InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "I'm not your girlfriend."

thecosmicdance (thecosmicdance) wrote,
@ 2008-09-16 19:51:00

Why Context Really Is Important After All
There’s a line in the NT when Jesus tells his followers “the poor will always be with you.” Many Christian denominations and individual leaders have spent an awful lot of time trying to figure out just what he meant by “the poor will always be with you”. I am not about to start claiming that I’ve discovered something no one else ever has but it might help if they remembered the line that comes after “the poor will always be with you.” The next part is basically “but I won’t be here much longer.”

People concentrate so much on the first part that they forget what story that verse actually comes from. It’s from the story in which Mary Magdalene smashes that jar of perfume and uses it to annoint Jesus’s feet. The disciples were upset because they thought she could have sold the perfume and used the profits to help the poor. So Jesus dismisses that with “the poor will always be with you.”

The focus of the story is not the poor, or what we should do with the poor or why they will always be with us. That's important to discuss, sure, but the Bible gives us many other opportunities to do so. By obsessing over what that one line means, you’re kind of ignoring the whole point of the scene. In context that line is about Jesus saying “look, forget about the poor for a second, something amazing is happening and I need you to be watching.”

You can debate about what the amazing thing was that was happening. Was MM performing an ancient, sacred ritual designed to formally announce Jesus as their king? Or was she symbolically annointing him prior to his death? Or was it important because she was a worldly sinner who is so overwhelmed by her religious experience that she smashes her most prized possession? Did she know why she did it, or was it just a coincidence?

All of those questions are more important here than "why did he say the poor would always be with us?"

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

(Post a new comment)

OH yes.

threeoranges
2008-09-17 04:51 am UTC (link)

I too am annoyed by the way certain people (and I would go so far as to say that these are usually NOT devout, totally-behind-the-Christian-message people) have hijacked that phrase? They jump on it like cheap lawyers and cackle "Ah! Ah! Jesus said you'll never solve the poverty problem so why bother trying?" or even "Jesus put himself ahead of poor people so why shouldn't we?"

To me, "she should have given the money to the poor" is just a feint along the same lines as "why are we worrying about abstract concepts such as feminism in fandom when there are starving people in the world?" Poor people are hence reduced to a handy stick to beat your opponents with - and the marvellous thing about it is that it makes YOU look good at the same time as making your opponents look bad!

She moaned about fandom injustice: why isn't she spending her time worrying about the poor?
She wasted all that perfume: why isn't she spending her money on the poor?

I think Jesus is merely saying, "Look, Judas, you can't use that now. You can help the poor any time you like, so don't get on this woman for making a generous gesture towards me this one time."

It was never intended to be a comment that poverty is an insoluble problem.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: OH yes.

threeoranges
2008-09-17 01:38 pm UTC (link)

In fact, I just came across the term "concern trolling" today and I think Judas's behaviour here may be counted a type of such:

"Look, I share your goals, honestly I do... and I wouldn't dream of undermining you in any way... But I do have concerns. Had you considered just how wasteful her action was, and wouldn't you agree that the better course would have been for her to have sold that spikenard and given the proceeds to the poor?"

By posing the question, Judas forces Jesus to "take sides" between "the poor" and MM. Sounds like his intent was "to sow fear and uncertainty" within the group - if Jesus takes MM's side then Judas can claim "Jesus doesn't care about the poor!", and if He sides with Judas then the men can use it as a wedge to drive MM out.

Though I have to admit, it's possible I'm misjudging Judas here, and perhaps he really DID think that Jesus's rebuke was evidence of an egotistical cult leader drunk on power (notice how, IMMEDIATELY afterwards, he goes to the Romans with "I can help you get rid of Jesus"). Can't make my mind up on Judas, but I do think his action was malicious - it's just, was he consciously aware of his own motivations or did he honestly think he was doing good?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: OH yes.

babydraco
2008-09-17 09:50 pm UTC (link)

"Concern trolling" that's a good description.

If he did it on purpose, it's such a classic move to make when you're trying for a power grab in a group setting (or trying to make the most powerful person in the room look bad). It's the sort of thing...people do in modern political campaigns. "Barak Obama *says* he cares about the poor but we have pictures of Michelle eating in decent restaurants and getting her nails done."

No one can make their mind up on Judas. I mean, the whole subtext of the scene changes depending on what he meant by that. And not enough people spend time really asking themselves that, they seem to think the whole scene is about how we treat poor people.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: OH yes.

threeoranges
2008-09-18 02:28 am UTC (link)

If he did it on purpose, it's such a classic move to make when you're trying for a power grab in a group setting (or trying to make the most powerful person in the room look bad). It's the sort of thing...people do in modern political campaigns. "Barak Obama *says* he cares about the poor but we have pictures of Michelle eating in decent restaurants and getting her nails done."

"And we have pictures of Cindy dropping $20,000 on a pair of earrings. Admit it, doesn't the Republicans care jack about the poor?"
"Well... No we don't, but at least we're HONEST about our heartlessness!"

*sigh* Because if anyone allows themselves the least little indulgence, any subsequent claim to care about the disadvantaged can be easily written off as "hypocrisy". Only people who give every single thing they have to charity can be allowed to care about the poor without being accused of hypocrisy.

And people often buy this line of argument. Why are people so dumb sometimes?

No one can make their mind up on Judas. I mean, the whole subtext of the scene changes depending on what he meant by that. And not enough people spend time really asking themselves that, they seem to think the whole scene is about how we treat poor people.

I suppose it's noteworthy that those who think that scene is "about how we treat poor people" are using it to do the same thing Judas was doing - i.e. attempting to undermine Jesus' authority and show him as something He wasn't.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: OH yes. babydraco 2008-09-17 09:32 pm UTC (link)
	See? It's a really, really old square on the Fannish Argument Bingo Card. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: OH yes. threeoranges 2008-09-18 02:32 am UTC (link)
	The next argument on his lips would have been "She's just SPOILING IT for everyone else!" (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jdm314.livejournal.com 2008-11-15 04:12 pm UTC (link)
	Note what Fred of Slacktivist points out at the bottom of this entry (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/08/the-sin-of-desp.html): that passage is riffing on Deuteronomy 15:11, which is quite clear that the fact that there will always be poor people is no excuse for not doing anything about it. (Reply to this)