This will be the last share of the chapter from Ron Sider’s super-challenging book, ‘Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger’ [do yourselves a favour and get hold of a copy and let it ruin you in the best of ways!]
We ended the last post with:
The threat of a curse always accompanied the promise of blessing (Deuteronomy 6.14-15; 28.15-68; 8.11-20). As we discovered in the last to chapters, one of God’s most frequent commands to His people was to feed the hungry and to bring justice to the poor and oppressed. For repeatedly ignoring this command, Israel experienced God’s curse. Israel’s prosperity in the days of Amos and Isaiah was not the result of divine blessing. It was the result of sinful oppression of the poor. God consequently destroyed the nation.
The Bible does teach that God rewards obedience with prosperity. But it denies the converse. It is a heresy, particularly common in the West, to think that wealth and prosperity are always a sure sign of righteousness. They may be the result of sin and oppression as in the case of Israel. The crucial test is whether the prosperous are obeying God’s command to bring justice to the oppressed. If they are not, they are living in damnable disobedience to God. On biblical grounds, therefore, one can be sure that prosperity in the context of injustice is not a sign of righteousness.
Let’s finish this chapter…
= = = = = = = = = =
The connection between righteousness, prosperity and concern for the poor is explicitly taught in Scripture. The picture of the “good wife” in Proverbs 31 provides one beautiful illustration. She is a diligent businesswoman who buys fields and engages in trade (vs.14, 16, 18). She is a righteous woman who fears the Lord (vs.30). Her obedience and diligence clearly bring prosperity. But material possessions do not harden her heart against the poor: “She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands to the needy” (vs. 20).
Psalm 112 is equally explicit:
Blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
who greatly delights in His commandments!…
Wealth and riches are in his house…
the Lord is gracious, merciful and righteous.
It is well with the man who deals generously and lends,
who conducts his affairs with justice…
He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor.
(Psalm 112.1, 3-5, 9)
The righteous person distributes his riches freely to the poor. He works to establish justice for the oppressed. That kind of life is a sign that one’s prosperity results from obedience rather than oppression.
God wills prosperity with justice. But that does not mean that wealthy persons who make Christmas baskets and give to relief have satisfied God’s demand. God wills justice for the poor. And justice, as we have seen, means things like the Jubilee and the sabbatical remission of debts. It means economic structures that check the emergence of extremes of wealth and poverty. It means massive economic sharing among the people of God. Prosperity without that kind of biblical concern for justice unambiguously signifies disobedience.
We have seen that the Old Testament teaches that material possessions sometimes result from divine blessing. But is this view compatible with Jesus saying: “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6.20)? Does Jesus consider poverty itself a virtue? Furthermore, how can one reconcile the Lucan version of this beatitude with Matthew’s version: “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matthew 5.3)
The development of the idea of the “pious poor” in the centuries just prior to Christ helps answer these questions. Already in the Psalms the poor were often identified as the special objects of God’s favour and protection precisely because they were oppressed by the wicked rich (see, for example, Psalm 8). When Greece and then Rome conquered Palestine, Hellenistic culture and values were foisted upon the Jews. Those who remained faithful to Yahweh often suffered financially. Thus the term poor came to be used to describe faithful Jews. “It was virtually equivalent to pious, God-fearing, and godly and reflects a situation where the rich were mainly those who had sold out to the incoming culture and had allowed their religious devotion to become corrupted by the new ways. If the poor were the pious, the faithful and largely oppressed, the rich were the powerful, ungodly, worldly, even apostate.”
In such a setting the righteous are often poor, hungry, and sad, not just “in spirit” but in reality. Matthew has not “spiritualised” Jesus’ words. He has simply captured another aspect of Jesus’ original meaning. Jesus was talking about those faithful persons who so hungered for righteousness that they sacrificed even their material prosperity when that became necessary. Jesus then did not mean that poverty and hunger are desirable in themselves. But in a sinful world where frequently success and prosperity are possible only if one transgresses God’s law, poverty and hunger are indeed a blessing. The kingdom is for precisely such people.
Jesus’ comment in Mark 10.29-30 adds further clarification. He promised that those who forsake all for the kingdom will receive a hundredfold even in this life. And he even included houses and lands, part of the good creation intended for our enjoyment. In the same sentence, however, He also promised persecution! Sometimes – perhaps most of the time – the wicked, powerful and rich will persecute those who dare to follow Jesus’ teaching without compromise. Hunger and poverty often result. In such a time the poor and hungry disciples are indeed blessed.
I fear that we may be at the threshold of such an age. The time may soon come when those who dare preach and live what the Bible teaches about the poor and possessions will experience terrible persecution. If the wars of redistribution envisaged by Heilbroner become a reality, if affluent lands go to war to protect their unfair share of the world’s food and resources, then persecution in affluent countries will inevitably occur.
In such an age faithful Christians will continue to assert that property rights are not absolute. They will courageously insist that the right of individuals and nations to use land and resources as they please is subordinate to the right of all people to eat and to earn a just living. They will understand more profoundly than today Jesus’ carefree unconcern for possessions. As they see fellow church members choose security and affluence rather than faithfulness and persecution, they will realise how dangerous indeed are possessions and wealth. Certainly they will not despise the good gifts of creation. But when forced to choose between possessions and the kingdom, they will gladly forsake the ring for the Beloved.
= = = = = = = = = =
There ends the chapter… challenging stuff hey? But what do we do now? Clearly this end piece is quite optimistic by Ron. And also remember this book was written in 1977 and yet still rings so true in so many ways.
If you missed any of the other parts of this passage, make sure you catch up:
A Carefree Attitude Towards Possessions
Tossing the Greedy out of the Church
[…] [For the last part titled To Prosperity add Justice, click here] […]
How does one balance this with motivation to work? Most people would not work if they didn’t have to. This would mean others would have to work harder. Free food, shelter, electricity all paid for by others? Surely there must be incentive to work? Surely there should also be choice in how much of your earnings or similar go towards those who don’t work or worse, those who choose not to work because of laziness. How can we balance accommodating so many, create incentive and fairness at the same time? People will not work harder than thry have to. People would rather their own families are taken care of than others. I think your post is righteous and good intent yet very unrealistic.
I’m not sure most people would not work if they had the opportunity and knew it would put food on the table. I think the ‘most people’ you are thinking of there are probably privileged types who are used to doing the least amount of work for the biggest reward. I imagine thousands of people around South Africa would love an opportunity to make money to put food on the table and clothes on their children and more.
Skilled work vs unskilled. Should a doctor with 12 years experience earn the same as a car guard?
Privilege is sometimes not a construct. It’s also comes with hard work.
Gove us your plan in practice going forward. Many say this country is gone. Water restrictions for example – we must cut down on water because of all those who arr8ve by thee bus load looking for handouts. I just see no solution as I don’t see most of these people doing anything of value ever. I think the culture is too much geared toward unskilled work with quick pay then relaxation. If people are raised outside of their culture then we see them in more skilled jobs or even ceo. It is racially equal yet culturally very different goals.
Let’s hear your practical plan, not your ideal. Quantify it a bit by telling us how a doctor would live, how a scientist, beggar, street sweep would live.
Have you ever read Karl Marx? How do you see communism or socialism working? Nobody who has a good life for whatever reason will want to live in squalor to pay for others. So please give us your full plan going forward.
Andy, I suggest you do some reading up on white privilege – you can find some good stuff on my blog.
First question that needs to be asked is how did the one person become a doctor and a car guard? I doubt it was just by working harder.
Which of the two grew up in their own room in their own house with time and quiet to be able to study and access to the Internet and all knowledge needed and probably parents who studied and have degrees and can help him or her to get through the system, possibly paying for his tuition and the car he uses. He probably never had to raise his younger siblings or fear danger at night as he made his way outside to the only toilet his house has which is shared with the local community and so on.
Where we start determines so much of the trajectory of where we are likely to finish and sure there are rich kids who throw it all away and poor kids who manage through much sweat and endurance to make it but this is the story of the average person from either side and while one day that may simply be a class thing, today in South Africa it still looks pretty black and white.
You blame water restrictions on those people who arrive on bus – I would question those rich people with sprawling gardens and golf courses and swimming pools that are all luxury items, especially to those who struggle to make their next meal or new second hand pair of shoes.
What are the answers? I am not sure. But I am convinced that it is not to be found in 1% of the world’s population owning 45% of the world’s stuff or whatever the latest stay on that is.
People with privilege realizing it and reaching out to help and get to know and wall alongside those without feels like quite an easy first step that will get us a long part of the way…
That one percent you talk about. Is it not a natural progression? If you had to plot a graph of rich and poor, the curve has always been similar even without structural inequality.
If you had to go live in rural eastern Cape, you would be in the top one percent. Why then don’t you take your earnings and buy clothes for these people and wear only old ones yourself? Why don’t you just forsake all luxuries like coffee, chocolate, pizza etc and eat only booked beans or similar? It’s not all that different from asking a wealthier guy to forsake his pool or car. Or another to forsake his yacht or private jet.
When you work, you would rather that money go towards your wife, kids and family instead of someone else’s. This is not structural, but inherent in all animals including us. It’s survival of the fittest and you can read about it if you like.
What you are saying is that we must stop natural progression and all must be equal. Those who are in poverty will be encouraged to have huge families and after 3 generations there will be a population explosion of those who for whatever reason, structural or not; cannot make it on their own. By then those who work will be in the extreme minority or simply cannot support so many.
Just being born clever gives you privilege. Being born into a culture of hard working people gives you privilege. Now what kind of privilege are you referring to? If you are born into a eastern Cape family in the mountains, you have privilege there as you have adapted to work in the mountains. Privilege is only privilege if you take context into consideration as well as desires. What you desire determines your privilege.
I get what you say about privilege and in your context I do agree. However shouldn’t we look at our desire as well? Many indigenous people of south Africa are very privileged if they live a rural life growing crops, socialising with friends and families in villages. Is it not the Western mindset and desires that creates not just an uneven playing field, but also puts one in a game they not good at.
Stop looking at privilege. It’s like bring in the ocean, trending water and almost drowning and a guy tells you that you have expensive boots, or another guy tells you he’s a 100m track athlete or high jumper.
Privilege is like having tickets to the j and b met, a very vacuous and cruel event. I don’t care if I don’t go to it, and never will. Many save up and try to get tickets.
People should return to their roots and not strive to play in a field that will never reward them. Get back to farms, a rural existence. This goes for all cultures even yes, us whites.
Andy, please go and read some of the white privilege posts on my blog before we continue this conversation because there is just so much ridiculousness here I don’t know where to begin. So many assumptions you make that are simply not true.
What if someone is born clever? I don’t think you can be born clever because a lot of what we call clever is affected by your environment, how you were nurtured as a child or not, access to media/knowledge/story and opportunities facing you, plus a whole lot more.
Privilege is not like having tickets to the J and B met. Well that is a symptom of privilege but having an able body as opposed to a disabled body is an example of a privilege I have. What it means for me is that I never have to wonder when I go out if I will be able to gain access to a building or not because all buildings are built with the able-bodied in mind. You are what I’m saying? If I am male then a privilege I have is being able to walk down the street by myself without the expectation that members of the opposite sex are going to whistle or proposition me or worse. Privilege simply means I start with an uneven playing field tilted in my favour. I don’t have to feel bad for my privilege but I certainly can feel responsible to do everything I can to help those without the privilege to have the same kinds of opportunities as I have.
It’s like playing a game on a field where there is a big diamond that can only fit in one person’s hand. At any time, it will always be in one person’s hand. People will study and learn about how to get that diamond. Thry will kill and do evil things to get that diamond. But why? What the f can a diamond do besides glitter? It can’t do anything for you. You just want it because everyone else wants it. You want it because people think you great if you have it. Privilege, structural inequality, all revolves around who gets that diamond. But what if… We all just started ploughing that field and forgot about that diamond. You see privilege inequality etc.. Are all based on desire. Desire for what?
Privilege is continuing to play the game with the one diamond and having a whole group of people who it’s impossible to ever get access to the diamond instead of cutting that diamond into 100 smaller diamonds and giving every player one.
No my friend, my point is why are you all after diamonds? You don’t get it man. You just don’t get it. I say this out of frustration only. I know what you are saying about privilege and get it and agree, but don’t you see that we should not be after these diamonds? Also cutting it up makes it much less valuable in any event.
It’s like running on a hamster wheel and the hamster with the speediest legs has the privilege. Or the hamster who was born into a family of fast hamsters or the one who came from a much bigger cage (apartheid) who is faster. I say to get off that wheel.
If we want to play in the game of diamonds or hamster wheels then we can talk about privilege all day and you have valid arguments. I read your posts about it. I know a lot about white privilege (in this game).
My question to you sir, is how about we drop the privilege as we all know it’s there in various forms, and to play a new game?
Why even the playing field if we playing the wrong game?
Opportunity, wealth, nice car? Is that the goal? Or enjoying the village with family and friends, a Sunday picnic cooking home grown produce.
Yes, some are born more clever, some are born with mental disability, physical, better looking and so on. These are all things that suit a particular game, a game we shouldn’t be playing.
Everyone has privilege if we change the game to something more user friendly!
Dude I used the diamond analogy cos you brought it up so don’t be ridiculous. It’s not about diamonds, it’s about a place to live, about enough food, about clothes. About those who have enough not needing to keep chasing after more more more while some people don’t even have the basics.
Any response to this? What is your definition of prosperity?
Well before we can even begin to look at prosperity we should start with enough and that is my heart. We live in a world where there is enough for everyone but due to greed the enough is not shared put even close to equally. I would love to see that addressed somehow so that everyone can have the basics we need and then grow from there. It is only not practical because we live in a world or such greed and ruthlessness.
Everybody should not be “getting” free stuff. Everybody should be producing and contributing. By receiving, we are victims or slaves. By producing we are empowered. No reason why we can’t be 90 percent empowered and then it will be a breeze to help the 10 percent who are not.
Focus on the playing field. Are we playing in a swamp?
Can you live one month without money at all? When you use paper money, you are perpetuating slavery. Think about that.
Do you grow anything? Can you teach others to grow food?
Focus on changing the game. Be a game changer.
I would love to engage on the above. Maybe do a post on the game sometime. The playing field we are on. Should we be playing in a different game?
I absolutely think we should be playing on a different field which is what I have been saying over and over. I don’t believe capitalism as it stands is the best way to live because it perpetuates some having most and most being without. It’s not based on working or not working and I’m not suggesting handouts but the opportunity for everyone to be able work for what they have – I absolutely think growing ones own food can be a big part of that as well as just basic looking after the planet so that generations after us can enjoy it as well. Many people are living in a swamp because a few people are able to afford mansions.
Well, I think you guys (Brett, Andy) are a lot closer to agreeing than either of you seem to realise. Funny, infuriating, interesting, rewarding conversation all at the same time.
But, anyhow, Rich Christians is a blast from the past for me as it was a big influence on me in my young and single days. Then, like many people, I got a family and suddenly (or perhaps gradually?) things seemed more complicated.
Though i’m not a christian these days, I’ve been remembering the spirit of the book in the last couple of years, having become increasingly irritated by the un-necessary complexities of my life, and the way in which material stuff dominates despite my best intententions.
I’m on a long, gradual curve to return to simplicity. On one level I do think this is a personal decision. I don’t think beating people with a stick helps. But I’m interested in recent studies that suggests that after a certain relatively small amount (which would still mean “rich” to most of the world, I think it was about 70,000 american dollars) people don’t get any “Happiness” benefits. Things go backwards.
It was interesting and encouraging to read that Mark “Facebook” Zuckerberg has commited to giving away in some form of charity giving 99% of his shares in FB over his lifetime. I think role models at all levels of life and status are a good thing. I love hearing stories of people who Simplify whether they be rich or poor, believers or irreligious, young or old. I don’t think there is a correct way of doing it though. Although I hope we get to the point, one tribe after another, where we accept things like a fair tax system that says there SHOULD be a limit to material wealth and where human culture no longer associates success with that same material wealth.
Peace, Love, Vegetables, and Fresh Air
David