fatvegan

The sermon on Sunday was about the woman annointing Jesus' feet with oil before his crucifixion. The story has always made me hugely uncomfortable. When people have asked me why I've always wanted to say "Because Jesus would never simplify something like that." But it seems that he has. I don't know if I disagree with Jesus. Or maybe I've misunderstood what he means. But it's fairly clear cut.

The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.

In the sermon they'd found some version of the story where Judas was the only disciple who complained, and some commentary had been added about Judas only wanting to sell the oil so he could embezzle the money. But I couldn't find any references to that any any of the versions on Gospelcom.

It changes the whole focus of the story; especially given the aspect that Fuzz and Carolyn emphasised. They didn't talk about the virtue of giving to the poor at all. They talked about the kindness, generosity, selflessness and spontaneity of "Mary" (Magdalene I presume), who in the versions I found was just "the woman". And they talked a lot about how awful, selfish and criminal Judas was. They didn't say that all the disciples were saying the same thing. They finished the sermon with Judas was a bastard; Mary was a child of God. Which I thought missed the point entirely. Judas is a bastard. But that isn't the part that anyone is disputing. Mary did act lovingly, but no one is disputing that either.

The disciples discomfort (and I think mine) is entirely a matter of priorities. Jesus' comfort with having a year's wages worth of oil put on his feet makes me very uncomfortable. 100 people might have died that day from lack of food, and yet his death is worthy of spontaneous indulgence. Perhaps we might decide to "celebrate" his death somehow. But in him being so willing to accept it, he is behaving more like a human king than a Godly king. Or so it seems to me. It just doesn't seem to be the Jesus would normally behave. It's like compassion for the poor gets turned off for a day because more important things are happening. We all behave that way, but it validating as "right" and Godly reasonable.

I'm not sure how to best use resources/money. I don't think that using them to honour someone or to help someone can ever be wrong. But I do think that there are better and worse uses of resources/money. So what "the woman" did, to me, isn't a matter of right and wrong. It's not "right" to sell it and donate it to the poor, and it's not right to spend a year's wages on someone's feet, even if the feet belong to the Messiah. So I think his criticism of the disciples was unreasonable, since they were honestly trying to work out how to best help others. Which is what Jesus had been teaching them all along.

I just did a search for "wealth" and the wealthy people in the Old Testament look like corporate donors. God doesn't seem to have any problem with it at all. Which makes Jesus' statement about always having the poor even yuckier. It's like people now saying there are too many people to help. So it would be foolish to try and change things. Let's just help who we can and be content that.

I haven't made a lot of sense with this rant. I could have done it better.

Maybe money can't buy happiness. But it can buy food and hospitals and education and water, and pretty much everything you need to stop being unhappy. Lots of people die because they don't have enough money. Lots of organisations can't do as much stuff as they need to, because they don't have enough money.

I was talking with Jane and Emily in the car the other night about money wealth and time wealth. Jane was saying that time is more important than money. That money wasn't the most important priority. Last night on Foreign Correspondent I watched a doctor in Somalia drill through a girl's leg with a cordless Makita drill, because she need an operation desperately and there weren't any medical tools. That girl was what you'd call "time rich" and "money poor". But she didn't look that happy to me. Time is good, but there are more important things. I think money is one of them. With money she could have chosen to fix her leg, or use it to pay people to do things for her so she had even more time. I think she would have traded all her free time to have her leg fixed.

Money is about choice. In fact, money equals choice. And equality is mostly about giving choice to people who don't have it. So for that reason, I don't think money is the evil that a lot of people seem to. Time might be the choice someone ends up making, but we shouldn't force it upon them. Equally, telling someone in poverty that they'd be much happier if they spent more time with their children instead of working two jobs, isn't very respectful. Or telling them that they don't really need money. I don't know what is right for people. Maybe they'd be much happier if they ate at soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters. I'm sure some people prefer that lifestyle, but I doubt that most would. It's especially unpleasant since the choice for a lot of people will be between poverty with zero spare time, or absolute poverty with a small amount of spare time. I'm at the other end of the spectrum. I can have loads of spare time and loads of money. For someone in my position (which is most of the people I've met in my life) trying to suggest that happiness is as simple as choosing more time over money, when I (and most people) haven't made that choice, is not very good.

I'm angry at Jesus, for putting so much stupid oil on his feet. Angry that he was so comfortable with the idea of an "eternal poor". Angry that he refers to "the poor" as though they're some distinct group to the disciples. And I'm angry at God for all his pandering to the rich in the Old Testament, not to mention lots of other things. And I'm angry at rich people who say that money is the root of all evil.

While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." Mathew 26:6-13

On a side note, Jesus was wrong about there always being poor. Lots of countries don't have poor. There just are none. They have lower-middle class perhaps, but no one anywhere near as poor as those Jesus was referring to. So what was his point? Because the poor are always going to be around, sometimes it's ok to not worry about them. Would it have been a different story if he'd known poverty was going to be eradicated? Would he have told the disciples to go out and mourn the passing of poverty instead of the his own passing? There are lots of people since who've had had much higher hopes for equality than Jesus obviously did. Thank God for them.

I reckon this is one of the big reasons why I want to be economist. For economists there is no redemption. No forgiveness. Until the problem is fixed, there is always more to do.