A Foundation for Charity

A FOUNDATIONAL APPROACH TO

THE COMMANDMENT OF CHARITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION

II RICH – POOR

III BOND-SERVANT

IV GOD’S CONCERN FOR THE POOR

V OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD THE POOR

VI GOD / JESUS – RICH AND POOR

VII DIVINE COMMANDMENTS

VIII FINAL THOUGHTS

IX BIBLIOGRAPHY

PART I INTRODUCTION

Why deal with the issue of Jesus’ identity as it pertains to being poor? Why is this topic important to those who claim to be Christian or why should it be important? Did Jesus preach prosperity or did he teach us to love the poor and how to use one's resources properly? If we are to love the poor, what does that mean? This paper will seek to show that Jesus identified himself as a poor and marginalized person of His day and that Jesus also became poor, monetarily. The topic of Jesus’ identity is difficult because it makes us reconsider our purpose in life, and there is nothing easy about that. In a world where wealth is idolized, it’s difficult to preach a gospel that dispels that idol. There are countless books at Christian bookstores that talk about becoming wealthy so that you can enjoy life -- the idea that wealth and enjoying life go hand in hand. Thus, I will seek to disavow the idea of the prosperity gospel in favor a preferential treatment of the poor, from a liberationist perspective and to show the importance of the Divine Commandment of Charity.

There are few books that challenge that idol of the prosperity gospel. After all, who wants to be poor or think about poor people? We need to get past the resistance of this idol. We need to seek spiritual growth, which does not come easily, and look beyond what we like to hear and read. Spiritual growth often comes from what is different -- and even difficult.

This paper will rely on New Testament passages and some Old Testament passages, and on my view of Jesus through my personal cultural lens. I will take Jesus’ lifestyle into consideration. I also will examine His words, what he said about the poor and rich. I also will look at what the Apostles had to say about the poor and rich. I will take the binary relationship of Rich and Poor found within the scriptures and look into what God has to say about the subject. I make no apologies that my viewpoint comes from within Latin American theology and Liberationist perspective. My hermeneutical circle begins with keeping one foot in the world of the poor, marginalized, and oppressed. The other foot is kept in the world of theology. For me, the identity of Jesus is the starting point from which theology begins because I find Jesus in the midst of those who are poor, marginalized, and oppressed. He is not merely in their midst; he is one of them (Mt. 25).

This paper makes no excuses about the fact that I believe materialism is not rooted in the New Testament, whether it be Jesus’ teachings or lifestyle, or those of the Apostles. At no point does materialism rise to a level of importance. On the other hand, the idea of selflessness, dispossession, and compassion to alleviate the plight of the poor is stressed over and over. The message throughout the Bible is very simple: Help the poor and needy. It is not hard to understand; it is just hard to do -- against all that society teaches.

Like I mentioned there is no shortages of churches and televangelist preaching the gospel of prosperity. This movement gained traction with Oral Robert’s teaching of sowing seeds of faith, since then many other preachers have followed with the same seeds of faith message. The concept of sowing seeds of faith come from the interpretation of Mark 10:29-30. The idea that anyone that disposes themselves of house and family, will be rewarded a hundredfold in this time. These evangelist also use 3 John 2 where the Apostle writes “I pray that you may prosper in all things.”[1]

I do not doubt that God can reverse the fortunes of those less fortunate. The one problem with the prosperity gospel is that it teaches that if the reversal of fortune does not take place, then somehow the believer lacks faith. At this point, they recommend giving more to God and when they mean giving to God, what they really mean is to them, the televangelist. One of my issues is that they keep those less fortunate beaten down. They do this by first telling the poor that poverty is a sin and curse. All they must do is sow seeds of faith by giving to the televangelist’s church and God will bring them out of poverty. Of course, when this does not happen it make the poor seem that God is somehow punishing them and God has turned God’s back on them. This is the part that bothers me the most, since for me the poor are God’s chosen. I believe that the prosperity gospel lacks biblical exegesis and is very selective with it’s verses and seems to be self-serving toward the evangelist. What does the rest of scripture teach us?

PART II RICH – POOR

If we consider the different stories told by Jesus concerning the rich contrasted against the plight of the poor, the story of the rich man and Lazarus comes to mind. The story reminds us that Jesus had a special concern for those with few possessions. Jesus asked his disciples to give up their possessions on a few occasions (Lk. 18:22; 14:33). I am reminded that early on in the unfolding of Christianity, we see this principle of dispossession in action (Acts 2:44-45; 4:36-37). This tells me that this idea was something that Jesus’ followers took seriously. Jesus began his ministry in Nazareth with the understanding that he would be preaching “the good news to the poor” (Lk. 4:18).

Jesus had little good to say about the rich. One story is about a rich young ruler who refused to sell his possessions and give to the poor to follow Jesus. The idea of dispossession and putting Torah first was not possible -- that is, if Torah is the most valuable experience one can have. How about the rich fool who built large barns so that he can relax, only to find out that God called him to judgment before he could enjoy his riches? Which reminds me that Jesus tells the rich: Woe to you because you already received your comfort and there will come a time that fortunes will one day be reversed.

That is not to say that Jesus did not have contact with the rich. When Jesus did, they became aware that their wealth should be used for the benefit of those less fortunate. For example, Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10) decided that he would repay those he cheated and would also give away more. We are reminded in Luke that if we have two coats, we should share one, and if we have extra food, to give to those who are hungry (Lk. 3:11). It appears that Jesus wielded some influence on the rich and how they should properly use their wealth. The rich need to consider those around them who are less fortunate and seek to help them. One has to consider the poor in what they do, and not simply accumulate wealth. It must benefit those around you in need.

There are numerous passages that deal with our relationship toward the poor. It should be obvious that there should be preferential treatment toward the poor. The good news of Jesus shows that wealth and poverty are intertwined. To have wealth and not help those less fortunate is what Jesus considers sinful and wrong. Jesus himself became poor to show us how we should live our lives. It is from this idea that I begin to show that Jesus not only lived among the poor, but also became poor. He gave up his riches to become poor. His example, His life, His ministry began and ended in a state of poverty.

PART III JESUS BOND-SERVANT (Phil. 2:1-8)

Verses 6-7: “Although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.”[2]

The word servant has several different meanings in the Bible. It represents a person of either gender who was under obligation to serve a master who, in turn, provides a measure of protection. Some servants were slaves under legal bondage; others volunteered. It is not always possible to distinguish servant, slave, bondman, and bondwoman. Several words in both Hebrew and Greek have been translated as servant, although newer translations sometimes prefer other words.[3]

The use of the word servant varies with the reasons why one would become a servant. One example of how one could become a slave was by capture. Captives, especially prisoners of war, were commonly reduced to slavery (Gn. 14:21). By purchase, slaves could readily be bought from other owners or general merchants (Gn. 17:12-13). Slaves could be sold and bought, along with all sorts of other merchandise, and from country to country. You can become a slave by birth. Children born within the house of slave parents became “house-born slaves” (Gn 15:3). A servant or slave one could also be used as restitution. If a convicted thief could not pay his fines and damages with money, funds from the sale of the thief would be used toward his restitution (Ex 22:3). Servants or slaves also could be used when defaulting on debts. Debtors who went bankrupt were often forced to sell their children into slavery, or their children could be confiscated and turned into slaves by the creditor (2 kings 4:1). One might even sell oneself voluntarily into slavery (Lv. 25:39-43), or become a slave after being kidnapped.[4] These are just a few ways in which a person could become a slave.

In the time of the New Testament, a bond-servant could refer at times to someone who voluntarily served others. In most cases, however, the term referred to a person in a permanent role as servant. A bondservant was considered the property of a Roman citizen, holding no right to leave his place of service.[5] Bondservants voluntarily remained as slaves to their masters and had no rights or property. I focus on the fact that it was voluntary. No one made Jesus become a bondservant. He voluntarily put himself into this station in life. The prosperity gospel would argue that Jesus was God; thus, he had all of the riches of the world at His disposal. Those who preach the gospel of prosperity often want us to believe that Jesus was a rich man. In Verse 6, we read, Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself.” The word emptied in this context means containing nothing, having none of the usual or appropriate contents. As a verb, the word emptied means to make empty, deprive of contents, discharge the contents of.[6] Jesus did not take equality with God something to grasp. He emptied himself, having none of the usual or appropriate contents. He got rid of the riches of being God to make himself a bondservant. The idea within the verses is that being God and being a bondservant are polar opposites or in binary relationship to each other. So the prosperity argument that Jesus was the richest person living at the time because he was God is made moot when Jesus became a bondservant. Rev. Tom Brown, pastor of Word of Life Church in El Paso, Texas prosperity message of “I believe he (Jesus) was the richest man on the face of the earth because Jesus had God as his source," is in fact wrong because in fact, Jesus in human form became the poorest of the poor by becoming a Bond-Servant.

PART IV GOD’S CONCERN FOR THE POOR

In this section, I want to show that God has a special concern for the poor. This section is not necessarily about the believer’s response toward the poor, but rather God’s concern for the poor and oppressed. The poor and oppressed always seem to be on God’s mind.

In Deut. 26:5-9, the Israelites cried out to God: The Lord heard our voice and saw our affliction and our toil and our oppression. The Lord brought us out of affliction and oppression to a land flowing with milk and honey.

Ps. 104:12: I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor.

Isaiah 25:4: For you have been a defense for the helpless, a defense for the needy in his distress.

Psalms 10:14: The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been their helper of the orphan…O Lord, You have heard the desire of the humble; You will strengthen their heart, You will incline Your ear to vindicate the orphan and the oppressed.

Isaiah 41:1: The afflicted and needy are seeking water, but there is none, and their tongue is parched with thirst. I, the Lord, will answer them Myself; as the God of Israel, I will not forsake them.

It is safe to say that God loves all of creation, but we also see that it is within God’s character to hear the cries of the poor and oppressed. As a liberationist, I call this a preferential love toward the poor and oppressed. If God said that because of our neglect of the poor, oppressed, and lack of justice, God would intercede and meet their needs. At the same time, God is also telling us that we have failed in our responsibility toward the poor. We have failed to live up to our responsibility of taking care of the poor and oppressed. God’s intercession is our failure. What does God’s love for the poor mean for us, how does it change our behavior, and how does it change our view of life? These are just a few questions we must stop and ask ourselves: What should our attitudes be toward the poor?

Every true theology springs from a spirituality; that is, from a true meeting with God in history. Liberation theology was born when faith confronted the injustice done to the poor.[7] We are meeting God where God is, which is as a defender of the poor. The time for contemplation is over, and what is needed is a theology of praxis. A call to action. As James puts it, if one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing to alleviate their physical needs, what good is it? (Ja. 2:16). A religion that God, our Lord, accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (Ja. 1:27).

The poor become the object of special attention as victims of injustice. Amos includes oppression of the poor in his accusation against Israel (Amos 2:6-15). They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes, they that trample the head of the poor into the dust of the ear, and turn aside the way of the afflicted (Amos 2:6-7). This connection also explains why there are numerous laws defending the poor and those who are socially the weakest: "You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry" (Ex 22: 22-23). To defend the poor is to honor God, Father of the poor. Generosity to them is, therefore, justified and recommended (Dt 15: 1-11). There is a reason why God speaks of “God’s poor.” Sing for joy, O heavens, and exult O earth; break forth, O mountains, into singing! For the Lord has comforted God’s people and will have compassion on God’s afflicted (Is 49:13). The Lord singles out the afflicted and calls them “God’s”[8] or His. If we are to meet the God of history, then what should our attitude toward the poor and oppressed be? Should it not be among the afflicted

PART V OUR ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POOR

The following verses will show us the proper response we should have when dealing with the poor and oppressed. These verses speak about our responsibility toward our fellow man, while at the same time honoring God.

Prov. 29:7: The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.

Lev. 19:15: You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.

1 John 3:17: But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

Mt. 6:4: But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your alms may be in secret; and your God who sees in secret will repay you.

Gal. 2:9: They only asked us to remember the poor -- the very thing I also was eager to do.

Acts 2:44: All those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began to sell their property and possessions, and share them with all, as anyone might have need.

Acts 4:32-35: For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.

Eph. 4:28: Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.

Mankind finds itself in a state of betweenness. We find ourselves in between what God requires as a ritual obligation and our social obligation toward our fellow man. The concept of mestizo is used in Latin American theology. Mestizo is a state of being in between cultures, not truly belonging to one culture or another culture, a state of betweenness. When meeting God, we fall into this state of mestizo as well. This environment of mestizo can be both spiritual toward God and social toward our fellow man. This environment, in my opinion, is both spiritual and physical. What does God require of us and what does this requirement mean when dealing with our fellow man; both are important and in fact interrelated.

In Judaism, the idea of mitzvot is service of worship toward God; thus, it relates to the man and God relationship. Mitzvot, which also describes Jewish commandments, affect our fellow humans; thus, they are related to human relationships. The idea is that we cannot differentiate purely religious or ritualistic precepts from purely social or ethical commands, thus leading to mitzvot. “With Judaism, social obligations and duties, ethics, and morality, are an integral part of the religious and ritualistic.”[9] Ps 41:2 said we must consider the poor. Empathy, sympathy, sincere consideration – they’re much more important than just material assistance.[10]

We find ourselves in a state of betweenness. You cannot separate the idea of mitzvot toward God and mitzvot toward man. This makes one consider this: What does living in the state of betweenness mean for us today? Can we truly live a life dedicated to God, yet neglect our obligation to love our fellow man? In the Book of James, we find this principle being played out with the idea and understanding the mitzvah of loving-kindness. To truly please God, and honor the man-God relationship, we must express loving-kindness toward our fellow man, thus respecting the man-man relationship (James 2:17). We thus find ourselves in the middle in this aspect or idea of being in between both God and man. One cannot separate man’s physical existence and man’s distinct nature from man’s spiritual life directed toward God.

Dr. Dale Martin said, “Identity by location” is true for all human beings.[11] The idea of location is what is important if I am to gain my identity from where I find myself. The question then is: Where am I? Where am I located? For me, it is a sense of betweenness, finding myself between both God and man. I understand that Martin’s idea of location is more of a physical place on a map, one's social surroundings, and those that have direct contact with us on a daily basis. The problem is that we should find ourselves in a more spiritual location, in a state of betweenness. This place should be between both God and the poor, not only our physical location. Leonardo Boff reminds us that theology should spring from spirituality. The idea of spirituality is our praxis. This state of spirituality is interrelated with my religious obligations toward God and my social obligation toward man.

In Latin American theology, we speak of having one foot within the community of the poor and the other in the world of theology. The correct hermeneutical circle is described in the following manner. First, you must find yourself in the midst of the poor, oppressed, and marginalized. It is within this situation among the poor that we can see what is happening to God’s preferred children. It is here that we see, we listen and begin to ask questions. It is those questions that you take into the theological world to find answers. The answers that we find in the theological world, we take back into the world of the poor and God’s preferred children. Correct hermeneutics cannot simply be a man talking with God, or simply books talking with books or man talking with fellow man. Correct hermeneutics must be God with man and man with man, with both dynamics working together.

The idea of “self-sufficiency” is common in our world today. People tend to believe that they make their own way through life. Our capitalist world tends to also teach that we work for our own benefit and businesses only concern themselves with their own bottom line, everyone is out for their own benefit. At this point, one can only convince themself that self-sufficiency is feasible, when in reality, we are all co-dependent on each other; we are interrelated. Unfortunately, we foster this idea of self-sufficiency when we neglect the plight of those less fortunate. To properly deal with this situation, we must find ourselves in a state of betweenness. Understanding our obligations toward God and our obligations toward mankind is where we find our correct state of being. Self-sufficiency goes against the idea of betweenness. One cannot simply consider himself or herself when entering into a relationship with God. Even if we approach God for the purpose of salvation, we immediately must ask: What next? We are not allowed to stay within this one-way relationship between God and man; we must eventually develop into a social relationship with mankind – one of the mitzvot, on loving-kindness.

So we return from where we began. To fully understand our relationship with God, we also must understand our relationship with humanity. It is in the state of being in between two relationships where we can truly understand who we are as individuals, humans, and Christians -- the idea that mankind can find itself in a state of betweenness – allowing us to honor God by being our brother’s keeper.

PART VI GOD / JESUS -- RICH AND POOR

I have come to the conclusion that proving God is rich is extremely easy. There are no shortages of books on store shelves telling us that God is rich, and that we should be too! To this respect the gospel of prosperity has it correct, God is rich. To state the obvious, God is the creator of the world; the world is God’s. I will simply point out a few Scripture verses in which God and Jesus place themselves in the position of the poor and oppressed. I believe that by using these few Scripture passages, I can support my point that God and Jesus both, at times, took the identity of the poor and oppressed. I believe that this concept does need more developing. I’ve also decided to go back to the mitzvah of Gemilut, on loving-kindness, that I used earlier. But this time, I will develop the concept of mitzvah as taught in Jewish traditions.

2 Cor. 8:9: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though Jesus was rich, yet for your sake, Jesus became poor, that you, through Jesus’s poverty, might become rich.

Prov. 19:17: He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and the LORD will repay him for his good deed.

Prov. 14:31: He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors God.

Mt. 25:31-46: The parable of the last judgment, where Jesus said “…You did it unto me…”

These few short verses show that Jesus considered Himself poor. In 1 Cor. 8:9, we notice that “being rich” is to be considered as Jesus’s previous position in glory. The point of the verse is to make a contrasting statement. Jesus was once rich, but for our sakes, Jesus became poor. I do not believe Jesus pretended to be poor, but became poor for our sakes. In Matt. 8:19-20, a certain scribe said, "Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go." And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." The idea of the verse is easily understood to be that Jesus had no permanent home.

Pr. 19:17; 14:21 says that by being gracious to the poor, we lend to God. It is God who will repay one’s gracious acts, not the individual receiving the gift. Charles Bridges writes, “It is God’s ordinance that there will always be poor in the land (Deut. 15:11). Hence, the universal obligation is to be kind to the poor.”[12] A good idea to think about when considering these verses is that we are lending to God. I cannot think of a better creditor. We should not expect that money back overnight -- sometimes it is good to let it sit and gain interest. After all, God gives us treasure in heaven, where decay cannot take it away.

Matthew 25:37-40 says those who are considered “sheep” in the parable needed some explaining, when exactly did they see Jesus. How was it that their good deeds were done unto Jesus? “The sheep are blessed because of their good behavior. They cared for Christ, feeding Jesus when Jesus was hungry, giving Jesus drink when thirsty, providing adequate clothing when Jesus was naked…visiting Jesus when he was sick or imprisoned. There are three basic human needs, apart from salvation: food, shelter, and companionship.”[13] I searched numerous commentaries to gain a deeper understanding of the statement “When I was…” or “you did it unto me…” I finally gave up searching for a deeper meaning. How is it that Jesus positioned himself and identified himself as being hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and imprisoned, and yet no commentary goes in depth on the significance of such a concept? Most commentaries only focus on the action of the believers/sheep in the story. Other commentaries discussed the issues of work-faith and how the idea was more about faith-fruits, not work-salvation. I read some good homiletics on faith-producing good works and how the faithful had not counted their works toward salvation. How is it that the idea of Jesus becoming poor and in need just goes without mention? Is it just so obvious that nothing needs to be said, is it that no one wants to tackle the elephant in the room, or is it that by doing so, you might need to restructure your theology? I mentioned in my introduction that the message throughout the Bible is simply to “help the poor, the needy.” It is not hard to understand; it is just hard to do and against all that society teaches.

Up to this point, I have tried to lay a foundation for why Jesus and God both identify with the poor, but also assume their plight as being poor. In Matt. 25, the parable of the Last Judgment seems to drive home the idea that Jesus was economically poor, for our benefit. In. I Cor. 8:9, Jesus becomes poor so that we can become rich. We find Jesus among the poor, as one of them, in solidarity with them. To find Jesus is to find the poor and oppressed.

Unfortunately, these arguments have been made among theologians, and I have cited works that fit into the idea of Jesus among the poor, but very little about Jesus becoming poor, economically poor. I began with a biblical understanding of rich and poor, the concept of being a bond-servant, God’s special concern for the poor, our biblical attitude toward the poor, and God and Jesus’ identity as poor. I do not see any books on Jesus being economically poor and disadvantaged fighting for space on bookstore shelves anytime soon. This idea seems to go against common cultural beliefs, that the poor and oppressed are not where you go for help. If I need to go to Jesus in prayer, I need to have a basic belief that Jesus is capable of helping me, and not disadvantaged in any way. If Jesus were disadvantaged, how could Jesus possibly help me? So it is just easier for those that preach the prosperity gospel to think about the rich Jesus, creator of heaven and earth. I am left with a problem with my thesis statement -- Jesus being poor, with little Scripture text to support my thesis. I tried laying the ground work from start to finish, but I feel the need to go deeper. I wanted to develop another concept and borrow some ideas from within Judaism -- in particular, the Chabad Philosophy of Divine Commandments.

PART VII THE DIVINE COMMANDMENTS

In section V, I wrote about mitzvot and their religious and social obligation, that mitzvot held us in a state of in-betweenness, with a responsibility to both God and man. I used this concept of betweenness to show that we live in a static world, pleasing God and serving mankind, and that they are interwoven. The word tzedakah derives from Tzedek, which means “just” or “righteousness.” Giving someone what he or she is due is not considered tzedakah. Paying someone their wages is not tzedakah. Tzedakah is fulfilling duties toward others, such as duties imposed on one on through moral virtues (taking care of the sick, poor, oppressed, charity, etc.); this is considered tzedakah unto you (Deut. 15:6).[14]

The idea of tzedakah goes deeper than giving someone what they are owed. The idea of betweenness has more significance than simply religious and social duties. Maimonides saw the laws governing human relations and those governing the duties of man toward the Creator as inextricably bound.[15] The Jewish commandments, or mitzvot, are not simply there to keep mankind under control. They are meant to elevate the worshipper to a higher plane. The mitzvot are the means of establishing contact between man and God and spreading the idea that someone from a higher social status can elevate someone of a lower social standing. How much more are we elevated when we serve God[16]?

Mitzvah means “commandment,” but it also means “companionship” or “union.” “One who fulfills a commandment becomes united with the essence of God, who ordained the precept.”[17] I believe this is the concept that Jesus uses in Matt 25 in the Last Judgment story. God uses this precept in Proverbs 19:17. When one puts into practice the mitzvah of loving-kindness, we connect with the essence of God, who ordained the precepts. “Moreover, the effect of the fulfillment of the Torah and its precepts goes beyond the limits of a mere relationship. It leads to an absolute communion with God.”[18]

It is clear to me that when one practices acts of loving-kindness toward someone in need, there is a special connection with God, a communion with God. The act of loving-kindness goes deeper than just acts of goodwill; it seeks also to lift the person out of his or her condition of poverty or oppression. The highest level of tzedakah seeks to enable the needy to retain their fullest self-respect and self-confidence, and unobtrusively help them become self-supporting.[19]

This understanding is in keeping with the two greatest commandments, on loving God and loving your neighbor. If we keep these two, we have kept the entire law. It shows me that when I am doing my religious precepts of worshipping God, whether in praise or prayer, I am also in communion with God. The same can be true when I consider the poor and the oppressed, and seek to help alleviate their pain. This is also communion with God. By the mere fulfillment of the mitzvah of Gemilut, I have put my relationship with mankind on par with my relationship with God. My state of in-betweenness then contains God at both ends of my religious and social responsibility -- at which point, I am totally in communion with God. This is the place where I find myself when I apply my views of liberation theology: in communion with God.

PART VIII FINAL THOUGHTS

A focal point for Gustavo Gutierrez is theology as critical reflection on praxis. It demands a challenge from the Christian community. Today, we see that charity is being rediscovered as the center of Christian life. This understanding is leading to a more biblical view of faith. Christians are looking outside themselves and renewing their commitment to God and neighbor. Paul reminds Christians that faith works through charity. Gutierrez says, “Love is the nourishment and the fullness of faith, the gift of one’s self to the other, and invariably to others.”[20] This should become the foundation of the praxis. This concept goes directly against the prosperity gospel, which seeks to benefit from those less fortunate. The very same preachers that solicit monies from the poor, while telling them that God will deliver them from their poverty if they contribute to these evangelist ministries are the very people these ministries should be seeking to help. I have developed different approaches to the idea that the poor are God’s preferred children, but also that God and Jesus have at times placed themselves in solidarity with the poor. I have seen the harm the prosperity gospel has had on poor Hispanics who work two jobs and feel that given to these ministries they will be delivered from their plight. It is almost like a lottery to them; sadly the lottery would probably be a better bet.

This essay was meant to be a point of departure for a dialogue about the restoration of the commandments and charity found within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This essay used scriptures within the Old Testament, New Testament, and Judaic studies. These three areas form my educational foundation, and I have chosen to use only these areas of studies to support my new Mormon faith. I will be posting my new essay soon.

[1] Christian History Magazine-Issue 14: Money in Christian History: Part I. Worcester, PA: Christian History Institute, 1987.

[2] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

[3] Elwell, Walter A., and Barry J. Beitzel. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.

[4] Kitchen, K. A. “In the Old Testament.” Edited by D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman. New Bible Dictionary. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

[5] Compelling Truth, http://www.compellingtruth.org/bondservant.html

[6] Dictionary.com LLC http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emptied?s=t @2015

[7] Boff, Leonardo & Boff, Clodovis. Introducing Liberation Theology, Burns & Oates/Search Press Ltd., 1987 p.3

[8] Pope, William Burt. A Compendium of Christian Theology: Being Analytical Outlines of a Course of Theological Study, Biblical, Dogmatic, Historical, Volumes 1-3. London: Beveridge and Co., 1879.

[9] Schochet, Rabbi Jacob Immanuel, Loving-Kindness, The Mitzvah of Gemilut Chassadim. Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY., 1967

[10] Ibid. p8

[11] Martin, Dale. Professor of New Testament Yale University, lecture

[12] Bridges, Charles. Proverbs. Crossway Classic Commentaries. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001.

[13] Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. Vol. 22. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.

[14] Schochet, Rabbi Jacob Immanuel, Loving-Kindness, the Mitzvah of Gemilut Chassadim, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, New York, 1967, 1999

[15] Mindel, Nissan, The Divine Commandments, The Significance and Function of the Mitzvot in Chabad Philosophy, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY 1945, 1992

[16] Ibid 17

[17] Ibid 17

[18] Ibid 18

[19] Schochet, Rabbi Jacob Immanuel, Loving-Kindness, the Mitzvah of Gemilut Chassadim, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, New York, 1967, 1999 p14

[20] Gutierrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books Maryknoll, 2014. P.6

#Commandment #Charity #LDSchurch #SergioSmith