Would you give up all that you have to never know "need"?

[ncjohn]

Today’s reading from Acts describes how the early church was composed of those who sold everything they had and laid the proceeds at the feet of the Apostles, to be distributed according to need.

This philosophy of “from each according to his means; to each according to his need”, true communal living, was the basic way the early church operated. And the Church grew in great strides as people saw the way Christians took care of each other.

How many of us though would be willing to sell off what we have, even for a guarantee that we would never see need? How many of us would be willing to give up those pleasures we have come to take for granted in our consumerist society and refocus our lives on service to each other and total dependence on God. How many of us REALLY believe that God would provide “our daily bread”–all that we truly need to accomplish what He sent us here for?

The greatest test of what we actually believe is how we actually live our lives. “Where your treasure is, so also will be your heart.” I personally am very embarassed to say that even as a Franciscan, professed to “simplicity”, I am far too given over to the ways of the world and its definition of “success”. My generosity comes almost exclusively from my surplus. It might make me marginally better off than the “rich man” as I at least give the crumbs to Lazarus, but in the long run I end up more like the rich young man, who walked away sadly after Jesus told him to sell all he had and give to the poor, for “he had many possessions”.

I fear that we have largely traded in what Jesus asked for–doing for the least of his brothers–for belief in proper doctrines, while refusing to share our “talents”. And I fully include myself in that, even as I pass on those 'beliefs" to my children and grandchildren.

I do in my better moments though wish I had the strength to duplicate the devotion and focus that those of the early Church demonstrated. I do fully believe that if we as a Church did so we would once again see the kind of growth they did, and more importantly a true focus on the treasures stored up in heaven that moths cannot eat.

Peace,

 

[puzzleannie]

yes of course, the modern version of this is a charitable remainder trust or charitable annuity, where you sign over all your assets to the charity in return for a guaranteed annual income.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ncjohn,

Great Thread!

I’m hearing what you posted here.

I can’t even give up TV, never mind give up my other comforts that are not needed.

I too give to the poor, but its from my surplus as well.

I know that I currently don’t have the courage to do more and to trust in God’s providence.

This has me thinking, for sure.

God Bless
Jim

 

[Fidelis]

Today’s reading from Acts describes how the early church was composed of those who sold everything they had and laid the proceeds at the feet of the Apostles, to be distributed according to need.

This philosophy of “from each according to his means; to each according to his need”, true communal living, was the basic way the early church operated. And the Church grew in great strides as people saw the way Christians took care of each other.

Just a slight correction so that some will not, as many have done, interpret the practice of the early Church as “proto-communism.”

Acts 4:32-37

The community of believers was of one heart and mind,
and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own,
but they had everything in common.
With great power the Apostles bore witness
to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,
and great favor was accorded them all.
There was no needy person among them,
for those who owned property or houses would sell them,
bring the proceeds of the sale,
and put them at the feet of the Apostles,
and they were distributed to each according to need.

One thing it does say is that “no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own,” meaning that they lived lives of detachment, being willing to give up what they had the meet the needs of those who were in need.

What it doesn’t say is that they sold everything. It says if they had property they sold it and gave the proceeds to the needs of the Church. But it is clear from other places in the New Testament that members of the Church in Jerusalem still owned houses in which the believers would meet.

 

[Joysong]

Coincidentally, I am wondering if the Lord is convicting me to unload much of my ‘stuff.’ A recent death brought a sudden awakening to how futile it is to spend our life accumulating necessities (and toys?), buying a little each payday, and then one day upon death, it becomes the immediate property of an heir who never labored a day to acquire this vast fortune of one’s goods. The labor was done by the decedent, but this person reaps the good fortune without lifting a finger.

And so I ask myself, how would I have wished to have acted if I knew today was my last day on earth? Would I have wanted to hear the Lord’s words, "well done good and faithful servant … " for bestowing a good portion of my ‘stuff’ on the poor?

How is it that you are posting this, John? Is the Lord speaking to your heart lately, too? Why is it that we think we have years before dying and don’t need to take inventory about our present situations. Good provocative thread.

Carole

 

[Byzcat]

Yeah, I too gave to charity quite generously when I had plenty to give.

I don’t know what my answer would have been about seven years ago when I was relatively well off- had a good job, etc. But having had a few rugs pulled out from under me over the years, I think that if my financial state were to improve to the point that I could afford the amenities that I have given up over the last year or so in order to be able to survive, well…

Knowing what I know now, I think that yes, if I could give it all up to never have to know need. It seems like a sweet deal to me- give over your toys and luxuries and excess income, and we’ll guarantee that if you lose your job/become disabled/whatever you’ll still have a roof over your head, clothes on your back and food in your belly.

I’m doing fine without the satellite dish. I could probably learn to live without the internet. Heck, many years ago, my TV ran down the curtain and joined the choir invisible, I did without for six months and didn’t miss it at all after about the first two weeks. My parents eventually gifted me with a new one- they just couldn’t grok that I was perfectly happy without it. I think I had the thing for two weeks before I finally got bored enough to turn it on.

As I’m doing without luxuries, I’m finding that I really don’t need them, they just cost money and clutter up my life.

 

[ncjohn]

How is it that you are posting this, John? Is the Lord speaking to your heart lately, too? Why is it that we think we have years before dying and don’t need to take inventory about our present situations. Good provocative thread.

Carole

I’m not sure Carole. It just struck me again this morning, as it has on other occasions, though never enough to actually get me off my behind enough to do something.

It’s possible that the fact that we’re redoing our wills at the present time might have made this jump out more, but I’m not really sure.

Byzcat:

As I’m doing without luxuries, I’m finding that I really don’t need them, they just cost money and clutter up my life.

I heard an interview with Tom Petty shortly before his appearance on the Superbowl. Evidently a few years back someone torched his home, while he and his family were eating dinner I believe, in an attempt to kill him for whatever reason. The interviewer asked what things he missed most and what things he found he was able to live without that he might have thought he would treasure. His answer was that the only thing he ultimately missed were the family pictures and that everything else really didn’t matter.

I know in my head that I could do without any of it, just as I know in my head that God would plant something much better in my “secret garden” to replace those sins I just don’t want to give up. Detachment is so eminently logical, yet we are willing to wear the golden handcuffs rather than give into it.

Much to ponder.

 

[reen12]

What I’m musing on, is this, John.

Where might Jesus have been buried,
if Joseph of Arimethea hadn’t had
the wealth to have a tomb hewn?

Mary, Martha and their brother, Lazarus,
seemed to lead what we would now call
a “middle class lifestyle.” Jesus enjoyed
visiting with them, and having a meal -
a rest for Him, from the rigors of His ministry.

There used to be reference to “state in life.”

Once bring children into this world, and
the care of those children is, of necessity,
the prime responsiblity, for over 20 years -
18 years, at least.

I look at this, this way.

It is not the possessions, themselves,
that are problematic. It is the attachment
to these possessions, that is often the
deleterious reality.

If God had wanted all to give up their possessions,
then He would have called all to another state in life.
Was Jesus critical of the young man’s possesssions?
Or was He calling that young man - in particular -
to another state in life?

Down thru the ages, what has been the reality?
People wed, start a family, and care for this family.

I look to Judaic thought and practice, in this.
I so appreciate their view.
L’Chaim! To life - lived to it’s fulness.
Live in such a way that the world is a better place,
after one leaves it. Do whatever is possible,
in one’s circumstances, to donate toward the
care of those who are helpless, or nearly helpless.
If funds are not there, give of one’s time.

It is in the self-forgetful giving, that virtue is near.
At least, I think so.
And I also look at this, this way.

If one buys a TIVO, no problem. If one insists
on parking a TIVO at each TV, in one’s possession…
How many pair of socks, could be purchased,
for the local rescue mission, if one would live
with only one TIVO.

And what worker, who makes TIVO’s, has fed
the family - because many people bought them?
This worker then pays taxes - which help to
support those in need. The workers who made
the parts of the TIVO, can now have the income
to support their families.

As with the sock-makers. If one buys socks,
to give to a rescue mission, then the sock-makers
can care for their families, and they, too, pay tax
on this income - which is of further help, to those in need.
In all things, moderation. For moderation expresses
a sense of blessed proportion, I think.
And that sense of proportion may be one of the
finest gifts that we can give to our children.

reen12

 

[cheeto1]

yes, yes, moderation, I know. That’s always the answer in
everything it seems…
But a radical faith seems to lie just behind a thin, almost
transparent curtain… I can almost see it… almost…
I asked the priest about this reading today. I said, if they all
sold their houses and even land, where did they live?
He didn’t know and just said, “times were different then”.

 

[reen12]

quote: cheeto

yes, yes, moderation, I know. That’s always the answer in everything it seems…

It does seem like that.

If an individual wishes to live in a radically different way,
that is, of course, their choice, and what they may
feel called to.

Even at my age, sometimes I want to juggle,
just to juggle - :juggle:
as King David jumped up and down, before the Temple -
because he could not contain his joy - knowing that God was near.

St. Benedict Joseph Labre lived in a radically different way.

bowdoin.edu/~hholbroo/index4.html

He was on constant pilgrimage, throughout Europe,
in the 1700’s. Often ill, for a time he slept in a
hollowed out area, in the Coliseum in Rome,
and he spent his days before the Blessed Sacrament, praying.
If someone gave him a coin to buy food, he gave that coin to another.
And Benedict is thought to have had schizophrenia.
He reached sanctity through his illness, not despite it.
His was a radical way of living.

I think that Fr. Groeschel and the friars are living in
a radically different way
.
franciscanfriars.com/

They take seriously what St. Francis had to say about Lady Poverty.
Their state in life is a vowed state, as celibates.
They do not have families to care for, and can be
as radical as they choose - in terms of living up to
the view of poverty, embraced by their founder.

I think of that - which we see the outer edges of -
almost within reach - this is the harmony, and the
peace and joy of His Kingdom, reaching our earth-bound ears.

The poet, Francis Thompson, who was himself homeless -
addicted to the laudanum [opium] that he had been given
to treat an illness - who, at one point, had been driven to
sell matches - so that he would have something to eat,
he wrote the following - which surely speaks of that which is
present - and not just beyond our reach. -

No Strange Land

The kingdom of God is within you

O world invisible, we view thee,
O world intangible, we touch thee,
O world unknowable, we know thee,
Inapprehensible, we clutch thee!

Does the fish soar to find the ocean,
The eagle plunge to find the air–
That we ask of the stars in motion
If they have rumor of Thee there?

Not where the wheeling systems darken,
And our benumbed conceiving soars!–
The drift of pinions, would we hearken,
Beats at our own clay-shuttered doors.

The angels keep their ancient places–
Turn but a stone and start a wing!
'Tis ye, 'tis your estrangèd faces,
That miss the many-splendored thing.

But (when so sad thou canst not sadder)
Cry–and upon thy so sore loss
Shall shine the traffic of Jacob’s ladder
Pitched betwixt Heaven and Charing Cross.

Yea, in the night, my Soul, my daughter,
Cry–clinging to Heaven by the hems;
And lo, Christ walking on the water,
Not of Genesareth, but Thames!

---

“But (when so sad thou canst not sadder)
Cry–and upon thy so sore loss
Shall shine the traffic of Jacob’s ladder
Pitched betwixt Heaven and Charing Cross.”

The really radical thing, is to know that God exists -
a personal God, Who loves the human creatures
that He has made.

I do understand what you said, cheeto 1.

reen12

 

[ncjohn]

What I’m musing on, is this, John.

Where might Jesus have been buried,
if Joseph of Arimethea hadn’t had
the wealth to have a tomb hewn?

Mary, Martha and their brother, Lazarus,
seemed to lead what we would now call
a “middle class lifestyle.” Jesus enjoyed
visiting with them, and having a meal -
a rest for Him, from the rigors of His ministry.

There used to be reference to “state in life.”

Once bring children into this world, and
the care of those children is, of necessity,
the prime responsiblity, for over 20 years -
18 years, at least.

I look at this, this way.

It is not the possessions, themselves,
that are problematic. It is the attachment
to these possessions, that is often the
deleterious reality.

If God had wanted all to give up their possessions,
then He would have called all to another state in life.
Was Jesus critical of the young man’s possesssions?
Or was He calling that young man - in particular -
to another state in life?

Hi Reen,

You make some great points here, and ones I struggle with greatly. I am fully aware that there is more than one way to consider this conundrum. I am also aware that there may well not be a single “right” answer that we are all called to, as ultimately the call is to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves, and there are as many ways to accomplish that as there are people.

You have looked to Judaic thought and practice in this, which certainly is a viable example of a people who, at their best, tried greatly to please God through their every day lives.

You have rightly pointed out that Jesus likely did not condemn the rich young man for his possessions–indeed likely did not condemny him at all!–but more was saddened because the rich young man apparently put those possessions ahead of what he likely felt God calling him to.

As to your other questions, let me offer an alternate view. Much of Native culture was based on communal living where individuals owned what little there was in common. The communal hunt or farm fed the people rather than individuals owning any specific part of it. They largely ate from a communal pot, or a series of them. Child-rearing was a community activity and in most cases the entire tribe would be considered family. Even burial was in a common mound in many cases. I believe this model still exists in many of the “primitive” cultures still existing in the world.

I’m certainly not going to idealize that, as I’m sure they had their own issues within that system, people being what they are. I’m also not at all sure that that system could be translated into modern urban society. But I’m not totally sure that it couldn’t, if there were a dedicated group that were willing to try it.

There are groups like the Amish who do still maintain much of their sense of communal living, though I think they do own their own houses and have other individual possessions. And even within their protective communities they still struggle with human nature and have their own corruptions to deal with.

I guess the point I’m trying to make in the end is in trying to envision a way that would decrease the temptation to buy into “the system” as we know it. And further to get out of the “comparison game” that is so hardwired into us, that allows us to feel superior even in our generosity, feeling like we’re giving something that is “ours” to someone in need rather than reconginzing ourselves as stewards of the common need even if we happen to be “blessed” to be the one holding the resources.

How do we focus on God, through finding Him in each other, while living in the material world? How do we truly find detachment from possessions? How do we really reach the point where they know we love God because of the way we love one another? And maybe most importantly, how do we get away from trying to know ABOUT God and get back to working to know God as we are known?

Waxing philosophical in the mountains…

 

[reen12]

quote: ncjohn

Waxing philosophical in the mountains…

I have given close attention, to what you have written here, John.
Communal ventures have had a varied history, as you well know.
Even Merton, in his history of the Trappists in the U.S., notes how
one of the secular attempts - at forging such community - did not go well at all.

I am a firm believer in the immutable facts of human nature.
[This is why God gives grace, because it is sorely needed.]
I’ll bet that there are those who would wish to be in control of any such
communal-living group.
No matter how this would be guised - it would be the reality.
The “alpha” thing would express, IMO, and yours truly
would have zippo patience with that, either.
I’m a natural ‘alpha type.’

Besides, I’m an introvert - who would not do well -
with people constantly at my elbow, or under my feet. :coffeeread:
I’ve not the proper makeup, I think. I am unfit for communal
living of any sort. The nuclear family works for me.
2 hours max! is my tolerance, for the presence of others.
Day after day, of same, would wear me to a nub.

Perhaps the primitive Church’s communal living was short-lived,
because it takes a call - to that kind of living arrangement.
Just as it takes a call, to make the sacrifices necessary,
in a life spent in a religious community or order.

If members of a nuclear family have to have considerable patience,
with one another - where would come the patience, for others,
not at all related to me? I have spent over 40 years, taking
a gander at who “rises to the top,” in some group settings.
No chance! in this *world *- that I would willingly live my life
in any kind of communal setting, except that of the nuclear family.

Human nature is far too much with us - to turn the reins over
to who knows who. A man and a woman marry, vowing
to spend their life together, which is a matter of great trust.
To cherish and to care for one another, and to love and
to care for offspring that may be born. For me, the
nuclear family is the quintessential expression of communal love and trust.

Just my thoughts, John. :tiphat:

reen

 

[sawman]

Dear ncjohn,
I’m not so sure that scripture implies that the disciples never knew need because of their communal lifestyle. I.m pretty sure there was plenty of unmet needs in the early Church.I marvel that they gave of their substance despite the knowledge that they would be needy.
Pondering how one lives a simple life or how much is enough or too much to give is nice.Do not forget to thank God for that priveledge.
I do not have that option.All my adult life has been spent in close proximity to poverty.I have known the joy of seeing God at work in spite of bad deals and bad economies.He is always faithful.It can be very difficult sometimes to give of my substance because I have so very little surplus.I am saying this because it is one thing to speak of these things in an abstract way,or theoretical way,and another to live them out unwillingly and for the better part of my life.Poverty is not nice.there is real stress and great temptation to envy and despair. One can be lulled to sleep by to much goods and plenty.Nice safe careers that never hit an unexpected turn of events, never a raise denied,never a bout with dire straits.I’m not accusing or anything like that.I know people like this and they are profoundly asleep! The TV is never off a constant companion,no need or unexpected or God forbid unwanted disturbance.Career is good retirement set,vacation home paid off,third car and motorcycle and boat.Asleep!Many people in my situation are not any better.Poverty can grind you down.Especialy poverty from life, not a chosen vocation.I’ve had much sorrow in what I could not give my kids.I’m not writting this to accuse or for sympathy,but as a warning.Beware what you are asking for you may get it.As other posters have indicated God has and does call us to our vocations.I’m still struggling with mine.I have many brothers and sisters who are great examples of embracing poverty as God’s gift.I still struggle with it even at my stage of life.
Look, I’m sorry to have invaded your thread with what may very well be taken as a rant,but that is not the case.God bless you.Good luck wondering about the early Christians.

 

[ncjohn]

I am a firm believer in the immutable facts of human nature.
[This is why God gives grace, because it is sorely needed.]
I’ll bet that there are those who would wish to be in control of any such
communal-living group.
No matter how this would be guised - it would be the reality.
The “alpha” thing would express, IMO, and yours truly
would have zippo patience with that, either.
I’m a natural ‘alpha type.’

You again make some very valid points Reen. The societies that have evolved since the times of the early church, especially in regard to urban living, quite likely have removed any possibility of the communal living concept succeeding on any large scale. In many, if not most places, it would be difficult even to try to segregate into such a community, even if one could find the support structure to do so, since sefl-sufficiency of the community would be extremely difficult.

I don’t know if you ever saw the movie The Village, but in my opinion it was a brilliant example of the lengths one would likely have to go to in trying to establish such a community, and the evils that would be felt “necessary” to try to maintain it.

I think probably the biggest “obstacle” though is that there is not the key motivator to trying to bring Christians together in such a setting: the fact that the early church had to do so in many cases to even survive the persecution. With Christianity being at least tolerated in most cases, and at the top of the social structure in many others, that need to pull together for survival just doesn’t exist.

That doesn’t mean that isolated communities couldn’t be done, as indeed there are some successfully in existence. But the idea of the Church returning to such a state as its general method of operation is almost surely impractical. And as you note, even the hierarchy of the Church itself would likely be in political battles for “control”.

It doesn’t keep me from wishing for the kind of care for one another that permeated the early experience though.

 

[Thing]

Hi ncjohn, who were the couple who were struck dead in front of St. Peter.
I think St. Peter told them they were free to give whatever they wanted - but unfortunately they tried to deceive and were er sanctioned.

 

[TOP]

You again make some very valid points Reen. The societies that have evolved since the times of the early church, especially in regard to urban living, quite likely have removed any possibility of the communal living concept succeeding on any large scale. In many, if not most places, it would be difficult even to try to segregate into such a community, even if one could find the support structure to do so, since sefl-sufficiency of the community would be extremely difficult.

I don’t know if you ever saw the movie The Village, but in my opinion it was a brilliant example of the lengths one would likely have to go to in trying to establish such a community, and the evils that would be felt “necessary” to try to maintain it.

I think probably the biggest “obstacle” though is that there is not the key motivator to trying to bring Christians together in such a setting: the fact that the early church had to do so in many cases to even survive the persecution. With Christianity being at least tolerated in most cases, and at the top of the social structure in many others, that need to pull together for survival just doesn’t exist.

That doesn’t mean that isolated communities couldn’t be done, as indeed there are some successfully in existence. But the idea of the Church returning to such a state as its general method of operation is almost surely impractical. And as you note, even the hierarchy of the Church itself would likely be in political battles for “control”.

It doesn’t keep me from wishing for the kind of care for one another that permeated the early experience though.

The domestic church, the family. Tim

 

[ncjohn]

Dear ncjohn,
I’m not so sure that scripture implies that the disciples never knew need because of their communal lifestyle. I.m pretty sure there was plenty of unmet needs in the early Church.I marvel that they gave of their substance despite the knowledge that they would be needy.

Hi sawman! I’m sure there were unmet needs in the early church. Just a basic need to not be in fear of one’s life, which most of us would take for granted, was most certainly not met in many cases.

It is that willingness to give of their substance despite the knowledge that they would be needy–really living the gospel–that also makes me marvel. And I think it is coming to that willingness, no matter my economic state at any given time, that is what is really calling to me.

Pondering how one lives a simple life or how much is enough or too much to give is nice.Do not forget to thank God for that priveledge.

I do indeed give thanks for that priveledge, even as I offer my contrition for those times when I knowingly fail to do what I should.

.I am saying this because it is one thing to speak of these things in an abstract way,or theoretical way,and another to live them out unwillingly and for the better part of my life.Poverty is not nice.there is real stress and great temptation to envy and despair. One can be lulled to sleep by to much goods and plenty.

I absolutely agree with you sawman. It is all too easy for those of us who are “well off” to theorize from our ivory towers. And it is certainly a good thing to see how others have to make do just to survive from day to day. But when one still has a choice in the matter and can go back to the state of comfort, it just won’t ever be the same as one who lives that reality day in and day out.

And of course there are blessings on both sides of the equation. Coming to the state of surrender to God is not easy from either side. For those of us with too much, it is far to easy to lose a “need” for God and start to believe that one’s gains are one’s own. For those who have little or nothing, as you note, it is easy to fall into envy or despair, or to fall into anger against those who have much but refuse to share. Or to yield to anger against God Himself for allowing one to have to suffer such. I remember seeing a prayer that stated something like: Please Lord, don’t allow me to have so much that I might lose sight of you; or so little that I might be seeking someone other than you.

What the early church did have, that draws me greatly, was the willingness to share despite possible personal need , BASED ON the belief that God would provide their true needs and an understanding that our earthly life is not where we store up our treasures. Poverty in and of itself won’t make one holy, but it can help us focus more on trusting God if we accept the grace to do so.

Look, I’m sorry to have invaded your thread with what may very well be taken as a rant,but that is not the case.God bless you.Good luck wondering about the early Christians.

I didn’t see it as a rant at all sawman. I appreciate your insights and your candor, as you can supply a viewpoint from a reality I’ve never had to live. I’ll freely admit to having no desire for financial poverty, but rather wish the poverty of spirit that releases detachment from my worldly comforts and allows me to see what I have as a gift to be shared by my brothers and sisters, as I would wish to have done for me.

Reen has made the point that those of means also have a place, for we can speak in places that others may not be able to access, to people who may not listen to one of the truly disadvantaged as they step over them. It is hard to be an advocate when you’re scrambling for your own survival. If nothing else, I hope always to be one who will speak on behalf of those in need.

May God bless you in some small way today sawman, as you deal with your own trials.

 

[cheeto1]

I have many brothers and sisters .

Hi sawman,

I have a cousin who lives very near by your city by about 20 min.
They are wealthy, like everyone else around there. It is
wonderful, clean, beautiful, everything looks green and clean,
but not without a cost. There is constant stress about holding
on to what they’ve got, and figuring out how to get more. There
is worry about a neighbor who has “claimed” part of their land by
building a fence, and a fight to get them to tear it down. People
are choosing sides, it’s not pretty.

If I had to visit her again, I’d rather visit you. In my opinion, it is
you who are the wealthy one, with your many brothers and
sisters. They all help you learn to love more and more. No one
can buy heaven no matter how much they pay!! When stood up
next to heaven, a mansion will be the same as a shack. Just
think if only you were wealthy years ago, you could have lived in
a castle with no heat but wood, no toilet, no shower, no tv or
computer, no public school, no car, and maybe you’d have to
wear a wig because you would probably have lice. These were
the wealthy people and they thought they had it all!

Whether we are in plenty or in want, we are VERY IMPORTANT
to God’s work. God wants to use us to help others who are in
our situation, whatever our situation may be, to do right.

 

[Conservative]

Very thought-provoking post, ncjohn !
And interesting response, reen12 - good comparisons.

Makes one a bit nervous doesn’t it? If we own a house, property, etc.? Our Lord said, we should sell everything, pick up our cross and follow him. Not an exact quote, of course. So, one has to wonder if we haven’t done that ?

I will say that I’ve never had cable or satellite or TiVO. Just plain ol’ television. And maybe I should be more generous to charities. We’ve become a society so attached to basic things and a society that’s become so irreligious, how can we possibly put things in perspective? Take those quotes literally, and the poor will be living in the houses, we’d be on the street - and then would it be up to them to redistribute the goods again? I may be stretching it a bit - “the poor you always have with you”. However, even without family to feed, etc., I’ve been wise about what little I had. Not to be greedy but cautious. But I’ve learned in recent months that life - no matter how long it’s lived on this earth - ends - and everything here (aside from the Blessed Sacrament) - means nothing. And what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul? God help us to all make the right decisions.

 

[sawman]

Dear ncJohn, Cheeto1,
Thank you both for your kind words.I think more can be offered on John’s topic than I’ve given so far. As Cheeto1 pionted out,20 min.s from where I live there are some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country. This fact makes it easy to realize that to some exent, poverty is realative. I guess one could also say that wealth is realative as well.When the gospel speaks of giving up all to live in common,money is not all that should come to mind.Reen12 made some very good points along these lines.For a well off individual to contemplate living incommon,I don’t know how one could do it.To give up all your security and ease and stuff! That’s just possesions.The idea of submitting obediently to a rule of living?What if the head of the community is an egotistical, overbearing,unsympathetic, narrowminded ***?Where does one start to divest one’s self of all the baggage that would prevent one from contemplating such a move.How could I ever get such divestment from my stuff and prefrences?How can I respond to Jesus’ urging to seek first the kingdom?How does a person act who’s sole goal is the kingdom?St. Francis?St.Therese?St. Peter?St.Paul?What happened to them that their lives were so radically given over to Christ?I want to see that thing too! I want to be stripped of all that “refuse” of my old man’s life.
ncJohn, can you say that what Jesus showed you has made you a man so different than before you knew Him?A man so different that you would sell all give to the apostles and live in common with them?Would I,can I say the same thing?No I cannot.But what I can say is that by trials and suffering and dying to ones self,I have started to see what a great thing it is! I can just begin to take my eyes off of myself long enough to see something else.I see Jesus in heaven calling.I see the saints who have gone on before us calling.I can hear the saints join me in my prayers.I can fall prostrate before the Lamb who was slain,and now lives again.That is something that could change me! Is changing me!
So, I still cry and moan to God about my troubles but they are not as bad as many of the bretheren.But,I can also give thanks for these same things because they are the cause of my drawing nearer to Him.I think maybe this is just a small taste of what happened to the early disciples.Something like this must be conversion.I can almost see from that vantage point that nothing else matters as long as I can be nearer to Christ in the midst of the bretheren.What do you think?