(11 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...Here is an article that I wrote to connect my forthcoming book (Love thy Stranger) to an intriguing news event a couple of months ago. I had thought about publishing in a journal but, well, never did. So here it is, just for you Blog Members!
******************************
Jesus introduced a new kind of altruism into the world, and it is fading before our very eyes. This has been graphically illustrated by a recent TikTok sensation.
A woman from Kentucky, Nakalie Monroe, had the inspired idea of testing the moral commitments of communities of faith. She recorded phone calls to over forty churches of various denominations, asking if they could help her starving baby. All she needed was a can of formula. This was a scam: there wasn’t actually a baby; but an infant screaming (from a recording) could be heard loud and clear in the background.
The great majority of churches
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Amen
Would that be James 2.14?
In my experience churches spend the vast majority of their budgets on facilities and staff and only a small fraction goes towards benevolent charity. I think the justification is often that the church’s most important mission is “saving” people, and for some reason nice church buildings and professional staff are necessary to do so. How can you “save” people if you/re not modeling the teachings of your Savior?
If the Roman elite were following the teachings of Jesus, shouldn’t they have been sending wealth and care *outside* the Roman empire? Did they do that, or was the wealth and care distributed to those in need *within* the Roman empire? If the latter, isn’t this basically the same as what Jews did within Israel?
The Roman elite did not follow the teachings of Jesus, since they did not convert for centuries.
In your article you wrote, “Jesus taught that “Love Thy Neighbor” meant “Love Thy Stranger.” Devote your life to helping those in need, even outsiders. After Jesus’ death, this teaching lived on. As Christianity expanded throughout the the Roman world, it became a doctrine proclaimed from the pulpit. As the Roman elite began to convert, they put their economic and cultural muscle behind it. When the Empire converted, it came to be a moral commonplace. Those with means needed to help those without, even if they were complete strangers.”
If the Roman elite were putting their muscle behind the teachings of Jesus, shouldn’t they have been sending wealth and care *outside* the Roman empire? Did they do that? If not, and Roman wealth and care was distributed to those in need *within* the Roman empire, isn’t this basically the same as what Jews did within Israel?
Do you mean after they converted to Christianity? Yes, there were big debates about all that; in my book I argue that they kept much of the essence of Jesus’s message but early on gave up on following it strictly and/or literally.
But isn’t there a tension between the idea of love for all humankind, and the apocalyptic idea of a chosen remnant living by the strictures of the Kingdom in anticipation of the Parousia vs a demonic world system? Do you think the historical Jesus really taught love for the Romans? If Go so loved the world then why is he going to destroy a good chunk of them in order to establish his Kingdom?
Yup, there’s definitely a tension. My sense is that when Jesus talked about helping out those in need it did not mean that he thought those in need would survive the day of judgment. The two issues (our reaction to needs and God’s ultimate judgment) were in some ways distinct from one another.
You might want to do a little more research on the young lady.
Why is that? I read that one of churches suspected her as being a scammer because she called once and asked if they were pro life then called back recording the call, knowing the church would say no. Other than that, some of the churches did seem too dismissive or made excuses. I get that the churches have programs for those in need, and they may get calls all the time for similar situations, but she presented an emergency situation. What do you know about it? I’m open to it either way!
When the circle of neighbor is expanded to include all living beings and the senseless slaughter
of animals ends, then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars.
Amazing read! I am very excited to read the new book!
For Dr. Bart Ehrman:
I live in Fearrington Village, just a few miles south of UNC. My two kids (now adults) got their PhDs at UNC. My son’s wife , Isik (Turkish background) works at Duke assisting international applicants.
I just finished your book, “Heaven and Hell”:
1 – As a professor of religious studies, have you heard of the Baha’i Faith?
There is no reference to that religion in the book.
2 – Page 214 mentions 1844 as the end of history. In what context is this date mentioned? I ask because this date is the year of the Declaration of the Báb, the beginning of the Baha’i Dispensation.
Here is a link to some video documentaries I produced about the Baha’i Faith.
https://www.youtube.com/user/jqcotten
“What Hath God Wrought” is the best introduction to the subject.
If you’d like to know more about me, here’s my bio:
https://jqcotten9.wixsite.com/mysite
I enjoyed your book.
Sincerely,
Joel Quentin Cotten, PhD
[email protected]
Please let me know that you received this email. Thank you.
Oh, yes, I”ve known about Baha’i for 50 years, and have known a number of people committed to it (and some who were deeply committed to it but then left it).
1844 is the year the Millerites expected Jesus to return. I discuss it in my book Armaggedon.
I once heard that the pool of Bethesda was considered a sort of hospital for its day.
I don’t dispute the above story, but I’m not sure I agree that “This impulse to help the “other” appears to be slipping away. Most disturbingly, it appears to disappearing among those who are most vocal about their allegiance to Christ…”
A more rigorous view is given in the book “Who Really Cares” by Arthur Brooks. It shows that the most charitable and giving are not those you’d expect, and the biggest divide is not along political lines, but religious. Not trying to make this a political discussion, but it is surprising to see who actually is more charitable given the media’s portrayal of the traits of each political group as well as religious groups.
Also, giving to churches has fallen dramatically over the last 40 years, so it wouldn’t be surprising that they have less to give. Not being able to supply a baby bottle seems a bit ridiculous, but the bigger picture explains less giving that doesn’t have Ebeneezer Scrooge behind it.
Anyway, my two cents worth!
You can see the same lack of empathy in churches who “stay out” of any political controversy involving the suffering of people abroad. Not one word is said in the pulpit about immoral actions of our government that cause suffering and death for thousands and millions in foreign countries. This is just as true of some “mainline” denominations as it is for “evangelical” denominations.
As for helping people in their local communities, many churches have abdicated their moral responsibilities altogether, thinking “the government” is responsible, not them.
For many years my title was Minister of Care at a large non-denominational church in Southern California. Basically I was paid to care, but I learned so much about my own bias in the process. We had a budget and policy (of course) about who qualified for help and often I would refer repeated seekers to other non-profits specific to their needs because I felt they were taking advantage of our generosity. We did send a large team of adults and teens to help in the aftermath of Katrina, and a large number of our congregation gave specifically to the “care fund” in order to care for those who needed help.
All that to say there is an intrinsic joy that comes along with loving one’s neighbor if one truly expects nothing in return. It can also disappointing when there are so many who feel entitled to scam those who truly love to give. Loving boundaries are necessary for loving care.
Thank you!
Isn’t it ironic that Christian theists are getting called out by an atheist.
This needs to run in every newspaper in the world. In South Africa we have a principle called ubuntu – variously interpreted, but broadly a belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity. Right now there is a counter, xenophobic movement harassing immigrants who receive any state services, notably hospital or health services. Churches and leaders generally are muted in their response. Shame on many of our leaders world-wide in this 21st century “domini.” Especially shame on those who claim to be good religious people while hating and hurting “the other.”
If I was the pastor at, say, St. Bartholomew’s Church and received Natalie’s call, I would have asked her to meet me at the local supermarket and purchased the formula she picked out. If she accepted the offer, I would have purchased 2 cans. If she declined, saying “just give me the money”, I would have added my name to the “refusal” column. Yes, it’s regrettable more positive responses weren’t forthcoming, but IMO it’s not Unchristian to decline a request if one deems it is bogus (as, in fact, this one was).
This was exactly the rule of our former pastor. If he got a call from someone asking for diapers for their baby, he would meet them at the store and buy the diapers. The rule was not to hand out money, but to pay for specific items in person.
Dr. Ehrman,
You’ve said that regarding the historicity of gospel accounts, scholars agree on few: Jesus was born a Jew, he was baptized, he had a following, he thought the end of times was imminent, he was crucified. Forgive me if I left anything out.
My question is about the altruism you ascribe to Jesus. In all the things the gospels speak of pertaining to Jesus’ good will toward gentiles, on a scale of one to Jesus was crucified, how would you rate the historicity of Jesus’ good will toward gentiles?
Yes, there are a number of other things as well that are widely agreed on. But as to your questoin, I think it’s relatively clear that Jesus was concerned for gentiles; I think it’s virtually certain he was crucified.
I don’t want to play the role of devil’s advocate, but what if that so‑called altruism was nothing more than marketing to promote Christianity within the pagan world?
In a Christian country like the USA that is no longer so necessary, although it is for Muslims who play the same role that Christians did in the pagan world, and perhaps that explains their willingness to help… to help, or to promote their faith?
I will never forget when the Mormons gave a wheelchair to the paralyzed beggar who asked for food at the entrance of the supermarket across from my house.
It was a very good chair, and on the back, in white letters on a black background, it read: “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints.”
This is an interesting point. Although, charitably, from the moral perspective of the Mormon they probably perceive themselves as doing 2 moral things: 1) helping someone in need and 2) evangelizing. Whether or not they should do number 2 within the specific context of number 1 seems contingent on how the majority of people would interpret the act (evangelizing vs. advertising vs. boasting, etc.). This is a difficult probability calculation to say the least. I typically am not bothered by the evangelization/advertisement from any group when they are doing otherwise moral things.
I am also not bothered by the advertisement from any group when they are doing otherwise moral things;however, I am not convinced this can truly be labeled as ‘altruism.’ For me, ‘altruism’ applies when you do not receive anything in return for what you do, and if you boast about it—well, is it really ‘altruism’? When such actions take place in a political or business environment, in general nobody sees them as altruistic; but they are seen as altruistic when they occur in a religious context—perhaps because religion has had better marketing than politics and even business.
I can’t believe all those churches told her no. That’s an epic fail.
IMO, religions only do charity when they need to. It’s just marketing. Once they have power that goes out the stained glass window. Then it’s all about IMPOSING. Ignore their soup kitchens. Watch which legislation they support.
Another great reminder https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/guest_perspectives/an-open-letter-to-speaker-mike-johnson/article_5a1175db-f48f-427d-be0a-756f334a09ec.html I’m not a great writer.
The last time I went to “Church” 10/13/2019 Hong Kong YMCA TST. Whenever it was Sunday & I was in HK, I would go.
that day Kowloon Peninsula was ravaged from riots- not any worse than any day in San Francisco. So after my 13hour flight & short walk. 1st I charged my IPOD Touch in the meeting room.
But as the service time neared the aisle lady was trying to get me to leave. Often in the past they had preached that they needed to reach those outside. I evidently was not a regular.
I was comforted by 2 HK folks. One nearby cried over the unkempt HK & another warned me to leave [so I spent the rest of the day in the airport].
HK has a nasty microcosm & I was treated extremely well by random HK guys, than as an outsider by the congregation.
On that note, I refuse to attend any USA church for over the past 6years.
Thank you!