This is a response (that is still developing) to the blog I wrote two summers ago when I had a deep yet short-lived Irresistible Revolution fanaticism. Although I haven’t started making my own clothes yet, I haven’t stopped thinking about how Jesus would be living if He was born into an upper-middle class family in suburbia America. This week I have been reading through Dallas Willard’s The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives and have been really mulling over chapter 10, “Is Poverty Spiritual.” In this chapter, Willard carefully dissects many issues concerning justice, the possible advantages of poverty and the danger of romanticizing it.
Obviously wealth is not evil, but then why so much uneasiness among many financially independent Christians? Is it a fear of failing in our responsibilities to use our goods to help the less fortunate or is it the radical thought that in order to most fully serve God we must commit ourselves to poverty? I know I have definitely struggled and still am struggling with the latter. Obviously wealth is not evil but there is great danger in the idealization of poverty.
Theologian John Wesley once preached that Christianity “begets diligence and frugality, which makes one rich. Riches, in turn, naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity.” He believed one should sell everything they have and give it all to the poor. Willard then applies some great arguments as why we should learn to be content in whatever socio-economic position we are in. First, being poor is one of the poorest of ways to help the poor. While it is a praiseworthy act for someone to give everything they have away, this cannot be considered a spiritual discipline because the discipline is in the act of giving not in the resultant state of poverty. Sure there is always the possibility of deceitfulness in riches, but the delusions caused by possessions cannot be prevented by having none. Also, we must never forget that the riches of this world, whether they are to be regarded as good or evil, are realities that do not just disappear if we abandon them. The fact that we do not possess them does not mean that they will be better distributed. So to assume the responsibility for the right use and guidance of possessions through ownership is far more of a discipline of the spirit than poverty itself. “…to abandon the goods of this world to the enemies of God is to fail the responsibilities we are given at creation to have dominion, to rule over all life forms above the plants (Gen. 1:26).” God’s purpose in our creation and the nature of our life explain the almost universal failure of people to actually carry through with poverty as a life-style. Even St. Francis’s cult of poverty did not even survive to the end of his own life.
The removal of the idea of poverty from the reality of poverty is what allows it to be romanticized among all groups of Christians –and even permits a certain “poverty chic” to flourish in some quarters of secular society. Another aspect of the romanticization of poverty is its identification with simplicity.
Perhaps much of this uneasiness in the minds of many Christians is the result of inadequate teaching and preaching and thus an inadequate vision of the Kingdom of God. We so often have sermons on giving and stewardship but not too many on how members of the body of Christ should relate and act (not just in terms of giving) to those who are from a different socio-economic status.
Wealth is a gift from God but along with it comes the heavy responsibility to exercise stewardship. I am beginning to see more and more how one who has a stable and substantial income may actually be able to bless more people by their financial resources if they manage them well than compared to someone who has very few if any financial resources. Willard gives several good suggestions on how to reconcile our financially well-off mindset to be more in one accord with the poor. To experience a small taste of economic deprivation, we can do our shopping, banking, and perhaps even living in the poorer districts of our area. We must remember that Jesus did not send help but rather He came among us. We should continue on in His incarnational model. I used to think that if Jesus was living among us today His life would resemble Shane Claiborne’s closely. Trying to understand the specifics of what exactly it looks like to live among the poverty-stricken is perplexing. Sure we can live in the poorer section of our area, but if we don’t give away much of our possessions how will our neighbors view us –with jealously? with bitterness for not sharing our obvious wealth or not sharing enough of it? but when is enough ever really "enough?"
Wesley’s famous formula, “Get all you can; save all you can; give all you can,” must be adjusted. Perhaps it should read: “get all you can, save all you can; freely use all you can within a properly disciplined spiritual life; and control all you can for the good of humankind and God’s glory.”
