31st August, 2007

SIU FUNG WU

Perhaps more than ever we need a theology of wealth. Why? Three reasons immediately come to mind. First, Christians in the West are richer than most people in the rest of the world. If most of us are relatively rich by the world’s standard, how, then, should we use our wealth?

VISION OF WEALTH? Siu Fung Wu argues that wealth in the Biblical context cannot be understood in solely economic terms but has to do with status, power, wealth and privilege. PICTURE: Marcin Jochimczyk (www.sxc.hu) "(M)any today think that the church needs money to do God’s work. For them, money itself is not evil, although the 'love of money' is. They believe that God wants to prosper them financially so as to bless others."

Second, a large portion of Christians in the West are the richer people in the population. In Melbourne, for example, most of the big churches are in the eastern suburbs, with much of their congregation being middle-class. If we are the “richer of the rich”, it is obviously important to have the right attitude towards wealth.

Third, people in the postmodern age are increasingly aware of the true causes of poverty. While baby boomers understand money as the main means to alleviate poverty, Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers realise the need to be advocates for social justice both locally and globally. If the church wants to be relevant to this generation, it must first develop a sound theology of wealth.

Christians do already have some understanding of the theology of wealth. On the one hand, some Christians maintain a very conservative approach to money. To them, to remain relatively poor in this materialistic world is important. Their hero would be someone like George Muller, who by faith - without any fund-raising programs - opened orphan homes and fed thousands of children in England.

On the other hand, many today think that the church needs money to do God’s work. For them, money itself is not evil, although the “love of money” is. They believe that God wants to prosper them financially so as to bless others.

Often the debate between the two opposing views revolves around things like whether Jesus and His disciples were economically poor.

But the fact is that carpenters and fishermen were not necessarily the poorest in first-century Palestine. The poorest were the land-less peasants, unskilled labourers and defenceless widows. Yet Jesus was certainly poor, given the fact that Joseph and Mary could only afford to sacrifice a pair of doves - instead of a lamb - when He were born (see Leviticus 12:8; Luke 2:24).

We, however, miss the point entirely if we think that wealth is all about money. Wealth in the Biblical context cannot be understood solely in economic terms. Instead, it has everything to do with status, power, honour, and privileges in life.

The rich in Jesus’ days were the high-priestly clans, the older Jewish aristocracy, the prosperous merchants, major landowners and those with political power. To be rich not only meant that one had money to live in luxury, it also implied that the person had the social status to live a privileged life - and the power to oppress the poor, as often was the case.

The good news to the poor has everything to do with the Son of God becoming someone of lowly status and dying on the accursed cross with utmost shame among the criminals (See Luke 4:18; Galatians 3:13; Philippians 2:6-11). He was not born among the rich but the poor. By identifying with those with least privileges Jesus brought salvation to humankind and called his disciples to take on the same value system he had.

Obviously salvation is not only for the poor. But the Gospel cannot be fully understood unless discipleship is interpreted in terms of one’s willingness to identify with the lowly and the weak. The following two stories in Luke’s gospel best illustrate this and will help us develop a theology of wealth.

In Luke 19:1-10, we find Jesus coming to the home of Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector. Zacchaeus was a Jew, a ruler and wealthy, and hence had a high standing in the society (19:2). Yet he was a tax collector and thus working for the “unclean” Romans. He was despised religiously and socially, and no wonder the crowd considered him a “sinner” (19:7).

But Jesus said he would stay at his house. The language of 19:5-6 points to first-century Palestinian hospitality, which signifies Jesus’ acceptance of Zacchaeus as his friend. In antiquity hospitality was shared among people of equal religious and social standing. The crowd was amazed that a respected Rabbi would come to the house of a sinner, but it was precisely for that reason that Zaachaeus was filled with joy - that Jesus accepted him although he was an outcast in the Jewish community.

Then Zacchaeus declared that he would give half of his possessions to the poor. Here his almsgiving should not be understood in the modern sense. Instead, as New Testament scholar, Joel Green, says, “It has to do with including in one’s circle of kin those who are unable to reciprocate (e.g. 14:12-14).”

What would have further amazed Jesus’ Jewish audience was his declaration that Zacchaeus was now a son of Abraham. An unclean “sinner” like him was an outsider of God’s chosen people. He simply can’t be a son of Abraham! But for Jesus Zacchaeus is precisely the type of people he came to seek and save (19:10).

Thus here is a picture of how Jesus included a lost Israelite in his kingdom, and in response this person used his wealth to include in his circle of friends the powerless and dispossessed. It is a beautiful picture of the kingdom of God, where discipleship is about being restored to God’s household and one’s willingness to share with those who cannot help themselves.

What should be noted is that Jesus did not demand Zaachaeus to sell all his possessions - something that Luke emphasises in his Gospel (14:33; 18:22). Zaachaeus probably remained relatively well off. But for Jesus wealth is not to be measured in monetary terms alone. In this story Luke has shown us how the “poor” (an outcast) has been restored, and how he now - by the use of his possession - has included the poor in his circle of kin.

In Luke 18:18-30, meanwhile, we hear the famous story of the rich ruler, who asked Jesus how one could inherit eternal life. Jesus’ demand was hard to meet. He asked him to sell everything and give to the poor, and then, follow Him.

Three things must be understood here. First, as already noted, the poor in Palestinian antiquity were those who lived on the margin of the society and had little social status.

Second, “giving” in those days had much to do with enhancing one’s honour in the community and the recipients of gifts were expected to reciprocate. Jesus’ demand was great because his suggested way of “giving” would not enhance the ruler’s honour, and his recipients could hardly return him anything.

Third, the call to follow Jesus meant no possession of a home and indeed implied sharing life with the social outcasts and sinners - people of lowest status in the society (9:58; 4:17-21).

The challenge to the rich ruler was thus not simply a matter of giving up money. It was about identifying with the poor and the subsequent loss of privileges and social standing. Too much was at stake for Him.

Similarly, the challenge of discipleship for us today is not so much about our willingness to sell our hi-fi equipment and luxury cars so as to give money to the poor. Instead, the question is whether we are ready to give up the status, power and privileges that our wealth can bring us. For it is in identifying with the weak, the humble and the lowly that the kingdom of God may manifest in our lives.

5th September, 2007

Part two of SIU FUNG WU's article 'Towards a theology of wealth'...

It should have become clear that the right response to the good news is not merely about giving money to the poor. The theology of wealth is all about true discipleship - one that embraces the poor like Jesus. It is about identifying with those in humble circumstances by giving up one’s own privileges, power and status.

Thus the issue is not about whether God wants to prosper us with lots of money, or whether we should remain poor like George Muller. It is about our willingness to respond to the call of genuine discipleship.

Those who enjoy financial prosperity not only have to watch out for the “love of money”, but also the love of honour, status and privileges. On the other hand, there is a danger when one thinks that poverty is a way to attain some form of “superior spirituality”.

But discipleship that embraces “sinners”, the lowly and unwanted, has power to change the world. People will see the Gospel embodied in the lives of Jesus’ followers, who genuinely want to share the love of Christ by identifying with the hurting and those in humble circumstances.

The burning question is then: what does it mean to us today? There is no simple answer, because it all depends on our own relationship with God and what He wants us to do as individuals. (Note the different instructions of Jesus and the different responses to Him in the above two stories.) But the following examples should help.

In light of the above, a chartered accountant in a prestigious accountancy firm may respond to the call of discipleship to work in a relief and development agency. The sacrifice may be a respectable and promising career, on top of sharp the salary cut. But in doing so he takes a step to embrace the powerless by making himself less “powerful”.

A prominent church leader may prefer a basic family car rather than a big car that has extra features, power and comfort. This is not so much that the church cannot afford it, or that their qualifications do not deserve a good salary package. But this person does it so as to identify (at least to a small degree) with a missionary supported by the church, who rides a bicycle to visit the poor everyday in extreme weather conditions.

Instead of working full time in a private practice, a consultant psychiatrist prefers to remain in a public hospital and work part-time in a “bulk billing” private clinic in a poorer part of the city. The reason is that he (a good friend of mine) believes that this community is in desperate need for low-cost mental health services. As a result, he is not as well off and successful as his peers, but he will have treasure in heaven.

I know a teacher who works in a school where the majority of children in her class come from dysfunctional families and low socio-economic backgrounds. It is hard work to teach these kids because of their low literacy skill and lack of discipline at home. Yet she has been working in this school for 10 years because she wants to embody Christ in this needy community.

Henri Nouwen was a well-known international conference speaker, writer, theologian and priest, who taught at Yale and Harvard. Few were as successful and highly esteemed as he. In the last 10 years of his life, as Philip Yancey eloquently tells us in his book Soul Survivor, Nouwen lived in a community of the disabled. One of his tasks was to look after Adam, who could not speak, dress or undress, and suffered from severe epilepsy.

Everyday Nouwen spent hours to feed, change and bathe Adam, but Nouwen would be the first to say that he was the chief beneficiary of this kind of “discipleship”. Caring for Adam taught him love and humility that all his success and achievement could not show him.

Obviously you don’t necessarily have to do the above if you are an accountant, a doctor or a pastor. (And it is important that we don not judge others who are seemingly holding on to their wealth.) Our role is to come before God and determine our own response to the call to discipleship.

For some of us it means going all the way to do what Mother Teresa did. For others it may mean following the example of the above people. And some of us may already be doing what God requires. But no matter what, let us not think that giving money to the church or to charity is all that is required.

FOR MORE SIGHT-SEEING, click here...