Mount with an audacious statement, "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." I like Luke's version better. Matthew waters it down a bit in my opinion when he says, "poor in spirit." Speculation thinks Matthew may have been writing to a more middle-class Jewish audience who was currently in the midst of their divorce from the synagogue, or in the early stages of grief and recovery following the divorce. Where as, Luke is in touch with his poverty-stricken brothers and sisters a bit more and already finished with life in the synagogue. Luke, feeling a bit more free in what he can and cannot say, chops off "poor in spirit," and also truncates Matthew's desire to keep this beatitude more focused on attitude and posture. Luke's spirituality, then, seems to veer down a different path than Matthew's right from the get-go.

Oddly enough, then, Matthew doesn't shy away from the story of the rich young ruler which is fully disclosed in chapter 19. "if you wish to be perfect," so reads the NRSV, "go, sell you possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." yikes. This pericope is present in all the synoptics. double yikes. Mark 10's reading of the rich young ruler highlights ongoing structural and social sin going on the culture. So we see Jesus loving the rich young ruler more fully and the young man greatly grieved at what he has been challenged to do. Does this show a great divide between the haves and the have nots of Jesus' days in Palestine? Did the rich young ruler acquire his possessions and stature by exploiting others, cheating people in the market place, or not offering full health benefits to his employees? 

This seems to make sense with my reading of the text right now, and I'm also following West's ideas in his book, "The Academy of the Poor" which is listed on the right hand column of the blog. Until the young man makes restitution for his earnings and success, in other words, his contributions toward the social and structural sins of his society, he cannot earn enough merit to store any of his treasures in heaven. He was missing the entire point of the law.

So too, don't we miss the entire point of the beatitude when Jesus said, "blessed are the poor?" I don't think he meant blessed are you when you live on student loans, have only a mediocre paying job, or just generally don't feel vibrant and enthusiastic about life these days. Albeit, I think we are all stilled blessed, but the point I'm making is that the poor, and well, those darn camels going through the needle eye too, have an easier time getting into heaven than the rich because God's heart is with them. God loves societal outcasts. Jesus' attention and ministry was repeatedly to those who were lacking stature, monetary comforts, and the disenfranchised (women, children, and immigrants). And with those qualifications, I don't think any of us reading this blog qualify as poor. So, again, blessed are the losers, the societal outcasts, (dare I say it, the illegal Mexican immigrants) because God loves and cares for them because they need God and they need access to more resources for better quality in living. The rich young ruler, not so much. He just wanted to be sure to get a golden ticket into paradise. Too bad God never had a chocolate bar ticket voucher campaign. 

When will we be more willing to admit that our practices contribute to structural sins in society? (I don't even like the word sin much anymore, but there doesn't seem to be an adequate synonym for it in this context.) Better yet, will we ever be willing to sell the aspects of our lifestyles that on a daily basis, depending on how honest we're really being, contribute to social and structural sins that degrade, exploit, and hurt those that God works to save? No wonder the ruler left grieving. Following Jesus is not for pansies.

Am I wrong?