Friday, December 2, 2011

Some Proposals for a Christian Response to Poverty, Part 2

In my introductory essay to this series, I provided a definition of poverty and suggested a couple of factors that can lead to poverty.  I now want to make some proposals about what the church’s response to poverty should look like.  Each proposal will build off the last.

I took a big leap just now when I assumed that the church has a requirement to respond to poverty.  Someone may ask a good and reasonable question:  What does this have to do with the church?  Governments, secular NGOs, and everyday people already respond to poverty.  Is there any reason for the church to do so as well?[1]  I believe that there are several reasons.  I therefore want to propose that:   

A Christian understanding of poverty acknowledges that the church must respond to poverty.



     
The first reason the church must respond to poverty is that Christian scripture teaches that God wants us to do so.  If the church believes that The Bible is indeed God’s message to the world – as many Christians do – then the church ignores God when it ignores poverty. 

The life of Jesus demonstrates that God chooses to be on the side of the poor.[2]  Christians must ask if we are also on the side of the poor.  When worshipping God, do we remember that He equates kindness to the poor with kindness to Him?[3]  If Christians expect to be taken seriously when we claim that we follow Jesus, we will stand with the poor.[4] 

The Bible does not have one clear lesson for people about money and material goods.  What we should learn from this is not a prescribed set of actions about our things, but instead an understanding that what we own affects our relationship with God.[5]  By not providing people with a single rule about how we use what we own, God leads the church to be faithful instead of ideological.  The Bible teaches that poverty isn’t simply the result of a bad economic system.  It is the result of sin.[6]  Because God does not provide a single response to poverty, the church is able to cater its response to particular situations.  Sometimes the church should serve suffering people.  Sometimes the church should see how it contributes to such suffering and repent.[7] 

The second reason the church must respond to poverty is that God commands us to do so.  Calvin taught that the basis God uses to judge our spiritual lives is what we do with our material goods.[8] 

Israel’s role as taught by The Old Testament was to “enlighten the nations.”   This means that other cultures (like Canadians) can look to ancient Israel for guidance.  Old Testament commands about economics were to prevent poverty.  The Law allowed everyone to have access to land and its resources.  It values work and includes provisions that everyone who is physically able to work has both the right and the responsibility to do so.  It demonstrates that material goods are a good thing, while commanding that people closely watch how these goods are used.  It commands fair distribution of economic benefits and warns that God judges a society by this distribution.[9] 

In the New Testament, the Gospels summarize the Law as love for God and love for neighbour.[10]  Here, Jesus creates a new community that He will govern as an alternative to the powerful and oppressive structures of the world that surrounds it.[11]  It is a community of “words of truth and deeds of love.”  Such a presentation is dangerous in a world that will hate this message.[12] 

Scripture presents a view about the end of history that includes the fulfilled Kingdom of God, however. [13]  This matters to the spiritual and physical realities of people today.  The Bible presents a “grace-sin conflict” as historical reality.  This conflict impacts the physical and social aspects of life because the Christian struggle for justice is an attempt to demonstrate God’s Kingdom here and now when justice is not completely realized.[14]  If Christians acknowledge that the Kingdom of God isn’t completely here yet, while trying to live like it is, we will see an impact on our relationship with money.  Simultaneously living in two kingdoms is difficult, but God provides the church with two things: imagination and faith.  Imagination is important because it lets Christians envision the Kingdom.  Faith is important because it lets Christians know that God’s complete victory is coming.  Faith allows the church to demonstrate the fulfilled Kingdom.[15]
 
The third reason the church must respond to poverty is that poverty is not good.  The material world is a good creation of God.  God intends material enjoyment, assuming that people do not allow enjoyment to lead them away from God.  God partly gives gifts so the receiver can share with others.  Proper stewardship is evidence of faith and it is impossible to separate how we use material goods from our faith.[16] 

In his survey of money and the early church, Justo Gonzalez notes that early theologians saw an intimate connection between financial issues and faith.  While there was a range of opinion about how to relate faith and wealth in the early church, no one taught that the issues should be kept separate.  The idea that preachers and theologians should let only other people talk about money and poverty is unique in the modern church.[17]

The fourth reason the church must respond to poverty is that it has the resources to do so.  Obviously, this does not apply to all members of the church.  Nonetheless, there is wealth in pockets of Christianity.  Such pockets exist while the effects of poverty kill people.  This can only happen if wealthy Christians choose to ignore the biblical teaching that God evaluates people’s faith in Him by their response to poverty.[18]  God created people to be equal.  Life is a gift from God and the lives of the poor are as valuable as the lives of the rich.[19]  Sin destroyed this equality.  When a wealthy person learns that another person is starving and then refuses to act, this wealthy person has infringed on his or her neighbour’s right to life.[20] 










[1] Secular is a word with loaded meaning, so I should be clear.  In The Desire of the Nations, Oliver O’Donovan points out that “secular” and “Christian” are not opposites.  Secular simply means things that are of the world and temporal.  An eggplant, for example, is both secular and morally neutral.  (For that matter, church is also a loaded term.  I’m going to use it broadly and mean the Christian community rather than referring to a specific congregation or a specific denomination.) 




[2] Nicholas Wolterstorff, Until Justice and Peace Embrace, 76.


[3] Proverbs 19:17.


[4] Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger,  21.


[5] Luke T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions, 9.


[6] Luke T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions, 115-116.


[7] Steven J. Friesen, “Injustice or God’s Will?  Early Christian Explanations of Poverty,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, 36.


[8] André Biéler, Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought, 278.


[9] Craig Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions, 49-50.


[10] Craig Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions, 103.


[11] Dewi Hughes, Power and Poverty: Divine and Human Rule in a World of Need, 238.


[12] Dewi Hughes, Power and Poverty: Divine and Human Rule in a World of Need, 243.


[13] Dewi Hughes, Power and Poverty: Divine and Human Rule in a World of Need, 243.


[14] Gustavo Gutierrez, Liberation Theology, 97.


[15] Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, 323-324.


[16] Craig Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions, 242-246.


[17] Justo L. Gonzalez, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas of the Origin, Significance , and Use of Money, 225.


[18] Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, xvi-xvii.


[19] Luke T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions, 59.


[20] Nicholas Wolterstorff, Until Justice and Peace Embrace, 82.

No comments:

Post a Comment