The Rich Fool

My bid for the scariest passage in the Bible is Luke 12:2-3:

There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.

That's an apocalyptic passage. Some day, Jesus is saying, all will be made known and everyone will get what they deserve. Like every apocalypse, it's Very Bad News for those who abuse power. It would be a terrifying thing to be Dick Cheney or Karl Rove and to read such a passage and believe it were true.

But as with all of Jesus' apocalyptic sayings, it's a double-edged message. It is a source of hope, an affirmation that, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, "the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." But it's also more than a bit discomfiting -- there's nothing I have said in the dark that will not be heard in the daylight, too? Um. Oh. Here's hoping the arc of the universe also bends toward mercy.

The rest of this chapter, Luke 12, is an equally unsettling mixture of comfort and warning. Here Jesus presents some very reassuring images of God -- "not one sparrow is forgotten," "consider the lilies of the field," "Do not be afraid, little flock." Yet these are all intermixed with constant reminders of mortality and inexorable judgment -- "I will show you whom you should fear."

You won't find a better summary of or commentary on this entire chapter than what Shakespeare provides in Hamlet V.ii:

Not a whit, we defy augury: there's a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?

That's Luke 12, right there. Watchfulness and readiness, providence and death, "no man has aught of what he leaves" and "five in one family divided against each other."

This passage also has much to say about the privilege and responsibility of stewardship. "Who then is the faithful and wise manager?" Jesus asks in verse 42, explicitly summarizing a theme that threads through the entire chapter. That word "manager" (or "steward" in the King James Version's borrowing from Wycliffe's "sty-warden") is, in the Greek, oikonomos. That's the same word from which we get the English word economist. "Economics" and "stewardship" are, thus, the same thing -- etymologically, if not in practice. (Fun with Greek: Next time you meet an economist, ask them where they studied sty-wardening.)

This Wednesday morning visit to Luke's Gospel was prompted by the suggestion, in comments to the previous post, that Luke chapter 12 offers some kind of refutation of the estate tax. That's not exactly the kind of oikonomia this passage concerns itself with, but as someone who is both a Christian and a supporter of the American estate tax, I need to explore whether or not this claim is defensible.

Short answer: It's not defensible. It's not even comprehensible.

Here are the two verses -- Luke 12:13-14 -- which our friend suggests require faithful Christians to campaign for the abolition of the estate tax:

Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."

Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" ...

There are several biblical passages regarded as classic texts on the subject of taxation, such as Romans 13:1-7, but I've never before encountered anyone suggesting that this passage should be one of them because, well, it has nothing to do with taxes.* The dispute here is between a man and his brother, which is why I like to think that Jesus heard this and thought, "Hmm, two brothers in a dispute over their inheritance ... I could use that."

Characteristically, Jesus answers with a question and a parable. That parable, usually called the story of the Rich Fool, is found in Luke 12:13-21 -- which is how this passage is usually cited so as to avoid chopping it off mid-paragraph the way our friend in comments has done. Here's the whole thing:

Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."

Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.'

"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." '

"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'

"This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God."

As I said, this passage has nothing to do with the subject of taxation -- that's not the kind of economics/stewardship being discussed here. But our friend in comments wasn't merely trying to glean from this parable some guidance on the unrelated subject of taxation. He was arguing that this parable provides incontrovertible proof that the unperturbed hoarding of wealth is a divinely appointed human right. Reading this passage in this way takes loads of chutzpah and more than a little bit of insanity.

I believe that a progressive estate tax is wise, prudent and just policy for a society concerned about equality of opportunity and the preservation of democracy and personal liberty rather than oligarchy. That belief is based on a host of principles -- e.g., justice and liberty are Good Things -- and prudential judgments that I believe are both reasonable and congruent with my Christian faith. This is, in other words, not a sectarian belief that I would seek to impose on secular society, but rather a conclusion that I think would be shared by all people of good will.

That's quite different from a sectarian belief based upon proof-texts or on an unexamined, visceral "What would Jesus say?" approach.

But, as a purely sectarian exercise, what would Jesus say? As Luke 12 illustrates, Jesus didn't tend to offer straight answers. Or, rather, he offered very straight answers, but to different questions than the ones he was asked. I think the conversation would boil down to something like this:

"Teacher, what sort of estate tax policy should we support?"

"Don't leave an estate. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Although, if I worked for the IRS, I'd have a little plaque with Luke 12:2-3 on it hanging behind my desk.

Comments

[Chuck]

ask them where they studied sty-wardening

For the record, I studied reflected-sounds-of-underground-spirits at Princeton.

[Geds]

So wait, let me get this straight, Fred.

You were expecting defensibility and comprehensibility from our "friend in the comments?"

You really are some sort of hopeless romantic.

[A Kennedy]

I think Fred is just engaging in the practice known as "Charity," something that Christians are expected to do. And right glad I am to see it.

You keep on being a "hopeless romantic," Fred... be as harmless as a dove (though wise as a serpent).

[Spalanzani]

But Fred, you're not reading these passages with the magic 3-D glasses on! You can't know what the Bible is really saying without the magic 3-D glasses! (this is also how Scott knows when your posts are really about government intervention or whatever)

[daniel]

Rats, I was hoping for another acrostic.

[fp]

I remember that, daniel - anyone have a link to that brilliant old acrostic?

[Keith]

I always thought Jesus' stance on taxation, and material possessions in general was pretty clear: "Take what thou has and give it to the poor." Help the less fortunate out whenever and wherever you can. End of line.

Of all the ambiguities in the Bible, that ain't one of them.

Also, it's one of the hand full of positions most atheists like myself can get behind as well. The Vin diagram of Atheist Morality and Sayings of Jesus is thin, to be sure, but that area where they do overlap is solid Golden Rule turf.

[cjmr]

I think Fred is just engaging in the practice known as "Charity," something that Christians are expected to do.

Well, either that or he's just baiting him.

Whichever it is, I don't think 'our friend' will come back with a sensible answer.

[A Kennedy]

The Vin diagram of Atheist Morality

This is something that Vin Diesel once sketched on a napkin during an elite Hollywood Dungeons & Dragons party.

[cjmr]

*spits drink across room*

A Kennedy for the win!

[MM]

There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.

He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good ...

[ako]

You really are some sort of hopeless romantic.

For a second, I read that in entirely the wrong way. Although it would be one of the most touchingly strange love stories; Scott all frustration and misplaced passion, and Fred gently wooing him with reasoned discourse and patience.

[ako]

And yes, I'm aware that Scott/Fred RPF would be cruel to Fred, and profoundly wrong.

[ako]

And yes, I'm aware that Scott/Fred RPF would be cruel to Fred, and profoundly wrong.

[Geds]

And yes, I'm aware that Scott/Fred RPF would be cruel to Fred, and profoundly wrong.

...And then I realized I'm a horrible person...

For at least the sixth time this week.

[Jeff]

The Vin diagram of Atheist Morality and Sayings of Jesus is thin

I'm not so sure, if we confine the Sayings of Jesus to the Gospels and Acts. The books thereafter are commentary by those who didn't know Jesus (literally or figuratively, but not carnally) and I don't consider them as, well, gospel.

The fun part about being an agnostic is that I can take some pieces out of sacred texts and leave others behind.

[A Kennedy]

I always thought that one good thing about being an atheist would be that you could choose any morality that you desired, since you're not bound to any one set of scriptures. So what's an "atheist morality?" Do you all go to atheist anti-church where you discuss what it is you choose to hold as your morals?

Or is it the (to my mind, much more likely) case that each atheist chooses her own morality, and then follows that morality with no (necessary) outside coercion.

[katre]

Jeff: You've read this site how long and haven't realized that plenty of people who call themselves religious do the same?

[Jesurgislac]

A. Kennedy: Do you all go to atheist anti-church where you discuss what it is you choose to hold as your morals?

Yes. Except on Thursdays, when the room is used for meetings to discuss the gay agenda.

[Jeff]

Do you all go to atheist anti-church where you discuss what it is you choose to hold as your morals?

Those who do are called Unitarians... [BEG]

Jeff: You've read this site how long and haven't realized that plenty of people who call themselves religious do the same? (Emphasis mine)

It's also been pointed out that a LOT of people consider "picking and choosing" to be not fully participating in that religion. Many people call themselves something they're not ("Christian" for the Fundies is one).

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff: It's also been pointed out that a LOT of people consider "picking and choosing" to be not fully participating in that religion.

Yes; and it's been pointed out that, without exception, those people are hypocrites who have no problem "picking and choosing" according to their own standards of what should be picked and chosen.

[ako]

Do you all go to atheist anti-church where you discuss what it is you choose to hold as your morals?

No, but that would be quite funny. I'm trying to picture myself in a room with Jesu, Bugmaster, and all the atheists who post here, attempting to agree on what is and isn't moral. I think the winner would be whoever escaped alive.

It's pretty much the last option; a combination of logic and what feels moral (which isn't always the most rational thing, and isn't, when examined, always right). The closest thing to outside coercion would be the consequences of the actions. There are some things I don't do because I think it would be immoral to bring about the resulting consequences (I'd rather not get into specific examples; personal reasons). External social rules like laws and the police sometimes overlap with morality (killing a random stranger on the street is both wrong, and a good way to get arrested), but are really a separate category. Which, considering how you phrased the question, was probably assumed.

[A Kennedy]

It's pretty much the last option; a combination of logic and what feels moral (which isn't always the most rational thing, and isn't, when examined, always right). The closest thing to outside coercion would be the consequences of the actions. There are some things I don't do because I think it would be immoral to bring about the resulting consequences (I'd rather not get into specific examples; personal reasons). External social rules like laws and the police sometimes overlap with morality (killing a random stranger on the street is both wrong, and a good way to get arrested), but are really a separate category. Which, considering how you phrased the question, was probably assumed.

Actually, just to be serious for a second (and I hope everyone realises I wasn't before), I think many believers do the same thing. The only difference is that we take our experience of God (whatever that is) into account as well.

[Jesurgislac]

ako: No, but that would be quite funny. I'm trying to picture myself in a room with Jesu, Bugmaster, and all the atheists who post here, attempting to agree on what is and isn't moral. I think the winner would be whoever escaped alive.

Also the undead. :-[

[Geds]

So, uh, am I invited to the atheist club?

I'm about 52% atheist at the moment, but the other 48% is kind of limited to, "There might be a god, but I really don't think that changes anything..."

[Jake]

The books thereafter are commentary by those who didn't know Jesus (literally or figuratively, but not carnally)

So you're saying they DID know him carnally without knowing him literally? How does that even work? I guess there would be blindfolds and earplugs involved.

The Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory Hole?

[Jake]

There might be a god, but I really don't think that changes anything

That counts as atheist in my book. "There might be a god" indicates that you don't *believe* there is a god. It doesn't matter if you believe that there isn't a god or if you just don't believe either way, it's still atheism.

[Jake]

Of course! Glory hole! That would totally work! Thanks, anon.

[A Kennedy]

So you deny the existence of "agnosticism?"

[Vendor Xeno]

Actually, I agree with Jeff entirely, but take it further. I don't just get to pick and choose morality, but whole faiths. I can even take dozens of disperate religions, disassemble them and rebild them into one, like legos! It's something I actually just wrote about on my own blog. As an atheist, I have an exceptional amount of freedom in my religious play. Just because I don't believe in, say, an afterlife, doesn't mean I can't still prepare for one. Just because I don't believe in Astrology doesn't mean I can't still check it, just in case. I can even toy around with the beliefs of some of the more lunatic faiths, get mixed up in cult ceremonies, and so forth.

Atheism is not a wall against spiritual exploration, it's merely a reasoned evaluation of it. But that doesn't dictate embracing some kind of dry, absolute, rational approach to spirituality. It instead allows me to have what I describe to my mother as 'recreational faith', the ability to enjoy the beauty and aesthetic and symbolism of the whole guantlet of religious variety. I just don't end up believing any of it.

So I don't believe in an afterlife, based on the lack of evidence of said. It hardly means I'm going to be 'dissappointed' to find out it exists, or be any less prepared than anyone else. The only possible way I could screw this up is if one of these, "believing in any afterlife but ours will get you sent straight to a much much worse afterlife," relgions turns out to be right, and then I'd just be caught in a crapshoot trying to guess the correct one.

Instead, I choose my ethical social behavior based on what actually seems to be beneficial and desirable to people as a whole, and my spirituality depending on what appears to be beautiful or entertaining at the moment. Far from being restrictive, atheism has been quite liberating for me. (PRAISE BOB!)

[Jake]

So you deny the existence of "agnosticism?"

My understanding of agnosticism is more that it is the assertion that one *cannot* know if there is a god. I think you can be an atheist and an agnostic simultaneously.

[A Kennedy]

Vendor Xeno, there are actually believers who would agree with you about complete freedom of spiritual exploration... you don't have to be an atheist to investigate different avenues of belief and practice. Indeed, there are quite a few modern Christians who believe that there is something of value in every religious tradition, even if it sometimes takes quite a lot of interpretation.

[Ursula L]

My understanding of agnosticism is more that it is the assertion that one *cannot* know if there is a god. I think you can be an atheist and an agnostic simultaneously.

Agnosticism can be either what you say, or it can be the belief that one does not know if there is a god.

While athiesm reaches a conclusion that there is no god, agnosticism leaves the question unanswered, either conditionally or as a matter of fact.

[Jeff]

I'm trying to picture myself in a room with Jesu, Bugmaster, and all the atheists who post here, attempting to agree on what is and isn't moral.

I'm more of an agnostic: Don't know, don't care. Can I join the party?

Couldn't we start with Hillel: "Do not to others what you would not want done to you." and "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?" seem like good places to begin.

==================================

Indeed, there are quite a few modern Christians who believe that there is something of value in every religious tradition, even if it sometimes takes quite a lot of interpretation.

If they placed those other traditions above the teachings of Christ, or even on an equal level, are they really Christians, as opposed to some type of hybrid?

[A Kennedy]

If they placed those other traditions above the teachings of Christ, or even on an equal level, are they really Christians, as opposed to some type of hybrid?

Just curiosity -- where did I say anything about putting those traditions above the teachings of Christ?

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff: Can I join the party?

Do agnostics have good beer, or do they not believe in it?

[MikeJ]

At the meeting where we decide on atheistic morality: I don't like olives on my pizza, but I don't mind anchovies. If we can decide on morality, surely ordering lunch won't be a problem.

[Jeff]

Just curiosity -- where did I say anything about putting those traditions above the teachings of Christ?

You didn't. The point I'm making is that, as a non-believer in Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or Odin, I'm free to "cut-and-paste" teachings from all religions (were-gilt makes sense for property crimes), and rate some higher than others. A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim or an Odinist wouldn't necessarily do that, especially when the outside teaching contradicts a major teaching from their religion.

Frex, Jesus talks a lot about forgiveness, turning the other cheek, etc. As a Christian, I would expect a "true Christian" to at least try to live up to that. But for me, were-gilt (payment in value, from the prepatrator to the victim) makes sense for many if not all crimes of property.

Comprendé?

[A Kennedy]

The concept of "turning the other cheek" has nothing to do with anyone escpaing the civil consequences of their crimes (just as a response to your example). Jesus also said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," which can be narrowly construed to refer only to taxation, but is generally taken to mean obedience to the civil authority in civil matters, whether that civil authority includes were-gilt or whatever.

In other words, a Christian in India can live a very, very different lifestyle from one in England and still be just as much a Christian. And even within Christianity, a gnostic and an evangelical will have many dissagreements about their interpretation of what the words "Jesus' teachings" even mean. For example, I take the Gospel of Thomas to be a Gospel on equal footing and equal authority to the Gospel of John; it's not good enough to simply assume that one knows what Jesus taught because an image of "Jesus' teachings" is in the zeitgeist. You have to wrestle with your own interpretation of it... and that can involve looking at the whole body of Christian Scirptures in context with other religious traditions.

[Jesurgislac]

Olives are terrible anywhere. I don't want anchovies anywhere near my pizza, but capers provide a lovely vegetarian alternative.

However, people can design their own pizza! (Also, Scott!

[Jeff]

Do agnostics have good beer, or do they not believe in it?

I thought you'd seen me wax rhapsodic on the virtues of Dixie Blackened Voodoo Lager (which may be available again -- whooo hoo!). I prefer pilsners to stouts (I don't care for bitter much), but will down a Dortmunder Union with the best of them.

At the meeting where we decide on atheistic morality: I don't like olives on my pizza, but I don't mind anchovies. If we can decide on morality, surely ordering lunch won't be a problem.

Are you kidding? I've seen Quakers come to fist-fights (hyperbole!) over deep-dish or thin crust!

Olives are terrible anywhere.

See?

====================================

The concept of "turning the other cheek" has nothing to do with anyone escpaing the civil consequences of their crimes

Arrrggggh! If a Christian has damage done to his property, does he turn the other cheek, or does he turn the prep over to the civil authorities? How does he decide, based on the entirety of Christain literature? If he asks the perp directly for compensation, isn't he violating both "turn the other cheek" and "render unto Caesar"?

I'm not trying to play "Gotcha", but if a person believes the Gospels are the accurate word of Christ, can he accept the concept of were-gilt? (And I'm just using that as an example of what I can get from Odinism).

[Scott]

"Teacher, what sort of estate tax policy should we support?"

"Don't leave an estate. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

No, the quote I gave wasn't specifically about taxes. It did, however, bring the whole "let he who has sinned cast..."/"judge not..."/"mote in his eye" philosophy into money as well as sex, applying it to liberals as well as conservatives.

Jesus could have explicitly told the brother who refused to 'share' to sell that inheritance and give to the poor. Jesus didn't; he limited that command to an individual who explicitly asked for it. If that brother had wanted Jesus' opinion, he would have gotten it, but it was a third party who demanded it. An estate tax isn't about you voluntarily giving, it is about you using Jesus to force someone else to give w/ threats of govt action if they don't.

If I give voluntarily, my heart may or may not be in heaven. If you take from me to give as you see fit, that doesn't put my heart in heaven, does it? Doesn't that reference to an individual heart mean it has to be an individual choice, and not Fred's choice for everyone? By Fred's logic, giving to a homeless person and being mugged both are acts of generosity.

Jesus refused to be the club to beat someone else into submission over money, which is what Fred's political views are all about. It's not specifically about taxes, because it's not limited to taxes.

Here Jesus presents some very reassuring images of God -- "not one sparrow is forgotten," "consider the lilies of the field," "Do not be afraid, little flock."

One question, why is my wanting a bizillon dollars in the bank worrying too much about my financial security (which we're evidently not supposed to put as a highest priority), but wanting a multi-bizillion dollar federal program to protect me is not?

[Jesurgislac]

Scott, we all know your tale of woe.

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff: I thought you'd seen me wax rhapsodic on the virtues of Dixie Blackened Voodoo Lager (which may be available again -- whooo hoo!). I prefer pilsners to stouts (I don't care for bitter much), but will down a Dortmunder Union with the best of them.

I was being facetious! Did I forget the smiley?

Are you kidding? I've seen Quakers come to fist-fights (hyperbole!) over deep-dish or thin crust!

Neither one is authentic. We should have proper pizza, on bread dough that tastes of something.

[Jeff]

Did I forget the smiley?

Sûrement!

[Vendor Xeno]

However, people can design their own pizza! (Also, Scott!

I can design my own Scott?! Kickin' because frankly I'm disappointed with the generic brand model.

I was certainly never saying that those who have elected to adhere to a particular faith in some general way can't enjoy the same spiritual freedom I do. I was merely explaining the freedom atheism can allow. That being said, there are many religious dogmas which don't allow such freedom, and those embracing it are already calling their religions and linked faiths into question if and when they do question this exclusivity.

As for the atheist pizza, the nice thing about an atheist morality is that it need not be just a bunch of random, unfounded opinions. Like I said, I base my ethics upon reason as applied to what seems to be good for people. People say that they value human life and aren't especially keep to be killed. So we look at ethical standards which promote life and discourage murder, etc. etc. etc. down the line. Are we all gonna agree? Probably not, but we don't agree on anything else so it's hardly going to stand out. It's not like the christians or muslims or hindus have a prettier pizza. Is there a book or term called Atheist Pizza? Coz if there isn't, I'm calling dibs right now. Atheist Pizza is mine.

[Atheist Pizza]

Atheist pizza does not believe in mozzarella.

[bulbul]

I'm trying to picture myself in a room with Jesu, Bugmaster, and all the atheists who post here, attempting to agree on what is and isn't moral. I think the winner would be whoever escaped alive.
*rummaging through his wallet*
158,50 Sk says it's gonna be Jesu. 10 Euro says all men involved will be, um, excomunicated first.

[cjmr's husband]

Bulbul just won all the internets.

*goes to find cjmr's inhaler*