By Lewis Brogdon
But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the oppressed, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (19:8-9)
There are two very interesting and very radical statements in these few verses. The first is, of course, the fact that Zacchaeus would relinquish the wealth he had gained unjustly and would repair generously the damage done to those he cheated. The reader should note that he acknowledged his complicity in the system of taxation even though it was the creation of social and political forces that preceded him. Second, is the response of Jesus to Zacchaeus – “today salvation has come to this house.” What is so surprising about his response is that it does not fit the way most white evangelicals talk about salvation. Luke does not tell us that Zacchaeus prayed the “sinner’s prayer” or that he asked Jesus into his heart. Zacchaeus does something that involves the poor and those cheated by unjust economic practices and Jesus responds by talking about salvation. Both responses – Zacchaeus and Jesus – are revealing and radical in that they do not reflect the normal ways we talk about discipleship and salvation.
The fact that Zacchaeus is not the paradigm for our understanding of salvation is one of the reasons American Christianity refuses to correct mass injustices like slavery, genocide, and poverty. In many of the denominational strands of white American Christianity, there is no need to confess AND repair wrongs done to the vulnerable. Instead, sins are individualized and forgiven on an individual basis, which means many white Christians do little to acknowledge and repair harm done, no matter how severe and far reaching. This model that focuses on individual forgiveness does not call white churches to acknowledge and repair damages done to others leaves America not experiencing “salvation” as Jesus spoke of in Luke 19. So, in a real sense, Zacchaeus’ response to Jesus represents the salvation of white American Christianity from four centuries of bondage to the hate, exploitation, deception, and death brought on itself by enslaving and discriminating against African Americans. When Zacchaeus becomes one of primary ways we imagine and envision salvation, salvation will come to America.
This passage in Luke raises an important question for Christians as we assess the 400-year history of slavery and racism in America (1619-2019) and that question is, “Would Jesus say that salvation has come to America?” If we take Luke’s account of the response of a privileged man’s encounter with the gospel seriously, then we are left to answer “No, salvation has not come to America because those with privilege and those who cheated building a country with slave labor have not repaid them four times as much.” One of the reasons we have made very little progress in addressing the manifold impacts of centuries of slavery in a country where the Christianity is the dominant religion is because Zacchaeus’ example has not been followed. In this essay, I want readers to think about the following: What would it mean for American Christianity to take seriously the example of Zacchaeus in giving up privileges gained through injustice and its role in salvation coming to this country? What would it mean to draw on this passage in how we think and talk about Christian soteriology? The essay will begin with an examination of how Luke narrates discipleship and salvific encounters and then shift to explore why we need to expand our understanding of salvation, and how it can help us explore the issues of reparations and privilege.
Luke’s Narration of Salvation as a Response to Privilege
Think about the language and ways we talk about salvation. Christians often confess they are saved. Rarely do they think about what they are being saved from besides generic and individualized statements like “saved from my sin.” It is true God saves us from our individual sin. God also saves us from sin imbedded in the structures and systems in the world that hold and carry out laws, policies, and practices that disenfranchise people. These systems; through exploitation, greed, and violence produce mass poverty, suffering, and death, all things that are sinful and concern the Holy One – (remember John 3:16 “for God so loved the world…). This suggests that God saves us in a holistic sense. God saves us from sin in our hearts and sin in the systems we create in our communities and the world.
Luke’s vision of salvation reflects this holistic understanding – salvation that is personal and systemic – and shows us the God who brings salvation in the fullest sense of the word. In order for readers to see God’s vision of salvation, Luke tells stories that demonstrate the ways people are ensnared and enslaved by sin imbedded in both the heart and systems of the world. There stories about salvation as a return from a life of excess in 15:11-32 and stories about salvation as a response to privilege in 19:1-10.
In particular, the stories of the rich man and Lazarus in 16:18-31, the rich young ruler in 18:18-30, and Zacchaeus in 19:1-10 give examples of what it means to respond to the radical call of discipleship by Jesus and the salvation he brings to the world. The responses should be interpreted in light of two key passages in Luke: the story of the Good Samaritan in 10:25-37 that teaches the principle of neighbor love; and the story of Jesus’ radical call to discipleship in 14:25-33. In chapter 10, Jesus instructs the expert in the law to “go and do likewise,” meaning do for others what the Samaritan man did for the injured man in the story. In 14:33, Jesus says, “whosoever does not forsake all that he has, cannot be my disciple.” These stories will illustrate how people in ancient Palestine responded to the message of Jesus and its implications for their lives.
The rich man in 16:18-31 ignores Lazarus and therefore, clearly violates Jesus’ teachings about neighbor love in 10:25-37. Lazarus was a neighbor in need of love in the form of food, clothing, and compassion. The rich man overlooked him and his needs. This man also illustrates a refusal to forsake what one has for Jesus. He used his material wealth on himself and seemed to live a life giving little consideration of others. The rich young ruler did not follow the way of Jesus either. At the direct request of Jesus, he refuses to give his money to the poor and to treat them as neighbors in need of love. He also refuses to obey a command of Jesus because it would cost him too much of what he had (16:13 “cannot serve God and mammon).
Luke shows his readers how both men refused to follow the way and message of Jesus. More importantly, Luke wants readers to see just how tight the grip of the socio-political system can be on persons. Their lives, values, and material resources are so tied into the system and its privileges that they refuse to relinquish them, even if it brings relief to the poor and marginalized. When Jesus called these people to let their privileges go, like Moses told Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, these men, like Pharaoh, refused.
The third example models radical neighbor love and “followship” of Jesus. In 19:1-10, Zacchaeus, without being directly prompted by Jesus (as best as we can ascertain), decides to give half of all his goods to the poor and to pay back every person he wronged (cheated) four times more than he took. This radical response prompted Jesus to say, “Today has salvation come to this house” (19:9). Zacchaeus modeled neighbor love and a willingness to forsake everything for Jesus and is Luke’s shining example of radical discipleship because he was willing to let go of the privileges given through unjust means as a tax collector and local collaborator to the unjust system of taxation. This story is important for Luke because it shows it is possible to relinquish privilege, correct wrongs done to the vulnerable, and to follow Jesus, who represents a new way of ordering social relationships and material wealth. In the end, Zacchaeus shows readers the way of salvation.
The Impossibility of Salvation?
Jesus and Luke were not naïve about the human tendency to water down and trivialize a call to radical discipleship. That is why there is a story in chapter 18 of this not happening. What this means is no small matter. Luke’s Jesus talks about discipleship and salvation. I believe this story is mentioned and related to both because, for Luke, you cannot be saved by a savior you will not follow as a disciple. In this passage, Jesus alludes to the incredible difficulty of salvation for those with privilege but in 18:18-30, he does it after someone reject his radical call to discipleship. This aspect of Lukan theology is a warning unheeded today. Jesus responded to the rich young ruler’s refusal to sell all he has and follow him with the claim that it is hard for the rich to be saved. This is a radical theological statement. A rejection of radical “follow-ship” and an accompanying refusal to deal seriously with one’s privilege complicates and sometimes obstructs the salvific work of God. Others heard this statement and considering the magnitude of the request Jesus made to this man, they asked, “Who then can be saved?” This is a sobering and appropriate question to ask in response to what the gospel required of the privileged. It asks for everything – “whoever does not forsake all for the sake of the gospel cannot be my disciple” (15:33?). This text, and others in Luke, lay before white American Christianity the impossibility of salvation when one or ones hold onto privileges gained through unjust means.
I am sure some of my readers feel uneasy reading the statement “the impossibility of salvation” because they are thinking about salvation as only the personal forgiveness of your sin and the personal granting of salvation by God. They have heard enough preachers tell them about the Romans road to salvation or they have been instructed to walk to the front of the church and pray to receive salvation. Preachers have told people for years that it is easy to “get saved” or “be saved” and followed this with a few simple words to pray or a few steps to take. So the word impossible in front of salvation can raise serious concerns for a religious culture that has distilled it down to a simple transaction. If you think about it, in the same way that white Christians tend to think individually about racism (racism is prejudice and not a system of advantage), white Christians, particularly evangelicals, think the same way about salvation. They think of salvation as personal and does not involve others. This is a very narrow view of salvation. I agree that salvation is personal but it also involves others.
If American Christianity is going to address the long and painful history of slavery and racism, it has to begin a process of making structural changes that challenge how they think and organize social and religious systems. One needed change is in the area of soteriology. American Christianity has to expand its understanding of salvation. Salvation in the New Testament is not restricted to the personal forgiveness of sin. Rather, it is the restoration of everything in creation at the cosmic, social, and personal levels and includes reconciliation with both God and one another. In a commentary on the Book of Romans, Luke T. Johnson argues that Paul taught salvation has a social dimension to it.
The theme of salvation is central to Romans. Paul here asserts that it is the entire goal of the message he proclaims (see 5:9-10; 8:24; 9:27; 10:1, 9-10, 13; 11:11, 14, 26; 13:11). The pertinent question is, What does he mean by salvation? Here is a case where later Christian understandings – derived from a variety of sources in addition to all the canonical witnesses – should not be allowed to obscure Paul’s own. There is no sign in Romans itself that Paul conceived of “salvation” as something that pertained mainly to individuals or to their respective eternal destinies (“heaven or hell”). I am not suggesting that such a perception would be utterly incompatible with Paul. Indeed, he has clear statements concerning a future life shared with God and Christ (2 Cor 5:1-10; Phil 1:21-26; 1 Thess 4:17). The issue is only whether this is what he means in Romans by soteria. Careful analysis of his usage in this letter suggests that Paul thinks of salvation here in social rather than individual terms, and that it is something that occurs in this life…salvation in Romans means something close to “belonging to the people of God”…That Paul conceives of salvation in social terms is suggested also by his following statement, that it is for “the Jew first and also the Greek,” since these are designations not of individuals but of peoples or ethnic groups…this phrase suggests a rootedness in historical particularity; it is to the Jew first, then the Greek.
Johnson argues (1) that the theme of salvation is central to Romans; and (2) that Paul’s conception of salvation in Romans is social, not one focused on eternal destinies. When Paul says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile” and spends three chapters wrestling over the problem of Jewish unbelief that ends in his confession that “all Israel will be saved” (11:26), it is apparent that salvation involves people, not just individuals, and how God worked in times past and the future to reconcile and save “us” collectively.
Johnson is absolutely correct on this point. When Paul explains the import of the salvific work of Jesus in books such as Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians, the scope is broader that one’s individual eternal destiny. In 2 Corinthians, Paul describes salvific work as “God reconciling the world to himself in Christ” and in Ephesians, Paul speaks of the mystery of God’s will that he purposed in Christ “to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth” (1:10). Passages like these illustrate that salvation encompasses the whole of creation and every aspect of social and human relationality. This preoccupation with individual salvation has caused many in the church to ignore the ways God works in all creation to bring unity and reconciliation under Christ. Another interesting point that Paul makes in these passages is how “the saints” are invited to join God in this work, meaning they play a role in the unfolding nature of salvific work.
This aspect of salvation, the social aspect of God’s salvific work, will remain elusive and impossible as long as out soteriologies focus on personal forgiveness. The whole point of the exchange between Jesus and the rich young ruler in Luke 18 was to help him see the relation of his wealth to those around him. He was rich. However, the political and social system of ancient Palestine was unjust, meaning the poor were taken advantage of, and resultantly, left displaced. Jesus wanted this pious person to see the connection and correct it. Jesus said “one thing thou lackest.” Jesus identified the root of the matter (he has a way of doing that) and it ended up being the one thing this very “religious” person refused to see, acknowledge, and correct – his privilege and what it cost others. There are many white Christians like this rich ruler who cannot be saved, or should I say “will not be saved” because they are rich and privileged and refuse to acknowledge and repair damage done to others to their benefit. In other words, they refuse to join God in bringing unity and reconciliation to the world in Christ.
Salvation and Reparations
As long as our focus is on personal salvation, the forgiveness of our individual sins, and our ticket on the train to glory, we will ignore what happens in the socio-political world, the world in which we live, past and present. That is exactly what much of white Christianity does with the history of slavery. They ignore it because they assume it has nothing to do with their salvation.
Because salvation has social dimensions, Christians cannot ignore what happens in the society, past and present. How can we join God in the ministry of reconciliation without taking seriously the things in the world that cause estrangement, suffering, and death? Christians must take history seriously since it has a major influence on the world today. For example, history can give us the insight needed either to follow the faithful example of those who went before us or to bring to light the ways they were unfaithful. When history shows us the ways our forebears acted that were unfaithful to God and the gospel, our challenge is twofold: (1) to give a faithful witness of God and gospel that corrects past error; and (2) to repair the damage done in the name of God and gospel. After all, there can never be reconciliation and salvation without justice. If history matters, then, it means that God’s salvific work must reconcile and bring unity to the painful and protracted history of slavery and racism in America. More importantly, it also means that Christians are called to join God in this work that salvation may come to us all. If this is the case, then reparations for the history of slavery and racism may play a role in the salvation of America.
I am sure you have not thought about the role of reparations in the social salvific work of the gospel in America. It is not a common way to think about the salvific work of God. Seminary and divinity school professors do not teach students to apply soteriological thought to historical and social issues like slavery. While the connection may be new, it resonates with Luke’s understanding of salvation and the example of Zacchaeus.
Zacchaeus was willing to give up his riches (think privilege) and to repair the damage done to others. When he did this, salvation came to his house. This is the path for white American Christianity for the next four hundred years. One of the reasons the reparations debate has not gained traction is because it confronts white Americans with the dilemma of acknowledging the ways the history of slavery and racism benefitted them. In other words, white privilege is very much at the heart of the issue of reparations and the reason reparative measures are never taken. I am convinced that the church must confront issues of privilege – the current benefits linked to slavery and systemic oppression – if reparations will gain any traction socially. White churches and its leaders must lead this discussion and even offer suggested reparative measures, not the leaders of the churches and communities victimized and exploited by centuries of racism.
Zacchaeus shows us this path to salvation. The question is, “Will white Christians follow it or will they follow the path of another rich man in Luke? The issue of reparations is a modern illustration of the same relationships Luke presented in his gospel account of the ministry of Jesus. The gospel prioritizes and reorders relationships with Jesus, one another, and the systems of the world. So the living out of faith means one of two things. A life of faith can mean living in a way that obeys and follows Jesus and loves others as neighbors by repairing the damage done to them. This can only be done by letting go of privilege. A life of faith can also mean living in a way where unjust systems are absolutized and followed, mostly because of privileges gained. However, in following this way, the way of Luke’s Jesus is forsaken. Because, as Luke’s Jesus claims, “you cannot serve God and mammon” – God and privilege.
A System Linked to Centuries of Slavery and Discrimination Needs Salvation
Four hundred years of history, most of which has involved enslavement and legalized segregation attests to the fact that America needs salvation. Our country needs salvation, not churches on every corner, scores of celebrity preachers, televangelists, or the majority of Americans claiming Christianity as their faith. Those are good things but they have not translated in the salvation of America from the color line. Scores of churches, popular pastors, and Americans claiming Christian faith has done little to nothing to correct and repair the fundamental problem in America, which is its social structure and its connection to slavery and segregation. This country is structured in a way that is unjust and needs the saving power of the gospel. Interestingly, the Christian religion, instead of being an agent of change, has actually served to support unjust social systems and arrangements. This is what we are trying to change with The Angela Project – the system of racial advantage that privileges some and marginalizes others.
The real problem of racism is institutional and structural. White Americans, regardless of their personal views about black people, hold the levers of control in society. They own businesses. They make the laws. They interpret and enforce the laws. They own and regulate financial institutions. They control and regulate the media. Their cultural norms and morays are central and viewed as the standard of beauty, excellence, and truth. They sit on governing boards and oversee the majority of educational institutions. White Americans control the production and consumption of knowledge. They establish the curriculum taught in schools, teach in almost all of the classrooms, and train other teachers. In other words, white Americans exert control and influence the shape of society at every level.
Minorities, to a great extent, have very little control and influence over these systems because they are situated and concentrated at the bottom of system. In contrast to white Americans, they do not own the majority of businesses. They do not make the laws. They do not interpret and enforce laws they established. They do not own and regulate the financial institutions in the country. They do not control and regulate the media. Their cultural norms and morays are peripheral. They rarely sit on governing boards and do not oversee the majority of educational institutions. Black Americans do not control the production and consumption of knowledge. They do not establish the curriculum taught in schools, do not teach in almost all of the classrooms, nor train other teachers. In other words, black Americans do not exert control and influence the shape of society at every level.
Even if a white brother or sister were to respond that African Americans do not exert this level of influence because they only comprise twelve to fourteen percent of the population, this response could not explain why black Americans do exert a level of influence and control commensurate with their demographic percentage. For example, blacks do not own 12% of businesses in America. They do not control 12 or 14% of the wealth of the country. They do not represent 12% of university and college presidents. They do not write that percent of the textbooks used in educational institutions. They do not represent 12% of the educators. This illustrates the deeper problematic nature of the system and how it was structured. African Americans inherited a system that intentionally excluded them and do not even have a representative degree of control and influence within the system. This reality is not the result of random forces but rather was done by design and the design is thoroughly sinful.
The painful truth is there was an economic and social benefit that whites gained by enslaving Africans for two hundred and forty six years and then following this with a form of neo-slavery we call segregation. During this time major institutions were founded and flourished as a result of slave labor – universities, colleges, banks, businesses.
I read an informative article on this topic. The contributors began by showing the role slavery player in the creation of wealth in the United States at every level. They said slaves and land were the main forms of wealth in the United States before 1860 and that they were used in insurance policies and bank loans. They showed how universities and colleges turned to slave owners and slave traders to raise money. Industry in the North and in Britain made money processing slave-grown tobacco, cotton and sugar from the South and the Caribbean. Railway companies used slave labor. To my surprise, I read that the most profitable activity on Wall Street was the slave trade. The article listed fifteen major corporations that profited from slavery – Lehmen Brothers, Aetna, Inc., JP Morgan Chase, New York Life, Wachovia Corporation, N. M. Rothschild & Sons Bank in London, Norfolk Southern, USA Today, FleetBoston, CSX Corporation, Brown Brothers Harriman, Brooks Brothers, and AIG. All these major companies have deep roots and profits in the era of legalized slavery.
Another example of the connection to our modern social system to slavery is the area of education. Some of the oldest and wealthiest universities and colleges were founded during this time.
Harvard University in 1636
College of William and Mary in 1693
St. John’s College (Annapolis/Sante Fe) in 1696
Yale University in 1701
Washington College (Maryland) in 1723
University of Pennsylvania in 1740
Moravian College in 1742
Princeton University in 1746
Washington and Lee University in 1749
Columbia University in 1754
Brown University in 1764
Rutgers University in 1766
Dartmouth University in 1769
College of Charleston in 1770
Salem College in 1772
Dickinson College in 1773
Hampden-Sydney College in 1775
Transylvania University in 1780
Washington and Jefferson College in 1781
University of Georgia in 1785
University of Pittsburgh in 1787
Franklin and Marshall College in 1787
Georgetown University in 1789
UNC Chapel Hill in 1789
University of Vermont in 1791
These institutions profited from the slave trade, slave labor, and the wealth it created. For example, Brown University was named for the Brown brothers who gave money to the university. They were slave traders, another ran a factory that used slave-grown cotton. University Hall was built in part by slave labor. Harvard Law School was endowed with money from Isaac Royall, an Antiguan slave owner and sugar grower. Princeton University raised money and recruited students from rich, slave-owning families in the South and the Caribbean. Princeton solicited money from wealthy slave owners. Many of Columbia’s students were sons of slave traders. So did Harvard, Yale, Penn, Columbia, Rutgers, Brown, Dartmouth, and the University of Delaware.
Today, these institutions have large endowments. According to current data on their endowments from the 2018-19 Almanac published by The Chronicle of Higher Education, these institutions have an incredible amount of wealth — Harvard – over 36 billion, College of William and Mary – over 874 million, Yale University – over 27 billion, University of Pennsylvania – over 12 billion, Princeton University – over 23 billion, Columbia University – over 9 billion, Brown University – over 3 billion, Dartmouth University – over 4.9 billion, University of Georgia – over 1.1 billion, University of Pittsburg – over 3.9 billion, Georgetown University – over 1.6 billion, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – over 3 billion.
Compare the endowments with minority institutions like Historic Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) with the aforementioned data on endowments among the predominantly white institutions that began under slavery and one will see significant disparities. There really is nothing to compare when laying the wealth of white educational institutions beside wealth of black educational institutions. Why is this the case? White educational institutions have more wealth than black educational institutions because society structured the educational system in a way that gave white institutions an advantage that black institutions were not given.
Ten Largest Endowments among HBCUs
White institutions were given more time to build wealth to fund endowments and used the enslavement of Africans as the means to generate and build wealth. Blacks were not given the same opportunities and did not use exploitation of masses of people to build wealth to fund its institutions and interests.
This again illustrates the intentional nature of inequity in America, a system of inequity supported by white Christianity and unchanged till this very day. Again, the point is both the foundation and infrastructure of this country was built during this time, giving white Americans a significant advantage socially. This is why scholars in the field of Critical Race Theory would conclude that the fundament problem with American society is structural. We live in a society with systems of advantage we call systemic racism that afford white Americans privilege. Regardless of individual racial views, the system was engineered to function in this manner and to replicate privilege and disenfranchisement.
Systemic Racism, Privilege and Salvation
The church has made some strides in addressing individualized instances of racism. It challenges the practice of prejudice to some degree. However, it has done a poor job confronting racism that is imbedded in the fabric of American institutions. Very little has been done by Christian denominations and churches to challenge and change how society is structured economically, educationally, politically, etc.
White Christian scholars, clergy, and congregants still lack skill and courage in talking about the history of slavery, systemic racism, and its manifold impact on African Americans. This inability is rooted in a deeper problem with how white Christian communities approach these complex and painful issues. Predominantly white churches lack a rigorous and systemic approach to studying and assessing the history and impact of slavery and racism in America and the role churches should play in addressing it. For decades, they continue with watered-down talk of reconciliation and forgiveness for the sin of racism in their hearts. However, little to nothing is said to address the systems and wealth associated with centuries of oppression, as if the gospel of Jesus Christ does not speak to such issues.
What white churches need is to get back to the radicalness of the gospel as expressed in Luke and to follow the example of Zacchaeus who shows them the role they have to play in repairing the harm done to African Americans. Truthfully, it almost seems impossible to conceive of a salvation coming to America that requires white Americans to surrender privileges centuries of slavery and racism has afforded them. It would easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for groups of whites to surrender their privilege. The question in 18:26, “Who then can be saved?” is more relevant now than ever.
In our quest to market and “transactionalize” salvation for living room conversions while watching TV and mass altar conversions for new member classes, we have lost its “bigness” and mystery. For decades, evangelicals have been getting people to pray Jesus into their hearts and for decades, systemic racism has plagued this country with very little willingness on the part of those who benefitted from unjust systems to surrender them. Have we forgotten that Jesus came to proclaim good news to the poor or that in Luke, one must “make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to” (13:24). Jesus’ mission and warning here are rarely, if ever, taken seriously by white Christians today who have benefitted from centuries of oppression. Many assume they do not apply to them today and dismiss both rather quickly. It is entirely possible that Luke is trying to provide a sober account of the gospel (“good news”) that takes seriously the radicalness of discipleship and the impossibility of salvation for those not willing to follow Jesus fully.
Luke wants us to be sober about the radical nature of the gospel but he also wants us to have hope that repair and salvation are possible. When asked the question who can be saved, “Jesus replied, what is impossible with man is possible with God” (18:27). Jesus directs his hearers focus from them to God. This is a very important point. In our own strength, we are unable to repair all that has been broken over the past four hundred years. Such a task goes beyond our limited knowledge and resources. Our calling as disciples of Jesus is simply to follow his commands to deny ourselves, forsake the privileges of the world, and bear our crosses daily (9:23-26, 57-62; and 14:25-33). Doing this is hard but not impossible. Luke shows us that the disciples did this.
Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!” “Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life” (18:28-29).
Luke leaves us their example to follow because in doing this, God works to bring salvation to our individual souls and, more importantly, to the world, especially the oppressed.
Luke also gives us another glimpse of hope in his second writing the book of Acts. In both writings, he shows that a privileged person, like Zacchaeus, can relinquish the material and that groups can do it (Luke 19:1-10; Acts 4:32-35).
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
The coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and other miraculous events that followed unleashed a faith and hope that resulted in people with privilege divesting themselves of it and giving it to the apostles. So, it is possible, through the power of the Holy Spirit for groups to transcend in small ways the power of sin that manifests itself in holding onto resources meant to be shared by all. Our only hope in addressing the structural inequities of race in America may be in a model of radical discipleship that leads to salvation taught in Luke and alluded to in Acts.
After four hundred years of slavery and racism in America, Luke would challenge white Christians to begin a long process of relinquishing privilege and embracing what they would define as poverty so as to correct the deep structural problems built by centuries of slavery and discrimination. It sounds impossible. And, it is likely impossible. But like Luke documents in Acts, maybe a small group or a community will act on this and do something radical that restructures how we relate to one another. Their example may inspire others and maybe one day Jesus may profess “Today has salvation come to this house.” May it be so, amen.
— Dr. Lewis Brogdon is the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness and Research and Associate Professor of Christian Studies at Bluefield College in Bluefield Virginia. ü
Like the Exodus story, Pharaoh’s refusal to do justice – “let my (as in enslaved) people go” – foreshadowed or preceded the collapse of the Egyptian empire and its economic system that was so heavily dependent on slave labor, the responses of these rich men foreshadow a similar collapse. Jesus warned about this in 21:20-22. In 70 C.E., Rome sieged Jerusalem and destroyed the very system these rich men were benefitting from. ü Luke Timothy Johnson, Reading Romans (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 27-28. ü ABS Contributors, “The 15 Major Corporations You Never Knew Profited from Slavery,” AtlantaBlackStar.com (August 26, 2013). Accessed on April 11, 2019. ü “2018-19 Almanac.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (August 24, 2018): Vol. LXIV no. 41, pp. 64-65.
