Throughout its twenty-one centuries of existence, the Christian Church has had to contend with various points of view regarding the issue of wealth and poverty. The issue is whether those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be rich or poor? I raise the question in this posting as to whether or not it is legitimate for Christians to be wealthy. Rather than give a yes or no answer, I will present certain operating principles, and then leave it up to you, the reader to draw your own conclusions regarding this issue.
1. Nowhere do either the Scriptures or the Christian tradition glorify poverty or exalt it as an indication of who is or who isn't a true follower of Jesus. The only exception to this rule that I am familiar with is that that of the "vow of poverty" that is required in the Catholic Church for those who enter the priesthood, or some other religious vocation such as monk or nun. Even then, I am not convinced that the word "poverty" in this case means being totally destitute of the basic means of survival such as food, clothing, and shelter, because even these persons have these, albeit in different degrees, depending, of course, on which country they live in. Furthermore, the main leader of the Catholic Church, i.e. the Pope, who is considered the Vicar (substitute) of Jesus on earth, cannot be said to be living in "poverty."
2. Nowhere do either the Scriptures or the Christian tradition, to my knowledge, support the notion that if we follow Jesus and are faithful to Him, that we will prosper financially. Yes, Jesus does promise that our basic needs will be met, but nowhere is it indicated that this will be done in excess of that which we need. When He said that "the birds of the air have their nests, and the foxes have their holes, but the Son of Man does not have a place to call home (my emphasis)," I believe that He was making it clear that prosperity, as defined by some church leaders, is not guaranteed.
3. The terms "poverty" and "wealth" need to be defined. In a general sense, "poverty" means complete destitution of the means of survival. However, in a country such as the USA, "poverty" means having a lot less than others do in terms of material comfort. "Wealthy" could easily be defined as having an exorbitant amount of money and material possessions, but in this country, a person who has a bit more than the average person could be considered "wealthy" by comparison.
4. Those who are "poor" (however "poverty" is defined) are not necessarily in that condition because they are lazy or irresponsible. In many, if not most cases, poverty is rooted in and caused by an excessive amount of monetary and other possessions held by a few, and in many, if not in most cases, through either exploitation of labor or dishonest methods of acquiring those possessions, Some may say that the wealthy "worked for it," but how can one explain, then, that there are many people who work just as hard, if not more than those who are wealthy, but yet failed to achieve wealth?
5. One may ask if from a Christian viewpoint, one can be wealthy in the midst of poverty?
If the economic and material resources for human survival are limited, we need to ask if a true
follower of Jesus would advocate for a system where the few can achieve a certain economic status at the expense of the many. Again, we cannot fall into the "blame the victim" syndrome.
6. If a person claims to be a follower of Jesus, and is "lucky" enough to have more than what is needed for basic survival, should that person amass more wealth for herself/himself or should that person use her/his wealth to not only alleviate but totally eradicate poverty in the world? In that case, how would the "profit motive" compare to the "sharing motive" in that person's spiritual journey?
Please share your insight with us on these issues. Tell us what you think regarding would-be followers of Jesus and their stewardship of God's resources, remembering that the Psalm writer reminds us that "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." Please give us your insight.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thanks for the insight. This is something I have thought about, but have no answer for. I think wealth accumulation for retirement, children's college funds, saving for emergencies, etc., are very important. Maybe the distinction is between saving towards a goal and profiting at the expense of others for materialistic reasons.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. As I tried to indicate in my posting, this is a complex issue because the words "poverty" and wealth" can be defined in different ways according to the geographical and social class context. In a Third World context, "poverty" might mean total destitution of the basic means of survival, i.e. food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. "Wealth" in this context would mean an exorbitant amount of these resources in the presence of destitution. In a Euro-Anglo-American context "poverty would be less or inferior resources, and "wealth" could be having a little more than the average everyday person. In some contexts, accumulation for retirement, children's college funds, and emergencies are not even something that can be achieved. In other contexts, such as ours, these things might be achieved through double or even triple the work on the part of many. The question for us as Christians, is, what is the relevancy of the Gospel to all this? Thank you so much for your input. It is very valuable.
ReplyDelete