The poor you wil always have with you (some provisional thoughts)
Peter Rollins is so articulate and right on target here:
There is an intriguing verse in which Jesus is recorded as having said, “The poor you will always have with you” (Mark 14:7). Upon first looking at this one could ask, “is Jesus being portrayed here as complacent and pessimistic, as saying that no matter what we do we can never abolish poverty”? The verse would initially seem to play into the hands of those who would claim that the world is in terminal decline and can only be redeemed at the end of history. At the very least it would seem to hold a negative view concerning the possibility of ever distributing the wealth of the few among the many.
However there is another way of approaching this verse, one which interprets it as an insightful comment upon the nature of human interaction. Within its context the verse is referring primarily to those without money. However it is important to bare in mind that these individuals will be financially poor, not because they don’t want to work, but because they are excluded from the economic life of the Roman Empire (I would doubt that there was some kind of welfare state). These people would be made up of the elderly, the widowed, the sick, the outcasts, and the political dissidents. So we can think of the people that Jesus is referring to as those who are poor because they are excluded, weak and marginalised. Indeed we can take this a step further and say that, for Jesus, “the poor” directly refers to those who are excluded, weak and marginalised (hence Jesus saying elsewhere about the poor in spirit – a phrase that takes the word poor out of a purely economic realm).
With this in mind we could interpret this saying of Jesus as one that infers, “we will always have the excluded among us”. And indeed this idea makes sense when one acknowledges that every time human beings (as social animals) band together in groups some people will be excluded from those groups. And when one or more of these groups become powerful they will exclude in a more powerful way. Sometimes this exclusion will be explicit and consciously violent (e.g. the Jewish persecution by the Nazis) while at other times it will be implicit and the violence will be hidden (like the implicit violence involved in simply being a Western Consumer). When there are insiders there are always outsiders. Every time an ideological system is formed – a political structure set in place, an economic strategy enacted or a religious group put in power – there will be those who do not fit.
The Christian is the one who always seeks those outside these dominant systems of power (even, or especially, if these systems call themselves Christian). The Christian is the one who privileges those who are marginalised, identifying with the poor in all their manifestations, and seeking to provide them with a voice. The Christian is one who acknowledges that there will be excluded, voiceless people as long as the world is the world. And while they may have a vision beyond vision (no eye having seen) of a realm in which there are no poor, in this world within which we currently have our being what we are called to do is continually prejudice the excluded over the included. The believer is called to always look after the poor and, baring in mind the words of Christ, to never sit back saying, “my job is done, there are no more poor to look after” – if we think that we just aren’t looking hard enough.
I have heard many use the verse “The poor you will always have with you” (Mark 14:7) as justification for maintaining status quo, and for justification that systemic poverty and marginalization of the poor can not be transformed. In fact, this came up on our mission trip in Mexico City this last week.
That’s when I was turned on to Ched Meyers commentary on the book of Mark, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. I have just purchased it, and once I begin reading I will start blogging about it. But if the poor are always among us, we have a huge responsibility before us to be a change agent in the relief and elimination of poverty, rather than an acceptance of it.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
As leaders in the church we are sometimes forced to deal with those who are the most vocal or influential. We forget that Jesus, the King of Kings, humbled himself and hung out with prostitutes, healed the cripple, laughed with children and loved those who had nothing. May we remember who we serve and worry less about catering to the needs of the influential and begin challenging them to care for the “poor in spirit”. Thanks for this reminder Rhett. Needed it! Sorry so long-winded
The other important thing that needs to be remembered is using this snippet from Jesus to somehow justify doing nothing is pure proof-texting. It’s not understanding the statement in context. The woman who poured perfume on Jesus’ head was marginalized – she was an unnamed woman – and “some present” weren’t too happy. They brought up “the poor” as some politicians roll out special interest groups as a way to say “see, I’m caring, now get on my bandwagon.” Jesus wanted to cut through the generalities to the particular – “THIS woman did something special, don’t dismiss it and pawn it off on some generalized need of others.”
I think it’s another reminder that we can’t overlook what’s right in our face in order to “fix” some big need. Don’t bypass the stranger in the ditch so you can get to worship on time and preach a good sermon. Deal with the need where you find it…
Not trying to deny Rollins’ or Meyer’s points – I’m a firm believer that margins is a huge theme in Mark – but it grates on me when people pull out sound bytes and try to justify their sin with them…
Rhett…it’s interesting you write about this verse, because I have been thinking about it a lot recently.
While I appreciate Peter’s words, and while I think that his message is an important one, unfortunately I think he misses the point of this scene in Jesus’ ministry. I just do not think that is what the gospel writers intended to say (this story is in every gospel, if I’m not mistaken), or the point that is being made…I think that’s ultimately reading into the text our own presuppositions about what Jesus *should* be saying, not what He actually is.
While those who lean a little bit more “emerging” accuse classic evangelicals of trying to put Jesus into a box that He does not fit into, I think that in the process the “emerging” have also placed Jesus in a box that He does not fit into. Jesus is a complicated guy–not surprisingly, just like God in the Old Testament. And He will not and cannot fit into the boxes we try to put Him into; chances are He would criticize ALL the camps of evangelicalism today.
While it is difficult to believe that Jesus is saying what He is saying here, I think a plain reading of Mark (and Luke and Matthew and John) suggests that Jesus means exactly how it reads: poverty is never going to be defeated. But the disciples are only going to have Jesus with them for a while longer. And while they could go out and try to attack poverty, Jesus is right there with them, He is God, and Jesus deserves praise, glory, and honor. Jesus deserves expensive stuff. Jesus deserves to be worshipped.
See, this passage is not about getting up and going to fight poverty. It’s not a passage teaching us about our need to accept the excluded in society. It’s not a call to arms. There are thousands of other passages in the Bible that talk about that. But this is not one of them. And to turn this into one of those is unfortunate.
Rather, this passage is about worship. At its core, it is about placing Christ above everything else.
This woman is the hero of this story because she is doing just that—she is worshipping Jesus. She is doing what Jesus deserves–she is lavishing Him with expense; she is placing Him in the place that He deserves. The poor can wait. JESUS is right before them, and Jesus deserves their attention. He comes first.
It’s scandalous to think this, isn’t it– especially in light of the “emergent” Jesus who tells us to spend everything we have on the poor. But I think that this reveals one of the shortcomings of the social gospel: the social gospel places social needs above everything else—and sometimes that “everything else” includes Jesus.
What this passage tells us is that sometimes there are some things that are more important than taking care of social needs. Before social needs–before caring for the poor, before taking care of the widow, before all of that–comes God. God is first. He deserves everything first.
Often…95% of the time…He will ask us to take care of others. But sometimes…sometimes…He might tell us that He wants our energy devoted elsewhere. Sometimes He wants to be lavished, to be praised and glorified by having us spend out of the blessing He gave us solely on Him.
Think back to the temple in Solomon’s day. That was not a bare-bones temple. It was hugely ornate, it was glorious, it was unlike anything ever seen before. Some of the more “progressive” in the church today would look at that temple with a critical eye and say, “Why do we need all of that? Why can’t we just worship outside, and instead spend the money on the poor?”
But to say that it was an opulent waste would be to insult God…because remember, God gave the specifications of the temple. God decided He wanted something wondrous, beautiful, awesome built for Him. Why? Because He deserves it. In other words, in the building of the temple, God said, “You will always have the poor with you. I deserve elaborate worship.”
It may not be what we like to hear. It challenges us. But God comes before the excluded, He comes before the poor. It may seem unlikely, but we can make serving the poor a false idol, just like everything else.
God first. Everything else second.
And sometimes…sometimes…God will ask for expensive, lavish worship from us. And if that is the case, we need to stop whatever we’re doing–even serving the poor–and give Him what He deserves.
Thoughts?
Christopher:
I don’t disagree with you in the idea that the passage is focused on Jesus here….and the adoration and praise of him.
But I do agree with Peter and others who say that this verse is often used as a prooftext for people to excuse themselves from helping the poor, or to believe that poverty can not be fought.
I think the text says a couple of important things. It talks about the importance of Jesus’ ministry to those who are excluded, disenfranchised, etc, etc. In this scene alone he is with Simon the leper and a woman…that just wouldn’t happen in the 1st Century, and sometimes not even now. I think Jesus is telling us something about the inclusion of the excluded.
I do think Jesus is praising her for her gift, and he focuses on the here and now…as He is with them, and His time is drawing to an end. But I don’t think that because He calls them to Him at that moment, doesn’t mean He doesn’t want His disciples to not to continue to care for the disenfranchised and marginalized, or stand up against systemic poverty.
As for the social gospel. I think Jesus and people’s needs are hand in hand. They are not to be an either/or proposition. I think for example that when Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount, he feeds the crowds first. Too many Christians have gone into places and ignored the hunger of people, as they try to “win souls” for Christ. I think the two….preaching Jesus Christ, and helping the poor and the needs of people go hand in hand. I’m sure you would agree.
Many times the social gospel did ignore Jesus Christ…I agree. And too many times, modern Evangelicalism ignores the needs of people.
You say God comes before the excluded. I know what you are saying. But God (Jesus) was the excluded. I think many of the Pharisees excluded God/Jesus, in favor of their idea of God.
But you are right. Our allegiance is to Christ, and because of that, we serve others.
Good thoughts Christopher. Helps me think through this stuff.
Rhett
I like this Bible passage, because I think there is a place for opulence and beauty in worshiping Christ. Maybe because I’m an artist, but I don’t think everything should be “bare bones”. I love the stained glass, the statues, the choirs, etc. used in worship. Religious art is my favorite kind. It satisfies another form of spiritual hunger.
I think as far as the excluded goes, we have to keep in mind that almost everyone is excluded at some point in their lives. Whether it be poor, sick, old, widowed, most of us are in need at some point. At another point we may be doing just fine. That takes out the “us” and “them” notion. We realize that by helping the others we are helping ourselves. I don’t know if that relates to the passage, but it is how I view the marginalized. I don’t see them as being there permanently, at least in a perfect world. But it is cyclical.