Driscoll on Prosperity and Poverty Theology
I am not a fawning Mark Driscoll (Mars Hill founder) fan, however I did appreciate this comment from his blog and also picked up in ‘The Seattle Times’, highlighting the differences and similarities between Prosperity Theology and Poverty Theology:
“When it comes to the issue of rich and poor there is a great theological debate. On one side is Prosperity Theology which essentially says that if you are a holy person with enough faith you will drive an Escalade with rims in Jesus’ name. But what appears to be even more popular among younger missionally minded Christians is an overreaction to Prosperity Theology, called Poverty Theology, where if you really love Jesus you will live very minimally because, like Bono, you believe that Jesus loves the poor, likely more than the rich.
The problem with both Prosperity Theology and Poverty Theology is that they are both half right and both half wrong. What they share is that they are both wrong to make money the issue. The real issue is not money, but righteousness”.
Driscoll Categorises people into one of four Groups:
| Category #1 Righteous Rich People who become rich because God has blessed them, they have worked hard, invested smart, and have not obtained wealth through sin. These people also spend their money righteously through tithing, sharing, caring for the needy, etc. Examples include Abraham, Job after he was restored, and Joseph of Aramathea. |
Category #3 The Unrighteous Rich People who become rich through sin and spend their money in a sinful way. Examples include Pharaoh, Judas Iscariot, and the rich young ruler. |
| Category #2 Righteous Poor People who are poor because they are righteous, are righteous despite being poor, and act righteously with their money though they are poor. Examples include Jesus, the widow who gave her mite, and orphaned children. |
Category #4 The Unrighteous Poor People who have no money because they do not work, do not spend wisely, and do not tithe to God. Proverbs speaks a lot about sluggards and about people not eating if they won’t work, and Paul says that any man who does not provide for his family has denied his faith and is worse than an unbeliever. |
Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/faithvalues/2003112927_driscoll08.html
Source 2: http://theresurgence.com/brother_bono
Would love to know you people’s take (and especially the Rev’s) take on this. I think it makes some degree of sense.
(And yes, Kevin, Category #1 mentions tithing. It depends on the way it is taught (compulsion or tradition). I would personally amend this to read ‘Regular proportionate giving, as God has placed on one’s heart!).
October 15th, 2006 at 2:55 am
nOW THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING!!!
October 15th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Well, I think everyone knows my thoughts:
If you have too much stuff you have someone elses stuff.
It is interesting that the only new testement rich guy he talks about is said to have been a disciple secretly for fear of the jews. Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?
I do not think you can read the gospels and agree that money is not an issue. Jesus makes if very very clear that we are not to store up treasure for ourselves on earth. He makes it very clear that riches are deceitful. He makes it very clear that the poor are blessed, and pronounces woe on the rich. He gives us parables that show this over and over. He tells us that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And then every single one of the apostles, and Jesus himself lived a very simple and poor life. If Jesus is our model, and our inspiration he left the riches of heaven to become the poor of our world. This is downwardly mobile. And that is righteousness. Perhaps mr Driscoll doesn’t realize that justice is a very good translation of the word righteousness.
rev
October 15th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Why does the rich young ruler get listed in category 3? The NT doesn’t say much about him. Rather, we see a lot of unrighteous rich blasted by the prophets - I’d they these are the main biblical examples of #3.
We use the word ‘rich’ to mean a number of things:
1. earning a lot of money
2. having a lot of money
3. having a lot of material possessions, using expensive stuff, etc.
(there’s other meanings as well, but I’m only discussing the material-financial stuff here)
Now in our society these things often go together. We have people who earn little and therefore can’t acquire much stuff, and we have people who earn lots and live the high life.
These do not have to go together!! I think (1) earning lots is a good thing to aspire to, while (3) living the high life is something we should not. (2) is not a big issue, because money is just numbers waiting to be exchange for labour/goods/etc.
Look at category 1. “God has blessed them, they have worked hard, invested smart, and have not obtained wealth through sin”. That all goes with the earning lots meaning of rich. Why can’t we have Christians earning big $$$ but living the lifestyle of the poor?
October 15th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Good point Eric.
Maybe Driscoll’s entire Righteous vs Unrighteous classification system is wrong … the Rich Young ruler probably would have seen himself in Category 1.
I also would note that ‘The Rich Young Ruler’ was a “Tither”, but was considered ‘unrighteous’.
Maybe he thoughts his works, and his own ‘goodness’ would ’save’ him or count as righteousness. He saw Jesus as a ‘good teacher’, possibly someone who would teach him how to ’self improve’ enough to be ‘justified’ or something. He did not recognise Jesus as Lord and ‘Saviour’.
October 15th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Reve states “This is downwardly mobile. And that is righteousness. Perhaps mr Driscoll doesn’t realize that justice is a very good translation of the word righteousness”.
I would agree in a sense. But there were affluent people in the NT counted as true blue believers such as Lydia:
Acts 16: 13 “On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us’.
October 15th, 2006 at 11:34 am
I like that “The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message”.
Saved by faith, faith gifted by God - not anything that we have done!
(Now the Lutheran in me is coming out!)
October 15th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Yes Lionfish and then does it say that she continued to keep her belongings to herself and didn’t share her home, and stored up treasures for herself? No it does not. Rich people come to faith, and then need to become non rich. Does that mean they shouldn’t make lots of money? No, it means they shouldn’t keep it.
rev
October 15th, 2006 at 11:49 am
rev - It does not say that she gave it all away either!
Jesus also taught many parables on wise investment …
Should I not contribute to super to provide for myself when I retire?
October 15th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
So are we both going to argue from silence? I am not argueing from silence, I am pointing out that it doesn’t say anything about it, but judging by Jesus words and the lifestyles of the apostles I am relatively sure that she radically changed.
I don’t agree about the wise investment ideas, infact the most quoted parable about the talents says basically the opposite of what is taught in most churches.
And I think you should contribute to the super, because as long as people continue to live contrary to the teachings of Jesus (which it appears they are bound and determined to) there will be no one left to care for you. Ofcourse I am going to trust God at His word and believe that the body of Christ will care for me when I am unable to care for myself.
rev
October 15th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Rev,
I really wish I had the measure of faith that has been given to you.
Reading through the NT, I am not convinced the early church were as radical in giving everything away such as Lydia. People still had ‘their house’, their work and their lives to live.
Although, I am sure that they would have been radically changed.
I see wealth as like handling ‘fire’. Must be handled with care - that’s the word to the wealthy. It will burn you if you get complacent.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Marks theology is as bad as his sociology and economics.
According to his analysis “their(Gates etc) illustrates an important biblical truth”.Rubbish. When Bill and melinda gave their first $100 million,a decade ago to immunise children,it represented 0.138% of their net worth!
By the way Austalia is producing 47 millionaires a day - are they righteous or unrighteous or are they the beneficiaries of national governement policies which ensures their riches will be protected,a resources boom,the odd war,cheap labour in Asia,and the protection of a global market economy which which continues to screw Africa and many Asian economies?
And what all this stuff about the “unrighteous poor”.
So the two million Australians “relying on emergency food and financial relief just to survive”(SMH 25.9.06) or the Ethipoian mother who “is 37 times more likely to see her child die in the first year of her life than a mother in Sweden”((State of the Worlds Mothers Report 2006) are ther because they’r sluggards!
No theology of the “gospel preferential for the poor” that I am aware of ever talks of righteous and unrighteous poor - pretty offensive terms
For all the criticisms of the denominational churches at least they try to ensure that their theology matches their sociology and economics.
Another approach, far more fruitful than the rubbish tossed up by Mark is the Christian Alliance for Progress’s,”Pursuing econmic justice”(www.christianalliance.org).
And Eric how the hell do you think “Christians earn their big$$$”?How do think the ex CEO of Woolworths(a favourite speaker at Xn prayer breakfasts, conferences etc) gets his big $$$($38000 a day at last count)-does it have anything to do with out sourcing of staff and jobs to Asia?the wages and working conditions of cleaners and stackers?the fact that he headed Australia’s largest alcohol and gambling enterprise?that Woolies had been had for price fixing and misusing market power?that while he opposed a few percent wage rises for his workers he was picking up 100% wage rises.
Dan, its a neat piece of writing - “prosperity theology”vs “poverty theology”; good yankee use of boxes - “righteous rich vs “unrighteous poor”,but bs! and hopefully others will do a better job exposing it than me.I’m with Rev, a bit more talk of justice is going to take us a lot further than Pastor Marks theology.
October 15th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Alan -
Dan did not post it it, I did … blame me!
I think the Big$$$ of the Woolworth CEO due to out-sourcing etc would place him in the Category 3: Unrighteous Rich.
Perhaps Category 1 should include ‘Anonomous Giving’ as a characteristic. Your comment on Bill Gates is valid then, and again maybe Category 3: Unrighteous Rich … people who do it for “public credit”.
I thought Eric comment Big$$$ may be $100K pa not $38K per day.
Points taken. As I said I am not a fan of Mark Driscoll, but the point that ‘poverty theology’ may be out of balance is perhaps valid. That’s the main point of the discussion,I think.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Lionfish,
I really like you, so please take this as a word from a friend and not an attack.
You fight the practice of tithing as unbiblical, and you do so with a passion that at times is quite intense. And you do so because biblically it has no place. However, the scriptures are absolutely clear on this so called “poverty gospel”.
Jesus quite simply says blessed are the poor, and just so you don’t misunderstand him, he says in the same message just a few lines later, woe unto you who are rich.
Jesus says do not store up treasures for yourself on earth, and gives more than one example of people that thought to save up their stuff.
Jesus says that the “deceitfulness of riches” chokes out the word and causes it to bare no fruit. Now please notice, he doesn’t say riches used wrongly, or gained improperly, he says that riches in and of themselves are deceitful, and choke out the word.
John the baptist says repentence is for the man with two coats to give one to the man that has none.
Jesus says for us not to worry about the things in this world, but that God will take care of us, just like he takes care of the birds who do not store away for themselves.
Jesus says 44″The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
45″Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
Jesus says: 32″Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
And finally Jesus tells the righteous young man who wants to be perfect to sell everything, give to the poor, and follow Jesus. Now, lest we get to comfortable with this passage and relativize it so it means nothing, after he walks away, Jesus says it is so hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, it is harder than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Now the disciples ask not who can enter the kingdom, but who can be saved, (not the same thing), and Jesus says with God all things are possible. But again lets not let ourselves off the hook, Peter says immediately, “Lord we left everything to follow you” Everything! The apostles all left everything, just like Jesus was asking this man to do, but they said yes. And Jesus explains, that if you enter this crazy upside down kingdom of God, everywhere you go you will be received into a home, you will be fed and cared for, you will be treated as family, because that is how kingdom children treat one another. But you will also face persecution.
So the bottome line my friend is, that this doctrine of poverty, has way more scriptural support than all of your fight against tithing. Why aren’t you fighting for this doctrine? Because it is really hard, and doesn’t make sense. Ofcourse it doesn’t. Do you want to be perfect?
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 2:25 am
Rev I’m really digging what you are writing at the moment. Could you please expand further on what your thoughts on “Christian poverty” are and its place in society.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Driscoll’s a dickhead.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Rev,
The conversation is good.
This will all need some time and thought to reply.Though I am sure that giving everything away does not make one perfect. We have been made perfect in Christ.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:26 am
The man came to Jesus saying that he had kept the commandments since he was young. Jesus loved him, he was a devout, and thoughtful Jew, and Jesus tells him, “look, if you want to go all the way, if you want to really step into the kingdom this is how you can do it” We have been making excuses for that ever since. And the most common is, well that was just for him because he had a problem with money, but I don’t. Which I pointed out is untrue, all of the apostles left everything to follow Jesus. Jesus left heaven to walk the earth as a homeless man. The early church understood this and sold their belongings to help the poor. That some kept their homes is probably true, but the used them to house and care for each other as is shown by the statement, they had all things in common.
Missy, I just took a moment here today, but today is my day off with me wife, so I might not get back to you til tomorrow. I would suggest the book the irrsesitable revolution by Shane Claibourne
re
October 16th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Jesus told the young man to give away all his money to the poor but he couldn’t because his God was money.
There is nothing wrong with being rich. It is what you do with God’s money afterall we are but stewards.
It is harder for a lot of rich people because they covet money and what that money can bring thus breaking the last commandment!
October 16th, 2006 at 10:33 am
That isn’t what the scripture says Homer, you are reading your own interpretation in.
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Matthew 19:16-22
16 And R701 someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal R702 life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if R703 you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU R704 SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19 HONOR R705 YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU R706 SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, F436 go and sell R707 your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure R708 in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
very hard to read it any other way actually.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:17 am
But Homer, you didn’t finish the story.
Jesus tells the disciples that it is harder for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. In other words, people that are rich cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Pretty simple actually. And the disciples recognizing what Jesus has said reply, “we have left everything to follow you,” and Jesus replies and you will experience the kingdom of God because now you will have homes wherever you go, and family wherever you are, because the kingdom gives you a new family that goes well beyond your Oikos.
And the gospel of Luke tells us very plainly that the poor are blessed, and the rich are given woes. Woe unto you who are rich because you have your comfort now.
And Jesus says again: Jesus says: 32″Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
So it appears Homer that you are interpreting things based on your desires or your sense, rather than by proper biblical hermeneutics.
If you feel like you could present a scripture that says specifically, that Jesus only asked him to do this because God was his money, because I actually don’t read that in the passage at all. Infact it appears the man was a devout man, who kept the commandments and seriously wanted to be a follower of Jesus. The only thing it appears he wasn’t willing to do was give up everything. And I would suggest that it is quite convenient to suggest that, well he was just a greedy man who loved money more God, and that you would be willing to give it away. And because you are willing you don’t have to. Very nice indeed, a little dodge here, a feint here, and you can live your nice comfortable life and thank GOd that you aren’t like those disgusting homo’s.
very nice, very nice indeed
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 11:30 am
actually rev Jesus isn’t saying rich people cannot enter the kingdom merely it is very hard thus the use of hyperbole.
Remember who put his hand up to give Jesus a tomb.
Moreover there are a number of examples of rich people who are Christians in the bible. There is even a letter written to one!
It isn’t convenient rev it is merely what the bible says. He couldn’t give up his possessions. Whom was he serving.
perhaps a little reading of the poor of the Lord or God in the O/T would help you out of such a simple contradictory interpretation.
By the way I didn’t mention myself nor how I would react.
I see your ESOL are behind again.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Yes lets go back to the old testement, where the relationship with God was based on works and blessings. Oh wait, didn’t the cross end all that? Ofcourse it did.
Why does everyone run from what Jesus says, and did, and the apostles said and did, and try to justify a lifestyle that was clearly not part of the new kingdom.
I presented a whole score of scriptures that backs up what I am saying Homer, straight from the mouth of Jesus, can you give me any that say otherwise? Oh, actually from Jesus.
And this wonderful disciple that everyone likes to bring up: Joseph of Arimethea, was such a commited disciple that he wouldn’t even tell his friends and business associates that he followed Jesus. He followed Jesus in secret because he was afraid. Yeah lets all be like him instead of the eleven. Or instead of Jesus himself. When we say we are Christians it is because we spend all of our time trying to get out of doing what Christ actually taught and did. Well I will be a follower of Jesus then, I am not clever enough to make excuses for an overwhelming anvalanche of scriptures that teach us to give up our lives to find God’s life.
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
rev, Joseph openly told the authorities he had a tomb for Jesus.
that was using a megaphone for saying he was a follower of Jesus.
Jesus quite often uses hyperbole to make a point rev.
My main point is what a person does with the money God makes him/her a steward.
on your logic you must be a creationist!
October 16th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Right now I’m agreeing with Homer and disagreeing with the Rev, but the more I read their posts, the more I think that they might just be on about the same thing, and the confusion is about language.
I’ve often distinguished between “being rich” and “earning a lot”. Rev, I know plenty of people on multiples of six figures that are far more like the widow that gave her last penny than are the people who are on significantly lesser salaries. I also know people who have big houses, but use them in ways that I think justifies them. I have a far smaller salary, and a far smaller house, but I compare myself to them and I feel that I have a long, long way to go in terms of stewardship of my resources. I don’t believe it’s what a person earns that counts - it’s what they do with it. I know of one guy who earns a jaw-droppingly ridiculous amount, yet he’s never spent more than $20 on a pair of shoes. Surely you are not suggesting that the amount that is deposited into his bank account every fortnight determines his destiny, rather than what he does with those resources?
October 16th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Bec I said nothing about earnings, I am talking about keepings.
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
(AKA tbokar)
Jesus actually says very little about money. He actually doesn’t give specific instructions, or even intimate, as to what we are to do with our money. In fact the whole of the New Testament demonstrates an indifference to the subject, relegating it to where Jesus wants it. However, Jesus does give much attention to the subject of attitude to money. He spells it out for us as the obstacle to relying on God that it is. He shows us how self sufficiency works closely with our stubborn hearts in order to convince ourselves that we can rely on ourselves, not God.
It is therefore erroneous for any one party to try and make a doctrine out of poverty or prosperity. For both the poverty adherents and the prosperity teachers are presenting a Jesus “and some” gospel. While “the rev’s doctrine might be more of a selfless nature than, say, Kenneth Copeland’s, they are both making an idol out of their respective beliefs. Neither belief leads to righteousness and nor are they a requisite for Salvation.
I think Driscoll has presented a sensible argument on this and is one that we can apply hermeneutically. The principle does align with scripture.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Neither belief is requisite for salvation, and though neither is righteousness, the word righteousness is closely linked to justice in Hebrew culture and one is by far more just.
However, the point is quite simple, if we follow Jesus, we are to follow his example as well as his teachings. The fact is I just showed you over and over again that Jesus did infact talk about our riches, not only did he address it, but he addressed it over and over again. Now I am not making an idol of my doctrine at all. I am saying this is the way Jesus lived. This is the way his disciples lived. And these are the things he taught. I do not worship this teaching, but I worship Jesus. And like this Jesus that I worship I am supposed to live. I am not to make excuses for not following Him, or his teachings. So my doctrine is nothing like idolatry. I am not saved by my lifestyle, I am saved because of Jesus death and resurection. I am not justified by my lifestyle I am justified by Jesus work. But I dare not call myself a follower of Jesus, if I am not prepared to pick up my cross, lay my life down, and surrender to His example.
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Oh and I will point out that it is quite arrogant to say that my doctrine is idolatry while yours is sensible and correct, while I listed quite a number of scriptures to support my point.
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Rev re: post 26…that is what I thought you were saying, however it is not clear from your earlier posts. It was what I understood Homer to be saying, but Homer may wish to say otherwise.
Roger - please explain how you think a distinction can be drawn between talking about “money” and talking about “attitudes to money” - it seems nonsensical to me!! This makes no sense:
“Jesus…doesn’t give specific instructions, or even intimate, as to what we are to do with our money. … He shows us how self sufficiency works closely with our stubborn hearts in order to convince ourselves that we can rely on ourselves, not God.”
Ummm…I think that’s Jesus telling us what to do with our money?!?!