Endowed Presbyterian Churches Conference
Worship Service
Friday, October 4, 1991, 7:00 p.m.
THE VALUE OF YOUR MONEY
John M. Buchanan, Pastor
Fourth Presbyterian, Chicago, IL

Mark 10:17-27

How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the
kingdom of Godi

My, I wish he hadn't said that!... In his book, Harvard
Diary, child psychiatrist, teacher and author, Robert Coles,
reports his research on how children of wealthy families come to
their values. He was particularly interested in how religious,
church families dealt with the ethical issues of their own
wealth. A prosperous New Orleans attorney said...

"I can find passages to make me feel good about
this life I've always enjoyed, and always will
enjoy until I die. But I have a legal mind - I
majored in English, liked literary criticism...so
I can't overlook what I read. I can't turn a
clear-cut message into a confusing one... He gave
us that unforgettable image of the camel trying to
get through the eye of a needle. Well, I guess
I'm one big camel, and even now, I can anticipate
the crunch I'll be in."

Coles said: "It was one of the most Biblical
moments I will ever experience - the sight and
sound of a professing Christian aware that he was
in deep trouble." Harvard Diary, "Christ and the
Rich," p. 19-21]

It is a troublesome topic, this matter of Christ and
wealth. There was a legendary incident once invoiving John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. and Harry Emerson Fosdick. Rockefeller was the
wealthiest Protestant layperson in the country. He was a devout
Baptist.

Rockefeller had a vision of the church of the future - non~-
sectarian, rational, world-embracing. He wanted the leading
preacher of the day, Harry Emerson Fosdick, to be the pastor.

Fosdick, in the meantime, was being thrown out of the Presbyteri-
an Church for being toc. progressive. Rockefeller was successful.
Fosdick was called. Riverside Church was built and was, and is,
an embodiment of Rockefeller's vision. The legendary incident
occurred in the early stages of negotiations between the wealthy
Rockefeller and the progressive preacher. (They later became
dear and life-long friends.) In Rockefeller's office, Fosdick
was protesting that "he did not wish to be known as the pastor of
the richest man in the country." Rockefeller responded, "Do you
think that more people will. criticize you on account of my
wealth, than will criticize me on account of your theology?"

[Robert Moats Miller, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Preacher, Pastor,
Prophet, p. 161-162]

Now we may not be as large a camel as the attorney and we
surely do not relate to the Rockefeller fortune, but I would
propose to you that the differences are in degree and not as~
sence. Comedian George Carlin knows that when he talks about our
"stuff." We have to have more space, not so much to live in
particularly, but to keep, protect and display our "stuff." One
ef the observable characteristics, and consistent behavioriam of
the young urbanite, is apartment hunting. The reason is that
being upwardly mobile means accumulating "stuff." We need more
walls for our art, shelves for the stereo, drawers, closets,
square feet... Some of us know about that very personally. If
you didn't have much "stuff" as a child, chances are your “stuff"
is pretty important to you. If you are defined economically by
the Great Depression and therefore had parents who were frugal,
never bought on credit, thought that even gasoline credit cards
were evil and gasped when you told them what your last mortgage
was - you know what I mean and "stuff" is important to you.

There is a lot of ambiguity and discomfort about this topic
and it is very much heightened by an incident which occurs in the
Gospel Narrative. A wealthy young man runs to Jesus, throws
himself at his feet, creating an interesting contrast to say the
least: an aristocrat kneeling at the feet of a poor man and
asking what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus recites
the second section of the Ten Commandments which the young man
has already kept. That is to say, he has done all the right
things but he still doesn't feel right. He hasn't experienced
God's love and his own salvation. Please notice how gentle Jesus
is with him. He does not criticize or condemn. He simply issues
a prescription: five imperatives: go ~ sell all ~ give to the
poor ~ come - follow me. I don't know whether Mark had his
tenque in his cheek when he wrote the next line, but I think he

must have. It's a funny line. The young man's "countenance
fell..." J should guess so. He was appalled, as a matter of
fact, for Mark observes, “he had great possessions." He had a

lot of stuff and he loved it.

The young man fades and Jesus makes an observation about
wealth which astonishes: his disciples. The official teaching of
Judaism was that wealth is ordinarily evidence of divine biess-
ing. But Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

There have been some very imaginative attempts to get us out
from under that one. In fact, the textual scholars who spend
their time examining ancient manuscripts under a microscope say
that there is evidence that this text has been tampered with
repeatedly. We aren't the first ones, apparently, to wish he
didn't say it or mean it.

Later scholars would try to help by pointing out that the
Greek word for "rope" is quite similar to the word for camel and
that what Jesus probably said was that it is easier for a rope, a
piece of twine, to go through the eye of a needle. At least the
image is consistent. The task is difficult, but, in a sense,
doable,

The most imaginative effort is the suggestion that ancient
city walls had small openings through which late arrivers might
safely enter the city without the danger of opening the gates.
This opening, they contend, was called the "eye of the needle."
A camel could get through on his knees, with his owner pushing
and pulling. It's a wonderful image. . Preachers on Stewardship
Sunday have been known to suggest that loaded camels, particular-
ly, are going to have difficulty, and that the way to squeeze in
is to unload some of the goods ~- as in a pledge to the church.
It is an approach to fund raising not to be taken lightly.
Scholars trace this interpretation to the ninth century and sadly
conclude that the whole matter is spurious.

What we really must do is go back and look again at this
interesting, wealthy young man. What actually was wrong with
him? Hets not bad. In fact, he's gocd, admirable, upright,
generous and he is theologically sensitive. He's got courage and
character. What's wrong here? What about him causes him to miss
the grace and love of Jesus Christ? He is, by the way, the only
person in the gospel of Mark, who Jesus calls and who does not
respond by following. He can't. He's not free to do this.
That's what is wrong. He's imprisoned, I think, by his posses-
sions. He's even sorry about it. There's a sense in which he
knows what's wrong. In point of fact, what Jesus teaches him is
that he doesn't own a thing actually. Hets- owned by his posses~
sions, in service to them, dependent on them for happiness,
security and joy.

He has worked so hard, been so successful, accomplished so
much that there is no room in his life for grace; maybe there is
a very fundamental character defect here. He's in a hurry, no

time,.no empty spaces for the surprising gifts of beauty God's
world gives, no place perhaps for gifts of friendship and love.

It is not appropriate to resolve the tension in this text
too quickly or easily. I believe it was meant to make us uncom
fortable and reflective. But it is fair to observe that Jesus
did not say go - sell ~ give, to every wealthy person he encoun
tered. He had wealthy friends: Nicodemus, Zacheus, Jeseph of
Arimathea. He didn't tell them to sell it all. What he said to
this young man was his personal prescription for saivation.

There is, I would submit, no more important task for modern
American Christians than coming to terms with the reality of
value and wealth. Bob Lynn, former executive with the Lilly
Foundation, said one time that the American mainline church has
to do one of two things soon: either come to a new understanding
of its own affluence or else get poor. I have been pondering
that for several years and know he is right. I don't know what
Jesus would say to us - nor to our church... But If da think that
selling all and giving it away may be easier than his saying to
us, as churches and individuals... "Use it responsibly and faith-
fully; figure it out - put it to work in the continuing creation
and redemption of the world."

t have a few suggestions, actually. The first thing to do
is to stop feeling guilty for who we are. Douglas John Hall, in
a book on the topic, The Steward: A Biblical Image Come of Age,
points out how useless it is for middle class Western Christians
to feel guilty for being middle class Western Christians. "One-
can sympathize with the impatience and occasional anger of ordi-
nary people when they are addressed as if they were directly to
blame for the abject poverty of multitudes...," a lesson for
every preacher who has been tempted to scold the men and women
who come to worship on Sunday for world starvation.

The second thing is not to resolve the tension Jesus created
too easily by suggesting that we're not wealthy. We are wealthy.
We are the wealthiest people in the world and in all of history.
And as the Japanese pass us in most of the measurable categories
of wealth, most of us will still be incredibly rich.

The third thing is to listen to Jesus and to hear what he
said.

He did not condemn wealth. Wealth is not an evil in itself.
Wealth - is simply wealth ~ if you have it, there are always
questions about whether you took it from someone, which is always
bad. But wealth itself is not essentially evil.

The fourth thing is to understand how intimate and personal
this subject is for all of us. The detail that jumped out of
this text for me is the note that when the young man said he had

done all that the law required and still didn't feel right, Jesus
“looking upon him, loved him." And then later, it happened
again. The disciples are astonished at the eye of the needle
business and Jesus "looks at them" in love and compassion anda
grace, This is personal. This is very near the heart of the
matter for them and for us.

I think there is a sense in which he was absolutely, liter-
ally, fundamentally, accurate about the way things are with you
and me = 2,000 years later.

There is a sense in which you and I don't own a thing which
we are not willing to give away.

There is a sense in which you and I are owned by whatever we
cannot and will not give away: a sense in which who we are is
defined very precisely by what we can or cannot give away.

That's the issue here. Let's not resolve it too easily and
let's not compromise it. With the disciples, I am astonished -
not simply by the demands he seems to be making of me ~- but by
the truth I Know in what he said. I identify with that rich
young man. I don't own anything i can't give away. You can't
live until you know something for which you are willing to give
everything, including your life.

The final word is grace. Truly. Costly grace. With God
all things are possible. You don't have to force it, or drag it
in. He said it. "All things are possible with God," including
that most unlikely thing of all - our salvation. He's not done
with that young man. "Jesus, looking upon him, loved him." God
wants all of us to live fully, joyfully, free from frustration,
anxiety and fear.

It's what the Gospel is about.

There is no resolution in text, nor is there much of a
concluding resolution to these reflections. The words must take
their.own shape in your life - in ways known best and only to
you. But do hear them again:

"= go = sell - give - come - follow - and you will have
treasures in heaven.”