Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church
I'm in the midst of the incredibly complicated task of trying to make sense of Jesus' words concerning wealth and poverty in Luke 6:17-26 for a 21st century affluent suburban mega-church. What was I thinking when I accepted this invitation?
In pulling things together for this sermon I've revisited some research I did a few years ago on wealth and poverty in the early church. I thought I'd do a series of posts to put some of that stuff here in order to see what sort of reactions I might get or at least to stimulate folks who read this to think about these things.
Many writers in the early church discussed issues of wealth and poverty. In its earliest days the church was made up of predominantly poor members, but over time more affluent people began to seek membership in the community of faith. Care for the poor remained a priority of the early church. One of the earliest Christian apologists, Aristides of Athens, appealed to Christian charity in his defense of the faith presented to the emperor:
Indeed not. Yet I dare say it's highly unlikey that they of the past did such a thing in their day either. And if they did, it was not because they had anything to spare to begin with, the wealth stayed with the wealthy, as will probably always be the case. There are of course the very rare exceptions, but generally speaking I can't think of one true story where a wealthy person gave up their entire wealth or even the bulk of it to feed anyone. As for people giving up their needs for days in order to fulfill the needs of the less fortunate, well, maybe monks do that or some very needy church orphanages? The stories we read are more about showing that people do give up needless material possessions in order to help those less fortunate so people will actually see that others do it, maybe we should as well.. Isn't it so human how the right things have to be talked about being done before anyone can come close to actually doing them, it's as if the idea of doing something so selfless would be unconscionable if someone else hasn't already done it. When you consider just how little we actually need to survive and live extremely happy lives, it's sad when you think how above and beyond we'll go in order to live a life of materialism and greed. Seriously, who really needs that 100$ silk shirt or 1000 dollar watch...aren't there better things to spend money on. But that's almost too obvious of an example. What is the point? Please, tell me, cause I don't understand the Paris Hiltons of the world, or the people who support such smut or any of it really...When will people snap out of it and begin to put themselves in the shoes of the poor... I'll tell you. never, because as long as there are eccentric material possessions to be had, they will be had. As long as someone can go to whatever function and flaunt their designer purse, they will flaunt. Why? because they can justify it within themselves somehow. Let them say the poor are poor because they choose to be, let them say starving people were always starving, what's the difference? Well, I don't know the answers, nor does anyone else I guess, that's why things keep turning and turning. The poor and homeless go to bed dreaming of not being poor and homeless and the rich go to bed loving that they are rich and not poor and homeless. Or of those blah blah shoes they are going to get tomorrow. Or nothing at all cause they are inconsiderate basta***. Ah well, thanks for letting me say what everyone has said, sorry for the lack of insight, yeah...Good luck on that sermon, I'd like to hear that one.
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:06 PM
Wow. And I thought I was somewhat cynical! :-)
Now that we've established our dual cynicism (to some degree) I can think of one rather famous example of a wealthy person giving it all up for the poor. Saint Francis of Assisi, who was wealthy and gave up his wealth for the life of poverty. I'm sure there are other stories as well, but one should suffice for now.
I'm not sure that giving up all ones wealth was the point of the quote from Aristides however. Nor is that the point of the passage in Luke. Although I suppose Barry will give at least one perspective on the passage.
Perhaps Christ's statements and Aristides descriptions have more to do with what true discipleship looks like (loving kindness) and where it finds itself (among those who need help) rather than any kind of task list to accomplish like giving all ones wealth away with an eye on rewards. Short post...happy to elaborate further.
Posted by
Nate |
10:51 PM
BTW, I probably should have at least nodded toward John Yoder when I made my comments last night. I had just finished an essay of his the other day called "The Political Axioms of the Sermon on the Mount"...good essay I thought. At any rate, it included SEVERAL lines of thought, multiple ethics, taught by Christ in that famous sermon (which includes the portion Barry will be discussing.
He does go through Matthews account, and unless they are two totally different instances of teaching, which I suppose is possible, I thought some of his comments made sense for the passage from Luke.
Just fyi...here were the ethics he outlined:
Ethic of repentance
Ethic of discipleship
Ethic of testimony
Ethic of fulfillment
Ethic of perfect love
Ethic of excess
Ethic of reconciliation
That came from portions of Matt 4-5. Included in there was a discussion on the "beattitudes", which I thought was relevant to the comments Barry quoted from Aristides.
Posted by
Nate |
8:00 AM