Why would a Christian be rich?

[pshun2404]

But isn't God and other people before everything? If we serve others then surely our Lord will provide for us. At least that's what the bible says. But I mean Christians don't really believe in a fairy tale like that anymore anyways.

I do not purposely waste God's resources to my family because the word ALSO says "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Now that is not referring to one who cannot but one who does not (there is a difference). So having said that....in times when our resources were very slim the Lord has always come through and allowed us to help others while sustaining my household. I believe with all my heart that if we seek the Kingdom and His righteousness we get what we need (not always what we may want). Personally that is quite good enough for me but during those few times I was still sad for my family but God has shown my wife Salome and myself that we can count on Him.

So why would a Christian be rich? To be a resource for others....but not neglecting their own primary ministry under God...their own family. God first in all things...family second...others third. But one thing I will say. Those who preach all Christians should be rich miss the point...we are (Ephesians 1) just not in the sense mammon would boast...besides if that was how it was supposed to be why weren't all the Apostles wealthy, right?

Now if you have been blessed, be blessed but beware it could be a curse...so be a good steward. The Lord bless...

In His love

Paul

 

[Stone Butterfly]

It is a matter of taking the OP into context.
It's written by a kid who's still in school and has no bills, no mortgage and lives because his parents work to support him.

He should ask, would my parents turn down the opportunity to be gifted 6 million dollars?

God does not require that we be poor, homeless, destitute, in order to be good Christians.
The more we have the more we can share the abundance of Christ.
The Bible says it. Those that condemn what they title, the prosperity gospel, are failing in the word. God talks about prosperity. God wants us to prosper. Condemning prosperity, making prosperity gospel like unto a curse word, is contrary to the word of God and God's will for us.

 

[SkyWriting]

I just don't get how we call ourselves Christians yet don't give our entire life away to God and others.

Because we are all sinners.

You are thinking of Jesus....which is a good start.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I wonder if the OP is asking the question along the lines: Why do some christians own the gold rolex watch and not the $20 timex watch from walmart? Human error I'd say.

 

[ProudMomxmany]

I've read this with some interest...now, I think the question is how much is enough. If I make 100K/yr and give 50% away my standard of living would be rather reduced. However, if I make 10 MILLION a year and give 50% away, how does that reduce my standard of living? How does the accumulation of wealth further the Kingdom of God? How does the accumulation of wealth to the detriment of my fellow man (see Walmart) further the kingdom of God? How does that accumulation while I see others hungry, naked, sick and homeless and don't do anything about it further the Kingdom?

 

[IronicallyHuman]

It is a matter of taking the OP into context.
It's written by a kid who's still in school and has no bills, no mortgage and lives because his parents work to support him.

He should ask, would my parents turn down the opportunity to be gifted 6 million dollars?

God does not require that we be poor, homeless, destitute, in order to be good Christians.
The more we have the more we can share the abundance of Christ.
The Bible says it. Those that condemn what they title, the prosperity gospel, are failing in the word. God talks about prosperity. God wants us to prosper. Condemning prosperity, making prosperity gospel like unto a curse word, is contrary to the word of God and God's will for us.

Well like I said before.. I live off of donations and I have a job and pay for everything except the essentials like home food and bills.
Now I know I don't have the struggle of paying for such, but I'm talking like the guy below said, why have a gold Rolex when you preach about being a servant to others.

 

[Willie T]

............. as we all sit here typing on computers that might actually cost more than $15, and can also easily pay for this totally unnecessary internet connection we're using.

Uh... anyone not sitting on a comfortable chair and enjoying their Air Conditioning? And, is that a cup of coffee I see at your elbow?

Yeah, kind of hard to tell, but I think we all know how it really goes.

 

[2ndRateMind]

............. as we all sit here typing on computers that might actually cost more than $15, and can also easily pay for this totally unnecessary internet connection we're using.

Uh... anyone not sitting on a comfortable chair and enjoying their Air Conditioning? And, is that a cup of coffee I see at your elbow?

Yeah, kind of hard to tell, but I think we all know how it really goes.

To be sure, I take your point. At what point do we start, or stop, giving away our wealth, given that individually we can't solve the world's poverty problem, and that there is no point in beggaring ourselves for the sake of a drop in the ocean?

So, we all need to find balance, and arrive at that level of belongings and income and capital that ensures we are a) not a burden, and b) able to maintain some dignity in our existence, and that level of dignity we should realistically wish for anyone or everyone else. Excess of this level is just that, excess.

And if we all found that balance, I suspect that our common quality of lives both here and hereafter would considerably improve.

But, it's a voluntary thing, this Christianity. You need not help to save the world, if you are not so inclined.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Nig]

It takes a King to deliver a slave, it takes a rich man to deliver a poor man, money does not create fools it reveals fools. There is a difference between persuing prosperity and prosperity persuing you. The problem of wealth is if you allow it it becomes your sufficiency and not Jesus. Jesus excepted wealth people by grace and rejected them when they came asking what do I need to do? When eternal life stood before them in Jesus. My neighbor needs me to be wealthy; I need to stand in faith believing that He was made poor that I may be made rich. Is there poverty in heaven? God wants heaven to be made manifest on earth. Thy will be done. The problem for a poor person is that wealth is not accessed by the generosity of rich people. All you get there is your next meal. Wealth is found when you stand upon the promises of God which are yes and amen in Christ. We prosper even as our soul prospers.

Wherever you are prosperity is all around you. When I have been to Africa I have noticed the incredible wealth everywhere. But it is being controlled by the dominion of darkness. You inheritance is being held by satan and Christians say you satan can have the earths riches, they belong to you, what Jesus did is of no effect. The meek shall inherit the earth.

Everything that God has for you is held by the kingdom of darkness illigitimately.

When those assets of the world come into the kingdom of light as they rightfully should then we will see Gods prosperity .

The kingdom does not function on guilt but through love. Or is your question what should I do? As you receive the love of Jesus rivers of life will flow out from you. This will include wealth.

 

[contango]

Fact is, if we truly loved our neighbour as ourselves, he would be as wealthy as we are. Any disparity, any economic inequality, would be wiped out immediately we realised his lack. But it isn't, because we don't so love.

Unfortunately this just isn't true. If I have £100,000 and my neighbour as nothing, by your logic I should immediately give him exactly £50,000. If he goes out and throws a huge party and spends the full £50,000 with nothing to show for it, I should respond to the new situation where I have £50,000 and he has nothing by immediately giving him £25,000.

In this situation all that happens is we reward the profligate. Why would anyone take responsibility for their lives if people will just step in and redistribute if there is any imbalance?

Fact is, fully 1 billion people eke out meagre lives on less that $1 per day. Over 3 billion people, half the world's population, live on less than $2.50 a day. Meanwhile, allegedly Christian America and Europe, with only 15% of the world's population, retains 50% of the world's wealth, and even that is allocated very unevenly. There is a hypocrisy here so huge that it is difficult to comprehend it's extent.

This whole $2.50/day only tells half of the story. I used to work with a guy from Sri Lanka who sent his mother £100 per month (about $160 for US readers). With that she paid the rent on a three-bedroom house, all her bills, ate reasonably well and usually had enough left over to share. Not bad for $5/day.

There seem to be four types of justification for the attitude that allows a believer to think he is a Christian and can still be rich:

1) The poverty problem is so big, that I can't do anything about it.
2) Jesus said; the poor will always be with us.
3) I have a right to wealth because I work hard and live virtuously.
4) This world doesn't matter, only our afterlives, which are decided by our beliefs, not our works.

Or perhaps people consider the example of Joseph in Genesis 37, who prophesied seven good years followed by seven lean years and filled the storehouses to tide the people through the famine.

Fact is, if we worked hard and were truly virtuous, collectively, we could solve this issue. The fact that Jesus addressed His disciples as He did was a simple truth for their times, not a prophecy for ours. The world produces enough food to feed everybody an adaquate diet. Yet, according to the UN, 870 million people are chronically malnourished. Each year, some 15 million children die of hunger. This is a distribution problem, caused by people hogging wealth, not a production problem. As for heavenly reward; I just don't see it being settled on people who could have stopped a single starvation, but chose not to, and that irrespective of their belief system.

There's very little I can do about starving children in far-flung lands. I could give everything I have and still barely make a difference. I could give everything I have only to find it soaked up in administration and import duties. Or I could give locally and make a difference locally, whether "give" means handing over cash, spending time with someone who is lonely, or helping a family budget so they don't need as much cash going forward.

Just handing over money and walking away is the easy way out.

 

[Viren]

This isn't about fairness our whether someone works or is lazy. It's about where we put our trust. Is it Mammon or God? Jesus said, "do not store up treasure on earth".

 

[2ndRateMind]

Unfortunately this just isn't true. If I have £100,000 and my neighbour as nothing, by your logic I should immediately give him exactly £50,000. If he goes out and throws a huge party and spends the full £50,000 with nothing to show for it, I should respond to the new situation where I have £50,000 and he has nothing by immediately giving him £25,000.

In this situation all that happens is we reward the profligate. Why would anyone take responsibility for their lives if people will just step in and redistribute if there is any imbalance?

Yes, I agree with this line of thinking. There is a moral hazard in bailing people out of their own errors. People need to suffer the consequences of poor decisions, and be rewarded for good decisions, in order that they should learn to make more of the latter than the former.

However, there is a limit to the severity of the consequences they should suffer, even for the most foolish of decisions. I do not think the consequence should ever be the death penalty; however foolishly one disposes of money, the prevention solution should not be that one should starve to death as a result.

Furthermore, there is also a limit to the maximum extent that they should receive succour, and that limit is the level at which one is able to maintain the reasonably dignified standard of living I referred to earlier.

Nevertheless, I do not think that one should not support relevant charities on the basis of this potential moral hazard; most of the poor are poor through accident of birth rather than by any fault of their own, whatever Dr Brahms may think, and this problem of moral hazard is relevant to far fewer cases of poverty than many wealthy people would like to admit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[contango]

I have already addressed this point; if we are to have a discussion, it would help if you read what I write.

The problem with whatever position you take in this regard is very simple.

Either you are posting from your own computer, in which case a computer is a luxury denied most of the world, so you should practise what you appear to be preaching and sell it to help the poor.

Or you are posting from someone else's computer, in which case you are promoting their living in luxury when you should be explaining to them why they should sell it to help the poor.

Or you are posting from a public library, in which case you are using something without paying anything for it, when the funds that pay for a luxury could have been used to help the poor.

If nothing else you are using time on the computer, when that time could have been used to work and earn money which could have helped the poor.

Indeed, I agree with you. There is nothing necessarily moral about being poor, and nothing necessarily immoral, about being wealthy. I never said there was. The immorality arises when some are excessively wealthy, while some are absolutely poor,

Comments like this fundamentally fall down because the language is great for rabble-rousing and poor for discussion. Unless you can define "excessively wealthy" your argument falls flat because few people will consider themselves to be "excessively wealthy".

which means they are so poor they cannot sustain their own lives. But I forgot; it seems to be your position that the starving starve through their own fault. The 25000 people (including children) who starve each and every day are obviously just lazy. So lazy, in fact, that they deserve to die. Well, I'm glad we have established the correct position on the cause of global poverty. Since the poor are all so clearly sinful, we need not worry about their lack of food, anymore.

We still have the fundamental problem of corrupt governments in many nations (usually including our own, even if we don't have so many starving in our own nations). Personally I'd rather give support to a local family in need and see that whatever I give is making an immediate difference to their lives in a way that lets them see the love of Christ directly, than give £2 a month to a charity that aims to have running water across Africa some time in the next 20 years or so (according to the endless begging commercials on TV over the last couple of days), that may or may not actually make any difference and when there's no way of knowing how much will end up in the pockets of those who don't need it. Just look at the opulence enjoyed by Romania's former dictators while the people suffered. Look at the number of palaces Saddam Hussein owned, compared to the life experienced by the average Iraqi. Look at how people struggle in rural India while their government has the spare cash to operate a space programme. The last thing I want to do is send money to India only to find it gets soaked up in taxes and funds space exploration, when that money could have put food on the table for a needy family here (and where I could see it put food on the table, because I gave food rather than money).

If I'm going to do business I'll make decisions based on what product I want and accept the person providing the product makes a profit. If I'm handing over cash in exchange for nothing I want to know it's going where it's needed. I have neither the time nor inclination to trawl through the accounts of major charities, so I'll stick to addressing local issues.

 

[2ndRateMind]

The problem with whatever position you take in this regard is very simple.

Either you are posting from your own computer, in which case a computer is a luxury denied most of the world, so you should practise what you appear to be preaching and sell it to help the poor.

Or you are posting from someone else's computer, in which case you are promoting their living in luxury when you should be explaining to them why they should sell it to help the poor.

Or you are posting from a public library, in which case you are using something without paying anything for it, when the funds that pay for a luxury could have been used to help the poor.

If nothing else you are using time on the computer, when that time could have been used to work and earn money which could have helped the poor.

Hmmm. I notice you leave my central point unaddressed, while you accuse me, by inference, of hypocrisy. So, let's deal with that one first, so we can move on.

You have to understand, I might be the worst hypocrite it is possible to be. I might, as we speak, be swigging vintage champagne while typing into a top of the range super-computer. I might dine nightly off meals of peacock's tongues and caviar, even while urging you to consider the plight of the poor.

All of this could be true, and worse, but it would still remain irrelevant to my central contention, that excessive wealth is immoral while people on the planet starve to death. The objection you raise is what is known as an ad hominem argument; an argument against a protagonist, rather than against the argument he puts. It is, for this reason, specious, that it does not address the point being discussed.

So, let us consider what excessive wealth is, since you and Dr Brahms ask. Well, centrally, it is for each of us to make that determination. Answers are bound to vary from individual to individual, being a question of judgement rather than of logic, of quality rather than quantity. But my answer, which you are most welcome to take issue with, has already been expressed in the course of this thread, even if not explicitly stated. Excessive wealth is wealth in excess of what one needs to live a reasonably dignified life (the quality of which one could realistically wish for everyone), in excess of what one needs to avoid being a burden on society, and in excess of what one needs to provide for one's dependents.

As a direct response to your accusation of hypocrisy, I will only say this; that you may be sure that, in my opinion, I do not have excessive wealth, and my conscience in respect of my redistributive ideals is entirely clear. The fact that I have not given everything to the poor is not an argument in favour of the idea that the wealthy should give nothing, and owe them no moral duty.

So, now let me reiterate my central contention directly at you both; do you believe the coexistence of excessive wealth for some while others starve is a moral state of affairs? If so, what line of reasoning leads you to this conclusion? If not, then there is no difference of substance between us.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[contango]

Hmmm. I notice you leave my central point unaddressed, while you accuse me, by inference, of hypocrisy. So, let's deal with that one first, so we can move on.

You have to understand, I might be the worst hypocrite it is possible to be. I might, as we speak, be swigging vintage champagne while typing into a top of the range super-computer. I might live off meals of peacock's tongues and caviar, even while urging you to consider the plight of the poor.

None of this is relevant to my central point, that excessive wealth is immoral while people on the planet starve to death. The objection you raise is what is known as an ad hominem argument; an argument against a protagonist, rather than against the argument he puts. It is, for this reason, specious, that it does not address the point being discussed.

On the contrary, I am addressing the fact that you are using a computer (a luxury) while talking of doing without luxury to help the poor. Whether you drink vintage champagne or not is nothing to do with it, as the rest of us can only speculate as to your choice of beverage. We can all see evidence that you are using a computer and an internet connection (both of which cost money), which means either you are enjoying luxuries while speaking against luxury, or freeloading on the back of someone else.

So, let us consider what excessive wealth is, since you and Dr Brahms ask. Well, centrally, it is for each of us to make that determination. Answers are bound to vary from individual to individual, being a question of judgement rather than of logic, of quality rather than quantity. But my answer, which you are most welcome to take issue with, has already been expressed in the course of this thread, even if not explicitly stated. Excessive wealth is wealth in excess of what one needs to live a reasonably dignified life (the quality of which one could realistically wish for everyone), in excess of what one needs to avoid being a burden on society, and in excess of what one needs to provide for one's dependents.

You have attempted to define a vague term (excessive wealth) using another vague term (reasonably dignified life). I'm sure you could live a reasonably dignified life without the luxury of spending time on this particular forum, for example. So perhaps even by your own standards you are living in excessive luxury.

If one takes the (not unreasonable) position that they are entitled to the fruits of their labour then a arguably multibillionaire who washes his Lamborghini using vintage Dom Perignon is not excessively wealthy.

Even without going to extremes, your definitions are unreasonably broad. My wife and I live in a three bedroom house. Does that make us "excessively wealthy" when we could probably squash into a one-bedroom flat? We drive a car with four seats even though most journeys it makes have no more than two people in it. Is this excessive, when we could trade it for something smaller?

As a direct response to your accusation of hypocrisy, I will only say this; that you may be sure that, in my opinion, I do not have excessive wealth, and my conscience in respect of my redistributive ideals is entirely clear. The fact that I have not given everything to the poor is not an argument in favour of the idea that the wealthy should give nothing, and owe them no moral duty.

That's wonderful. I'm sure most people would quite happily use your assertion and state that, in their opinion, they do not have excessive wealth. So now your assertion moves from criticism of people deemed to be "excessively wealthy" (with no particular definition) to letting people decide for themselves whether their wealth is excessive or not.

You also assume that the wealthy give nothing. Unless you know what they do with their money this is an uncharitable assumption.

So, now let me reiterate my central contention directly at you both; do you believe the coexistence of excessive wealth for some while others starve is a moral state of affairs? If so, what line of reasoning leads you to this conclusion? If not, then there is no difference of substance between us.

Based on the definitions you have provided there is almost no such thing as excessive wealth. Those who believe their wealth is excessive are already giving it away, and those who don't have nothing to worry about. Therefore, using your own definitions, there is no problem.

 

[Grandiose]

Not my spurious judgement, but Jesus', judging by that passage from Mark's Gospel I went to the trouble of typing out for you.

Cheers, 2RM.

Hard to take this post seriously when the poster has claimed in the past that they can judge whether God is moral or not, thus removing the fact that God is the authority on objective/absolute authority.

Also, the same Jesus/God also declares that he gives wealth to be enjoyed to those he. Chooses. He never states enjoying wealth is wrong, he states setting up your wealth as a 'god' is wrong. If it causes a stumbling block in your relationship with the Lord it is wrong, or immoral. He also states he enables those he chooses to delight in what has been given to him.

Read scriptures in its entirety, apply context to it as a whole, perform proper exegesis, do not cherry pick verses without providing proper background research, it fails every time.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Also, the same Jesus/God also declares that he gives wealth to be enjoyed to those he. Chooses. He never states enjoying wealth is wrong, he states setting up your wealth as a 'god' is wrong. If it causes a stumbling block in your relationship with the Lord it is wrong, or immoral. He also states he enables those he chooses to delight in what has been given to him.

References, please.

If you can't see the immorality of being wealthy while people starve, well, I despair of your moral judgement, in return. What is more, you seem to think that people should enjoy (indeed, delight in) that wealth despite the unmet needs of the needy. This is like adding insult to injury. Not only are you going to let the poor starve, you are going to party while they do. I suggest to you that if is how wealthy people are, and why they cling to that wealth, it has already caused a stumbling block between them and their proper relationship with their neighbour, which, Jesus informs us, is to be a relationship of love.

Nor do I see it as a necessary truth that the wealthy are wealthy because God has given them that wealth. Often enough they have simply exploited a position of power to take it. Even if it were true, though, from those to whom much is given, much is expected; and if you are unable to meet that expectation, because you are unable to part with your wealth, even in a good cause, then I think your God is a very different creature to the loving, but challenging, father of Jesus.

 

[2ndRateMind]

You have attempted to define a vague term (excessive wealth) using another vague term (reasonably dignified life)....

...Even without going to extremes, your definitions are unreasonably broad...

...Based on the definitions you have provided there is almost no such thing as excessive wealth. Those who believe their wealth is excessive are already giving it away, and those who don't have nothing to worry about. Therefore, using your own definitions, there is no problem.

This seems to be the central line of approach, in your response. So, forgive me if I ignore the extraneous matter.

Firstly, I have deliberately kept my definitions qualitative, rather than quantitative. As you have yourself previously pointed out, the cost of living varies with geography. So, clearly, no one number will do. Nevertheless, my definitions are not quite as vague as you pretend; we all know what is meant by dignity, and it does not include the necessity to beg on city streets, for example. And the condition I put in brackets, which you seem not to have noticed, that reasonable dignity should be limited to a quality of life that one could realistically wish for everyone, adds a touch of egalitarian rigour.

Despite your objections, I think we all know also what is meant by excessive wealth, and it is wealth in excess of one's justifiable needs. These needs may indeed involve the occasional luxury indulgence, but it clearly does not include an entire lifetime of such indulgence.

The fact that I am asking people to make judgements in respect of these matters seems to bother you, but the reality is, unless one practises arriving at moral judgements, one is never going to get any better at making them. And, in respect of wealth, in this unequal, unfair world, we surely need to.

Mostly, when I get on my soapbox about this issue, people object for one of two reasons. Either they are rich, and want to stay rich, or they are not rich, and want to become so. I am simply suggesting that neither of these are acceptable ambitions from an ethical (and therefore Christian) point of view, given the state of the world we jointly and severally inhabit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[IronicallyHuman]

Just to make sure everyone is clear, I am not asking if having nice things is bad and I am not saying that having nice things is bad. I'm asking why a Christian want nice things. If we truly believe that giving and living out our faith is the key to happiness... Then why not just do that? OOOHH because God doesn't say we shouldn't have nice stuff blah blah blah.. But WHY would we want nice clothes and what not? If we know that luxury isn't exactly what makes us happy or helps us serve God.. Then why even care about it? Why not just focus on working that job and serving other people? We say we don't find happiness in objects, yet we still buy them. Even if we don't idolize or strive for those items.. Why even bother with them?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think it's very difficult for someone to lay down standards for another person in this.

I've been somewhat comfortable in life (nice enough home, spending money, modest vacations a couple times a year) and I've been desperately poor (living in true ghetto circumstances, or on a farm with almost no monetary income for YEARS, living only through good stewardship of resources).

I've talked about it with my husband, and we have decided that for us, should we have the income to be able to decide, we are comfortable with a certain modestly comfortable standard of living. Extravagance beyond that feels wasteful to us, and we feel the money would be better spent furthering God's Kingdom any way we can.

That's OUR decision though.

I don't think there's anything inherently sinful in being wealthy. Wasn't Abraham quite a wealthy man? God mostly speaks quite well of him. Solomon was wealthy beyond belief, and it was given him by God. He isn't spoken of so well in the end, but his downfall was not in simply being wealthy.

I did know a man who, to my standard, was quite wealthy. He had a substantial investment portfolio, a nice home, a new car, no need to work, and the means to pay for his son's tuition, and money to spend besides. And he was Christian. But you know what? He WORRIED more about money, and possibly losing it, than anyone I've ever known. I really felt sorry for him.

Having money in itself isn't evil. LOVING money leads to evil.

I believe when Jesus asked the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor, it was special for THAT MAN, because Jesus knew (sadly) that the man would refuse. He loved the money more. Jesus never told Zaccheus to sell all and give it away. Zaccheus made the decision on his own to make restitution (above and beyond) for what he'd stolen, but presumably kept the rest of his wealth. I don't see Jesus telling anyone else to live in poverty either. You can certainly learn about God's faithfulness and the kindness of strangers when you are poor, but I don't see there is anything special about it one should be spiritually prideful over.

I wonder if some of the prevalence of this attitude isn't because of the extravagance of certain prominent evangelists, who are widely seen as having fleeced the flock in getting their wealth.