Is financial poverty a requirement for Christianity

[Bob Evans]

I have no opinion on this one but after reading a couple of threads I have a question. Is financial poverty a requirement for being truely Christian? Is the assumption that if you somehow become a person of significant wealth that you somehow must have cheated or taken atvantage of someone?

[Hans Deventer]

No, the idea is that if you have significant wealth and couldn't care less about the rest of the world, you might find the story of the camel and the eye of the needle applicable.

[Rich Schmidt]

I have no opinion on this one but after reading a couple of threads I have a question. Is financial poverty a requirement for being truely Christian? Is the assumption that if you somehow become a person of significant wealth that you somehow must have cheated or taken atvantage of someone?

I think those are two separate and unrelated questions, Bob. But I'll wait and let others answer them. :)

[Shea Zellweger]

Financial poverty a requirement- No, but doing good "as we have opportunity" is, and having extra money is an opportunity to do good, so...

Significant wealth equal to taking advantage- again, not always, but if a person reaches a point of significant wealth, that person should ask him/herself a couple of questions- in gaining this wealth, did I miss or pass up opportunities to do good to all people? And can I keep this wealth, or is it now an opportunity to do good to all people?

[Ryan Scott]

I have no opinion on this one but after reading a couple of threads I have a question. Is financial poverty a requirement for being truely Christian? Is the assumption that if you somehow become a person of significant wealth that you somehow must have cheated or taken atvantage of someone?

If we begin to talk about requirements, we're all going to fall short - that's why we embrace grace so seriously.

As for the second question, you don't have to be considered a person of great wealth to have benefited from the poor treatment of others. Those with financial means are really just in a better position to do something about it.

If we're really seeking Christlikeness, I do think his lifestyle is no exception. Much like any other aspect of Christ's example, we strive to get closer with every passing day.

[Chuck Wilkes]

I have no opinion on this one but after reading a couple of threads I have a question. Is financial poverty a requirement for being truely Christian? Is the assumption that if you somehow become a person of significant wealth that you somehow must have cheated or taken atvantage of someone?

No, but a certain "...poor(ness) in spirit" is.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I have no opinion on this one but after reading a couple of threads I have a question. Is financial poverty a requirement for being truely Christian? Is the assumption that if you somehow become a person of significant wealth that you somehow must have cheated or taken atvantage of someone?

I do not think that poverty is a requirement to being a Christian, yet Jesus does tell the rich young man to sell everything and give it to the poor. But I think this has less to do with the actual possessions than it does with the place those possessions had in his life. Can I be truly free when another is in bondage? Can I be free when another is being oppressed? I think that the answer to these related questions is, "No."

I think that I can envision amassing wealth without oppressing any or having cheated any. However, as I've stated elsewhere, I think when making our riches we need to only deal with ethical vendors because IF we get the supplies of that which makes us our money and IF those suppliers are oppressing and cheating then we share in their guilt even though we may be dealing ethically with everyone.

[Rich Schmidt]

No, but a certain "...poor(ness) in spirit" is.

Is there a reason why Jesus' "blessed are the poor in spirit" from Matthew should be viewed as a requirement while his "blessed are you who are poor" from Luke is not?

[Dale Cozby]

I think there is an irony in this. If you have wealth but don't give it away in sufficient quantity to suffer any discomfort when giving to the poor how can you ever be sure you are free of the deception that comes from being wealthy? How can a rich person ever achieve assurance they have given enough? How much is enough? Do they have to say this is enough and no more wealth, I must give all the rest away lest I be a enslaved to it?

Like government, wealth is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

[Charles W Christian]

This is well-said, Dale. The Bible has lots of stories about people with wealth and how they act. Some do a great amount of good, but it should get our attention that the majority of money-related stories, the wealthy are the "bad guys," meaning they allow wealth and power to corrupt....

CWC

[Rich Schmidt]

How much is enough? Do they have to say this is enough and no more wealth, I must give all the rest away lest I be a enslaved to it?

That was John Wesley's approach and prescription. Set a standard of living and give everything above that to God through the church and the poor.

I'll admit, this is something I've struggled with personally as our income has grown over the years, almost entirely due to my wife's hard work and career advancements. She works hard for that money and wants to be able to spend some of it on things like remodeling parts of the house. It always takes me a while to feel comfortable with large expenditures like that, because I'm aware of how much need there is in the world and what a difference those dollars could make to, say, people without clean water.

Is it enough that we already give 15% (of the gross) to the church, plus another 5% or so to other agencies and needs, while responsibly saving for the future and spending wisely?

Don't get me wrong: my wife is very generous! She just feels like we're already doing our fair share... while I sometimes wonder. Of course, I don't wonder so much when I'm the one wanting to buy a new computer or iPhone. It's mainly when it's things that she wants! :)

[Dale Cozby]

I have heard ministers of an age past say, "Give til it hurts"
I have read Dave McClung discuss higher taxes not changing his lifestyle, only how much he has to invest. Dave and others can give much and it not hurt them at all, only how much they have to invest.

The question then comes to mind, do we give to the poor or invest in them? Do we invest in things to make more money or to employ people? Cannot the making of money happen as a result of the investing in others? Should the rich feel guilty if they continue to be blessed even as they invest so others might work? Do you spend money on people or invest in them? Just some thoughts...

[Benjamin Burch]

I think there is an irony in this. If you have wealth but don't give it away in sufficient quantity to suffer any discomfort when giving to the poor how can you ever be sure you are free of the deception that comes from being wealthy? How can a rich person ever achieve assurance they have given enough? How much is enough? Do they have to say this is enough and no more wealth, I must give all the rest away lest I be a enslaved to it?

Like government, wealth is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Very well said. Thanks, Dale.

[Jon Bemis]

Is financial poverty a requirement for Christianity

Yes, send me all your money and you will be greatly blessed! ;-)

[Bill Morrison]

Yes, send me all your money and you will be greatly blessed! ;-)
Jon: With that attitude and if you had the the right kind of hair, you could be a great televangelist!

BILL

[Ryan Scott]

I think there is an irony in this. If you have wealth but don't give it away in sufficient quantity to suffer any discomfort when giving to the poor how can you ever be sure you are free of the deception that comes from being wealthy? How can a rich person ever achieve assurance they have given enough? How much is enough? Do they have to say this is enough and no more wealth, I must give all the rest away lest I be a enslaved to it?

Like government, wealth is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

When I give, I am always amazed at how easy life continues to be, so I give more, and again I learn to live with what is left. Hopefully this is a pattern that can continue indefinitely.

[David Graham]

I once heard a preacher give a particular spin on Jesus encounter with the "rich young ruler." The preacher suggested that when Christ called him to give away all that he had to the poor and to follow him, he was calling him to a life of faith which was non dependant upon his own personal resources. And while I think this is a speculative insight into the intention of Christ, it is certainly true that the life of faith confronts our very human tendency to be self reliant and independant, even from God. Now, does that mean that we all have to embrace poverty to be Christian? No, but we should live in such a way that we "live by faith" in the Christ who leads us and in the God who provides for us. Perhaps this might mean that we live frugally as though what we do have doesn't actually belong to us, and that we are mere stewards of all that we have received. It might also mean that we follow Wesley's formula for living in that: "We work as hard as we can, earn as much as we can, and give as much as we can"! For some this might mean "living on the minimum and giving away the maximum"??? Perhaps there is not one formula that fits us all, but Christ's life of poverty and his call for us to follow him should challenge us in the affluent west more than it actually does!

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave McClung]

I have no opinion on this one but after reading a couple of threads I have a question. Is financial poverty a requirement for being truely Christian? Is the assumption that if you somehow become a person of significant wealth that you somehow must have cheated or taken atvantage of someone?

If you study the early history of the Church of the Nazarene, you will know that the Church of the Nazarene's roots are in ministry to the poor, but if you study the message of the Church of the Nazarene, you will see that it never intended for people to remain poor.

Uncle Buddy, one of our early church leaders, used his ability to generate income to provide room and board for 100 "Preacher Boys." One of my great uncles was one of Uncle Buddy's "Preacher Boys." Uncle Buddy is an example of a person who went from extreme poverty to a person able to help a lot of people.

What made the Church of the Nazarene attractive to poor people was that the message was that holy living will make life better for you and your family.

There was a strong emphasis on living a life free from excesses and vices.

There was a strong emphasis on living within one's means. The strong emphais on tithing taught people to manage their personal finances.

There was a strong emphasis on Liberal Arts Education. All of the Nazarene schools were Liberal Arts Institutions. "Liberal Arts" education is designed to make a person well-rounded in a variety of topics as distinguished from a program to make a person an expert in one narrow field.

In other words, the early Church of the Nazarene emphasized the very things that will lead one to personal wealth. It was the early emphasis that has transformed our membership from poverty to an upper middleclass church.

I have observed that many people don't understand wealth. They measure wealth by how many assests a person has. That is one measure of wealth, but the true measure of wealth is the ability to generate large amounts of income. Most people who win lotteries are poor again in a relatively short period of time becasue they recieve a lot of assets, but they don't have a way to replace what they spend. A truly wealthy person has a stream of income that allows them to spend or give away lots of money without decreasing their net worth.

It is often assumed that the two options are 1) Being wealthy or 2)Giving your wealth to the poor. That is a shallow understanding of wealth. The 3rd answer is usually the best answer: Use your wealth to genreate a stream of income that allows you to continue giving to the poor over a long period of time.

You may quote me on this: "It is better to teach your children to support the church with their tithes than to leave the church a million dollars in your will."

[Marsha Lynn]

I have observed that many people don't understand wealth. They measure wealth by how many assets a person has. That is one measure of wealth, but the true measure of wealth is the ability to generate large amounts of income.

Hmmm... The first part of your words quoted above reflects Jesus' words from Luke 12:15: "A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."
However, I think the last phrase needs more consideration. It seems that Jesus' version is: "... the true measure of wealth is riches in heaven." To my knowledge, he never actually defines what those riches are, but I'm not seeing earning power as the best asset to try to transfer to the life to come. I think I'm going to place my confidence in relationships -- both vertical and horizontal -- as the currency of heaven.

[John Kennedy]

Yes, send me all your money and you will be greatly blessed! ;-)

Robert Tilton couldn't have said it any better.

[Ryan Scott]

It is often assumed that the two options are 1) Being wealthy or 2)Giving your wealth to the poor. That is a shallow understanding of wealth. The 3rd answer is usually the best answer: Use your wealth to genreate a stream of income that allows you to continue giving to the poor over a long period of time.

This is great, but it also has become more and more difficult to do this in our society. As we become further and further detached from the producers in a society where money makes money just by changing hands. Perhaps for someone with considerable wealth, where they can actually see real projects and choose which investments really do promote Christlike values it works well. For me, it's much more difficult.

About 18 months ago I got a proxy statement from my Nazarene retirement account asking me to select someone to vote on whether to exclude companies from the fund that had engaged in oppressive or unethical practices. The trustees of the fund had apparently voted unanimously to recommend we keep things exactly the same. The rationale was that it's too difficult to actually tell which companies have bad practices and no one wants to unduly burden good companies.

At this point it seems like if the system is so convoluted we can't even keep tabs on who's treating workers, crops, land, and production with grace and generosity and who is abusing the system, then we shouldn't be involved in the system. I could take the interest from my investments and send them through NCM where they may end up in the very hands of the guy who was underpaid and overworked in order that my investments saw a profit.

I'm all for "Gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can," but it's a lot more difficult to do the first part today with a clear conscience. Not to mention that doing the second part often means buying things made in sweatshops. The principle is great, but the system in which we're operating is troubling to me.

Shane Claiborne says if you don't like where your taxes are going, stop making enough to pay taxes. I don't think that's the answer either, but it sure sounds a lot more comfortable than the alternative.

[Jon Bemis]

"Jon: With that attitude and if you had the the right kind of hair, you could be a great televangelist!

BILL "


The hair is a problem - most of it has moved to other parts of my body.

[Larry Parsons]

What about using a network marketing business to help to the poor?
Larry

[James Diggs]

I have no opinion on this one but after reading a couple of threads I have a question. Is financial poverty a requirement for being truely Christian? Is the assumption that if you somehow become a person of significant wealth that you somehow must have cheated or taken atvantage of someone?

I don't think the point is that wealth is necessarily gained by cheating or taking advantage of someone (though that often happens even in "honest" business). I think the point is that wealth puts our neighbors at a distance and creates barriers for even the most well intentioned rich people to even understand where their neighbors are coming from so that they can effectively love them AS themselves. Unfortunately, when this happens we can easily take advantage of the poor without necessarily any evil intent whatsoever.

I think part of the problem many are having with this concept is that we are using a lens of morality that is primarily one of judging individual actions in the context of motives and individual rewards and punishments. Looking morality so individualistically allows us to compartmentalize and rationalize away the "woes" Jesus warned the rich of.

Our goal in this individualized morality becomes making sure that we "haven't done anything wrong" rather than seeking to overcoming whatever barriers exists between us and our neighbors so we can love them as ourselves. Overcoming barriers is a critical facet of redemption and reconciliation as Jesus overcame them in the biggest way possible to bring it to us- and he asks us to follow him in it.

Plain and simply, wealth is a barrier to having solidarity with the poor; woe to us who are rich because our wealth keeps us from relating.

I saw this first hand in my own life and the life of my friends and family as my own assumptions began being stripped away while it was more difficult for this to happen for my friends and family just based on what I said I was seeing and experiencing (though my first hand report was better received than what they hear on the news and other places). The reality is the lack of first hand experiences makes us further and further removed- and still my experience was only as an observer and helper (I am not poor).

We can get glimpses, we can visit places and help short term and long term and it all makes a difference and begins help us get an idea of who the poor are (and we SHOULD do this). But the more I try to understand the poor (and you really have to TRY) and the more I uncover their reality, the more I discover that I really have no clue; as each layer removed reveals that the trouble goes beyond my imagination.

This is truer than ever for me as I try to understand better the issues for the global poor- it can be overwhelming as my view from the starting point of being comparably very rich has very much distorted my understanding of the world around me that Jesus loves and died to reconcile and redeem.

I for one am feeling the "woe to the rich" Jesus spoke of first hand; even on my small Pastor's salary. The things is, I don't want to rationalize it away, I want to let the gospel cut both ways as God works his reconciliation and sanctification between me and my neighbors. To those who are rich like I am - stop trying to get out from underneath the "woe" and instead deal with the weight of it and seek Christ in the reality of it.

How rich are you and I compared to the rest of the world? Go to HERE (http://www.globalrichlist.com/) and find out.

Look at the result and ask yourself how far you have to go, and what it will take to overcome the distance between you and the least of these on the graph, so you will be better able to begin to understand, identify with, and love the poorest in the world as yourself?

Woe to us who are rich, because our wealth simply makes it extremely difficult to love most of our neighbors as ourselves as it keeps us very very far from them.

[Dave McClung]

....Woe to us who are rich, because our wealth simply makes it extremely difficult to love most of our neighbors as ourselves as it keeps us very very far from them.

Your statement implies that poor people tend to be more helpful to other poor people than the wealthy are. I question that assumption.

As one who has tried to help others, I have been shocked at how many times those who try to improve their lives are pulled back by their "friends." Anyone who has worked with "recovering" individuals knows that for a person to overcome their habitual vices, they have to stop associating with those who would pull them back.

From my observation, it isn't the rich people who force folks to live in poverty. It is more often the others who live in poverty don't allow one of "their own" to show them up.

For a number of years, I was responsible fo the affirmative action program for a large corporation. Over and over, I was deeply disappointed when people who had great opportunity chose to stay in the "hood" rather than improve the lives of their family.

When Jesus said, "Woe to the Rich" it was in the same context as "to whom much is given, much is required."

[Ryan Scott]

For a number of years, I was responsible fo the affirmative action program for a large corporation. Over and over, I was deeply disappointed when people who had great opportunity chose to stay in the "hood" rather than improve the lives of their family.

A lot of that is a trust issue. If you stay you know what you're getting, if you go the future is uncertain. People for who such risks have never worked out, it's a tough decision. I'm not saying they shouldn't take the risk, but I do understand why those decisions are made. It's the same thing many professional athletes face. When you come up in poverty it's very much a "we're all in this together" atmosphere - even the bloated salary of professional athletes can't raise a whole neighborhood out of poverty (at least not without some sophisticated investment they're not trained for).

For a lot of kids getting an education or going to college is betraying their family. It's going to be difficult to reach too many without changing the culture of the community. It's one of the reasons I've come to believe we need to be living with the problems we seek to address. People who want to reform education need to be in the schools, living with the kids and teachers and parents and administrators. People who want to tackle poverty need to be in the hood, at least every day if not living there. Paul tells us to become all things to all people because only then do we begin to understand the complexities of life in that particular situation.

[James Diggs]

Your statement implies that poor people tend to be more helpful to other poor people than the wealthy are. I question that assumption.

Well I guess if you read the statement you quoted of mine as a stand alone statement I can see how you could say it might imply lots of things. The problem is I didn't write a statement, I wrote a few paragraphs and no where did I say or imply that poor people are more helpful to other poor people than wealthy people.

I spoke of our barrier that we as the rich primarily in terms of our view and perspective as it relates to identifying with the poor. I spoke of our wealth isolating us from the troubles of our neighbors in a way that makes it difficult to identify with them; which in turn makes it difficult to begin to understand what we can do to help if we wanted to. This lack of seeing the poor from the insular perspective of being rich can also lead us to exploiting the poor without necessarily having any malicious intent at all.

The same is true in reverse that the poor have a better view of where Jesus met us all in our humanity- in our poverty- in the underside of life and our "success", with those who are hated, exuded, rejected, and insulted.

What is provided is nothing more than the starting point- (the cross)- what those on top of the hill and those on the bottom of the hill do with that starting point is up to them, but Jesus said the Kingdom of God has come to the least of these and that they shall be first. This is not only the starting point for those on the bottom, but it is a call for those on top to meet Jesus at the bottom (the first shall be last) where he has come to begin the reconciliation of our humanity.

[Larry Parsons]

It is often assumed that the two options are 1) Being wealthy or 2)Giving your wealth to the poor. That is a shallow understanding of wealth. The 3rd answer is usually the best answer: Use your wealth to genreate a stream of income that allows you to continue giving to the poor over a long period of time.
Dave there maybe a 4th way to help the poor and that is set them up in a simple low cost network marketing business. Here at our church we work with lot of poor and this week I will sharing this idea with some of our leaders of our church.
Thanks
Larry P

[James Diggs]

What made the Church of the Nazarene attractive to poor people was that the message was that holy living will make life better for you and your family. There was a strong emphasis on living a life free from excesses and vices. There was a strong emphasis on living within one's means. The strong emphais on tithing taught people to manage their personal finances......

These are largely good things. It is actually our history of being birthed out of being a church for the despised, those on the others side of the tracks that make me really appreciate our heritage. Holiness was practical, it was social- it made lives better.


In other words, the early Church of the Nazarene emphasized the very things that will lead one to personal wealth. It was the early emphasis that has transformed our membership from poverty to an upper middleclass church.

Yikes- this statement though makes me uncomfortable as we, like many church traditions in the same time period, forgot where we came from, forgot the call to live simply, and began to embrace living on our excess, moved out of the cities leaving the poor behind and into suburbs where it was easier not to see them.

This is also where personal piety became over emphasized as it became untethered and lost the necessary tension with what Wesley called "social holiness". Our holiness message became out of balance as piety became an exclusively personal issue.

[Rich Schmidt]

Yikes- this statement though makes me uncomfortable as we, like many church traditions in the same time period, forgot where we came from, forgot the call to live simply, and began to embrace living on our excess, moved out of the cities leaving the poor behind and into suburbs where it was easier not to see them.

This is also where personal piety became over emphasized as it became untethered and lost the necessary tension with what Wesley called "social holiness". Our holiness message became out of balance as piety became an exclusively personal issue.

Didn't John Wesley see the same thing happening in his Methodist societies? I feel like I read something by him on this exact subject... They were gaining all they could & saving all they could, but then not giving all they could... which leads to upward mobility.

That's not to say that people should remain in poverty as God's grace transforms their lives, sets them free of vices, teaches them to be wise with their money, etc. But if we neglect the poor as we become increasingly rich, we've forgotten the gospel.