Tuesday, October 18, 2011

The Gospel According to Warren

Warren Kinsella is now channelling Jesus. Funny, that.

Kinsella says :
But the Occupiers are the first truly populist, progressive movement to seize peoples’ imaginations in a long, long time. In this way — and I know this will anger some conservatives, but too bad — the Occupiers are a bit Christ-like.

*Christ-like*? Huh?

What is it? The ignorance? The arrogance? The haughty demeanour? The self-righteousness? The lack of direction and purpose? What is it exactly that Warren sees as *Christ-like*? Warren explains:

As noted most memorably in Matthew 25:31, when Judgment Day arrives, the ones who will be admitted into the Kingdom are the ones who have done the most for “the least” among us — the hungry, the sick, the poor.

They also serve, who only stand and chant? I don't buy it. What exactly have the occupiers done for the *least* among us? How are they serving their fellow man? By trying to affect change? What change? We live in Canada. Poverty, Toronto-style is not what you'd find in the 3rd world or in biblical times. The occupiers have no raison d'ĂȘtre . . . they are not trying to help others . . . they are not trying to shine a light on the plight of the underclasses . . . they are standing chanting for themselves, each saying *poor, pitiful me*.

Christ-like, my ass.

Warren goes on to say:

If you strive to know Him, like some of us do, there can’t be much doubt that the rabbi named Jesus Christ was no capitalist. Nor is there any mystery WWJD with the Occupiers, this past weekend.

He’d be right down there with them, chanting against the bankers and the politicians who do the bankers’ bidding.

I don't believe Jesus would stand with the bankers, but neither do I think he'd be standing along side the occupiers. You see, the bankers and the occupiers are the same kind people, one set rich, the other not so much - but both are selfish. Neither bankers nor occupiers see anyone but themselves as deserving. Both bankers and occupiers believe the world owes them a living and that the work of others should enrich their lives. They see each other as parasites and while both are right on that score, the poor parasites aren't somehow *better people* simply because they aren't wealthy.

Kinsella says:
God, said Christ, chooses the poor because they are “rich in faith.” They are the ones who deserve support.
Despite what the bible says, the poor are not *rich in faith* by default, neither are they good or deserving just because they are poor. Poverty, financial poverty is an earthly state. It doesn't elevate your soul, it doesn't make you saintly. The poor are in need of support by virtue of their circumstances. They are deserving of pity or charity because they are human . . . but this inane belief that all poor people are good and rich people are evil is silliness.

And to suggest that the occupiers hold some sort of high ground because they are *poor* is completely without merit. They are well-fed, unsheltered by choice, and fully clothed. Many of them are well educated in a system heavily subsidized by taxpayers, including those dreadful corporations.
If they were out there saying *I'll work . . . find me a job* maybe I could respect their cause . . . Instead, I see people saying *they're rich and I'm not . . . it isn't fair* which is not a cause -- it's a tantrum.

Ephesians 4:28 says:
Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labour, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.
Read *steal* as *take* in that verse.

Maybe the occupiers should be looking for better ways to serve the poor. The rich will find their own rewards in heaven . . . Instead of shouting *look how bad I have it* -- maybe the occupiers could look outside themselves and find a way to produce and share and serve. I think that's what Jesus would do.