Reformation: Healing Broken
Relationships
Stephen Terry
Commentary for the September 21, 2013
Sabbath School Lesson
“Someone in the crowd said to him,
‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.’” Luke 12:13, NIV
A few short verses
in the Gospel of Luke about relationships are the tip of the iceberg only.
However, the rest of the story might easily be surmised from what is said.
Apparently the father of two sons had worked hard for much of his life to
accumulate an estate that eventually could be passed on to the next generation.
There may have been daughters as well, but in biblical times, property was
rarely passed on to daughters unless there were no surviving male heirs.[i]
For whatever reason, the father of the two sons chose to leave his entire
estate to only one son, either intentionally or by default. Perhaps he was
following the principle of primogeniture.
Under this principle, the first-born son inherits the entire estate,
leaving any siblings to seek their fortune or even their basic sustenance
elsewhere. Some feel this was the issue referred to as “birthright” in the
controversy between Jacob and Esau.[ii]
Sometimes, when the first-born son inherited the lands and any titles attached
to a noble patrimony, the second born son might serve in the military or go
adventuring to acquire an estate through plunder or discovery. If that
alternative lacked appeal or failed to be profitable, the church was often a
refuge of last resort with the disinherited son seeking a clerical appointment.
Perhaps the
second son in this instance felt such a system of inheritance was unjust. Maybe
he felt both sons had contributed to the profitability of the estate while the
father was living. Whether the father intentionally left everything to one son,
or he simply failed to make provision ahead of time for both of his sons, one
boy came up empty handed. In any event, he seemed to feel that Jesus could
correct the situation. If the favored son had become a follower of Jesus, the
other son might have felt that he would listen to Jesus if he commanded him to
give a portion of his inheritance to his brother. How often have Christians had
to hear the condemning words of those who do not care for Christ or
Christianity, but nonetheless, they rebuke Christians for not blessing them
with money or other worldly goods. Was this the disinherited son’s only
interest in Jesus, that he could get money out of Him? The Bible doesn’t say.
However, Jesus’ strong rebuke of his request might lead us to believe that
could be the case.
In some
cases the only attraction that Christianity holds for individuals is a belief
that professing fellowship with Christians will open the storehouses of heaven
to pour down material blessings on the believer. Perhaps prosperity gospel
preaching has played a role in this perception. It is tempting to believe that
if you only have enough faith and persevere long enough with that belief, you
will become wealthy. However, this belief provides no adequate explanation of
why someone who walks daily in close fellowship with Jesus might still be poor.
For that matter, it gives no explanation for the poverty of Jesus. Jesus seemed
to preach the exact opposite of the prosperity gospel, encouraging people to shed
their wealth rather than accumulate it.[iii]
Those who
profess Christianity in order to gain material wealth were often referred to as
“Rice Christians” before the prosperity gospel became popular. This was because
of the common occurrence of the destitute of Asia, where rice was a staple,
converting to Christianity because of the apparently endless streams of rice
that flowed to the various missions. Once the rice stopped flowing, as when
Mao’s communists closed many China missions,[iv]
the “rice” converts reverted back to their former beliefs and practices.
Because of the turmoil of those times, it is impossible to document how common
such backsliding actually was, but oftentimes the perception is more enduring
than actual fact. Perhaps it was to prevent such occurrences that Jesus
challenged the common desire to accumulate wealth, even to the extent of
illustrating that entrance to heaven for the rich would be like a camel passing
through the eye of a needle.[v]
This might
surprise some, but we might ask, “Why?” Even secular relationships that are
built on what someone else can do for us rather than mutual respect and service
can be in trouble from the beginning. Some have married based on hopes that a
second person will contribute to greater prosperity and security than one
person alone was able to find. When that prosperity was in some way challenged,
perhaps by job loss or disability, the marriage fell apart. The expectations of
one party that the other would ensure their security could no longer be
realized, and since that was the foundation of the relationship, it ended, and
often that security was sought elsewhere. As with such a marriage, so it can
sadly be with “rice” Christians.
When such a
Christian eventually discovers that Christianity is not a meal ticket or a path
to worldly wealth, they either must mature in their faith to a more realistic
understanding of their responsibilities to others and to God, or they will fall
away, searching for the elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, never
understanding the role of hard work and consistent faithfulness based on love in
ensuring their security, both present and future. Like the young bride who
remains committed to her marriage even when she learns she may have to scrub
floors to keep the wolf from the door because her husband has become disabled
or unemployed, or the young groom whose wife becomes disabled, and he chooses
to remain married even though it means he must fulfill the role of breadwinner,
caregiver and housekeeper, the Christian chooses to remain in relationship with
Christ, because of love, not wealth. Though that relationship may mean toil,
persecution and even death, it endures.
Perhaps the
greatest value of such a relationship is the love foundational to its success.
Wealth may bring some feelings of security, but it is a cold security. It does
not warm the heart like love can. Love can provide security that nothing else
can. It can survive economic downturns, sickness, ill fortune of all sorts, and
even death. Wealth can fly away in the face of any of these things. It is
fickle and sometimes needs no reason to abandon those who trust in its
ephemeral promises.
There is
good news, though, even for “rice” Christians. Change is possible. It may seem
an impossibility to ever release one’s grasp from the golden treasure whether
real or hoped for in the future, but God can make it possible.[vi]
We need only turn and walk toward God.
A very real
danger exists that wealth can cause us to walk away from God instead. Jesus
warned us of this when He told us that no man can serve two masters.[vii]
The desire to accumulate and retain wealth can consume all of our devotion,
leaving little for God. When that happens, we may be like a trapped animal,
unable to extricate ourselves and perhaps unwilling to even consider the idea.
We might become unable to see that love provides greater security than money
ever can. This might prevent us from hearing God’s call to our hearts. But that
call never stops coming, even if we can no longer hear it. God never gives up
on a relationship with us. He always urges us to turn and walk toward Him.
God is love.[viii]
Love endures even if we don’t care about it. His love is what He offers as a
counter to the wealth that so beguiles. It is the essence of our choice: love
or wealth. The paradox is if we choose the first we get both love and security,
but if we choose the second, we may end up with neither.
A problem
with security based on wealth is that no one can answer a very simple question:
How much wealth is enough? At one point, as a young married, I used to tell my
wife, “If we only had a thousand dollars of income, we could feel secure.”
After I graduated from college and went into the ministry, our income ballooned
to eighteen hundred dollars a month, along with a rent-free parsonage. We soon
discovered that the security that we thought we would have at an income of one
thousand a month was still elusive at a much higher amount. I have since had
incomes much higher than a young pastor could expect, but still it never seemed
enough to ensure security. However, I have since come to understand that
security comes from love, not wealth. Perhaps that is what Jesus is trying to
tell us with His comments about money.
I cannot
help but wonder if the young man who accosted Jesus about his inheritance ever
was able to see what Jesus was all about. Maybe he spent the rest of his life
bemoaning the inheritance he didn’t get. If he did, he may have missed out on
building real security in the arms of a loving God. That is an inheritance that
is guaranteed and nothing can take away.[ix]
