Poverty Gospel
Nov 25, 2008 Print This Post
Yesterday, I posted a clip from John Piper about the “Prosperity Gospel.” This is a theology that is gaining steam in many parts of the world, but quite honestly I don’t run into too many people around these parts who buy into it.
It seems we deal more with the other extreme, which is also dangerous: “Poverty Gospel.” This is the school of thought that says Christ-followers should be poor or should at least redistribute their wealth. It is almost becoming the cool thing to “be poor for Jesus.”
This idea stems from the same problem as the “Prosperity Gospel,” and that is a lack of “Razor’s Edge Living.” Instead of seeing the paradoxical way the Bible calls us to live, we jump to one extreme or another. It’s simpler, it’s less complex, and we can ignore parts of the Bible we don’t like. In fact I just got done reading a very popular book (that has been recommended to me by tons of people). The author basically calls Christians to live with or like the poor and gives us the impression that to do so is more godly than to live in the burbs and drive your new Honda Accord to church.
There are a ton of verses we could look at, but I’ll just slap up one passage. Note the underlined parts:
1Timothy 6:17-19 – Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.
See it? God richly supplies us with things to enjoy. This is not “Prosperity Gospel,” but God giving to us as he sees fit. And part of his plan is that we enjoy these things. But it doesn’t stop there! We are also to be generous and ready to share. It’s a both/and thing.
The reason I wanted to write about this is the current economic times. I am concerned that when things get a bit tenuous, Christians tend to run to one of the extremes. In these times, especially in a state that is so tied to the auto industry, we should all be on guard against both of these errors.
Tags: money
November 25th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
A healthy theology should be able to balance triumph and tribulation. Too heavy on either side and you’re in very dangerous territory.
I’ve been to some of the most joyful church services in the Philippines and the people there were not at all wealthy … financially anyway. But, they were light years ahead of me spiritually amidst the pain of living a third world existence with the joy of Jesus in their hearts.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Both Prosperity and Poverty theologies are good examples of what Dan had been talking to us worship leaders about recently…this idea of pietism, where by doing some “thing” that is not explicitly commanded to us in the Bible, that we can somehow be “more spiritual” or “closer to God” or “living a higher order of Christianity.”
At their core, both theologies are basically about pride; pride that “I had such amazing faith that God has blessed me with all this bling,” or pride that “I am such a super follower of God because I live in a cardboard box.” Any systematic that swings on “if I do this then I’m better than someone else who doesn’t do it,” is garbage.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’d be interested to know what book this was.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I didn’t mention the name of the book because I didn’t want to do a big review on it. But since you’ve called me out, I’ll post the book name: “The Irresistible Revolution” by Shane Claiborne.
Now my one paragraph review:
Claiborne tries hard to be gracious in his book, which I appreciate a ton. Unfortunately, his theology is myopic in it’s interpretation of much of Jesus’ life and message. There’s also a lot Scripture taken out of context. In that sense, it gets really lopsided. I much prefer “Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions (New Studies in Biblical Theology)” (Craig L. Blomberg) because it is much more grounded in Scripture.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Interesting. I read that one awhile ago (and I had a sneaking suspicion this was the book you were referencing) and, while I have yet to join Shane and his community in inner-city Philly, I think his theology is sound and has helped shape my view of the Church.
I wonder if he would argue that one must be poor for the sake of Jesus, or if maybe what he’s advocating is simply a polemic way of living that is counter to the westernized “empire” theology so often found in the American Church. I also think that what he’s done is some pretty masterful contextualization and helped the impoverished of Philadelphia come to know God through a theology that they can call their own. Like Gutierrez and his liberation theology, is Claiborne’s theology fit to be applied, in whole, across the board in every social and cultural clime? I don’t think so, and I don’t think Shane would argue the specifics in this way, either (but I could totally be wrong here, I understand this is totally subjective).
When I finished the book, what has stuck with me was not some new, hip, ‘sexy’ view of Christianity and social justice but instead a radical (that is, as Shane puts it, a ‘back to basics’) view of ecclesiology and theology. I think that Shane advocates not necessarily a directive to *be* poor ASAP, but a willingness to give everything up for the sake of God and neighbor; to be willing to embody the Gospel that is, above many other things, first good news for the poor.
To that end, I commend him. But I also hold in tension with all of these things the tendency of Christians, as you said, to swing to extremes. At the end of the day, though, I think I tend to line up with Claiborne’s theology because I tend to line up with many of the people who wrote his source material.
Anyway, I do appreciate your short review of the book. I hope you didn’t feel like I was calling you out in some incendiary kind of way.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Frick. I wish I would have formatted that to look a little more like paragraphs. Forgive my block texting.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I had a feeling you knew what book I was referring to. :)
Your response was the reason I was hesitant to post a review. I think a lot of what Claiborne is doing is amazing and I commend him greatly for his obvious love of Jesus and his passion for the poor.
I just found his exegesis lacking and prefer a more balanced approach (not just in the poverty side of his book but other little subtleties he throws out here or there).
Joel’s reference to piety is what I was feeling the whole time I read his book.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Fair enough, I can dig that. High fives all around.
Party on, Wayne.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Party on, Garth.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I read Shane’s book and found his radical love for God and people extremely inspiring. My biggest problem with the book was that it sounded like it was a new form of legalism. In fact, I believe that a lot of the “poor for Jesus” crew can be very legalistic. I have many friends who have this type of thinking and I find them questioning people’s faiths because of what they have been blessed with. I’ve come to believe, whether I am the wealthiest man or the poorest, if I believe in my heart that Christ is Lord and confess with my mouth that He rose from the dead, then I will be saved. Therefore, to say I must be poor to be a true Christian is as wrong as saying I must be wealthy to be a true Christian or saying I must wear red socks everyday to be a true Christian. I don’t think it makes sense.
I just finished reading Matthew. A part that stuck out to me was when the woman dumped the expensive perfume on Jesus’ feet(Mt. 26:6). The disciples were pissed and said, “what a waste of money. It could have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.” I contrasted this story with the ever-so-popular story among the “poor for Jesus” crowd, the rich young man found in Matthew 19:16. In this story, Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor and the young man did not. In the story of the woman, she voluntarily poured out an expensive perfume to wash the feet of Jesus. I think the simple difference between these two examples is that the rich young ruler was not willing to give up his stuff for Jesus and the woman didn’t care what she gave up because she had Jesus. I believe that we are blessed to be a blessing. I think it’s good to have the mindset that we are not our own and our stuff is not our own. So, whether we are rich or poor, we use what we have for the sake of the Kingdom. That’s my thought.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Very well said, Thoughts.