Home » Featured, story & idea

Can a Christian Be Rich?

Submitted by Micael on May 26, 2009 – 8:16 pmView Comments
Print This Post

richCan a Christian be rich? That depends on how you define “rich”. If being rich means earning much money, it is neither good nor bad, because you can earn much money and still give it all away to the poor and the needy – and there’s nothing wrong with that. But if being rich means having much money, if it is to keep a lot of resources for one self and thereby not give it to the poor – then it is wrong.

We live in a world where 1,4 billion people live in extreme poverty, that is, on less than one dollar a day. The food produced on this planet is enough for 12 billion people – although 800 million go to bed hungry each night. Why? Because 20 % of the earth’s population consumes 80 % of the earth’s resources. We belong to that 20 percent. It is obvious that we cannot grab in the sand for resources to the poor while we sit on a lot of resources ourselves. God knows this, and the Bible is full of commandments that make it impossible for a Christian to be rich, that is, having more than necessary and thereby not giving to the poor although one is able to. The Bible says this is a sin:

“Be careful not to … show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin.” (Deut 15:9)

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. ” (Ezek 16:49)

It is therefore a sin not to give to the poor and to be overfed (other translations: “having abundant food”). If we have extra resources, we much share with those who have none. This is necessary if we want to repent from our sinful life, like John the Baptist said when he was asked what one must do if one want to repent:

“The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.” (Luke 3:11)

According to the Bible, it is definitely wrong to have abundant food and extra resources. We shall be content with the most necessary, and not keep overflowing resources:

“But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.” (1 Tim 6:8)

If being rich means having a lot of stuff that aren’t necessary: TV, summer house, CD:s, make up, ties… then no, a Christian cannot be rich. We shall be content with food and clothing, and if we have too much of that, we’ll share with those who don’t have food and clothing.

Greed, that is, thirst for money, is a sin. And being rich – that is, having a lot of money for oneself – is being greedy. If you are rich and aren’t greedy, you won’t be rich for so long when you see the needs of our hungry neighbours. The opposite of greed is generosity. We should be as generous as possible. If we are as generous as possible, we give away all we have until we have the most necessary left, food and clothing. However, if we are a little bit greedy, we’ll keep some things that we don’t need. Thus, having stuff that you don’t need, wealth, is being greedy. It doesn’t matter how much you have given to the poor if you still got things you don’t need left. True generosity is not measured in how much you give but in how much you have left (Luke 21:1-4).

For the Love of Money…

Many (rich) Christians claim that it doesn’t matter how much money you have – what matters is how you relate to them. “It isn’t wrong if you own wealth – but it’s wrong if the wealth owns you”. As long as we don’t put the money so high in our lives we can still have plenty. Actually, there is a text in the Sermon of the Mount that contradicts this teaching:

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also… No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money [Mammon].” (Matt 6:19-21, 24)

We shall not store up treasures on earth. The Greek word here for treasures, thesaurous, does also mean “repository”, “store”, “chest”, “coffer”… that is, stuff on piles, gathering of things – wealth! Luke 12:21 and James 5:3 also shows us that thesaurous is a synonym for wealth. We cannot have riches on earth while we have them in heaven; we cannot serve both God and Mammon (Aramaic for “wealth” (not “money”)). And where our treasure is, there our heart will be also. This contradicts the teaching of the rich Christians who claim that we can have a lot of money without loving them. We cannot have riches and claim not to love them, because we have them in our heart no matter what we claim. And love for money is the root of all evil (1 Tim 6:10). If we want to be rich, we “fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.” (1 Tim 6:9). And rich people want to be rich. Because if they don’t want to be rich – why are they rich? “Hi, I’m rich, but I don’t want to be rich…” Maybe you shouldn’t be rich then.

We cannot serve both God and wealth, and we cannot love both God and wealth, because we “will hate the one and love the other”. Therefore, if we truly love God, we have to hate wealth. We have to hate stockpiles in a world of starving children if we are followers of Jesus. And thus, we have to get rid of our own treasures on earth. We have to sell everything we have. The Bible only mentions “Treasures in Heaven” combined with selling everything and to get rid of your treasures on earth (Matt 13:44-46, Mark 10:21, Luke 12:33).

Jesus said “Sell your possessions and give to the poor” to all of His disciples (Luke 12:33), and so they did in the first congregation (Acts 2 and 4). Many Christians say that this wasn’t something that all congregations did, but that’s a lie. For example, early church father Justin Martyr (100-165) wrote: “We who once took most pleasure in the means of increasing our wealth and property now bring what we have into a common fund and share with everyone in need.” Lucian, a pagan author of the 2nd century, wrote: “Christians despise all possessions and share them mutually.” These texts from the time of the early church (there are plenty more) indicate that this wasn’t something that just a few Christians did in a little congregation somewhere, this was something that characterized all Christians; it was a Christian behaviour to have everything in common.

Our Daily Bread…

The purpose of selling everything is not to live property less but to have all property in common. When the first Christians sold everything, they placed all the money in a common pot, and then they distributed it equal to everyone. The rich Christians sold their houses along with everything else (Acts 4:34) but later on, Christians still owned houses (Acts 12:12). The difference was that they now owned the houses in common. And while the rich Christians before had houses that were too luxurious and the poor Christians had houses that were hovels, all now had houses together that were simple but good.

We shall be neither rich nor poor, as the Scripture says: “Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.” (Prov 30:8-9). The aim of giving to the poor is not that we should be poor ourselves, the aim is that everyone should have equal distribution of property: “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: ‘He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.’ ” (2 Cor 8:13-15). When we sell everything we shall give the money to the poor, and when we don’t have anything we are poor ourselves, therefore it is reasonable to keep a bit of property for oneself so that one can afford food and clothing. However, this is not being rich, this is having one’s daily bread as described in Prov 30:8, which Jesus has promised us to give as long as we serve God (Matt 6:25-34), the worker is worth his keep, therefore we should not have silver and gold when we serve the Lord for He will provide us (Matt 10:9-10). The fact that God provides us is a great reason for not living for money (Hebr 13:5).

God will give us our daily bread when we serve Him, and with that we should be content. But if we have things we don’t need – luxury, entertainment, beauty products – in a world where people are starving, then we sin. That’s why the Bible criticize rich people (Luke 6:24-25, James 5:1-6).

Wealth in the Old Testement

Some may argue that there are godly men in the OT who were rich. But when we take a closer look at this, we’ll see that this doesn’t contradict the economic teachings of the NT.

God commands through the whole OT that one should give to the poor (Deut 15:7-8, Prov 14:31, Is 58:7, Jer 22:13-17). He indeed gives abundance to men who believe in Him, both in the OT and in the NT and today, but the reason is that we should have what we need, food and clothing, and that we ourselves give abundance to others (2 Cor 9:8). The purpose of receiving God’s blessing is to bless others. This was also what many in the OT did. Job had a lot of property, but he did not spend it on himself but on the poor. He said: “If I have denied the desires of the poor or let the eyes of the widow grow weary, if I have kept my bread to myself, not sharing it with the fatherless- but from my youth I reared him as would a father, and from my birth I guided the widow- if I have seen anyone perishing for lack of clothing, or a needy man without a garment, and his heart did not bless me for warming him with the fleece from my sheep … then let my arm fall from the shoulder, let it be broken off at the joint.” (Job 31:16-20, 22). Texts like Job 29:7-16 suggests that Job’s job was an aid worker – he was the one who took care of the poor and the needy, his multitude of sheep and donkeys wasn’t spend on himself but on the poor. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Actually, there are no evidence that the people in the OT that we call rich spent more resources on themselves than food and clothing. The rich people in the OT were landlords and kings. Mighty men who had many to provide, not only themselves. As I wrote above, the purpose of selling everything is having all things in common, to live in community. And this was what the rich people of the OT did. Abraham for example did not just sit on his own pile of money and cattle but he had a family plus hundreds of servants and slaves to provide. The thing was that this community of people bore his name. Likewise, the king had his court to provide. The Scripture says: “Solomon’s daily provisions were thirty cors [6,6 kiloliters] of fine flour and sixty cors [13,2 kiloliters] of meal, ten head of stall-fed cattle, twenty of pasture-fed cattle and a hundred sheep and goats, as well as deer, gazelles, roebucks and choice fowl.” (1 Kings 4:22-23). I’m not sure if he ate all that on his own…

However, some kings did not spend their riches just on the supply of their court but on gold, silver and luxury. When they did this, they sinned. Even kings who were called righteous were sinners. Several of the kings who did this were polygamists as well – but is that an indication of that God think polygamy is OK? He could give them riches, but they were responsible for what they did with them. And when they spent them on luxury instead of providence for their court and their people, they did not do what God wanted them to do. He said to Moses that a king shouldn’t be a polygamist nor collect much silver and gold: “He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.” (Deut 17:17). Thus, a king who does this sin.

Of course, resources spent on God are not wasted. This is what the text in Mark 14:3-9 wants to say to us: we shall not fear to spend a jar of perfume on Jesus – He can bring ten jars from heaven! He fed more than 5000 people with five loves of bread and two fishes – economics are no problem for God. Therefore, we should have no doubt to spend resources on the service of the Lord, just as the Jews in the OT sacrificed masses of animals to the Him. It was not a waste of resources, because God had promised them that He would let their crops sprout and feed the poor as long as they sacrificed to Him and nobody else (besides, He said several times that it is mercy He wants, not offerings, and that He doesn’t care about offerings if the people don’t care about the poor, see Prov 21:3, Hos 6:6 and Matt 12:7).

We can use resources in the service of the Lord, like Paul when he wrote letters. But this is not being rich. It’s nothing wrong when we spend resources on others or on the Lord. But when we spend resources on our selves, when we are not content with food and clothing for ourselves but want luxury, entertainment and all kinds of products that aren’t necessary, then we sin and have to repent.

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_32.png

About Micael

A Swedish boy that follows Jesus.

  • Tim Saunders
    Do people really not have enough food because the rich consume too much? Who's to say that, should I eat less, the food I left would go to the poor atall?

    Tim
  • The rich don't just consume food, but TV:s, summer houses, boats, cadillacs, DVD:s, radios, video games, make up, fancy clothing, luxury etc. If they spend that money on organizations that give food to people, they save those people's lives. But if they don't, their consuming makes people hungry.

    I'm not saying that we should take the rests from our dinner and put it a letter addressed "to the poor in Africa"; rather, we should not buy more food than we know we will eat and send the overflowing money to UNICEF. You in the United States consume nearly half of the world's resources, and half of the food you consume goes directly into the trash can. Isn't it obvious that when people don't have enough food, your food-stockpiles are a part of the problem?
  • It probably wouldn't. I help to operate a food bank locally through my church, and in the vast majority of cases it would be dangerous to pass on whatever food goes unbought (and then of course uneaten) to the poor. Dangerous, as in a serious health risk. We can only take canned food, and that is less than half of all the food that is sold.

    Of course, we do get plenty of fresh perishables donated to us by local grocers. Let no one say there is no generosity in business these days.
  • "Who's to say"? You could say it, Tim. If you really want to.

    You could quite easily take the money you save by eating less and give it to help feed the hungry. Or, better yet, you could invite them to your table with you.
  • I was a Christian-bashing, secularly-raised, control-freak public relations executive in New York when I had an unexpected and unsought conversion to Christianity in 2003. At that time I was 37 making about $150,000 a year and my husband made the same. We lived in a 4000 square foot house with our three kids, has substantial investments, owned properties, vacationed in Europe and we loved it. No sense of longing or 'isn't there more to all of this?' We were wealthy, comfortable and happy. Within weeks of my conversion, it became clear to me (won't go into all of the Holy Spirit serendipity around that discernment here) that I was supposed to quit my job. To do what? No clue. I was just supposed to quit. And I did. Then we were supposed to sell the house. And we did. Month by month, year by year and dollar by dollar we - with no intention of pursuing one lifestyle or another - lost every dollar we had ever made at the leading of the Holy Spirit. This past December was moment zero. Living in a much smaller (but absolutely beautiful) 100 year old house, we could not afford to pay the mortgage and borrowed a little money from my sister to get through Christmas. This deconstruction of our lives/our self-concept/our notion of prestige, etc. has been an incredible and transformational learning experience - about ourselves and this God that reached down and decided to shake things up. My three children - who were 14, 13 and 6 when all of this started did not understand. They still don't. That said, neither do we. We just put one foot in front of the other and do our best to follow.

    Given the conversation, you might think I am an advocate of selling everything, living in community, etc. Or that I would agree with the notion that people with money are sinners and Martin and I are somehow all kinds of holy for selling and going. But that's not what I've learned from all of this. In fact, rather than continuing into a vow of poverty (which we were willing to make if called to do so) we find ourselves (surprisingly and without directed effort on our part) being restored. Now we are asking/listening to learn what it is we are supposed to do with the money (not as much as before, but I wouldn't be surprised) as it comes in.

    All this to say, I am not an advocate of any one method of following Jesus as I am of listening and allowing God to guide us. So here I am, six years as a very unlikely Christian, a college professor who never intended to teach and a first-time author who never intended to write. That's the adventure. I don't "know" anything about what I am supposed to do or where I will be. Maybe a new community, maybe the suburbs, maybe moving back to my husband's native Uruguay. The best I can do is keep listening and keep moving forward...
  • I like your story, Joan, and especially the last paragraph. That is precisely the point I am trying to make: that in Christ, we have the freedom to choose many different ways of living, which are equally lived in service to Him.

    I agree with the OP to a great extent, but I would be more willing to express it if he weren't calling me a "sinner" for having a refrigerator.
  • Thanks for telling your story, Joan. It's amazing how we can change when we are open to God's call.

    But you don't give much explanation why you came to the conclusions you did, and Jesus' teaching about money and accumulation (which we are discussing here) doesn't seem to support your suggestion that following God's leading might make us poor, but then might make us rich again. I imagine, though, you don't expect us to follow your example anyway, but Jesus' example.
  • Thanks for the encouragement, Maria. I appreciate it.

    Paul: Interestingly, each step we took as things were deconstructed were prayerfully considered and confirmed in a multitude of ways - through people, circumstances and scripture. Thankfully I also find myself surrounded by a fascinating and disparate mix of people from different Christian faith traditions who have come into my life at "just the right time" and walked with me as I have discerned the leading of the Spirit in my life. A Benedictine monk in the Episcopal tradition, a former Evangelical pastor, a Catholic nun, a professor of theology from the Emergent/Emerging stream and several other people who have been at this for decades are looking over my shoulder. It is a gift.

    As for Jesus' teaching on abundance and accumulation and following God's leading, I think all scripture teaches best when illuminated by the Holy Spirit. I also believe that Jesus knew the heart of the rich young man, so it was his money that he went after. That said, it was also a wealthy man who was a follower of Jesus that provided the tomb where Jesus was laid. How does that work? I have no idea. All I know is that giving up my money and my stuff (and letting go of lots of other things along the way) was the first steps I was drawn to take - and I would have actually preferred to remain in the simplicity of living paycheck to paycheck trusting that my daily bread would be provided for when I began to sense that there were other things I was supposed to do. So here I am, reentering the world - not because I want what is out there, but because I do my best (sometimes better than others) to be obedient.

    One last thing. I'd like to thank you for your comment, This conversation is forcing me to find words for some things that have been in my thoughts in bits and pieces for some time.

    You are absolutely correct when you say that my story as an example of what God can do with a life rather than some suggestion of what others could or should do with theirs. And yes, following Jesus is the goal. But sometimes I think we throw those words around in ways that limit them to our best (and sometimes most comfortable) version of what that means. Jesus did and taught lots of things. If we are going to judge people as sinners for being rich (something I believe can be damaging if done broadly rather than one on one in love) than should we be judging people who do not cast out demons or heal the sick (or actively pursue such talents) as sinners as well? And even if we do view it as sin, I know that the plank in my eye is big enough that I have a lifetime of work to do before I can focus on the speck in the eye of my neighbors and my enemies.

    This faith is such a gift. Who in their right mind would ever talk this way?
  • It sounds like you have a good support group, Joan. That's important.

    Yes, I'm sure Jesus was speaking in particular to the rich young man's weakness. But wealth happens to be the weakness of many of the rest of us as well. And Jesus said similar things to his disciples in general (not just to one particular person):
    "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Lk 12.32-34)
    Those words still stand to challenge us, wherever we think God is calling us.

    And the rich man providing the tomb was a good thing. But that doesn't mean he is an example for us in his wealth (unless it is in giving our wealth away). Many people appear in scripture and do some good things, but Jesus says "Follow me" (not "follow them").

    Just so you know (and correct me if I'm hearing you wrong), arguing that following Jesus in his poverty might be "preferable" or "more comfortable" won't fly with too many people. Poverty is physically harder and spiritually more demanding, no question. The only thing harder about having money is dealing with the stress and thieves and tax collectors (and maybe guilt), and Jesus tried to relieve us of those burdens.

    You are right about focusing on the plank in our own eye first. But that doesn't mean we should never preach the hard teachings of Jesus, like the ones on economics. We should follow them ourselves first, then try to help others see the good that Jesus was offering us in his harder teachings. Part of that is looking honestly at those challenges and not allowing ourselves or others explain them away. That might make people feel uncomfortable or guilty because it shows how far we fall short, but it is really a call to a much fuller life.
  • Paul: Clearly you have a strong calling in this area and are living according to your convictions. I wish you well as you pursue this aspect of Jesus' ministry and challenge others to consider their relationship with wealth and the accumulation of things. I will also pray that you are empowered to do so in a way the reflects the love of Jesus and the fruits of the Spirit, even when dealing with those with whom you disagree.

    Best to you,
    Joan
  • Thanks, Joan. I appreciated your sharing, and your prayers.

    I hope also (for all of us) the wisdom and love to respond well to those who disagree with Jesus, which is much more of a challenge.
  • Paul,

    Your comments throughout this discussion have been thought provoking and appreciated, but you do not point to exactly how you feel about this subject matter. You have commented and critiqued everyone else, but I am not sure of your ideas on "selling everything".

    You critiqued Micael for being too naive, legalistic and harsh while critiquing Joan for being a little more open minded to different paths.

    Can you please explain exactly where you stand on this topic?

    Cory
  • Just for the record, I don't think Micael is naive, but just (through no fault of his own) a bit inexperienced in living out the important teachings he is bringing to our attention.

    I think we should follow Jesus' example and do what he teaches us to do, Cory. I can't fit all my thoughts about this inside this little box on this computer screen, but maybe I could say a few things about how I've felt led to follow Jesus' teaching about wealth.

    As I came to realize (like Micael) that it is not honest or truthful to say we are "not attached to" money, while at the same time holding significant reserves for ourselves (just in case) when there are people around us suffering with nothing, I began to give away my possessions and all the money I had saved. It also prompted me to look into the deeper importance behind Jesus' teachings on money: radical dependence on God, which is faith. I've lived well below the poverty line ever since, for many years now. When I moved here to the farm, my possessions fit in one cardboard box. (Of course the life of faith is about much more than this, but we're just talking about wealth here.)

    Two years ago I married and we still live at about half the recognized poverty level, without insurance or car or fixed income, but very well cared for by God (usually through the gifts of others, including doctors occasionally). It helps that we live on a farm, with lots of free food springing from the ground. And among a Christian community that shares most everything. We do have more things now than I did in the past, gifts from many different people, which we use to offer free spiritual retreats to poor people from Chicago. Good opportunities for feasts with the poor (and an occasional movie!). We also give money as we can, though our income is very limited and uncertain. Feel free to ask more questions, if you have them.

    Actually, I think we have been discussing just a portion of Jesus' teaching concerning economics. What Jesus says about work (and how we get our money) is even more challenging, in my opinion. But as I began to understand it, it appeared so incredible and revolutionary and overwhelmingly desirable that I had to see if I could follow Jesus' lead and experience it for myself. Some of my thoughts about this appear in the article "Come to me, all ye who labor for a living" (and the two other articles which will follow).

    If you want to read more about my experiences trying to follow Jesus, you could start here.
  • That's an incredible story Joan. Thanks for sharing. Letting God be in control of our lives (and finances whether big or small) is a mind bending, soul transforming process. And I can concur that children don't understand -mine don't. I will pray that eventually your life's witness will open their eyes.
  • I couldn't agree more ... although I think it might look a little differently depending on the culture, etc ... but it is not wrong to make a lot of money, just wrong to live like it. Plenty of scriptures to support it. Thanks for the post.

    Peace.
  • Maybe your text wasn't directed to me, but just to clarify: I'm not saying that it's wrong to earn much money. Accually, the third sentence in my article above is: "If being rich means earning much money, it is neither good nor bad, because you can earn much money and still give it all away to the poor and the needy – and there’s nothing wrong with that."

    I agree that the Scriptures say that it's wrong to live addicted to money, but it do also say that it is wrong to store up much money for oneself. All the Scripture quotations in my article above show this.
  • The sin is in personal accumulation when others are in need.(I John 3:16-17) To refuse to help another when you have excess is a sin. Jesus says that keeping track of one's possessions when there is kingdom work to do and people in need around us is a good way for us to be judged on the final day. Rather, we are to sell our possessions and give to the poor. (Luke 12:32-34)

    However, Jesus also said that there is nothing wrong with entertainment and using one's possessions to enjoy oneself, as long as we use those rescources for the poor as well (Luke 14). In other words, we can buy a DVD, as long as we give the poor a real opportunity to share in that pleasure as well. There's nothting wrong with having a Thanksgiving feast, as long as you invite your poor neighbors to enjoy it with you (just like the American Natives did for the Pilgrims!). There was a tithe in Deuteronomy in which people would take a tenth of their wealth for the year and have a huge community party at the Temple, inviting everyone. Can you imagaine-- a TENTH of the income for a party! Churches should hold community parties like that.

    The point is, we shouldn't be focused on the "practical". It is just that in everything we do and have, we should share with those in need.
  • We live in a world where the poorest among us live better than the kings of Jesus' time. So while it is no less sinful to make an idol of material wealth or worldly pleasure, it is still possible for a person to enjoy a higher standard of living and not sin. They sin by refusing to help others who are in need; but as an abundance of wealth makes charity far less costly, generous giving does not necessarily mean self-impoverishment.
  • The poorest today do not live better than kings at Jesus' time. The rich today live better than them, but 1,4 billion people today live in extreme poverty, less than 1 dollar a day, and that was not how kings lived back then.

    The Bible says "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17) But you say that we can keep our material possessions for ourselves although we have a lot of brothers out there starving, and still not sin. If I have $1000 I have a choice: I can give them to a good organization and thereby save poor people's lives, or I can spend them on myself. If I spend the money on myself, I do not give them to the poor, and thereby I have killed them. That's why James accuses the rich for murder (Jam 5:6).
  • Who are the rich in those places in the world where the poor are truly poor? They are, as I've suggested earlier, those within the political power structure who TAKE from the poor by force. Which is why, as I also said before, I am dedicated to promoting liberty and opposing tyranny.

    I should rephrase what I said - in countries that are (comparatively) free, the poor are wealthy compared to the rich in the old days. And of course that is a generalization; I know there are exceptions.

    But mark my words - wherever you see poverty, you can distinguish a clear causal relationship to political power. There are more homeless where the government controls housing. There are more hungry where the government controls food. There is less charity when the government operates a bureaucratic welfare state.

    Yes, I agree that we must give generously to the poor, and share what else we have. But I also believe in fighting the power structure that enables poverty. The government is an engine of consumption. Modern states produce almost nothing, yet they consume, through taxation and inflation, more than two thirds of all that is produced by the peaceful, productive association of private individuals. And they enable the concentration of wealth through distribution and political favoritism.
  • I think it's wrong to apply a common feast on DVD:s... I defenitely agree that we should have community dinners with the poor, the Lord commands us to have it, but I'm not able to buy a DVD when people are starving. When having a community dinner, you just need food. And there's nothing wrong with buying food to the poor. But DVD:s and other things for entertainment are unnecessary, instead of showing the poor a film you can give them food, which is better. Rather, your reasoning sounds like an argument you use for keeping your DVD. But I believe entertainment stuff (although not fellowship entertainment, like socialize with friends) are unnecessary, and are a type of "the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes" (1 John 2:16)
  • Dany
    There I go again commenting on a random post months and months after it was written. Sorry about this.

    In France, a charity called the Little Brothers of the Poor decided one day to give a homeless woman a huge, genuine diamond ring. Their justification? Loving the poor IS loving Jesus, and if you met Jesus in real life you would not give him a cheeseburger.

    They got criticised to no end, with people calculating how many steaks they could have bought instead. To detractors, this seemed like a waste of resources. What would an elderly homeless woman need a diamond ring for anyway? To her it meant a lot apparently.

    Interestingly, that action spoke to a whole new demographic segment of the population: the privileged who are used to enjoying good things. A number of people have given actual palaces to them. When asked why, they said because of the diamond. They trusted the organisation to treat the vulnerable very well indeed. Something they continue to do. And they are much loved for it.

    According to the argument of the above poster, I should not buy a DVD when people in the world lack food. That organisation should not have bought the diamond either, and the elderly woman should not hoard the diamond now, if she is still alive.

    I'm quite inclined to thinking like Micael, but this story challenges me, as well as the story of the perfume "wasted" on Jesus' feet. Is there something I'm not getting somewhere in there? Something less utilitarian and crazier maybe. Something akin to love?
  • mariakirby
    Dany,

    I think you've hit on the key: love. Love does not control who we give what. We may think that a poor person needs this or that, but a poor person might really desire something completely different. It would be more loving to give a person what they desired (as long as it wasn't harmful, and even in the case of harmful stuff there may be some caveats) than to give them what we think they ought to have. But the only way we are going to know what someone else wants is to be in relationship with them.

    There is one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this whole discussion, and that is how the possession of something may cause someone else to covet. Our owning something should not be a stumbling block to someone else. If it is, we become complicit in their sin.
  • The ONLY reason that people are starving in the world today is because they live under confiscatory states. In a condition of liberty, wealth grows naturally to well beyond the poverty line. I believe my resources are better spent in trying to promote human liberty than in depriving myself of those resources in an attempt to be religious.
  • I've resarched in school about aid and I agree that democracy, human rights and freedom is the key to liberate people from poverty. However, this is not an argument for not giving to charity. Many Aid organization support democratic movements in poor countries, which for example in South Africa led to democracy. And it can't be called a failure when aid organizations save human lives. Even if not the whole country get liberated from poverty when Doctors Without Borders saves a children's life, yet a children's life is being saved. Thus, spendning money on Doctors Without Borders is better than spending them on a summer house, it saves people's lives. Also UNICEF is a very good organization. Both these organizations help poor people every day, and results are being seen all over the world.
  • Oh, I don't argue against giving to charity. Don't think that because I disagree with your conception of wealth as sin, that I live for wealth. I live well below the poverty line and still give to charity regularly. If the government didn't take 60% of my income, I wouldn't spend it on STUFF for myself. I've never had much, and I like it that way. So I'd use most of the money that the government didn't steal, to invest in my church's food bank, and use the rest to develop my own business. I would LOVE to be able to finance private charity programs. What's keeping me from doing so is not my lack of care for the poor, but that I have 60% of that potential stolen from me by a group of thugs with guns and badges.
  • I've resarched in school about aid and I agree that democracy, human rights and freedom is the key to liberate people from poverty. However, this is not an argument for not giving to charity. Many Aid organization support democratic movements in poor countries, which for example in South Africa led to democracy. And it can't be called a failure when aid organizations save human lives. Even if not the whole country get liberated from poverty when Doctors Without Borders saves a children's life, yet a children's life is being saved. Thus, spendning money on Doctors Without Borders is better than spending them on a summer house, it saves people's lives. Also UNICEF is a very good organization. Both these organizations help poor people every day, and results are being seen all over the world.
  • I've resarched in school about aid and I agree that democracy, human rights and freedom is the key to liberate people from poverty. However, this is not an argument for not giving to charity. Many Aid organization support democratic movements in poor countries, which for example in South Africa led to democracy. And it can't be called a failure when aid organizations save human lives. Even if not the whole country get liberated from poverty when Doctors Without Borders saves a children's life, yet a children's life is being saved. Thus, spendning money on Doctors Without Borders is better than spending them on a summer house, it saves people's lives. Also UNICEF is a very good organization. Both these organizations help poor people every day, and results are being seen all over the world.
  • I'll agree that resources should be spent promoting human liberty rather than in mere self-deprivation. I do believe that wealth is inherently corrupting, but the larger sin is in not using resources to promote true liberation.

    However, our own liberation is, according to the consistent teaching of Christ and the Apostles, jeopardized by wealth. While we cannot say that Christians cannot be wealthy, I do believe that wealth is not a neutral thing. It is a perilous thing. And there is no spiritual benefit whatsoever (again, the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles is consistent here) to accumulation of wealth. Our own liberation as Americans necessitates that we grapple honestly with our affluence. It is much more than simply a matter of the heart. We are enmeshed within systems of domination and oppression and find ourselves locked into a consumer capitalist system of militarism and individualism. How we related to Mammon influences whether or not we are naming and resisting the Powers or acquiescing to them.
  • The ONLY reason? Really? Sure it is A reason. But history has repeatedly shown a myriad of reasons for starvation. Was the US confiscatory in the 30s?

    Even if the sole blame was on confiscatory governments, you're not thinking enough steps back. Often, dictatorships arise because of inequitable distribution of resources or destabilized economies (think Nazi Germany). Globalism often has a dark side that results in some nations having economic struggles that then, in turn, promote conditions that give rise to the very confiscatory governments you claim cause starvation.
  • I assume you're referring to the Great Depression? That was a direct result of confiscatory policy, namely that of the banking cartel which formed the Federal Reserve in 1913. Inflation caused a period of hyper-consumption throughout the 20's which led to a correction in the 30's. And that would not have lasted more than a few months if the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations hadn't enacted their own programs of confiscation through tariffs, taxes and business regimentation.

    Naturally, it always goes back to greed and corruption - but there is no organization in which greed and corruption can exist better than in the state. I do not say that government is the only problem, but it is certainly the greatest manifestation of the problem. The state, by definition a territorial monopoly on legalized violence, is where the corrupt go to thrive.
  • Putting aside the question of sin for now, I don't think you have heard Jesus quite right, Steve. He said pretty clearly, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth... For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Mt 6.19-21) That doesn't have anything to do with sharing with the poor. There is spiritual peril in simply gathering possessions around us. And the good news is better proclaimed when our lives show a radical dependence on God rather than a dependence on our investments, savings accounts, and property.

    And I'm all for feasting (particularly when we invite the needy instead of our rich friends, as Jesus tells us to in Luke 14). But Jesus calls us to far more than just sharing what we have. If the rich young man had been told by Jesus to just share his property and wealth with the poor, I imagine he would have readily agreed (he probably was already doing that, since he "loved his neighbor as himself"). What Jesus actually said was far more challenging:
    "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

    When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. (Mt 19.21-22)
  • I would like to make another observation: it is not only the rich who surround themselves with stuff.
  • I disagree completely that having wealth is sinful. Just because it is good to do something does not mean that not to do it is necessarily a sin. Paul said that it is good not to marry, but that marriage is not wrong. It is good to be with your brethren in the church, but you're not sinning if you are by yourself for a while. It is good to be an evangelist, but if you spend every second of your life evangelizing, you neglect your other relationships. Likewise, while it is undeniably virtuous to give your stuff to the poor, having stuff is not in itself wrong.

    If it is sinful to have more than the minimum of food and clothing, then we cause the poor to sin in giving things to them other than food and clothing. Which means that nobody ought to produce more than food and clothing. But without people investing in labor-saving devices, we will have less food and clothing. And with less food and clothing, there will be fewer people specializing in other activities which allow for the creation of things like advanced medical treatment (without which I would have died at age 10) and, say, the internet (without which you could not have made this post) - which begs the question: aren't you sinning by having a computer?

    Wealth means the ability to accomplish more work with less labor. The ascetic lifestyle you advocate may be virtuous, but it is not necessary for a Christian life. Just as celibacy is virtuous, but without procreation there would be no people, asceticism is also virtuous, but without the vast diversity of occupations that come from the creation of material wealth, there would be far fewer people alive today.

    Not only that, but without savings (capital accumulation), the creation of new problem-solving processes and devices is impossible. The insulin that I require to live on a day-to-day basis is the product of centuries of people saving wealth (deferring consumption), investing in new long-term projects (transportation and communication technology for example), using the results of those projects to save time and labor, and re-investing the saved time and labor into even more future projects. And if I did not SAVE some insulin, keeping more than I need now, then in an emergency situation I would quickly die for the lack of it.

    Now I agree wholeheartedly that a Christian should not pursue entertainment at the cost of his work as a Christian. But I believe that moderation, rather than abstinence, is the key. Just as Paul said that a Christian could eat meat sacrificed to idols and not sin, so long as he does not cause another to stumble by doing so, a Christian can have things and not sin within the same context. I have a television which sits collecting dust most of the time, but on occasion I sit down with my family and we have a good time together watching a movie, playing cards and discussing the movie afterward. There is nothing wrong with fellowship, and fellowship can take the form of relaxation. Leisure, in moderation, is necessary to a healthy spirit.

    To sum up: if you choose to live a life of deliberate poverty, then I believe you are honoring God in doing so, and that God will honor you for it. But if another Christian chooses to eat the sacrificial meat, so to speak, and own a spacious home with a lawnmower and a few computers, he is not sinning in doing so. God gives us opportunities to be generous to others. We sin in neglecting those, sure. But in enjoying the fruits of our labors in moderation, or in saving up some of those fruits in order to invest them in future work, we do not sin.
  • It is a great difference between spending resources on your own and spending them on others. Paul did buy a letter and a pencil to write his letters, although
    1. This is not spending resources on one self, as food and clothing
    2. These things were in common in the first church.
    I admit that I'm having troubles with using computer, and I think it is good to have some pauses sometimes. However, as long as one use it for others, in the service for the Lord, it is using mammon in good ways (Lk 16:9). But if I use it to entertain myself, then I'm wasting resources that could have been given to the poor. Also, I believe fellowship can be practiced without TV, and therefore it is totally unnecessary; I recommend you sell it and give the money to the poor.

    Jesus says in Mt 6: "Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?" which I interpret as food and clothing being the Biblical name for subsistence level, the absolutely most necessary. I think medecine is included, as a type of food (although I believe we should search God's healing in the first place).

    I know it is a bit controversial to say that it is a sin to be rich, but while sin is doing something against the will of God, and while Ezek 16:49, Matt 6:19, Luke 3:11; 6:24, 1 Tim 6:8-9 and Jam 5:1-6 for example clearly say that we shouldn't store up wealth for ourselves, I believe it is a sin. And this was the opinion of the early church as well.
  • If "unnecessary" means "sinful", then one sins when one flavors his food. Or what about grooming? Soap is certainly unnecessary; all it does is make one smell nice. There is no real hygienic value in not having greasy hair. It also means that, since it is not strictly necessary for me to live a life approaching the average lifespan, that I ought to sell my glucose monitor.

    I am not challenging the idea that wealth can corrupt people, nor the virtue of giving. I AM challenging the assumption that anything unnecessary is sinful. Christ did not die to establish an order of ascetic religious rules. He died to give us LIBERTY. A person can choose to live a life at wild variance from your own, and still live righteously.

    Also, you did not answer one of my main challenges: if it is sinful to own much, then we cause the poor to sin by giving to them. In that case it is far better for them that they are poor, so we ought NOT to give. That is clearly a contradiction. It cannot be simultaneously sinful to have wealth, and at the same time virtuous to confer our wealth upon others. The only way to rectify that contradiction is to say that having wealth is not in and of itself sinful, but that the sin lies in one's unwillingness to help meet the needs of others.

    The other point that you did not address is how deferred consumption and investment of stored-up wealth leads to life-sustaining technologies, such as the insulin which I require to live on a week-to-week basis. If today, everyone became an ascetic, billions would perish, because there would be no way to sustain the technological edge by which so many survive. Even basic farming technology rests upon layer after layer of other technology, in communication, transportation, and manufacturing - none of which could exist if there were no savings of material wealth.

    I have one further point to make - there are things that by your standards are "unnecessary" which I have personally employed toward work in God's kingdom. My church's ministry was vastly expanded by the internet - I could show you the torrent of testimonies that poured in when we released a few of my pastor's sermons to the public via that medium. Another example: without a piano and recording software, I would not be able to fulfill my calling in music ministry. Are any of those things "necessary"? Well, no. But one cannot argue that we have not done good things with them. And since good cannot come from evil, it further cannot be said that my having the internet, a guitar, a piano, and recording software is sinful.

    So once again I repeat my conclusion: honor God by acting as your conviction leads you, and he will honor you. But do not judge others when they choose a path different from your own. Christ left the vast majority of our day-to-day actions up to us, as a matter of person conviction. People may choose differently from one another, and niether sin. That's what liberty means: the ability to choose without fear of reprisal.
  • Daniel, as I said before, it is a great difference between spending resources on yourself and spending them on others. A great misunderstanding is that we should not work when we don't want to be rich. But I say: Work as much as you can! Try to be fed by your own hands. It doesn't matter how much you earn, the question is how much you keep of what you earn.

    The reason why I didn't answer your main challange is because I don't see that as a challenge, I see it as a misunderstanding. You mix up what wealth and poverty is, and you seem to think that you are either rich or poor, but the Bible speaks of a third way (Prov. 30:8-9). I call that to live in simplicity. To be rich is to have more than necessary, to be poor is to have less than necessary, to live in simplicity is to have what is necessary. Now, the purpose of Pentecostal economics is that everyone should have equal distribution of goods (2 Cor 8:13-15). We should all have what is necessary. When the rich give away what they don't need to the poor, the poor get what they need. What then has happened? They all live in simplicity! Then no one sin. You say: "you did not answer one of my main challenges: if it is sinful to own much, then we cause the poor to sin by giving to them. In that case it is far better for them that they are poor, so we ought NOT to give." But you seem to misunderstand me: I'm not saying that we should be poor. Look at the article above, you see no argument that say that we should be poor. We should be neither rich nor poor. Neither the poor should be rich nor poor. We should all live in simplicity. If we give the poor what is necessary, they live in simplicity. Then we do not cause them to sin, as you say we do. Giving to the poor doesn't have to mean that making them rich, rather it means to help them live in simplicity (try to find an aid organization that make people rich). Do you understand?

    I believe insulin is just as necessary as food for those who need them and therefore it is not a sin to take it, just as it is not a sin to eat food to survive. I find tecnology that discouvers new medicines and new technologies of growing food as a blessing, and I find them very necessary. Technology that developes computergames however are totally unnecessary.

    You seem to mix up work and owning. I’ve never said that it is wrong to work with technology. And I believe that you can and should work with developing new medicines etc. as an ascetic. You don’t have to be rich to work with that. You can work at NASA for example and still not be rich if you just keep the absolutely necessary of what you earn. I don’t think as you seem to do that overflow and private wealth had led to the indistrual revolution. Rather, it was when everyone had food and clothing that we started to develop new technologies. We could have new technologies even if the rich gave all what they earned to the poor, we don’t need swimmingpools and plasma-TV:s to get insuline.

    And again, I believe it is a great difference between spending resources on yourself and spending them on others. It’s a great difference if a church uses internet to play computer games or to missionize. It’s a great difference playing piano just for fun or for the Lord. Spending resources on work is not a sin, if the work is righteous of course. But what we discuss here is what you should spend on yourself, and there I believe we should be content with food and clothing. The rest of our possessions we should spend on others, whether that means giving food to a starving child or to missionize on the internet.

    Some deeds, as eating meet that is sacrificed to idols, are right to some Christians and wrong to others. Some deeds, like killing, are wrong to all. What is wealth? Is it right to some and wrong to others? Or is it wrong to all? My article above argues that it is wrong to all. I do not judge, in the meaning that I punish rich Christians, but I rebuke them, and the Bible orders us to rebuke. I rebuke rich people just as I rebuke those who kill. Because there is a great, great difference between eating meat offered to idols and keeping resources for oneself: Nobody dies when you eat that meet, but 16000 children starve to death each day because of lack of resources, while we have a plenty of resources here.
  • That's a good explanation, Micael, and a pretty consistent economic ethic. But if you are intent on following Jesus and not just coming up with a consistent ethic, then there are a few things in Jesus' life and teaching that you might want to think more about.

    Jesus did not just say to the rich young man "give your excess" but "sell all that you have and give to the poor." (Lk 18.22) And when Jesus commended the widow for her giving, he specifically said:
    "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had." (Lk 21.3-4)
    The disciples said, "We have left everything." (Mk 10.28) And Jesus himself warned a prospective follower, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head." (Mt 8.20) This is much more than "simplicity." This is poverty—beautiful, "abundant life," kingdom of God poverty.

    It does not mean destitution or misery, because God promised to provide all we need (just as he does for the birds and lilies). And God is quite generous with us, well beyond the "necessities." But there is a big difference between relinquishing all, and trusting in God completely, as opposed to working to provide for ourselves, deciding what we need and setting that aside first, and then giving what is left over.

    I also think Jesus says a lot about our work, too (and making money), not just about what we do with the money once we get it. But that's another discussion (see "Come to me, all ye who labor for a living" and the articles that follow it).
  • But selling everything means to give all your excess. We cannot claim to know what "sell everything you have" mean when we do not concider what the Bible says it mean. When Acts 2 and 4 tell about selling everything, it is not to live in poverty and at the same time not, it means to start to live in community, to have all property in common. I agree that we should be dependent on God in our economics, although living in simplicity and thinking what is necessary do not contradict that.
  • I think you are mistaken to use the early Christians' behavior in Acts to interpret Jesus' teaching (which seems quite clear when we look at the way Jesus and his disciples lived). We are not followers of the early Christians but of Jesus, and he seemed to have had very little "property in common," only some shared, donated funds used (apparently) for giving to the poor and buying food.

    The communalism in Acts was their attempt to follow Jesus, one of many attempts throughout Christian history, but (like others) it seems to fall short of Jesus' example in some significant ways. We can admire their desire to follow and their attempts to put it into practice, but at the same time recognize from Jesus' own life that he calls us to (and offers us) much more.

    I have lived for years among communities with property in common (three of them so far) and heard stories of many others. So I know many of their strengths and their weaknesses. And their weaknesses show how communalism is a human economic model offering much less than the kingdom of God that Jesus described and lived.

    I offered some examples very early in this discussion, but they were apparently overlooked. So here they are again...

    I question the conclusion that "having all property in common" is the Christian ideal. (Unless you mean all property in common with everyone, which of course means no property ownership at all.) Communal property can still be wealth, having much for our group while others outside the group are in need. And there is still the temptation to take care of ourselves first, and then give the excess, just like with private property (just with a bigger "family").

    Often, it is even more tempting to hold onto wealth when it is communal, since no one person feels responsible (or personally wealthy) and it is very hard to get everyone to agree to "give all" to the needy, so the group tends to settle for the level of giving that the least spiritually mature members can live with. This has been my experience in a number of communities.

    Communal property also still binds us with all the burdens of "what you own owns you" (houses, land, bank accounts, etc). The burden is shared, so may be lessened, but it is still there, and can be just as hard to deal with because now you have lots of other people who have to agree before decisions can be made. The community I live among now is struggling with this heavy problem presently.

    For these reasons (these differences from Jesus' example), my wife and I have chosen not to become communal members on the farm where we live, though to do so would provide us with greater financial security. We do, however, live and work very closely with others in the community and share deeply on many levels.

    Jesus chose to indeed become poor himself, not just "legally" poor as part of a communal property arrangement. In this area of life, embracing (real) poverty becomes the fullest way to live by faith, and experience the truth that God's "power is made perfect in weakness."
  • I don't agree that what the apostles did was an attempt of follow Jesus that failed, I believe that the whole Scripture is God's word and that the apostles were so full of the Spirit at pentecost that they acted just like Jesus woud hav done. It seems like it is here our opinions differ.
  • Yes, all scripture is God's word, Micael. But not everything in scripture is meant as a model for all of us to live by; there are rich people in the bible, too (including followers of Jesus), and I don't think you see them as models for us to imitate. Only Jesus himself can stand as a perfect example and model for all of us (saying to us, "follow me"). As I said before, the writer of Acts doesn't even say their "everything in common" economics is a model for all Christians. It is just telling what they tried in their attempt to follow Jesus.

    And I didn't say they "failed." I said, like with all of us, their economic life (as described there) doesn't seem to embody all that we see in Jesus' life. We don't have to wonder what Jesus "would have done." We know what he actually did. And we can use that to compare with our attempts and continually see how to improve and become more like Jesus.

    I would say to you, go ahead and try to live what you are envisioning. Find out from experience what is good (and what is disappointing) about it. And then look back again at Jesus' life to see how his way might answer the new questions and problems that you discover by trying it. I'm just saying I think Jesus offers much, much more.
  • Part of the challenge with having "property" in common is the fuzziness with which we can understand the concept of property. One could say that a nuclear family holds property in common or that the Jesus People USA hold property in common or that the Franciscan Sisters of Little Falls hold property in common or that the Lakota in the 18th Century held property in common or that the USSR held property in common...but in each of those situations, the definition of "property" seems different (as well as the way of understanding "in common.")

    In a somewhat unrelated note: I have big difficulties saying that the Church in Acts 2-4 fell short of Jesus' call. The church in Acts contextualized their call in a growing communal reality that Jesus simply had no opportunity to encounter as an itinerant.

    Itinerancy naturally changes the way you relate to material resources. The only way to hold possessions beyond what is immediately needed (and some liquid assets, which Jesus clearly had as well) was to leave resources behind being unused. In Christ's case such unused assets would have been either sinful (because they would have been accumulated wealth that served no real purpose) OR it would have been utilized by Mary and Jesus' brothers. In either case, it isn't fair to say that Jesus' ideal was neglected by the church in Acts. The situations are very different.
  • As I think I said before in this discussion, Mark, Jesus' teachings on wealth were often spoken in general to his followers and not just to the itinerant ones. And his promises and invitation into "kingdom economics" were offered to all and not just to itinerants.

    It is quite conceivable (and quite do-able, with God's help) to live a non-itinerant life, even with a family, without accumulating property or personal wealth. The key to understanding this is to realize that this occurs not in an isolated, homogeneous "kingdom" community but mixed in with people who do not follow Jesus, or who follow him "at a distance." This is how Jesus himself lived.

    When Jesus needed a donkey, he borrowed one. When he needed a large room for celebrations, he borrowed one. Others owned those things and gave or lent him the use of them; and this can be the case with all things we need.

    This does not mean, however, that Jesus taught that some people should keep wealth and others "give all." He taught that all should give all and share all freely (and if we all did, there would be no question of property to argue about). But Jesus recognized that not everyone will give all; some will give some, others give more, etc. Jesus commended the giving (to whatever extent people chose to give), without excusing or legitimizing the wealth they kept back for themselves. He continually encouraged people to give more and enter more deeply into the life of the kingdom. He continued to go ahead of them and say "follow me."

    Our situation is much the same. We live mixed in with non-believers and with those who follow Jesus "at a distance" (sometimes at a very great distance, not seeming much like him at all). This is good. We are meant to live among them and be witnesses to them. And, just like Jesus, we can find our needs provided for by these people, who give a little or a lot of their property or wealth. We can encourage that and thank God (and them) for that, and still challenge them (by our words and our own example) to go further, to "give all" like Jesus did.

    For more on this, go here.
  • [oops...deleted by me]
  • I'm not so much disagreeing with your understanding of Jesus' teachings, but rather in your assertion that the community in Jerusalem during the first few chapters of Acts were somehow stepping back from those teachings (with the exception of one couple in particular). Could you share more about how they fell short?
  • I'm not saying they were "stepping back," Mark, or intentionally doing something different than Jesus. I just think, like with all of us, their attempt to follow Jesus (in their economics) did not reach the fullness of kingdom living that Jesus demonstrated. This becomes evident when we compare their economic model with his life and teaching. (I think it should also be noted that they didn't present the Acts communal model as the example for all Christians to follow. They just described what they did. I'm sure they would want us to follow Jesus, not them.)

    And maybe I shouldn't say the early Christians in Acts fell short (since we really don't know much about them). What I really mean is that I think the communal model (joint ownership of property) that I have seen, which is generally attributed to the Acts community, I think that falls short. I've seen this in Catholic religious orders and Mennonite intentional communities. No one person owns much, but the communal members together (as a legal "corporation") own the land and houses and cars and control the use of the property and communal bank accounts (usually by voting by the members).

    Basically, this is just private property with a bigger "family" (and all members have a voice). As I said a few comments back (here), the problems of wealth and the burden of property still exist, though perhaps spread out a bit, while new difficulties are introduced. I still think this is a step in the right direction, a step of releasing control of our finances and sharing more deeply with others in our Christian family. But it's still quite a way from the "kingdom economics" Jesus taught and lived. It's not "sell all and give" and it's not "do not lay up treasure on earth." It's a reasonable economic plan (lots of non-Christians have followed it as well, you know...).

    Besides the shortcomings I described above, there is also the problem of defining a communal "body" or "family" (or "corporation," ugh), an "us" that is much less than the body of Christ. There are those we share with communally, as "family," but then there are those outside the group who we treat differently. And these outside the "family" could be (and many are) fellow members of the body of Christ!

    In contrast, Jesus' life (in all areas, but we are talking economics here) doesn't show such narrow boundaries. And there is no need for him to define his community as anything but the Body. He gives to and receives from whoever God brings. He feeds and heals whoever comes to him. He says his mother and brothers are "whoever does the will of God." He receives food from followers often, but there is no "arrangement" or communal agreement in place to guarantee this. And he also receives food from Pharisees sometimes, and from tax collectors too, and water from a Samaritan women. A donkey from some random guy on the street. Whoever God brings to meet his needs. It's not a communal model. It's not an economic model at all. It's a work of God, a miracle.

    Jesus' life economically (as in all areas of his life) was a miracle, a reflection of God's power and overflowing, undeserved generosity. "The kingdom of God." That's what I want to live!
  • Daniel, as I said before, it is a great difference between spending resources on yourself and spending them on others. A great misunderstanding is that we should not work when we don't want to be rich. But I say: Work as much as you can! Try to be fed by your own hands. It doesn't matter how much you earn, the question is how much you keep of what you earn.

    The reason why I didn't answer your main challange is because I don't see that as a challenge, I see it as a misunderstanding. You mix up what wealth and poverty is, and you seem to think that you are either rich or poor, but the Bible speaks of a third way (Prov. 30:8-9). I call that to live in simplicity. To be rich is to have more than necessary, to be poor is to have less than necessary, to live in simplicity is to have what is necessary. Now, the purpose of Pentecostal economics is that everyone should have equal distribution of goods (2 Cor 8:13-15). We should all have what is necessary. When the rich give away what they don't need to the poor, the poor get what they need. What then has happened? They all live in simplicity! Then no one sin. You say: "you did not answer one of my main challenges: if it is sinful to own much, then we cause the poor to sin by giving to them. In that case it is far better for them that they are poor, so we ought NOT to give." But you seem to misunderstand me: I'm not saying that we should be poor. Look at the article above, you see no argument that say that we should be poor. We should be neither rich nor poor. Neither the poor should be rich nor poor. We should all live in simplicity. If we give the poor what is necessary, they live in simplicity. Then we do not cause them to sin, as you say we do. Giving to the poor doesn't have to mean that making them rich, rather it means to help them live in simplicity (try to find an aid organization that make people rich). Do you understand?

    I believe insulin is just as necessary as food for those who need them and therefore it is not a sin to take it, just as it is not a sin to eat food to survive. I find tecnology that discouvers new medicines and new technologies of growing food as a blessing, and I find them very necessary. Technology that developes computergames however are totally unnecessary.

    You seem to mix up work and owning. I’ve never said that it is wrong to work with technology. And I believe that you can and should work with developing new medicines etc. as an ascetic. You don’t have to be rich to work with that. You can work at NASA for example and still not be rich if you just keep the absolutely necessary of what you earn. I don’t think as you seem to do that overflow and private wealth had led to the indistrual revolution. Rather, it was when everyone had food and clothing that we started to develop new technologies. We could have new technologies even if the rich gave all what they earned to the poor, we don’t need swimmingpools and plasma-TV:s to get insuline.

    And again, I believe it is a great difference between spending resources on yourself and spending them on others. It’s a great difference if a church uses internet to play computer games or to missionize. It’s a great difference playing piano just for fun or for the Lord. Spending resources on work is not a sin, if the work is righteous of course. But what we discuss here is what you should spend on yourself, and there I believe we should be content with food and clothing. The rest of our possessions we should spend on others, whether that means giving food to a starving child or to missionize on the internet.

    Some deeds, as eating meet that is sacrificed to idols, are right to some Christians and wrong to others. Some deeds, like killing, are wrong to all. What is wealth? Is it right to some and wrong to others? Or is it wrong to all? My article above argues that it is wrong to all. I do not judge, in the meaning that I punish rich Christians, but I rebuke them, and the Bible orders us to rebuke. I rebuke rich people just as I rebuke those who kill. Because there is a great, great difference between eating meat offered to idols and keeping resources for oneself: Nobody dies when you eat that meet, but 16000 children starve to death each day because of lack of resources, while we have a plenty of resources here.
  • Yes, Daniel, I agree with you about asceticism (and about the question of what is a "necessity"). I also agree about the value of pooling resources for research and public facilities that serve the wider community. I don't think that was ever questioned. (Private wealth is the question.)

    I think you make a huge leap to reach your conclusion, though. It does not follow from what you have said that our desire to honor God or our "conviction" will necessarily lead us rightly, keep us from sin, or result in God honoring us. Many have gone to war with that rationale, burned heretics, held slaves, etc, etc.

    In the article and in this discussion, Jesus is presented as the model, the way we are to follow. God has honored Jesus and will uphold and honor those who follow him. The question here is his example and teachings on wealth and whether or not we are following Jesus well in this area of life. I think that challenges all of us and is an important question worth asking.

    Your question about making the poor rich is an interesting one. I think you're partly right. I have seen charity that seemed to make the poor more greedy and possessive, ungrateful and demanding. But we do not have to give this way. Jesus did not make the poor rich by giving them lots of money or things, nor did he tell us to make everyone rich. Instead, he gave freely (often not money or possessions, because he didn't have much of those things) and became poor with the poor. And he showed us that to be poor doesn't have to mean misery or degradation, but can be freedom (true liberty) and joy. He invited everyone into a beautiful, "abundant life" poverty, the life Jesus himself lived.

    The more we share everything, and serve each other freely without demanding pay, the more we can all live well without needing to be rich. And God helps us in this where we fail one another. We are invited into the beautiful poverty of the kingdom of God right now, but we only get there by closely following Jesus.
  • While I agree with many of your main points, Micael (as you can see from this discussion), I think you might want to put a little more thought and prayer into your rigidity about spending on yourself vs. spending on others. Some Christians in the past have gotten really fixated on "how poor is poor enough" and "can I buy this for myself, is it really a necessity"? These can easily become extremely legalistic and take you far from the purpose of Jesus' teaching to "sell all and follow me." Which was not to lay down another (harder) law but to offer freedom and a life of childlike dependence on God.

    Also, the repeated idea "this could have been sold and the money given to the poor" makes me think you might want to take another look at the story of the woman anointing Jesus with the flask of ointment (Mk 14.3-9). Sometimes appreciating and sharing good, valuable things themselves (such as perfume, or TVs) with others is better than selling them and giving the money. We shouldn't get into a habit of seeing everything in dollar amounts that could be donated to the poor.

    And one last thought: You are very young, without children and (presumably) without much experience of the difficulties of living in the world (and what it takes to pay the bills). It would be good to approach this very touchy topic of money with people humbly and with compassion and a deeper understanding of the economic pressures they are struggling with. Saying "It's easier than you think" will not fly well with people when they find out how little you have actually experienced. That's not a criticism of where you're at. You seem to be making a good start. But you should keep in mind that it's just the beginning and God still has a long way to take you—and it is a very, very difficult road.
  • I think we defenitely need more people who thinks "how poor is poor enough" and "can I buy this for myself, is it really a necessity"... just as the disciples did in Mk 14:3-9. I've already discussed that text here on Jesus Manifesto (http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2009/04/remaining...) and it is NOT a text that supports sharing perfumes and TV:s with folks while others are starving... it is a text that clearly says that resources spent on Jesus are not wasted. He can give us ten bottles of perfumes from heaven. But now, when He "aren't present" as He says in the text, we should sell our perfumes. However, we should spend resources on Jesus as well, not only on the poor, and that's what the text is saying.

    The English language is sometimes ambiguous. When I wrote "It's easier than you think" I rather meant "It's easier than one think", not applying it to a specific person. I remember when I read about a charismatic american who wrote that he had sold everything, and he concluded with "It was easier than I thought it would be". And doing it myself, I agree.
  • OK, Micael. I'm just trying to encourage you to grow in other areas of following Jesus besides this one. Such as compassion and humility and wisdom.

    Jesus rebuked his disciples for not seeing the value of the gift the woman poured out on him, even if it could have provided much money for the poor. It is important to see the intent and appreciate the richness of the gift and not just fixate on its cash value.

    You might also notice that Jesus was quite gentle with the rich young man, "looking on him with love," and not laying any guilt trip on him. They are both sad when the man turns away. But you are coming across as harsh, uncompassionate, and very narrow-minded, both in your understanding of these texts and your understanding of people. This just gives people a good excuse for dismissing what you say.

    Don't get me wrong, you're on to something very good here. But it's important to add some real life experience and open your heart to the real difficulties people face, and actually care about their struggles to meet their needs and still give to the poor. Love demands that.

    Also, I don't see that you have understood "sell all and follow me" in its importance and meaning as a part of all of Jesus' teaching. Does he just want to make us poor? Does he just want to spread more resources around? You make it sound like Jesus is laying down a stricter law, yet was that really his purpose?

    I personally think "sell all and follow me" is a crucial part of the radical dependence on God (joyful, free, "abundant life") that Jesus teaches. But your narrow focus on "is this really a necessity" seems cut off from Jesus' purpose, the kind of legalism that Jesus criticized. I can assure you such a narrow focus will burn you out in no time. Instead of making this issue a personal crusade right now, why not develop your understanding and gain life experience and see how this fits with the rest of Jesus' life and teaching? Then you will have some real good news to preach.
  • I'm very sorry if I sound harsh, uncompassionate, and narrow-minded... it is defenitely not my intention. It's just that I've met so many rich people just being so ignorant and egoistic, while people are starving, that I have a strong feeling of holy anger. For to long, I've heard so much bad arguments from rich Christians, and using Mk 14 is one of them... but don't take it personal. I am just so tired of rich Christians that dismiss this teaching because of no other reason than their greed...

    I've written a long text about Mk 14 in Swedish, but I don't have time to translate it. The point is however that it can't be used as an argument for Christians pouring out oil on themselves, not even on anyone else, since the point of the text is that we indeed can spend resources on Jesus, while He can feed 5000 men with five breads and two fishes.

    I'm not sure what you mean with legalism... the Bible is very clear with that deeds are important even when we are under grace, and that we should not sin with our will. I don't know about any verse in the Bible which says that it's wrong to think "is this really a necessity?" However, I don't concider that much, because the Bible says that it is food and clothing that are necessities (1 Tim 6:8). In the beginning, I thought "what can I give away?" but nowadays I don't. And I don't define this as legalism. If rejecting legalism means not caring so much about how much can be given to the poor and what is necessary, then I believe the Bible supports legalism (and again, Mk 14 is not against this, it just deals with the question if we should spend resources on Jesus, not if we shouldn't care about what we can sell and give to the poor). A text that deals with faith and deeds and shows that legalism, if it means that actions do matter under grace, is Biblical is here: http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/The%20Church%20...

    Again, i'm sorry if I don't sound meek enough, I'm having a serious period I guess, because people usualy call me meek... although James was a bit harsh and narrow-minded when he wrote against the rich in Jam 5:1-6, and Jesus' "Woe to you who are rich!" sounds also a bit harsh... these are serious questions. And I respect that rich Christians are having troubles with this and thinks it's complex, but I'm having troubles with them being so slow and ignorant while people are starving out there. If being rich or not didn't have with saving people's lives or not, I wouldn't be this harsh, I promise. But this discussion can end up saving someone's life... or kill it.

    PS: I don't believe Jesus wants us to be poor, I believe in these words: "give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the LORD?' Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God." (Prov 30:8-9)
  • That makes sense, Micael. And I do not question your attempts to figure out what you really need, and what you can give away (I also did this, living for months at a time, for a number of years, walking from town to town without tent or sleeping bag, living only on what people freely offered me). It is a good step, and we should always question our motives and our tendency to slip back into self-indulgence.

    The legalism comes in when we define our purity by how perfectly we stick to a law, such as "for myself I will keep only necessities." Then we are driven to define "necessity": how much food is really necessary to live, can I eat less? do I need a roof or can I live in a tent? is two shirts too much to have? And we think we are serving God better if we follow this law more strictly than others, and we demand the same of other people. It is a path to bitterness and anxiety.

    Yes, Jesus had very strong challenges for rich people. But he saved his harshest words for the strict, legalistic, religious people who "load men with burdens hard to bear" and do nothing to help them with those burdens. It is very easy to make these economic teachings into heavy burdens on people. What are we doing to help them find new ways of living? Not just calling them sinners but giving them hope for a different way of life and showing (through the witness of our lives) how God will support them if they trust him.

    Also, I think Jesus' concern about economics is not mostly about "saving people's lives." The lives of the poor are not in our hands, but God's. He could feed all people in an instant, no matter what the rich people do. Yes, we should have a righteous anger about people's greed and hardness of heart towards the poor, but they are hurting themselves most of all. The sin is the real problem, the problem Jesus came to address first of all. When we challenge people about wealth, it is for their good that we challenge them. It is a way of loving them. So our words should reflect that, like Jesus' words to the rich young man did.
  • Amen, Paul. It's good to see that you and I are thinking along the same lines.

    I think Micael attempts to reduce to what he needs and really evaluate his 'need' definition is great and would be a wise thing for a lot more people to do. I appreciate the enthusiasm.

    The first inclination when we start making changes is that we want everyone else to join in. It is hard to remember how long it took us to get to the point of making those changes ourselves, and sometimes its hard to see how different changes might be a priority for other people.

    The important part to remember is grace. To give grace to ourselves and others. The core of Christianity is in forgiveness and grace. Living lives of sacrifice come out of our compassion and desire to give grace to others. And if there is not love, then its is empty.
  • You make some very good points, Daniel. Simply to have and enjoy things, even if they are not "necessities," is not necessarily sinful. We could even be truly poor and receive gifts from others that might be considered luxuries (as Jesus did). Jesus did not preach asceticism, in my opinion. He ate well and relaxed with friends, though he seems to have been literally poor.

    But this is very different from gathering and keeping excess wealth for ourselves. It is hard to deny that it is unloving (and even sinful) to hold onto resources for ourselves "just in case," when there are so many around us going hungry and homeless. Micael is right about that.

    Your question about a computer (and therefore about the life of the author) is a good one as well. (Though computers can be borrowed, or gifts.) It would help Micael's message if he also was open about his own life, either admitting his failings or sharing his story and example to help others find alternative ways of living.
  • The computer I use is not mine really, rather my mothers. :) I'm 18 years old. I'm planning to move into a community when I'm 19, and, if so is the will of the other, live computerless there. I hope that I've finished the books I'm writing on by then (the main thing I'm using the computer for). I have sold about half of what I own today, and I continue to sell. It's easier than you think.

    I am not perfect, absolutely not, but I'm fighting against mammon as good as I can. My faith has been weaker the latest months, but before that, I read nothing but the Bible and didn't use any electric thing.
  • I've been thinking about what it means to be poor. Abraham did not have flush toilets, central heat, air-conditioning, or microwaves. If he wanted to go somewhere he most likely had to walk. If he wanted to talk to someone, he could not call them up on a cell phone or send them a letter. He could not got to a hospital if he got sick. Nor was there Medicaide to pay for prescriptions. If we had the wealth of Abraham, but were deprived our modern conveniences, we would probably consider ourselves poor. And even though we have all these very nice things that Solomon, the richest man in the Bible didn't have, we might still consider ourselves poor.

    I've also thought about how helpful giving stuff away is. If you give away a fish, you feed a person for a day. If you teach them how to fish, you feed them for a life time. Do we really want people to be dependent on us? It might make us feel important for a while, but given enough time it tends to feel like a burden. And it doesn't help the other person mature. What if we were giving away fishing poles instead of fish? What if we were teaching people to fish with the poles we gave them? What if we were buying the fish they caught and giving it to someone else we were teaching to fish?

    I agree that surrounding ourselves with lots of luxuries while there are starving people in the world is not a Christian attitude. But I do think there is a place for investing the money we receive/earn in order to maximize it's usefulness. At the end of the story of Job he is given a lot of gold rings. Job does not give the gold away. Instead he invests it and ends up with seven times the wealth he had at the beginning of the story. The gold he had would have fed a number of people for a while until it ran out. But by investing in livestock, he could hire those people he would have given the gold to for an indefinite period of time.

    We do the same kind of thing with owning houses. We take money we could have given away to invest in property that takes care of our needs, and can provide (maybe only temporarily) for the needs of others. We take the responsibility to care for that investment, hopefully so that it can benefit others as well as ourselves.
  • Your thoughts about giving more than money (i.e. time and training) are good ones, Maria. Of course, this is asking more of us, and it doesn't excuse us from giving money as well, if we have it.

    But the idea that it is better to invest and make more money, or manage our property wisely for the greater good of all, instead of giving it away, seems foreign to Jesus' life and teaching. I agree there's a logic to it (from a practical point of view). But Jesus did not seem to place the highest priority on feeding the most people or producing the most resources for the common good. Recall his words in the story of the widow's mite, for example:
    "This poor widow has put in more than all those contributing to the treasury. For [though they gave large amounts of money] all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on." (Mk 12.41-44)

    To increase money and feed people with it does not increase our faith or our dependence on God (it teaches us to trust money). Jesus taught in word and action that we should not depend on financial power, such as property or money, but on God's power to provide and protect us. So giving away all and living like Jesus is the best way to demonstrate faith (which is the most important aspect) as well as care for the needs of others.

    Of course, sharing our property (such as our house) is a good start...
  • Dave Metz
    "Jesus taught in word and action that we should not depend on financial power"

    This is not 100% true. I agree that he was against the abuse of the influence wealth can give to the wealthy. However, Jesus very much depended on the financial means of others. Not once does Jesus suggest to Lazarus, Martha, and Mary that they should sell their home in Bethany, give the proceeds to the poor, and travel around with him. Instead, every time he was in Bethany he and his disciples relied on their hospitality.

    The ideal for every Christian (though I would agree it is for some) is not to do away with all property and wealth. It is to bring what you have... all that you have... and make it available for use by the entire Body of Christ. If you have a talent for making money (i.e. investing, etc.), then use that talent and help the church acquire as many resources as possible to use for the betterment of humanity and the furthering of the Kingdom. If you thrive in situations of total dependence on hospitality and are able to offer a unique service to the Body... such as a gift of preaching, teaching, serving, dwelling with the marginalized... then perhaps you are called to an itinerant life and selling everything is what you are to do.

    The church needs both (and everything in between). The danger is when people begin to hold on to their possessions... more specifically, when they even think of them as "their" possessions rather than the gift they can offer to the Body and ultimately to God. But to suggest that Jesus calls everyone to look exactly the same is not scripturally founded. He celebrated the uniqueness of every person he came in contact with, and he sought to utilize (and he even relied on) the gift each person could bring. The hospitality of Lazarus and his sisters is but one example... Peter's mother-in-law seemed to be another on whose hospitality Jesus depended.
  • "Not once does Jesus suggest..." Arguing from Jesus' silence on any topic is not very convincing, of course. And not every conversation with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are recorded. But we do have accounts of Jesus giving instructions to his disciples in general (which would include Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, I imagine). Such as his call to "follow me." And, more specifically:
    "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys." (Lk 12.32-33)

    Yes, Jesus was helped by many people, as we all are (we are all dependent on others in that way). But it is a mistake to suggest Jesus "depended on" specific people, if you mean he relied completely on their financial resources for his survival (i.e. had no other source of support), merely because he sometimes stayed with them or ate with them or they gave him gifts. He does not seem to me to be a "dependent" of any of the specific people you mention, since his needs were met by a number of other people as well, some followers of his and some strangers. We see God providing for Jesus and his disciples through a variety of people and means, with no one managing (or responsible for) the support of Jesus except God. And this fits well with Jesus' message that we should look to God for our support and depend completely on him (I assume you do not question that).

    I already replied to questions (similar to yours) about itinerancy and whether Jesus called everyone to "give all" or just a chosen few (see this comment). I don't think anyone suggested that everyone should "look exactly the same." But we are all called to follow Jesus' example, whatever our particular gifts and calling, and making all the money we can (investing for interest, especially!) seems to me to go directly against the example Jesus set for us.

    For more on this, see "Come to me, all ye who labor for a living (part 2)"
  • Luke
    Paul, take another look at this text in Mark 12:

    The passage begins at verse 38:
    And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

    It seems to me that in context Jesus is teaching that this widow should not have put in all she had to live on. Notice that Jesus is condemning the scribes for "devouring widow's houses". Then, he looks up and sees an example of what he has just been teaching about. Here is a poor widow, giving away everything she has. Yes, Jesus commends her in a sense for her willingness to give, but the real point of the passage seems to be that the Scribes are robbing her: they've convinced her (through guilt perhaps?) that she should give away all her money when it made no sense and when she had no obligation to do so.
  • That seems quite a stretch to me, Luke. And Jesus' commendation of the widow then encourages (and has encouraged) others to follow the widow's example, so by your reasoning that would make him as bad as the scribes.

    And there are many other examples of Jesus telling people to "sell all and give," which are consistent with the usual interpretation of the widow passage.

    It makes sense that Jesus is contrasting the widow's sacrificial giving with the scribes "religious" stealing, but I don't think you can truthfully interpret that saying of Jesus to mean that the widow should not have given the way she did.
  • Luke
    I don't see how it's a stretch, though it's certainly not been a popular interpretation by a Church that has had a lust for money since at least the second century. The gospel of Luke uses the same context for the story, though a chapter division was (mysteriously?) added later by the Church to separate Jesus' condemnation of the Scribes and his story about the widow.

    No doubt people have been encouraged by the Church to follow the widow's example, but as you point out those who were teaching such were and are as bad as the scribes. But that's not what Jesus is teaching. This passage is not about how people ought to give like the widow. It is about how corrupt the Scribes are and how Jesus' followers ought not to be like them.

    More broadly, the passage in both gospels is about the coming destruction of the temple, such that any gifts to the temple treasury would likely have been seen by Jesus and his disciples as quite misguided, and not as exemplary.

    Where does Jesus command the poor or the widow to sell all and give? The Church is to care for the poor and the widow, not take their money.

    Not to blame the widow. She was probably very pious. But she's not an example to follow. She just happened to be in the unfortunate place of being taken advantage of in her poverty and innocence.
  • Thank you Paul for the compliment.

    I believe you have misunderstood me if you feel like I was in anyway trying to excuse someone from giving money. I just believe that money follows our hearts. If our hearts are trying to help others then our money will follow.

    While I admire the life Jesus led and would love to practice it, I disagree with your statement "giving away all and living like Jesus is the best way to demonstrate faith (which is the most important aspect) ". Jesus did not live this way most of his life. When he was caring for his family he lived at home and had stuff more or less like other people. It is also not a very practical way to live for those with children. I do not believe that just because a person has stuff, or lives in a home, or has a job that earns money, or is an entrepreneur makes his faith any less than someone who is an itinerant preacher and who's well-being is dependent upon the generosity of his listeners.

    I think 1Cor would also disagree with you. Love is more important than faith. One of the characteristics about love is self-control. It is easy to have self-control w.r.t. money if you don't have any, but not having any doesn't change the fundamental desires of greed and covetousness. Self-control and generosity are more clearly demonstrated by what you do with what you have.

    If our love for others inspires us into business to provide goods and services people need, and employ people that need jobs, then may God bless that. If our love of God and his beauty inspires us to commission great works of art, then may God bless that. If we only have one talent, and we put it in the bank instead of burying in a hole, then may God bless that. I agree that we must give everything we have to God just like the widow's mite. But I also recognize that God sends a ram in the place of Isaac and gives us a responsibility to raise up the kingdom of God to the best of our abilities.
  • Yes, Maria, love is more important than faith. But, again, I would say living like Jesus is the best way to demonstrate love. People have done many things in the name of "love," yet when those things contradict the love Jesus showed us, I think it tells us that we are using that word wrongly.

    And your arguments about how Jesus lived "when he was caring for his family" don't carry much weight, since we know almost nothing about this. I presume you are making assumptions, based on the lives of most other people. But the part of Jesus' life that we do know about showed that he often did not do things like most other people.

    We do much better to base our understanding of Jesus' life (and the real meaning of love, which he showed us) on what we do know of him, rather than what we do not know of him.
  • I would agree with you if God called you to be an itinerant preacher. However, God calls each one to different tasks and not all of them can accommodate living on the donations of others. To set up this standard of living like Jesus did during his three years of ministry as the ideal, is to pass judgment on most of the rest of us who can't. Even his disciples did not live according to the standard you are setting up. Nor, very few first or second century Christians. To me, living like Jesus did is having grace for myself and others, and that includes how I spend money or the wealth I accumulate.

    You are right that I am making some assumptions about how Jesus lived before he started his ministry. I believe the assumptions I have made are logical given the other information we have.
  • I don't think anyone suggested we all live as itinerant preachers (sorry if my comments made that unclear). Jesus' teachings about money and wealth do not refer to itinerancy either, but they do speak generally to all about not accumulating wealth and giving to those in need and living in daily dependency on God, which we see clearly in Jesus' life.

    Jesus also invited everyone to follow him (including in his teaching and example regarding economics). Everyone. There is no one who has to feel that they can't, no matter what their situation. It's not a judgment or a legal demand but an invitation into the life of the kingdom of God, offered to all of us.

    If you are at all interested in exploring more what this invitation might mean for us, I just started a series of articles on this: "Come to me, all ye who labor for a living."
  • I agree that we need to depend on God, daily, hourly, all the time. I do agree that how we relate to money reflects our trust in him. What I hear you and others saying is that there is some measure of stuff or money or lack there of that should be a goal we are to strive for. If that is what you are saying, I don't think I can agree.

    I think there is a danger in taking the Bible as an economics textbook, just like there is a danger in taking it as a science textbook.
  • pete
    As bond-servants of Christ the Bible should be taken as our guidebook for all of our lives, including our money; something Christ and the apostles spoke much on.

    For example 1 Tim 6:17-19:

    Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
  • I know that some conservative Mennonites and Amish hold to a doctrine of non-accumulation. Basically, the sin is in accumulating wealth. Exceptions are made to the accumulation of land or tools that are used to provide for one's basic livelihood and/or for the good of the community's basic needs. But any sort of storing of wealth for unforeseen calamity or for personal luxury is a no-no.

    This is, of course, a hard teaching. But it seems to me to fit Jesus' teachings and the continued council of the New Testament. Personally, I fail to live by this. It can sometimes be maddening to discern whether or not something is a luxury in our society (is a car? what about a computer? what about more than a few sets of clothes?). However, if we are gracious withourselves as we struggle to foster honest personal and communal ethics in regards to economics, it is clear that there are often some obvious ways in which we fall into worry-based or indulgence-based accumulation.

    The goal in even talking about these sorts of things shouldn't be to guilt people into faithfulness. Rather, I believe it can be part of a larger theology of liberation for the affluent.
  • When Ron Sider wrote his book "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger", it didn't take so long before a rich Christian critisized it in a book called "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators". The author claimed that Sider just made people to feel guilty. However, I'm convinced that this is a part of our mission. Jesus indeed made paople feel guilty! BUT He also showed them a way out of their guilt, to be cleaned, to be forgiven. If the text above make someone feel guilty, that's great, as long as he/she seeks Jesus to get free from his/her sins. Jesus can transform our lives and help us sell everything.
  • Daniel
    This is a narrative flattening of Scripture. Surely there is hermeneutical distance between saying "Jesus said X to so-and-so" and saying "therefore we ought to do X." I'd like to see those dots connected a little bit more.

    Also, Micael's key claim, I take it, is this: "If you are rich and aren’t greedy, you won’t be rich for so long when you see the needs of our hungry neighbours."
    Aha! But who is my neighbor? ... ...
    And what kind of systems analysis do you need before you realize that the rich are NOT surrounded by the poor? You can live your whole life in the suburbs, or in the trendy parts of downtown without seeing a single hungry neighbor. Likewise, if you provide for all your hungry neighbors, you still can't feed all your hungry global neighbors.

    The risk in slamming 'rich' people with the label of sinner, with this kind of an oversimplified analysis, is just to make them wallow in guilt. And that's not particularly Christian.

    Let's have a deeper analysis next time.
    Peace,
    -Daniel-
  • Ha, I got a bit confused before I realized that it was a joke. This is indeed a short conclusion of a book I'm writing, but to claim that I don't connect the dots between "Jesus said X to so-and-so" and "therefore we ought to do X."! That's the only thing I'm doing above! Step by step, I show why "Sell everything" is something for everyone.
  • Are you joking, Daniel, with the "who is my neighbor" line? The parable of the good Samaritan is perhaps the best example of Jesus calling us to give to anyone we see in need, and sharply challenging those who try to excuse themselves for religious (or "hermeneutical"?) reasons.

    The idea that we can go without seeing hungry neighbors also seems far-fetched. In our technologically connected age, we have to work pretty hard to avoid seeing hungry neighbors, no matter where we live.

    And the fact that we "can't feed all our hungry global neighbors" doesn't seem at all relevant to the arguments offered here. We are not challenged to feed them all, but only to give all that we can.

    Perhaps you could you go a little deeper with your analysis?
  • Daniel
    Hi Paul, of course I'm joking. :-) Glad you caught it.
    However, I bed to differ with you about seeing hungry neighbors. There are systemic forces at work which prevent the wealthy from seeing the poor.

    And yes Mark, you're right about Jesus being 'shallow' (or is that perhaps his summarizers and life-redactors?) and guilt-inducing. Fine. The key question for me is whether the relations of wealth and poverty are the same today as they were in first-century Palestine. In some dimensions, I'm sure they are. In others, entirely not. Being 'wealthy' is far more complicated business these days then it ever has been (so far as I can tell!). This is not a justification of unexamined wealth-hoarding, but simply an observation.

    Some questions that remain nagging for me: what is 'need' such that we are to respond to it? Do the street beggars I talk to almost every day 'need' the money they say they need? Do they need food (frequently not! local shelters keep them well-fed)? Do they need a job? Is my calling to help them (if so, how)? or is it to free myself from bondage to wealth (if so, how)? Both?

    And how can we keep definitions of 'wealth' and 'poverty' from being self-serving? What do a theology and praxis of 'enough' look like?

    I for one have trouble stomaching the claim that every Christian in the U.S. is a sinner because she or he is wealthy by world standards.

    Or, to put it another way, don't guilt me unless you guilt me towards some end. What is the end? That is the question.

    Peace,
    -Daniel-
  • Daniel,

    I appreciate your digging a little deeper and recognizing the complexity of wealth and poverty. I think all of the questions you ask are very good. If we don't understand the nature of poverty, then how will we know how to help? There were times when Jesus was confronted by sick people and he asked them what they wanted. He did not just assume that they wanted to be healed.

    People may have needs that are less than obvious, that are more important than the obvious ones. By only addressing the obvious concerns, or rather what seems obvious to us, we may be missing the work the Holy Spirit is doing and wants to do in that person's life. That isn't to say that we ignore obvious ways we can help, but rather we need to be sensitive to the fact that there are other things that may be needed first.
  • C'mon, Daniel. "What do a theology and praxis of 'enough' look like?" Is that really the question we should be asking ourselves?

    These are better questions: "Is my calling to help them (if so, how)? or is it to free myself from bondage to wealth (if so, how)? Both?" I would say yes, both. I think you are perhaps the one best situated to answer the specifics of how, though if you really want help I imagine others here would be willing to offer it.

    And if you need a clear "end," how about Jesus' words after he told the story of the good Samaritan: "Go and do likewise." If we do, any wealth problem will be taken care of pretty quick, I imagine.
  • Daniel,

    Sure, a deeper analysis is certainly welcomed. However, the challenge is that our Lord's own analysis seems, at first blush, to be shockingly shallow when it comes to matters of wealth. And, if we are totally honest about Jesus' approach, he seems to lay it on a bit thick in guilt-trippy statements to the wealthy...or does he? Perhaps you could lay a few thoughts down towards going deeper?
  • Here are some more qoutes from the early church on this subject: http://www.christarchy.com/profiles/blogs/early...
  • A few passages from Ellul's Money and Power to support what you're saying here:
    There is no real poverty that is not material. We affirm that the Bible habitually rejects the possibility of poverty in spirit when a person is rich in money. It is much too easy when we are rich in money to talk as if we were poor, to speak of spiritual detachment, and so forth. The Bible expressly condemns this attitude.

    ...We have very clear indications that money, in the Christian life, is made in order to be given away. Note especially Paul's lovely text (2 Cor. 8:10-15) based on the law about manna given in the wilderness: "He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack" (verse 15). If among fellow Christians we study Paul's law of equality, we see that money must be used to meet our needs, and that everything left over must be given away. There is no place for savings accounts.

    ...Remember that even giving all we possess will not pardon our sins or redeem us or draw God's attention to us. All this gift can do is express the enthusiasm of our love and gratitude, and because of this it is an act of freedom and joy. If we feel too much sadness in giving, if we feel torn or irritated, it is better not to give. But we must clearly understand what this means: it means that we are still under Mammon's power, that we love our money more than God, that we have not completely understood forgiveness and grace. This is what the end of the young man's story means. "He went away sorrowful" (Mt 19:22). He was sorrowful not so much because he had been given an order he could not follow, as because he felt far away from God's grace. And as long as this healthy sorrow lasts, if we are not right with God we will at least feel the call to give, which comes from God in his love.

    This act [giving all we posses] which only a few people carry out (and this does happen) must remain a call for all of us, a promise, but also a judgment on what we are not doing ourselves.

    I question, however, the conclusion that "having all property in common" is the Christian ideal. (Unless you mean all property in common with everyone, which of course means no property at all.) Communal property can still be wealth, having much for our group while others outside the group are in need. And it is often more tempting to keep wealth when it is communal, since no one person feels responsible (or personally wealthy) and it is very hard to get everyone to agree to "give all," so the group tends to settle for what the least spiritually mature members can live with. This has been my experience in a number of communities.

    Jesus chose to indeed become poor himself, not just "legally" poor as part of a communal property arrangement. In this area of life, embracing poverty becomes the fullest way to live by faith, and experience the truth that God's "power is made perfect in weakness."
  • Amen!
blog comments powered by Disqus