The poor you will always have with you (some provisional thoughts)
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.
Tags: Jesus, marginalised, Peter Rollins, poor, Universal exception, Zizek
March 31st, 2008 at 9:51 am
Great post – especially the last line. It reminded me of Shane Claiborne’s response to affluent people who use that verse to shirk responsibility for social action. When they say that there’s no use because the poor will always be among us, he asks ‘Where are the poor? Are the poor among us?’ to which the typical reply is no. We’re not able to eliminate poverty, whether it be spiritual or fiscal, on our own. But we are called to be among the poor.
Grace and Peace
March 31st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
If I, having no right or relationship to do this, may press this post… I don’t come at life from your world-view, but I DO have some similarity of desire for the Church and this world.
There is an issue in this post (and Claiborne’s response, etc.) that seems to get side-stepped. The “correct understanding” of this phrase, as presented here AND by those who take it “the wrong way” is that the point of the paragraph is ignored. The verse really isn’t much about the poor (poor-ness) at all, hence the use of “but…” (’de’ – typically a negative conjunction).
My push-back is this: I actually agree with your insight, I rather like it! But this verse isn’t the place. Here’s why. If the only part of the sentence is pulled out to create a critique, then someone who reads the whole sentence (much less the whole account), can quickly dismiss you as a writer/thinker because the backdrop/location (i.e. verse) that you’re using is flawed. Candidly, the logic is off. I don’t mean “rational thinking” but rather the thought (what is poor?) is NOT the point of the sentence any more than saying, “he world is in terminal decline and can only be redeemed at the end of history” is the POINT of your post.
Again, I don’t come from your point-of-view. But I don’t like how easy it can be to dismiss your thought here due to a somewhat flawed approach to this verse (or to any communication, e.g. the last line of the previous paragraph in this reply).
I’m hoping this makes sense – please feel free to email back if it doesn’t. I am NOT attacking your thought – as I wrote, I rather enjoy the way it is challenging me, even now. I am attempting constructive criticism in the delivery of the thought.
2 cents,
David
March 31st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Pete,
I say “amen” and “amen”. Whether David is right or not–whether your point is better made by some other scripture–I don’t know. But it’s the point I care about. And the point takes us back to Amos and the minor prophets–God is on the side of the outsider, the widow, orphan and alien. Period.
If I were going to press you anywhere–and I’m not–it would be in the suggestion that all groupings are inherently violent, either explicitly or implicitly insofar as all result in insiders/outsiders.
btw: I think you’re obviously right that every human “banding together” excludes. And I would suggest that every Christian grouping should seek to minimize exclusion. But I wonder if all exclusions are created equal and whether all are inherently violent. My hunch is not. I would take as my point of reference Israel and Jesus. God worked through a particular tribe but with the purpose of blessing the nations. God was in Christ but with the purpose of saving the world. So, at least in these cases we’ve got an inclusive exclusivism. It’s through Christ alone (pretty exclusive) but for the salvation of all (pretty inclusive). It was through Israel (exclusive) but in order to bless the nations (inclusive).
Just some thoughts. Keep it up!!!!
March 31st, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Pete, I recently preached on this from the parallel passage in Matthew 26 and tried to suggest similarly (though not as eloquently!) that Jesus is not being flippant or callous, but is perhaps issuing a condemnation due to the fact that the poor are with them/us because the marginalized have not been cared for. All the more so when one considers this as an allusion to Deut. 15:4,7 which are pretty clear that “there should be no poor among you,” that is, we are called to the care of the dispossessed. If there are poor among us, we are not being as faithful to the call of God as we ought. This runs contrary to the dismissive way that this passage is typically used by those of means, at least here in the states anyway. . . There is much more to unpack here and this is quite simplified, but this is my working hypothesis . . .
April 1st, 2008 at 2:26 am
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, PETE!!! Love, Adele
April 1st, 2008 at 3:57 am
Hey all
Thanks for the comments: also sorry that my blog seemed to be down for a while. Will just pick up on a couple of points that have been made if I may.
In terms of what you say David I actually agree with you that what I have done is not a good biblical exegesis insomuch as it does not contextualize the words in the wider text, place them within the socio-political, historical context or relate them to the overall meaning of the chapter. However, more than this, the main thing I could be accused of is over-interpreting the words (which I freely admit – if Jesus said this he was unlikely to have been thinking about the nature of human interaction at the time). However I was not aiming at biblical exegesis. While I do keep up to some degree with biblical criticism etc. I am a philosopher (of the continental kind) by training. Thus I have different questions (continental philosophy, to simplify to the point of incorrectness, often focuses upon the rational scope and limitations of a particular existential and theoretical positioning).
Now the reason why I say this is to set up the point that as a philosopher rather than biblical scholar I am more interested in how these words, divorced from their context, have been used to justify a certain theoretical position whenever they could actually be found on the lips of one who stands in contradistinction to that position.
Now, what I want to do here is to show that these words (taken out of context and placed on their own, so to speak) can actually be seen to fit in with a broader tradition within the scriptures (for instance, in the major and minor prophets) of a bias towards the poor, the weak and the marginalised. That it does not contradict this tradition in any way (even when divorced from context). More than that I like the way these words can be employed as a springboard to explore the nature of human exclusion.
However I do think that these words, within their context, could perhaps still be employed in the way that I am meaning. It is Mitch’s post that makes me think this, in the way that he talks about the verse being an allusion to Deut 15:4-7. Thanks Mitch, really liked what you said.
I guess I could sum up the point simply by saying that if Jesus at some point had said “I don’t like the poor, they smell” I would think that this jarred with his overall message and would thus look very carefully at the context to see if I could show that, within the context, this is not what he meant. However, with the quote, “the poor you will always have”, I wanted to show that they didn’t need contextualised in order to fit with the overall message of Christ.
Hey Kevin – just a quick point that I agree with you that not all exclusion is equally violent. Although I would probably want to retain the idea that all social groupings house at least a minimal violence and that the Christian is one who is committed to a vision of breaking with this violence – this opens up a big set of questions which I will avoid getting into here… thanks for the post
April 1st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Pete,
Real quick.
I think the death and resurrection thing you’ve got going w/the blog–the now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t-now-you-do-thing–is…um…really biblical. If anyone tries to tell me that Pete’s “not biblical” I’m just going to send them here and tell them to follow the blog a few days; they’ll see how (book titles to the contrary)faithful you are to the bible. I mean every week, like in the blessed sacrament itself, the death and resurrection gets recapitulated. Very cool. (-:
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 am
Thanks Kevin: Check out Kester Brewin’s blog for his “Fundamentalist” response to my book! Very funny.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Pete,
I am (honestly!) honored by your long response to my comment! While I certainly come from an exegesis-driven background, I found myself bothered by how much philosophy was the dominant factor (i.e. more than just the ‘background’ a-la Heidegger/Being and Time). I write that so to help explain my frame-of-reference.
I am, also, a pastor of sorts. This combination lends me to use philosophy, exegesis, etc. for the sake of those I love – the community/church I am in.
The point of my comment, coming out of this frame, is that using text as is done by those who diminish (or in Claiborne’s case, exalt) the poor will eventually (in my opinion) diminish what is said – the “unfair” reading/listening eventually causes distrust of the presenter thereby putting THEM in a context of mistrust. That is, if I listen/read Claiborne long enough, I’ll surmise that he’ll use a text any way he wants just to make his point – just like those he disagrees with. My observation has been that once this conclusion is made by someone, everything the presenter (e.g. Claiborne) has ever stated is cast as manipulative and to be assumed false due to the false pretense of “truth” (vs. control, in this case).
The reason I actually replied to your post is because I enjoyed what it did to me so I don’t want that affect to be dismissed by being cast under a cloud of non-good motives. Obviously I am coming at this from a social-interaction stance, not just a rational exercise. It would seem to me, then, that I am starting where you end and ending where you start, yes?
Again, thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment and even more important, assuming that I was not attacking you as is evidenced by your tone above. You have been very gracious to me (am I clearly implying that this is not always the case with others I interact with, both friend and stranger!!!??!).
Thanks,
David
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Hey David
Without wanting to get into a ‘you’re great… no you are” type of thing I really appreciate you (and others) reading my blog and taking the time to interact seriously with it. I think the compliment is in seriously engaging with me rather than agreeing with me. So thank you for the gracous engagement (like yourself I place a big value in people being able to talk to each other with respect without necessarily agreeing – especially when they are wanting to make the world a better place).
In relation to what you say I will add another thought. Basically I sympathise with your concern, and indeed see a problem with both liberal and conservative (forgive the problematic binary – its just a shorthand) claims to interpret ‘correctly’. Both of which, as far as I can see disparage the place of eisogesis and falsely claim that they don’t do it.
In many ways I want to critique hermeneutics insofar as it is concerned with ‘correct interpretation’ and make a case for radical hermeneutics. For me radical hermeneutics is concerned with both exegesis and eisogesis – claiming not only that we do read into the text but that we ought to. Then the question concerns what prejudice we should read into the text. For me the liberation theologians get it right when they talk about a prejudice towards the poor. In many respects I see Jesus as a poor exegete. Because he had a tendency to interpret the law with the poor in mind – which, of course, makes me think he was a brilliant reader of the Torah.
I relation to our own positions, without wanting to minimise important differences, you perhaps are more sensitive to the ‘hermeneutics’ of radical hermeneutics and I am more sensitive to the ‘radical’ in radical hermeneutics. At least in this conversation. For both of us would seem to want to read the text with the marginalised and poor in mind.
I haven’t read any of Claiborne’s work so I can’t comment on it directly but I think that perhaps people coming from his type of position need to affirm and defend their prejudice when reading the text rather than hide it behind a supposedly neutral reading. An example of this would be, perhaps, the role of woman in ministry. I remember when my old church began to accept woman elders the pastor did eight weeks trying to show how the bible said it was fine and that’s why the made the choice. In reality it was obvious that his wife had told him to wise up (one of the first female elders) and he had met many woman who were gifted leaders. The problem for me was not that this lay behind the change in theology, the problem was that he could not admit it (to himself or the congregation).
He could not admit that his experience had caused him to re-read the text (emphaising some parts he had avoided in the past and avoiding some parts he had held onto). He had to try and hold the ‘pure’ hermenutic of being changed by the text rather than the messy alternative.
I might make this the subject of my next blog post.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:54 am
[...] The poor you wil always have with you (some provisional thoughts) [...]
April 4th, 2008 at 12:56 am
this is so good…
this came up this last week during our “mission” trip to Mexico City….
someone had made the comment that it is often used for justification of maintaining the status quo, and the cotinuation of systemic poverty and marginalization of the poor….rather than viewing it with the possibility of change and transformation…
if the poor are always among us…then we have a huge responsibility before us.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I agree with 99% of this post, but I do think it misses one practical application that was at the core of what Jesus was saying in “the poor will always be with you”.
And that is that the poor can become an idol as well.
Among other things, an idol is an excuse not to worship God. The disciples, Judas I. most adamantly, ostensibly rebuked the woman Mary for worshipping Christ. Jesus is showing us how we must serve the poor with a worshipful heart lest we be tempted to make the poor an idol. An extreme example of making the poor or marginalised an idol is communism.
I thought I’d throw that 2 cents of perspective in there.
May 24th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
TRADITIONALIST: We will always have the excluded among us.
PROGRESSIVE: The ‘fairness’ of that exclusion is important.
VISIONARY: We are all excluded