What Are Our Obligations to the Poor? Part 14
July 14, 2010
Dear Friends,
3. What is the definition of the poor?
The materially poor appear to be defined (but not necessarily limited to) in the Bible as those who do not have food or clothing.
He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.(Deut. 10:18)
And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.(1Tim. 6:8)
As we have said, our definition of the poor can extend beyond just the materially poor. We are all poor in some aspects of our life. In a spiritual sense, we can have all the money in the world and still are spiritual paupers (and, if the Bible is to be believed, are more likely to be so). The Bible alludes to this definition also in the Revelation where the Laodiceans are told:
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. (Rev. 3:17-18)
Society tends to define poverty in relative, monetary terms. The dictionary gives this definition: “the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.” Given this definition, we, as missionaries, might mistake the great commission as bringing western standards of living to indigenous cultures. Our mission is not to bring DVDs and cell phones to people, but wholeness of being including an understanding of the Gospel. By the way, this wholeness of being is lacking in many people that have DVDs and cell phones. This mission work should include poverty alleviation where applicable and not only our well wishes. James says this in his epistle:
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.(James 2:14-17 NIV)
Does the definition of the poor change from country to country?
Yes, a materially poor person in one country might be a wealthy person in another. This has to be taken into account. In the US, the annual income in 2009 for the poverty line is $10,830. This is interesting because the average income in 126 out of 194 countries in the world is less than this figure. In fact, in 84 of those countries, the average income is less than half the amount of the US poverty line. In other words, the middle class of many countries would be the impoverished in the US.
How do we manage our limited resources in a godly way in a world that has so many needs?
This is a key question.
In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul writes to the wealthy brethren at Corinth on their giving. He compares them to the relatively poor but more generous Macedonians. What he writes would probably get written off today as a “guilt trip” and maybe it is. The Corinthians were being stingy compared to their poorer brethren in Macedonia. Paul is trying to compel them to see their obligation to the poverty of others. He writes,
And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints.(2 Cor. 8:1-4 NIV)
Paul tells them he is testing them. His argument then goes to a comparison to Jesus.
I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich. (v. 8-9)
Was Jesus materially rich? I think he probably was. We know he was literally poor, so it seems inconsistent to then spiritualize the “rich” piece of this verse as it refers to Jesus. Is it right to call Jesus spiritually poor? I wouldn’t think so. We are not told expressly, but the evidence points to a scenario where Jesus would have inherited his father’s construction business. Knowing what we know about Jesus – his integrity, his intellectual ability, the quality of his work, his tireless work ethic – we would suspect that he was probably quite successful. If this is true, he would have had to have given this all up in order to preach full time. I suspect that he could, with a straight face, tell the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give it to the poor because that is exactly what he had done himself. It then becomes a compelling argument for the rich to be generous. The logic goes like this. Jesus was rich, but he became poor for you. You are rich, so following Jesus’ example, become poorer for the sake of your poor brethren.
So here is where it can get uncomfortable for us. Can we rightly call ourselves disciples (followers/learners) of Jesus if we are not generous? Is it possible to store up treasure on earth when at the same time there are brethren living in refugee camps, who don’t have enough to eat or are dying from easily treatable diseases? We need to start seeing how we spend our money as a moral choice just like how and where we spend our time. Our resources are God’s resources. What we do with those resources is a moral choice.
The other day our ten year old analog TV broke down. I told my daughter that I wanted to replace it with a new digital flat screen TV. She called me on it. She wanted to know if that was the way we should be spending our money or helping people less fortunate. She’s right. For us, the right decision is to not purchase a new TV. If we can afford to drop $1,000 or more on a new TV, we can afford to donate $1,000 to brethren who are not getting enough to eat. It is as simple as asking “What would Jesus do?” I’m thinking our Lord wouldn’t have to ponder over this one too long.
Now, before I get a slew of irate mail telling me that I am being legalistic it is believed I said that buying a flat screen TV is immoral, let me clarify. I think how we spend our money is a moral issue. I think each one of us needs to look openly and honestly in what we do with our money. As the Bible alludes, where we are putting our money and time is where our heart is. In other words, we can tell pretty easily where our priorities are by examining our checkbook and our daily schedule. For me and my family, buying a flat screen TV was not the right call.
Let’s end this week’s thought with the words of Paul:
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (1 Tim. 6:17-19 NIV)
Have a great week,
Comments»
Kyle, You made me think on this one. Was Jesus materially rich? I had never thought about what it meant that he was a carpenter up to the day he became an itinerant preacher. It had just not been part of my thought process that with the other things he gave up for us this was one of them.
Thanks for giving me a new perspective.