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 16th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
(AKA tbokar)
“My righteousness and pardon is
At once most perfect and complete;
But sanctity admits degrees,
Does vary, fluctuate, and fleet.
Hence fix’d, my righteousness divine
No real change can undergo;
But all my graces wax and wane,
By various turnings ebb and flow.”
Anon
Q to the rev. Are you trying to say that righteousness is a works thing? Can you honestly say that there is no trace of “earning merit” in what you believe? Are you sure you’re your interpretation of righteousness has not become self-righteousness?
October 16th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Bec, That’s not what Jesus is telling us to do with our money, it’s what Jesus is telling us to sort out in our hearts. The latter is the instruction, the former is merely the product. In each case of His direct teachings the issue is with the attitude of heart - i.e. what do we value more? Eternity or Temporal. The requirement to give away money is a test of the heart, not of the finances.
October 16th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Roger has it right when he says Jesus is telling us to sort out our hearts.
Remember it is not money but the love of money that is the problem!
If rich people could not make it into the Kingdom then why did Paul not mention this to the rich people in Corinth for example.
October 16th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Roger - what is in our hearts and what we do are intimately linked. We cannot “sort out our hearts” without action, nor can we act without “sorting out our hearts”. We do not always believe, then act - sometimes we must act first, then believe. I think that this is particularly the case with money - I think that all of us love money, and it is only by very consciously acting AGAINST that love that we can change our hearts.
October 16th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
bec - what about the theif on the cross?.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
You are missing a very important point here people. The kingdom of God is here and now. “LET YOUR KINGDOM COME AND YOUR WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN” “THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS IN YOUR MIDST”
The kingdom of God is not heaven, our salvation is not the same as entering into the kingdom here on earth. We are called to follow Jesus into this kingdom that he brought about. And to do so empowered by Him and lead by him.
Now, is it not important how we live? When the discussion of homosexual sex is brought before you you raise up in indignation, “the bible clearly says we are not to act in such a way” is what you say. Is this self righteousness? Or is it acknowledging the teachings of scripture and the example set for us by Jesus and his apostles? To relegate matters of our genitals to literal consideration, but matters of our wallet to the heart is duplicity. Infact, I would suggest that Jesus made it absolutely clear that what we do with our wallets is in fact the true measure of our heart. For where your treasure is, there is your heart also. To try and turn the following of Jesus into merely an excercise of the heart is gnosticsim. It is with our bodies that we follow Christ, as you acknowledge in the issues of sexuality, but refuse to acknowledge when it comes to you actually having to deal with your own wants and desires.
It would appear to me that you must either make the attitude of the heart and the “inner man” the only important part of our faith, in all things. Or you must agree that what we do with our bodies is important in regards to our money, our consumptioin and our savings, as well as in our sexuality. I would bring up that any Spirit that does not acknowledge that the Christ came in the flesh would be of the enemy, and ackowledging that we must also acknowledge that following this Jesus, must be done in the flesh as well.
When Christ left heaven, to come and be a man he showed us the way. When He chose to walk with poor men, working class folk, He showed us the kingdom he came to bring. That we are to not esteem power, prosperity and privlidge, but rather he left the ultimate of all of this to become a humble servant of the poorest of the poor. We see in his life an example that shows us the kingdom. His apostles saw this and left everything for this new kingdom. And we read early on that the church seeing this as true embraced this lifestyle of sharing, and generousity and sacrifice. We have spent the next 1,900 years trying to change this. The teachings of Jesus are very clear. He did not ask the rich young man to change his attitude towards money, but to change his literal bank account in the most reckless of manners.
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Lionfish, I’m not sure what you’re saying.
I did not say that one must always act, then believe - I was trying to say that *sometimes* one acts, then the heart changes…and sometimes one’s heart is changed, and then one acts upon that belief…and sometimes the two kinda happen in tandem.
I truly believe that with some things - ie money - sometimes we have to act before our heart can be changed. I would LOVE to be able to spend all my money on stuff I don’t need…I’d love to cultivate a shoe collection (my fiance would say I already am!!), I’d love to buy art, I’d love to have a big house…but I also objectively know what I am commanded to do as a Christian, and I endeavour to live simply, so that others may simply live…and in the process I find my heart changed, and I find myself sickened by the number of clothes I have that I don’t need, and I find myself getting bored when I go into a shoe shop…my heart is changed because I make a decision to re-orient my lifestyle and values, because I make a decision to re-direct my thought patterns.
Do we always feel like praying, like going to church, like reading the Bible? I sure has heck don’t…sometimes I would rather doze in the afternoon sun in my garden than go to church, but I also choose to prioritise certain things, not because they are “in my heart”, but because I know what is “good” for me…a bit like eating my vegies.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
rev,
I don’t disagree with a lot you are saying .
you were saying previously words to the effect the rich cannot get into the Kingdom.
I merely said that is incorrect as there are plenty of examples both in N/T and O/T to that end.
I do not disagree that it is very hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom because they do not possess the poverty of spirit that is needed.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
I do not agree that there are plenty of new testement examples. There are a few and they signify nothing. It is obvious that the church cared for their own, even to radical sacrifice, and generosity that we seem to feel is not required of us today. When is the last time you heard of someone selling their home to give to the poor?
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
rev,
it was the poor of the church and it wasn’t mandated.
a few Apostles were rich, the tax collectors but John’s family also had money.
Philemon was rich and what about Lydia for another.
there is Abraham and Job from the O/t just for starters.
Jesus relied on rich people to help him.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
I said new testement, we are not to take our que’s from king david and abraham but Jesus. The tax collector left everything to follow Jesus. John left everything to follow Jesus. It says no where that Lydia stayed rich. And Philemon obviously had servants but that doesn’t mean he lived richly, you can have emplyees and not live like a rich man.
But once again you have shown not one scripture from Jesus’ own mouth that contradicts anything I have said.
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
rev,
I have already said you have the context wrong.
God tells us directly Jesus is talking to his disciples if we wish to be literal!
Why does God tell us they gave up all their money? He doesn’t.
Some do some don’t. It depends on the person and the circumstances.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
No Homer, you have the context all wrong, Peter tells Jesus we have left it all for you. Homer, there is no way around that.
If we wish to be literal? So you aren’t literal Homer? What about in Romans? are you literal there? I guess it is very nice that you get to decide when to be literal and when not to. It appears the grounds on whether something is literal or not is whether or not it effects the person interpreting, which is really disgusting if you ask me.
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
come on rev,
John still had his comfortable middle class family to help him.
Peter and some of the others could and did go back to fishing which gave them a respectable living.
There is no suggestion either of the two tax collectors gave away their money.
your theory needs to be consistent with other parts of the N/T .
It aint.
God’s grace doesn’t merely extend to the poor but the poor in spirit.
don’t understand the Romans connection.
I’m a bit slow being born in the country.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Rev , are you saying in effect the rich cannot get into the Kingdom …?
October 16th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
No, I am saying that they have to give up their wealth to get into the kingdom.
Now, please remember I hold the kingdom as very different from salvation. To enter the kingdom we must follow Jesus into a life of self sacrifice. We cannot serve the new king when we are serving another king. Jesus said you cannot serve God and money. When Jesus explains the kingdom he tells us of an upside down world, a world where in order to find our life we need to lose it, where we need to pick up our sacrifice, where our worship is being a living sacrifice.
Now perhaps I have made myself appear a bit selfrighteous, so let me confess that I am falling short of this as well. I want to be more willing to surrender all that I have. But sometimes I find that I cannot. Right now the biggest issues I deal with are the surrender of my need for the approval of men I respect. But I do not try and domesticate the teachings of Jesus, he actually meant what he said. And if all of us who say we follow Him actually lived like this, not only would the world be a better place, but the churches would not be able to hold all of the converts. This world is desperate to see this kind of self abandoning love.
rev
October 16th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Homer, not being rich doesn’t mean that you must be poor and unable to ever return to self sufficiency. These men ofcourse could have returned to their jobs, but their jobs aren’t the problem. I am not saying people shouldn’t work, I am saying people should store up treasures for themselves. People shouldn’t have more than they need, and should be sacrificial in their care for others.
rev
October 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
rev,
you have now changed your position to what I was essentially saying or it could be we were agreeing in the first place and were too stupid to see it.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Homer, see my poast #30.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
(Note to self: don’t write and eat at the same time…it produces bizarre combinations like “poast” from “toast” and “post”…)
October 17th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
To claim that it is ok to be rich and to keep that money to yourself is absurd. To claim that it is necessary to be dirt poor and have nothing is absurd. I don;t see anyone supporting either view on this blog. Jesus hung out with rich people (The Wedding in Can is an example - marriage being a privilege of the wealthy) - but as you say Rev, it’s in the keeping that lies the issue - not in the getting. Having said that though - if you get money by means that puts other’s at a disadvantage or by stealing or by oppression then no amount of justification is possible.
I agree with Alan’s comments regarding the righteious and the unrighteous poor - what a lot of horse puckey…as my good friend and mentor colonel Sherman T Potter used to say - it’s like the old comment - the deserving and the undeserving poor - it’;s all about feeling good about opressing a group that is weaker than you - neither having nor not having money is righteous or unrighteous - what yuou do as a result of either situatoin is what brings about righteousness opr un-rigteosuness.
Being poor and stealing is just as bad as being rich and not sharing. Bill Gates can blow his feel good charity out his arse. People said about Kerry packler - what a generous guy he was - it’s dead easy to be generous and still leave yourself enough to keep a small country going - let’s see you do and leave yourself short as well!
Rev is right - Jesus calls us to a radical discipleship
Homer is right - he i9s being stupid LOL
October 17th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Marge: Homer, we can’t take his money.
Homer: Aww, I can’t take his money, I can’t print my own money, I have to work for my money. Why don’t I just lay down and die
October 17th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I am trying to work out what Greg said but then stupid is as stupid was or something like that.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Homer: Family meeting. Family meeting.
[the rest of the family runs into the dining room and quickly takes their seats]
Homer: Okay, people, let’s keep this short. We all want to get home to our families.
[all laugh]
Homer: All right, first item: I lost our life savings in the stock market. Now let’s move on to the real issue: Lisa’s hogging of the maple syrup.
Lisa: Well, maybe if Mom didn’t make such dry waffles. There, I said it.
Marge: Well, maybe if you’d eat some meat you’d have a natural lubricant.
[gasps and turns to Homer]
Marge: You lost all our money?
Homer: Point of order - I didn’t lose ALL the money. There was enough left for this cowbell.
[rings it softly and the bell breaks apart in his hands]
Homer: Damn you, eBay.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
after finishing building a church]
Homer: Look at what a wonderful prison we’ve built for God.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Rev you said this in Post 28 and i am a wee bit confused -
“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.”
You say you/we are not saved by lifestyle, but by His death - Not justified by lifestyle but by by HIS work - and then say You cannot call yourself His follower if you do not pick up His cross lay down and surrender to His example. This SEEMS to IMPLY that you have to have the works to be His follower - therefore the works ( sacrificial LifeStyle) make you His follower.
Surrendering to Jesus example could probably be summend up thusly - Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind and Love your neighbor as yourself. While that is pretty hard to exactly give definition to, what it means (exactly) to love your neighbor as yourself, I think it can be presumtuous to say that one must live a life giving away ALL that he brings in and to keep nothing for yourself.
I do not think you worship your theology on this though. I think you are doing the best you can under the light you have. But, I think you are as dogmatic about it as Copeland is about His side of it.
Did Jesus tell us to “surrender to His example” in lifestyle. I think we also have to remember there is a distiction between the Savior and the Saved. He lived perfect - FOR US. He Became poor - FOR US. He was sinless _ FOR US and He pleased God - FOR US.
In 46 you say htis “No, I am saying that they have to give up their wealth to get into the kingdom.” That is very dogmatic and it is the exact opposite of PD saying if you are IN the Kingdom you will be blessed. Where is GRACE in your thought here. That is PURE WORKS.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Yes it is the exact opposite. I fully understand how dogmatic it is. But let me ask you this Kevin, was Jesus being dogmatic to the rich young ruler? And again, did the disciples think it was their calling to actually walk in Jesus steps? Because I actually believe by their teachings and by their lifestyle they actually did believe that.
As to your comment, if I am to follow in Jesus footsteps I must do what he did. I cannot follow him while seeking to serve myself. Now my salvation is not tied to how well I follow Jesus, but I am still called to follow him.
The lengths that people go to to twist the scriptures to justify their storing up of treasures on earth is truly amazing to me. And yet they say, well my attitude towards money is fine, I could give it all up if Jesus asked me to, yet they will destroy the meanings of his teachings in order to free themselves of this command. And the difference between my dogmatism and Kenneths is quite simple, mine does not serve my own interests, but the interests of others.
rev
October 18th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
rev, the young rich ruler thought he fulfilled all the commandments. He actually believed that.
Jesus very pithily showed him and us that was not the case.
It is the intent or the love of money that is the problem.
Afterall the Apostles had enough money on them that Judas could have a play around with it. They were never dirt poor neither was Jesus because he had rich supporters who used their money wisely.
It is no surprise if a person has a protestant work ethic then they will make money.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Homer, you are wrong. Contextually your are completely off.
rev
October 18th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Not dirt poor? Just becauswe they held a common purse certainly did not mean they weren’t poor. I’ve heard that argument before , that becuase Jesus had wealthy supporters he muct have done all right out of it as well…but that I think is taking what we see today of minister supprted by wealthy people and placing that view oiver the picture we have of Jesus - the fox with no hole - from the gospels.
I think you’re wrong Homer