Jesus on Money and Possessions

Jesus: Money and Possessions

I have always found it a little bit difficult to say exactly when I became a Christian. There is no atheist phase of my life to report, but I know there was a short period in my life when I moved from going along to things by default to actively choosing to follow Jesus. Christ Church, Chilwell, my home parish, was a large and lively church with a big children’s work, and I had gone along with friends since about the age of 7. It was around the age of 14 or 15 that it moved from something I just did to something more. For me faith came before very much actual churchgoing, and it was the person of Jesus that captured my attention.

For a lot of people, the compelling aspects of Jesus’ story are in the tragedy and triumph of his passion, or in the compassion he shows to those in need of forgiveness, healing or deliverance from evil. Of course, those weren’t (and aren’t) unimportant to me, but they weren’t the hook that caught me.

I was attracted by the way that Jesus had a radically different set of values. He rejected materialism and greed, and he undermined those who misused and abused power. He championed the poor and was a constant reminder to the ‘haves’ about their responsibilities for the ‘have nots’. I have, of course, consistently failed to live up to his teachings on all of these questions, and yet that aspect of Jesus’ teaching continues to excite me and challenge me. He questions my spending, my saving, my giving, my consuming, my possessing and my attitude to the environment and the world around me. This aspect of Jesus has also been where I have derived some of my political instincts from (although others might arrive at different conclusions!)

It has never felt like Jesus is finger-pointing and condemning me, but he is always asking me what it means to be a Christian living in a world that is based on a very different set of ideals. How do I live in a world that is based on getting, consuming and never being content with what you have.

I want to take a look at few parts of Jesus’ story that have provided that challenge.

It was a revelation to me when I found out that Jesus had a lot more to say about money, wealth and possessions than he ever did about sex. The Gospels are littered with sayings, parables and conversations which are either directly about money and possessions, or use financial or economic images and ideas. It’s been estimated that about 1/3 of the teaching in Luke’s Gospel could be regarded in that way.

So, let’s go on a little tour of Luke to see what he records:

Setting the Scene

Even before Jesus is born, Mary is singing about the rich: “he has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he sent away empty.”  (Lk 1:53), which gives us a preview of what priorities and values are going to be the hallmark of this child’s life.

Once Jesus begins his ministry, he is challenged immediately in his temptation by the devil about his priorities (Luke 4:5-8) “if you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” Jesus rejects earthly power, wealth and status to be faithful to his calling. And when he gets to the synagogue, he makes it clear: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor..” (Luke 4:18) which is something he reiterates a little further on in the Beatitudes: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of  God.” (Luke 6:20). Jesus is already generating disapproval for what he is saying – he’s rejected in Nazareth, and when he calls a tax-collector to follow him, the Pharisees are grumbling (Luke 5:30).

So we can see that in Jesus’ early statements and actions, he is pointing to a new set of priorities.

Some examples of his teaching

1. The parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:13-21)

OK. So you do well in this world, pile up your possessions and feel proud of yourself. Then what? In this passage, God calls a rich man who builds bigger barns a fool, as his stockpile will be worth nothing to him when he dies.

Jesus goes on to say that we should not be anxious about our material needs (12:22-31), but store up treasure in heaven (Luke 12:32-34) - in other words sharing the Gospel and putting his teaching into practise. As he says in a verse that sums up much of what we find in the rest of Luke's gospel, “for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

2. Money is like a rival God. (Luke 16:13)

When people talk about idols, they sometimes mean statues in temples. More often in our own culture, people are being referred to – ‘pop idol’ and ‘fashion icon’ are both examples of a religious word being used to describe someone in the public eye.

Of course, in the world we live in, virtually everything seems to be decided by money and many people see the acquisition of money as their only purpose in life. Election promises are usually couched in how much better-off we will be - meaning financially, not well-being or contentment. 

In contrast, Jesus is clear that the idol we should really be concerned about is in our pocket. This is summed up in Luke 16:13, where Jesus says “You cannot serve God and money”. It’s worth noting that the word “money” in many English translations of the Bible is actually a translation of the word “mammon” in the original.  It is thought that this actually means material possessions and wealth. Jesus asks his followers to choose which will be their master (Lord, kyrios) – God or wealth.

3) Jesus Wants To Set People Free From Mammon

It may seem a contradiction, but in a world so sold out to money, many people wish they could escape. Some have a hankering to leave what used to be called the rat race and do something else; some wish they could just drop out, whilst others want to find a way of being content. The problem is that people who don't know God have nothing else to trust but material possessions, yet Mammon is not a kind master.

Luke shows us examples of how people respond to the choice Jesus presents us with - whether God or Mammon will be their master.

First, the rich young man (Luke 18:18-30). He obviously has a hunger for something else. “good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”. He is clearly very devout and religious, even by the standards of his day – keeping the commandments. But when Jesus asks him to sell all he has, give it to the poor and follow him, he couldn't let go of his possessions. Although it offered treasure in heaven and the freedom of knowing Jesus, he turned away, sad. Mammon had too tight a grip.

We can contrast this with the encounter Jesus has with Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10). He’s not just any old tax-collector, he’s a chief tax-collector. Tax collectors had a reputation for extortion. They took the money the Romans demanded, and also took a cut for themselves. John the Baptist hints at that back in chapter 3 when tax collectors come to be baptised. “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them “Collect no more than you are authorised to do.” (Luke 3:12-13). Here, Jesus breaks into Zacchaeus’ life by inviting himself round. He accepts his hospitality and takes him seriously. The greedy tax-collector sees a new chance in Jesus, and his attitude to money (mammon) is transformed.

Finally, the story of the poor widow's offering (Lk 21:1-4). It’s important to remember, this woman would almost certainly have already given her tithe. This is a freewill offering. But the point is that out of her devotion and commitment to God, she freely gives all she has. Jesus points to the value of that, over and above those who can comfortably give much bigger sums, without making the same personal sacrifice. He can see that she has not chosen Mammon.

Out of all the gospels, Luke particularly highlights these issues. Following Jesus is not just a theoretical exercise, or just about whether we turn up for certain religious rituals. It’s about a change of priorities. The Bible is clear that we are stewards, not owners of this world. We are accountable for how we use the resources at our disposal. We have received much from our generous God, and that comes to fruition when it inspires us to generosity too.

 

The Parable of the Rich fool (Luke 12:13-21)

The following is an edited down version of the section in my MA dissertation on this week's reading from Luke's gospel. I had forgotten what I had written, and it was quite helpful as I began to think towards Sunday. I thought I would post a shorter and more readable version here, in case anyone found it useful.

The Rich fool (Luke 12:13-21).

¹³Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.” ¹⁴ But he said to him, “Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” ¹⁵ And he said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.” ¹⁶ Then he told them a parable: “The land of a rich man produced abundantly. ¹⁷ And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’ ¹⁸ Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. ¹⁹ And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ ²⁰ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ ²¹ So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.” (NRSV)

The parable is introduced with an exchange between Jesus and a man in the crowd who is in dispute with his brother, concerning their inheritance. Jesus declines to intervene, phrasing his answer to echo the story of Moses’ intervention in the fight between two Hebrews. In the Exodus story, one of the men asks Moses, “who made you a prince and a judge over us?” (Ex. 2:14); in this text, Jesus asks the man “who made me a judge or divider over you?” (12:14b)  Rather than issue a direct judgment, Jesus answers in the form of a parable, framed by two sayings, which furnish some further interpretation. A parallel to the core of the parable is also to be found in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (log. 63), which may suggest it was in circulation in the early church, separate from the interpretive sayings in verses 15 & 21.

The term ‘rich’ in Luke has a negative connotation, which conflicts with the society within which the Gospel is set, where wealth was a sign of blessing, and a consequence of belonging to the inner elite of the community. Here a rich man is depicted as being fortunate enough to enjoy a bumper harvest (12:16). He asks, “What shall I do” (v.17), which in Luke’s gospel is a question of salvation. His choice is to multiply his wealth by building bigger barns to store his wealth, and to rest in his complacency, which has echoes in wisdom literature (e.g. Psalm 49 & Sirach 11:14-28).

God’s response is to describe him as a “fool” (12:20). Foolishness is comprehensively defined in Proverbs (e.g. Pr. 10:18, 10:23, 11:29, 12:15, 12:16, 13:16, 14:3), and in the Psalms it is the fool that denies the existence of God. (Psalm 14:1). The rich man sees his wealth as his security and not his God, and in doing so effectively denies his existence. Furthermore, he only makes provision for himself; no-one else is mentioned.

But in Luke, it is not simply that the man has a lot of money or assets; it is that in his context being rich would have carried with it power, responsibility and even a basis for assuming piety in the one who has been 'blessed' by wealth. The parable targets these assumptions and contradicts them. This man abdicates his responsibilities and fails to use his power to improve the lot of others. He even lacks the one remaining virtue of possessing a piety, albeit one which finds no expression in action.

Introducing the parable, Jesus states that abundance of possessions are not the means to measure the value of a human life (12:15) A valuation of life, based on possessions, inevitably results in the pursuit of material gain as the goal of life. 

In the same way, the core story of the parable is rounded off with the saying about being rich towards God (v. 21). In the wider context of chapter 12, we can understand this to refer to generosity. A little further on, Jesus' command is simple, “sell your possessions and give alms” (v.33) and they must pursue “treasure in heaven”. This is concluded by the summary challenge “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (v.34)

The overarching message of this section is clearly the folly of lives that have material and financial gain as their goal. This pursuit is, of course, vulnerable to disaster, since these treasures are easily lost, stolen or destroyed. Furthermore, they eat away at the commitment of the disciple. Seeking the kingdom (v.31) becomes less of a priority as concern for material well-being grows. It may be that this was becoming a concern within the Christian community that Luke was seeking to address, and so it was a priority for him to include material from the communal recollections about Jesus that directly tackled the issue.

Reverse Logic

"Every heresy contains a grain of truth" is something I have heard quoted a number of times, which led me to think of what our modern equivalents to heresies might be. 

Here's a heresy I named this morning: Charity begins at home.

At face value, that has to be true. We can't show authentic compassion and love to the wider world if we can't even love those closest to us. At best it's inconsistency; at worst it's flagrant hypocrisy. For example, you wouldn't have to dig too far into the news archives to find clergy who seemed perfectly good priests to their parishioners, but who treated their families abysmally and even abusively.

But all too often the reverse logic heresy starts to cut in, and so instead of the home being a launchpad for compassion and concern for all our neighbours, it becomes a reason to keep it close at hand. I have heard the phrase used in discussions about overseas aid and support where it was clear that the speaker believed that charity should not only begin, but end at home.

The same instinct for heresy seems to have poisoned some minds with regard to people in poverty, foodbanks, and where responsibility lies.

Across the country, many foodbanks and other charities such as CAP are supporting people in poverty, running sessions on budgeting, planning and preparing cheap nutritious meals, and other similar projects. Many people who are struggling appreciate these sessions, and are helped towards making ends meet week by week. Nothing contentious there.

But along comes an MP who takes that grain of truth (sessions on cooking helping people make ends meet) and reverses the logic to conclude that failure to make ends meet must be down to not knowing how or what to cook, or being useless at budgeting. It is a subtle change of words, yet a completely toxic shift in the argument. I gather that the existence of budgeting and cooking sessions is now being cited as proof that this nasty allegation is correct, and those who challenge will doubtless be dismissed as ignorant or lefties or both. After all, it's happened before:

Let's be clear on this, poverty is not caused by the masses having no catering or budgeting skills (ironically if it was, that would still be the government's fault for not including key life skills in the school curriculum, but I digress) Poverty is something that millions are born into and struggle with day by day, using all their wit to make ends meet, keep the lights on, and look after their families. 

Solutions to poverty are complex, and with the cost of living crisis are becoming more acute and necessary, but I see no real sense of purpose in the current government to address that. Instead they talk of tax cuts (having raised a lot of tax!). But basic rate tax cuts only benefit those who actually pay tax, and everyone who pays tax. They don't target those most in need of relief. Restoring the £20 uplift in Universal Credit would seem to me to be a much better use of money, but the chancellor may feel that won't produce as many votes as a basic rate income tax cut. 

Foodbanks, charities, churches and more will carry on doing their brilliant work, but don't hold their clients culpable for their predicaments; ask those with wealth and power why this situation exists in the first place, and what they are going to do to solve it.

[You may also be interested in correspondence I had with my MP a few years ago about comments he made about the local Foodbank. He never apologised for the incorrect statements that he made.]

Child Benefit and the rich

My immediate reaction to the news that child benefit was to be cut for those on the higher tax rate is very positive. It does seem odd to be giving benefits to people who can't possibly need them in the same way as those on lower incomes. Universal benefits can just end up subsidising extra recreational activities for middle-class kids, which can't be priority in the present climate. As I understand it, however, there will simply be a cut-off, so that when you hit the higher tax rate, it stops.

Not being in a position to do the maths properly, I had wondered whether it would make more sense to make child benefit taxable, but I guess that may yet come!

When is a partner not a partner?

The current fuss over David Laws shows that defining relationship becomes difficult as soon as you move away from some kind of legal registration, which can give objective evidence that a connection exists - i.e. a certificate. Mr Laws' relationship wasn't a civil partnership, they didn't share bank accounts, they didn't have a public shared social life, and the information revealed thus far indicates that he didn't stand to benefit personally from any of the payments made as rental.

That leaves those investigating this case with a problem - where is the threshold if it isn't the legal registration of it as a marriage or civil partnership. It's not about the quality of the interpersonal relations - there are plenty of examples of bad marriages, and very good relationships between people who are not married/civil partnered. The issue is how can a relationship be evaluated objectively without the existence of some form of legal contract between the partners.


For example, two people could co-habit in a way that was clearly a lodger/landlord relationship. That wouldn't run into trouble. The landlord and tenant could be friends and still there needn't be a problem. People have sex with each other without wanting their relationship to become a partnership. So what defines David Laws' relationship, which may or may not be a 'partnership' in the eyes of Parliament?

In the end, it will be a matter of opinion as to whether this relationship crosses the line of the Parliamentary rules, and there will be a degree of subjectivity involved in the judgment. David Laws didn't want this relationship to become public, so he treated his rent on a business basis. The taxpayer didn't pay more for his flat than others, and his expenses overall are relatively low. He hasn't benefited personally, and he could have made a lot more money doing something else. But he did conceal with a degree of deception, and he has fallen into the grey area of when is a relationship a partnership. Some clarity is needed for everyone's sake, but I fear the media will judge him long before committees on MP's behaviour come to a mind on it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• David Laws apology: his statement in full (telegraph.co.uk)

I don't understand economics Pt. 3

The third in a very occasional series. (click here for part 1, part 2) There's a lot of hot air around concerning a hung/balanced parliament and the economic uncertainty that is feared as a consequence. One thing's for sure: the Murdoch press and Daily Mail have made instability much more likely by talking it up. A sort of 'second-strike' revenge if they fail to get the Conservatives elected, I suppose. If it's not "the Sun wot done it", then they're talking us all down to show what a rotten lot the others are.

Anyway, one of the key points of the argument is that "business leaders" (whoever they may be) are concerned that a clear deficit reduction plan is in place - whether spending cuts, tax rises or some combination of the two. What no-one seems to be addressing is that the deficit, originally expected to be £178 bn was expected to be £167bn by the time of the last Budget. On top of that, major companies seem to be rather more profitable than was expected - BP and, surprisingly Lloyds Banking Group. That means extra tax receipts and, potentially a profit for the exchequer when Lloyds is eventually returned to the private sector.

Ok, I haven't got a degree in economics (but neither had Alastair Darling or George Osborne last time I looked), but those figures mean that at the very least we're in an £11bn better position than we thought (and also in following years). It may even prove to be slightly better than that. It's still a huge task, but the graph seems to be going in the right direction.

So even if there are a few days delay in sorting out exactly who does what job in the next Parliament, there's no reason for the roof to fall in. We just need the papers who are so keen on patriotic headlines and "backing Britain" to show a bit of genuine support for their country and to stop sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of investors and markets.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lloyds: Black is the colour of spring (bbc.co.uk)
• Lloyds Banking Group announces return to profit (newstatesman.com)

Property

Property disputes continue in the Anglican Church in Canada between conservative breakaway churches and the 'main' church http://bit.ly/7Yy3cl. Is this the shape of things to come in the C of E? I suspect so.

After all, if breakways and departures result in the end of the Church of England as we know it, and we give it a good funeral in a few years' time, there's bound to be a row about money and property.

As the saying goes, "where there's a will...there's relatives"